42 U.S.C. §§4321‑4370a
§4321. [NEPA §2]
The purposes of this chapter are: To declare a national policy which will encourage
productive and
enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or
eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to
enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the
Nation; and to establish a
Council on Environmental Quality.
(Pub.L. 91‑190, §2, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852.)
Section 1 Pub. L. 91‑190 provided: “That this Act [enacting this
chapter] may be cited as the ‘National Environmental Policy Act of 1969’.”
§4331. [NEPA §101].
Congressional declaration of national environmental policy
(a) The Congress,
recognizing the profound
impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural
environment, particularly
the profound influences of population growth, high‑density urbanization,
industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances
and recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and maintaining
environmental quality to
the overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of
the Federal
Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private
organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical
assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare,
to create and
maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill
the social, economic, and
other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.
(b) In order to carry
out the policy set forth
in this chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal
Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of
national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and
resources to the end that the Nation may—
(1) fulfill the
responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations;
(2) assure for all
Americans safe, healthful,
productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
(3) attain the widest
range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety,
or other undesirable and
unintended consequences;
(4) preserve important
historic, cultural, and
natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment
which supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
(5) achieve a balance
between population and
resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and
(6) enhance the
quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling
of depletable resources.
(c) The Congress
recognizes that each Person should enjoy a healthful environment and that each person has a
responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.
(Pub.L. 91‑190, tit. 1, §101, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat.
852.)
§4332.
[NEPA §102]
Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of
Information; recommendations; international and national coordination of efforts
The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent
possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted
and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter, and (2) all agencies
of the Federal Government
shall—
(A) utilize a
systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and
social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which
may have an impact on man’s
environment;
(B) identify and
develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality
established by subchapter II of this chapter, which will insure that presently
unquantified environmental
amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision
making along with
economic and technical considerations;
(C) include in every
recommendation or report
on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on—
(i) the environmental
impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse
environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented,
(iii) alternatives to
the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship
between local short term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long‑term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible
and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the
proposed action should it be implemented.
Prior to making any detailed
statement, the responsible
Federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law
or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved.
Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental
standards, shall be made available to the President, the Council on
Environmental Quality and to the public as provided by section 552 of title 5, and shall
accompany the
proposal through the existing agency review processes;
(D) Any detailed
statement required under
subparagraph (c) after January 1, 1970, for any major Federal action funded under a program
of grants to States shall not be deemed to be legally insufficient solely by reason of having been prepared
by a State agency or official, if:
(i) the State agency
or official has statewide
jurisdiction and has the responsibility for such action,
(ii) the responsible
Federal official furnishes guidance and participates in such preparation,
(iii) the responsible
Federal official independently evaluates such statement prior to its approval and
adoption, and
(iv) after January 1,
1976, the responsible Federal
official provides early notification to, and solicits the views of, any other State or any Federal land
management entity of any
action or any alternative thereto which may have significant impacts upon such State or affected Federal land
management entity
and, if there is any disagreement on such impacts, prepares a written assessment of such impacts and
views for incorporation
into such detailed statement.
The procedures in this
subparagraph shall not
relieve the Federal official of his responsibilities for the scope,
objectivity, and content of the entire statement or of any other responsibility under
this chapter; and further, this subparagraph does not affect the legal sufficiency of
statements prepared by State
agencies with less than statewide jurisdiction. [1]
(E) study, develop,
and describe appropriate
alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved
conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources;
(F) recognize the
worldwide and long‑range character of environmental problems and, where consistent with the foreign
policy of the
United States, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize
international cooperation
in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankind’s world environment;
(G) make available to
States, counties, municipalities, institutions, and individuals, advice and
information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment
(H) initiate and
utilize ecological information in the planning and development of resource‑oriented
projects; and
(I) assist the
Council on Environmental
Quality established by subchapter II of this chapter.
(Pub.L. 91-190, tit. I, §102,
Jan. l, 1970, 83 Stat. 853; Pub.L. 94‑83, Aug. 9, 1975, 89 Stat. 424.)
§4333. [NEPA §103]
Conformity of administrative procedures to national environmental policy
All agencies of the Federal Government shall review their present statutory authority, administrative regulations, and current policies and procedures for the purpose of determining whether there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit full compliance with the purposes and provisions of this chapter and shall propose to the President not later than July 1, 1971, such measures as may be necessary to bring their authority and policies into conformity with the intent, purposes, and procedures set forth in this chapter.
