Introduction

Rauleigh Webb put forward some stimulating perspectives on management in the last ACKMA Journal (No. 37, Dec. 1999). Many of us have been aware for some time of the shortfalls of Cave Classification. There had to be another way - one that put cave conservation first. I support a move to Cave Management Prescriptions and I have attempted, as an exercise, to apply the process as described by Rauleigh to what has long been Mole Creek's most popular recreational cave. This is of particular interest as it comes in the face of controversial proposals to develop the site for general tourism.

Background

Mole Creek is, arguably, Australia's most desirable caving destination (ASF survey, 1984); certainly observation suggests it is Tasmania's most utilised caving area. Tasmania has no Speleological Council or "Friends of (insert caving area)..." organisations; and the Tasmanian Cave Management Advisory Committee has not convened for some time. There are two show caves near Mole Creek with several tours daily. Management of visitation to Mole Creek's wild caves has centred on administering permits for caving in the locked Limited Access caves, of which there are six. There is now a proposal to develop the most popular "open access" wild cave at Mole Creek, Honeycomb Cave, for self-timed/guided (a classification of "show") cave tourism. The pressure over wider cave management at Mole Creek is now on! The Mole Creek Karst National Park (MCKNP) was declared in December 1996, and a management plan is being drafted. Clearly, it is hard to convince the bureaucracy that caves and karst warrant special consideration.

In what was, arguably, a political "feel-good" move for the government, the declared Park consists of several pre-existing State Reserves collectively renamed a National Park. Much needed amendments (on ecological grounds) to reserve boundaries have been ignored. Shortly after the declaration, a ranger left the district and has not been replaced. This vacancy remains because of funding shortfalls, and is in the face of the increased interest that can be expected with the increase in status. National Parks must conserve the values for which they are recognised as well as present those values to visitors. Honeycomb Cave is situated approximately 6 km south of Mole Creek, immediately adjacent to the Westmorland Falls access road. The cave has variety of traditional uses. It is extensively used as an abseiling and beginner caving venue. Cave search and rescue exercises take place there, by the local SES, NW Tas. SES, and by combined Northern Police and Mole Creek Caving Club exercises. It also hosts licensed adventure tours. As an abseil venue, it is robust and provides an opportunity to extend activities to caving. However, participants can simply walk out after abseiling via a short twilight passage. The large outflow entrance to Wet Cave lies within a few hundred metres of Honeycomb. Wet contains 1,000 m of mainly simple river passage, the inner reaches being tall decorated canyons. Complex rockfall connects to the famed El Dorado and Georgies Hall, finally emerging on private land. The entrance of Wet and most of Honeycomb are contained within a 100 acre land parcel of mostly open bushland known as Wet Cave Reserve. Ecological islands of rainforest vegetation exist within the collapse dolines of Honeycomb and the karst window between Wet entrance and Honeycomb inflow.

The development of proposals

The Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) was signed in November 1997, which promised the establishment of two major interpretation facilities for Tasmania, to present the natural values of new and existing reserves. One was designated for the Great Western Tiers area (which includes the Mole Creek karst). In the winter of 1998, a community consultation process ("RFA project") commenced to identify appropriate siting of the centre, interpretive content and associated presentation of the reserves. The process stalled over the site and viability of the centre, and when reconvened, abandoned the centre concept and re-focused on site projects. Four discreet community working groups met over about 6 months on Caves, Forests and Wildlife, Arts and Crafts, Aboriginal and Integrated Network. Participants put forward up to 90 ideas for projects, per group. No evaluation of ideas, or counter arguments, have subsequently been permitted.

Wet Cave reserve proposal

The (RFA project) Caves, Forests and Wildlife group identified the development of Honeycomb Cave as a high priority, supported by some Parks and Wildlife officials. This compact site certainly contains more variety of surface and subsurface karst features for interpretation than any other single site in the MCKNP. The features are also of considerable spectacle value. A further proposal by the Aboriginal RFA project group for a major cultural centre at the site, incorporating associated activities, has also been associated with the RFA project. However, the place is however the most suitable site at Mole Creek for its current "traditional" usage, as noted above.

