| CAVE CLASSIFICATION IN VICTORIA
NICHOLAS WHITE
Abstract Victoria’s caves are diverse in character and widely dispersed. Some caves are deliberately managed by the government but many are part of an extensive unmanaged resource on public land. There are also many privately owned caves with little or no owner knowledge of their attributes or significance. The government through the Caves Classification Committee has recently had a study completed which provides an initial classification of caves as well as a large number of recommendations for the management of caves in Victoria. The Committee’s operations and the results of the study are discussed. Introduction This paper will provide an overview of the classification of caves and karst of Victoria which was commissioned by the Minister of Conservation Forests and Lands under the auspices of the Caves Classification Committee. At the 1983 Victorian Cave Tourism and Management Conference at Lakes Entrance, the Victorian Minister, the Honourable Rod MacKenzie, later to become Minister of the newly constituted Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands was approached by some participants who suggested that Victoria’s cave estate was in need of both study and management. Subsequent discussions and correspondence led the Minister to establish a Caves Classification Committee. This Committee was constituted to include representatives from the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, and the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources as well as the Australian Speleological Federation, the Victorian Speleological Association and an academic. The Chairman was initially Mr Ron Hodges, then Mr John Enright and subsequently on Mr Hodges retirement, Mr Kevin Wareing. The Committee has been very well served by its Secretary Ms Janette Hodgson, Mr Elery Hamilton-Smith (ASF), Mr Nicholas White (VSA) and Mr Bernie Joyce (academic) have been the outside members. Early meetings were taken up with discussions about the nature and significance of caves, the distinctive attributes of Victorian caves, the need for their management and the means with which the Committee might conduct its business. The Committee first refined the Terms of Reference which were:- 1. The compilation of a catalogue of Victorian
Caves, whether on public or private
land, which identifies caves according to their nature
and significance.
The next process was one of establishing the nature of cave significance and the kinds of classification which would be appropriate. I need not dwell here on the nature of significance: Davey (1984) discusses this in detail. The Committee in broad terms discussed the various threats to caves ranging from the human disturbance of cavers to the more general effects of farming, forestry regimes, quarrying, ownership, etc. Also discussed were the resources the ASF and the VSA had at their disposal in the form of the Cave Database Information of ASF and the Cave Records of VSA. Central to these discussions was both the willingness of ASF and VSA to make this material available but also concerns to do with the sensitivity with which they viewed this information, particularly that regarding cave locations. From this evolved a need to define the type and structure of a classification scheme which would suit the Committee’s Terms of Reference. After discussion the scheme accepted at the 4th Australasian Conference of Cave Tourism and Management (Davey, Worboys and Stiff 1981) was adapted. This classification is designed for management purposes. The scheme does not distinguish between a valuable geomorphic site or palaeontological site and a site valuable on biological criteria. However, it provides for the recognition of these values and hence to the kind of management appropriate for the site. The next matters addressed were those of what form the classification should take and how to achieve this. It was immediately apparent that a consultant(s) was required to process and gather the material available. The Committee then focussed on a brief and did a Pilot Study of the volcanic caves at Byaduk. The Committee visited these caves when developing and testing this pilot document. In due course, the Minister approved and made available $25,000 to have this study commissioned. The process from this stage had taken from our first meeting in August 1983 to May 1984. It was not until May 1985 that the successful tenderer for the job, Mr Adrian Davey of Applied Natural Resource Management, was able to sign a contract and begin work. The study consultants based their work on information in the Victorian Speleological Association records, the Australian Speleological Federation database on Victoria’s caves, personal information, limited fieldwork and information provided by officers of the Department of Conservation forests and Lands. The major stumbling block was the question of cave locations. The VSA was concerned that cave location information in the wrong hands would lead to damage to caves. Eventually locations of caves were specified in an appendix to the study report in the form of AMG co-ordinates to the nearest kilometre and to the allotment. This section of the report is to only have restricted distribution and would not become publicly available. Another restriction placed on the information was that locations of caves should not appear on published maps. The study report (Davey and White 1986) was provided to the Committee in 1986. The breakdown of classified caves was as follows:
This breakdown reflects the state of knowledge. The Adventure Cave category includes some obvious caves such as Wilsons Cave at east Buchan but it also has caves such as Currans Creek Cave in the Lower Glenelg National Park. This recommendation has produced one of the classical dilemmas of this kind of work in that the creek beside the entrance has a very rich fern community with some scarce species represented. A balance will need to be struck between a perceived need to provide for adventure caving and the protection of this fern community. No other known cave lends itself in the area as well as Currans Creek Cave. No cave was recommended in the Reference category. This will need to be addressed in more detailed management plans of areas probably in National Parks. The category 2.2 Sites of Special Natural &/or Cultural Significance has thrown up the most contentious caves. From a caver’s perspective restrictions on access to caves which have been traditionally open to them are not well received by all individuals. Starlight Cave is a case in point which on grounds of being a bat maternity site was classified as category 2.2 and restrictions on access were recommended. On the other hand some managers have interpreted the classification 2.2 to mean an automatic ban on access which certainly was not intended either in the classification scheme or in the recommendations for specific caves. The recommendations for specific caves take the form of protecting particular attributes of the caves such as the geomorphic values. Too often a perceived scientific value leads managers to an access ban rather than the more involved planning necessary to protect the particular values concerned. No differentiation was made in the study between Wild Caves or Unclassified Caves despite the fact that many of the caves are very well known to recreational cavers. This is not meant as a criticism but rather as a reflection of the state of knowledge. Apart from the classification the report made a large number of recommendations concerning management. These covered in general and specific terms the management of karst, the responsibilities of CFL for management of these resources and the adequate representation of caves on the Register of the National Estate. It was recommended that the contents of caves should be protected from disturbance and statutory protection should be provided for cave biota. A number of caves and cave areas were given priority for the development of management plans. The Committee has studied the report and the first part of the report is to be published for public comment before acceptance of the specific classifications. The Committee has been renamed the Caves Advisory Committee and has been given a continuing role in ensuring that the report recommendations are acted upon and that the Department is properly served with expertise to help it manage Victoria’s karst resource. Conclusions This whole exercise and the commissioned study have now given the Government a framework from which to perceive the values of caves. No other natural resource in the State has been analysed in such a detailed manner. The classification will allow appropriate management strategies to be adopted for particular caves and areas. The very abrasive thrust of the many specific recom-mendations concerning management principles, management responsibility and management initiatives will provide the basis for management of Victoria’s caves for many years. The study is to be published for public comment. The Committee will consider the comments and adopt them as appropriate and generally oversee the implementation of the adopted classification and recommendations. References DAVEY, AG (ed.) (1984) Evaluation Criteria for the Cave
and Karst Heritage of Australia - Report
of the Australian Speleological Federation National Heritage Assessment
Study, Helicite 15(2)1-40
|