(Pub.L. 91‑190, tit.I, §103, Jan. 1, l970, 83 Stat. 854.)
4334. [NEPA §104]
Other statutory obligations of agencies
Nothing in section 4332 or 4333 of this title shall
in any way affect the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency (1) to
comply with
criteria or standards of environmental quality, (2) to coordinate or consult with any other Federal or
State agency, or (3) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations or
certification of any other Federal or State agency.
(Pub.L. 91‑190, tit.I, § 104 Jan. 1,1970, 83Stat.854.)
4335. [NEPA §105]
Efforts supplemental to existing authorizations
The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are
supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of Federal
agencies.
(Pub.L. 91-190, tit. I, §105,
Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 854)
Be it enacted by the
Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled; that this Act may be cited as the
“Endangered Species Act of 1973”.
Sec. 2. Findings, purposes, and policy.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Determination of endangered
species and threatened species
Sec. 5. Land acquisition.
Sec. 6. Cooperation with the States.
Sec. 7. Interagency cooperation.
Sec. 8. International cooperation.
Sec. 8A. Convention implementation:
Sec. 9. Prohibited acts. Sec. 10. Exceptions.
Sec. 11. Penalties and enforcement.
Sec. 12. Endangered plants.
Sec. 13. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 14. Repealer.
Sec. 15. Authorization of
appropriations.
Sec. 16. Effective date.
Sec. 17. Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972.
Sec. l8. Annual cost analysis by the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Sec. 2. (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds and declares that—
(l) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the
United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth
and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation;
(2) other species of
fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened
with extinction;
(3) these species of
fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational,
historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people;
(4) The United States
has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to
conserve to the extent
practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to—
(A) migratory
bird treaties with Canada and Mexico;
(B) the
Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan;
(C) the
Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere;
(D) the
International Convention for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries;
(E) the
International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean;
(F) the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora; and
(G) other
international agreements; and
[2(4)(G) amended by PL 100‑478]
(5) encouraging the
States and other interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives,
to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international
standards is a key to
meeting the Nation’s international commitments and to better safeguarding, for the benefit of
all citizens, the Nation’s
heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants.
[(5) amended by PL 96‑159]
(b) PURPOSES.—The
purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered
species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program
for the conservation of
such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as
may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set
forth in subsection (a) of this section.
(c) POLICY.—( l) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.
[(c)(l) designated by PL 97‑304]
(2) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that Federal agencies
shall cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation of
endangered species.
[(c)(2) added by PL 97‑304]
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act—
(l) The term “alternative courses of action” means all
alternatives and thus is not limited to original project objectives and agency
jurisdiction.
[3(1) added by PL 95‑632]
(2) The term
“commercial activity” means all activities of industry and trade, including,
but not limited to,
the buying or selling of commodities and activities conducted for the purpose of facilitating
such buying and selling:
Provided, however, That it does not
include exhibitions of commodities by museums or similar cultural or historical
organizations.
(3) The terms
“conserve”, “conserving”, and “conservation” mean to use and the use of all
methods and procedures
which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point
at which the measures
provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures
include, but are not
limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research,
census, law enforcement, habitat‑acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given
ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
(4) The term “Convention” means the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, signed on March 3, 1973, and the appendices thereto.
(5)(A) the term “critical habitat” for a threatened or endangered species
means—
(i) the spatial areas
within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed
in accordance with
the provisions of section 4 of this Act, on which are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protection; and
(ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed
in accordance with
the provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon a determination by the Secretary
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
(B) Critical habitat
may be established for these species now listed as threatened or endangered species for which no critical habitat
has heretofore been established as set forth in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.
(C) Except in those
circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire geographical area
which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species.
[3(5) added by PL 95‑632]
(6) The term “endangered
species” means any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to
constitute a
pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and
overriding risk to man.
(7) The term “Federal
agency” means any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
[3(7) added by PL 95‑632]
(8) The term “fish or
wildlife” means any member of the animal kingdom, including without limitation any mammal, fish, bird
(including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which
protection is also
afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk,
crustacean, arthropod or
other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof,
or the dead body or parts thereof.