Cave management prescriptions

General factors that should be considered (after Webb) as the overall goals:

• the long term conservation needs of the cave
• the long term conservation needs of the cave flora and fauna
• the safety of the visitors

Then, as Spate and Webb identified for the caves of Christmas Island, specific sub factors for the particular karst region should be identified. If one or more sub factors apply, then the cave should have management prescriptions. Sub factors for the Mole Creek karst region:

• the cave contains delicate areas of speleothems (both crystalline and unconsolidated)
• the cave contains cave flora or fauna that requires protection
• the cave contains a cave dive or sumps
• 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
• the safety of the caver is threatened by rockfall
• the cave is cold and wet

Additional sub factors specific to presentation of the National Park's values to the public without full-on show cave development:

• the cave is isolated from staff presence
• the cave is isolated from road access
• the cave is isolated from communication uses
• the safety of the (casual) caver is threatened by drops in floor levels or potholes
• the safety of the (casual) caver is threatened by copying examples of poor safety practices of other cavers
• the risk of displacement of existing users to other more sensitive and/or remote sites

I have come up with 16 sub factors in the present context of the region (Mole Creek) and the site being subject to controversial development plans that may be in conflict with existing uses and conservation objectives. Let us look at the application of these to Honeycomb Cave. In terms of sub factors for the region, every single one applies. In terms of additional sub factors, again, every single one applies.

Development of Cave Management Prescription

There is a need to both present the MCKNP to the public as well as conserve its values.

1. Present usage

Caver safety

Present (traditional) usage seems static (since eventual recovery of usage numbers by school groups after the Mystery Creek school outing tragedies in 1990). As the cave is complex and multi-level with sumps and subject to flooding, adherence to the Outdoor Education Management Handbook caving activity guidelines should be required by management as a condition of conducting activities. These guidelines are presently routinely ignored. Because of this (and variable ethical standards), it is ideal to encourage continued use of this (relatively robust) site instead of other more sensitive and remote sites.

For example, nearby Westmorland Cave contains an abseil with the possibility of a walk-out like Honeycomb, but is much more sensitive, and 20 minutes walk from road access. Providing school group safety improves, there should be no need for restrictions on access on safety grounds. Having said that, management should alert all leaders to be aware that the floods which occurred following the breaking of the El Nino drought in June 1998 brought so much woody debris into the lower passages of the cave, that until it rots, the build up of gravels against the debris will see the cave flooding more often than in the last few decades.

The caving clubs and licensed tours that operate there have their own safety procedures in place. Casual visitors pose problems for management, both locals and those from elsewhere. The local tourism committee should be presented with reasons that publication of wild cave locations to tourists is inappropriate, and encouraged to remove the locations from tourism information boards and sheets. On-site signage regarding the dangers of independent exploration should be improved. Warnings about the presence of faecal contamination in the water at the reserve should be signed. The proximity of Wet Cave to Honeycomb Cave is problematic in terms of safety. Wet is over 1,000m long and is wet and cold. Its open, level appearance invites exploration. The first approximately 250m could be prescribed open access and the rest of the cave gated. It is also worth protecting the inner recesses because of their outstanding aesthetic value.

Cave conservation

Present user numbers and patterns seem to minimally hinder faunal populations. Species include troglophiles, trogloxenes and accidentals as well as daylight spaces providing nesting and hunting refuge for epigean species. Many forms exist and breed. Speleothems exist but in Honeycomb they are of lower quality in high use zones compared to elsewhere at Mole Creek, as they are already degraded by much deliberate and inadvertent vandalism. Aesthetic qualities are present in other forms - namely, verdant, ferny daylight spaces and sculpted rocky passages. Improved signage, as suggested above, may help alert would-be casual cavers and help protect the cave and its natural values. There could also be signage considered which says that removal of, or damaging, flora in the daylight holes, or fauna and speleothems within the cave is prohibited.