(9) The term “foreign
commerce” includes, among
other things, any transaction—
(A) between persons
within one foreign country;
(B) between persons in
two or more foreign countries;
(C) between a person
within the United States and a person in a foreign country; or
(D) between persons
within the United States, where the fish and wildlife in question are moving in any country or
countries outside the United States.
(l0) The term “import” means to land on, bring into, or introduce into, or
attempt to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place subject to the
jurisdiction of the United
States, whether or not such landing, bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation
within the meaning of the customs laws of the United States.
“The more civilized man becomes, the more he needs and craves a great background of forest wildness, to which he may return like a contrite prodigal from the husks of an artificial life.”
ELLEN BURNS SHERMAN
The Wilderness Society is a non‑profit membership
organization devoted to preserving wilderness and wildlife, protecting America’s forests,
parks, rivers and shore lands, and fostering an American land ethic. The passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964 was the culmination
of more than twenty years of effort by The Wilderness Society. The Society was also instrumental in the
passage of one
of the most significant pieces of public land legislation in this century—the Alaska
Lands Act of 1980, which preserved more than one hundred million acres of spectacular
wild country. The Society has continued to play
a leading role in efforts to expand and complete the wilderness system, and
has joined with other conservation groups in seeking to establish sound multiple use management
for our federal
forest and range lands through such legislation as the National Forest Management Act and the
Federal Land Management and Planning Act.
The Society is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and has
field offices in
Atlanta, Denver, Boise, San Francisco, Seattle and Juneau. Within the Society, the Conservation Department covers
wilderness and
land management issues involving national parks and refuges, national forests,
Bureau of Land Management lands, Alaska lands, and rivers and trails. The Economic Policy Department, established in 1981, provides
economic analysis to support the Society’s efforts on behalf of resource conservation. The Public Affairs Department directs the
educational mission of the Society and produces its quarterly magazine Wilderness.
For further information about public lands issues, please
contact the
Conservation Department, The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C., or the
nearest regional office.
Prepared by Rob Stitt. Not previously published. Many of these articles are included in this document.
Vic Schmidt, “Directors Adopt Conservation Resolutions”
20(4):40 (April, 1962).
Summary: 3 resolutions
expressing NSS position on Wilderness Act, Ozark Rivers, and Rainbow
Bridge. Key Words: Wilderness Act,
Conservation Positions.
Anon., “Mammoth Cave Public Hearings Upcoming” 25(2):19 (February, 1967). Summary: Participation encouraged. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, Wilderness. In Notes and News.
Vic Schmidt, “A Wilderness Proposal for Mammoth Cave National Park” 25(3):55 (March, 1967). Summary: See title. Key Words: NPS, Mammoth Cave National Park, Underground Wilderness.
L. D. Matthews, “Noises from Washington” 25(6):108 (June, 1967). Summary: Mammoth review may be postponed. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, Wilderness.
William Mixon, “Mammoth Cave Wilderness Proposal” 25(8):142 (August, 1967). Summary: w/ reply by Vic Schmidt. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, NPS, Underground Wilderness. In Letters.
Rob Stitt, “A Wilderness Proposal for the Guadalupe Escarpment, New Mexico and Texas” 28(10):152 (October, 1970). Summary: A description of the NSS proposal for wildness in the Guads. Key Words: Wilderness, Guadalupes, NPS.
Rob Stitt, “A Review of ‘Wilderness Resources in Mammoth Cave National Park’ 29(8):104 (August, 1971). Summary: See title. Key Words: Wilderness, Underground Wilderness, Zoning. In Reviews.
Rob Stitt, “The Status of Wilderness in Three State Parks (sic)” 29(9):111 (September, 1971). Summary: Discusses the wilderness proposals for CACA, GUMO, and MCNP. Key Words: Wilderness, NPS.
Anon., “Mammoth Cave: Hearings Soon” 30(4):75 (April, 1972). Summary: announcement of forthcoming hearings. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, Wilderness, Underground Wilderness.
Dennis Seekins, “Shadow over the Wilderness” 30(5):90 (May, 1972). Summary: A plea for letters to the president in support of an Executive Order to protect de facto wilderness. Key Words: Wilderness.
Doug Rhodes, “Hearings scheduled for Mammoth Cave National Park” 30(5):94 (May, 1972. Summary: See title. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, NPS, Wilderness.