The site is already "presented" for non-cavers in the form of licensed caving tours. The site is ideal, over and above alternatives, for its present uses. A more suitable site or methodology could be found for self-reliant (self-guided or self-timed) presentation of surface and/or subsurface karst landforms of the MCKNP to mainstream tourists.

2. If development procedes:

Proposed developments as a result of the RFA Interpretive Project outcomes include self-guided/timed surface and subsurface presentation and the construction of an Aboriginal Cultural Centre with associated activities.

Safety

Signage for safety reasons would need to be increased from that proposed under 1. Restrictions in the form of numerous and substantial physical barriers would be needed at many locations, both surface and subsurface. It is impossible to completely protect tourists from a cave's hazards, due to the number and size of those hazards. Discussion is needed to resolve how to allow caver access to such a complex cave, yet discourage tourists from following them in past designated self-timed exploration area/s. School groups need to adhere to their Outdoor Education Management Handbook caving activity guidelines.

It is highly undesirable in terms of safety awareness to allow tourists or the general public to observe routine disregard for appropriate safety equipment and caving protocols. Self-timed exploration should not be permitted within Wet Cave because of the possibility of hypothermia and people getting swept under rock ledges during high flows (and for conservation reasons). There is also longer dark zone, even in the first 250m. Motion sensitive lighting should be considered in Honeycomb as people see very poorly when moving from one daylight hole to another, without a chance for night vision to kick in. Walkways and steps would be needed for slippery and/or sloping areas. Thought should be given to methods of prevention of injury to those below from stones and other debris being tossed into the collapse dolines of the cave by observers on the surface walks above.

Conservation

Increased numbers of casual cavers (tourists) will impact upon the suitability of the cave as breeding habitat for cave adapted animals and access to water for the various epigean species. Representative and significant breeding sites should be identified and barricaded off from tourists. Mammals and birds should not be physically impeded by barriers regarding points of access/routes to water. The essential infrastructure needed to "safely" present this cave to the public would so disastrously affect both its aesthetic appeal and high degree of naturalness that current users would be deflected to other sites.

Conclusions

The development proposals for Wet Cave Reserve, Mole Creek Karst National Park are unrealistic and would have disastrous consequences for cave conservation - against the three general factors (above). Cave management prescriptions should be devised for Wet and Honeycomb Caves based on present use with flexibility to adapt, should usage trends change or environmental deterioration be observed. The vacant ranger position should be filled, largely in the capacity of public relations and a watch on wild cave usage.

In developing suitable projects for presenting the Park and the Mole Creek karst to the public, notice should be taken of the "Product Life Cycle" (Hamilton-Smith 1999), and an entirely new approach considered. There are some aspects of the Mole Creek karst which are special and which should be of interest if researched as to appropriate presentation. A couple of ideas from the RFA project in particular come to mind. Showcase "living with karst": land management issues which confront the pastoralist and agriculturalist; and a driving tour itinerary around the Mole Creek valley highlighting karst landforms and interpreted photo stops. A further proposal to extend King Solomon's (tourist) Cave to a through trip would mitigate January congestion and allow those interested to walk independently out the end and back over the hill to the car park via interpreted glimpses into barricaded shafts, viewing dolines and rainforest.

Acknowledgement

I am immensely grateful to several people who helped in response to my request on the ACKMA and ASF email groups for information on examples of self-timed caves in Australia. Through the resulting information and discussion I gained valuable perspective.

References

Webb, R. Cave Management Prescriptions- An Alternative to Cave Classification Systems. ACKMA Journal 37, Dec. 1999

Hamilton-Smith, E. Let's Stop Running Cave Tours! ACKMA Journal 35, June 1999

Kiernan, K. Karst, Caves and Management at Mole Creek Tasmania. Dept Parks, Wildlife and Heritage, Occasional Paper No. 22, 1989

Commonwealth of Australia & The State of Tasmania. Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, November 1997

Hunter, D. (unpublished) Reports to Senior Ranger, Mole Creek Base, on observations of unsafe and unethical use of Wet Cave Reserve- 1997-1999.