Rob Stitt, “Conservation Committee Statement on USFS Wilderness Study Area Proposal” 31(7):83 (July, 1973). Summary: See Title. Key Words: Wilderness, USFS, Federal Agencies.
Rob .Stitt, “Has the National Park Service lost its Resolve at Mammoth Cave?” 32(3):54 (March, 1974). Summary: Write the Supt. asking when the hearings will be. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, NPS, Wilderness.
Rob Stitt, “Wilderness at Mammoth Cave NP, a Progress Report” 32(5):82 (May, 1974). Summary: Key Words: Wilderness, Mammoth Cave.
Joe .Saunders, “Mammoth Cave Wilderness” 32(7)164 (July, 1974). Summary: Presents local viewpoint towards wilderness at Mammoth. Key Words: Mammoth Cave. Wilderness. In Letters.
Rob Stitt, “Conservation Notes” 32(12):240 (December, 1974). Summary: Guadalupe CTF, Underground Wilderness, Cave conservation in the media. Key Words: CTF, Underground Wilderness. In Conservation Notes.
Rob Stitt, “Park Service Ignores Public and Recommends no Wilderness at Mammoth Cave National Park” 33(3):41 (March, 1975). Summary: No wildness recommended, if you wish, write! Key Words: Mammoth Cave, Wilderness.
Rob Stitt, “Conservation Notes” 33(11):179 (November, 1975). Summary: Nick Noe new Chair, Underground wilderness, Cave Gating. Key Words: Wilderness, Gates, Conservation Committee. In Conservation Notes.
Anon., “Beaver Creek Wilderness Threatened by Miners” 35(9):190 (September, 1977). Summary: Asking for support. Key Words: Wilderness, Mining.
Tom Strong, “Conservation Happenings” 36(6):137 (June, 1978). Summary: New Melones, Leigh Cave access, BLM Wilderness, Bat slaughter. Key Words: Wilderness, New Melones, Bats. In Conservation Notes.
Beth Estes, “Help Conservation” 37(1):16 (January, 1979). Summary: Plea for volunteers for Wilderness Subcommittee. Key Words: Volunteers, Wilderness Subcommittee. In Newsgram.
Beth Estes, “How ‘Bout Some Facts On Mammoth Cave National Park” 38(3):56 (March, 1980). Summary: Discussion of current issues at Mammoth Cave. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, Wilderness, NPS.
Sharon Kautto, “The Wilderness Idea” 38(3):183 (August, 1980). Summary: Excerpts from “The Sound of Mountain Water”, by Wallace Stegner. Key Words: Wilderness.
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 39(6):126 (June, 1981). Summary: Archeological Act, National Parks, Desert Pupfish, Anti‑Wilderness proposals, WIPP, Stanislaus Canyon, MX, Senate Bill 842. Key Words: Wilderness, NPS, Pup fish. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto and Len Gaska, “Wilderness Subcommittee” 39(7):144 (July, 1981). Summary: WIPP, Mining in Wilderness, Guadalupes EIS, Bob Marshall Wilderness, Anti‑Wilderness Bill. Key Words: Wilderness, Guadalupes.
Sharon Kautto and Len Gaska, “Wilderness Subcommittee” 39(8):166 (August, 1981). Summary: Bob Marshall Wilderness. Key Words: Wilderness.
Sharon Kautto and Len .Gaska, “Wilderness Subcommittee” 39(12):259 (December, 1981). Summary: Endangered Indiana Bats, Cave Wilderness Sloan’s Valley, Diamond Craters, Mineral King. Key Words: Bats, Wilderness, Conservation Notes. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto and Len Gaska, “Wilderness Subcommittee” 40(1):8 (January, 1982). Summary: Caves, Gas and Oil; Guadalupes; Wilderness Act; Wilderness Area Leases; Oregon: Caves in the ACEC Program. Key Words: Wilderness. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto, “Wilderness Subcommittee” 40(2):21 February, t982) Summary: Pupfish, Endangered Species Act, Bob Marshall Wilderness, Wilderness, Wilderness Leasing Decision, wilderness and Leasing, Key Words: Wilderness. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 40(4): 114 April, 1982). Summary: Wilderness, Endangered Species Act, Gray Bat Recovery Plan, Call for papers for Conservation Session. Key Words: Wilderness, Bats, Endangered Species. In Conservation Notes
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 40(5):134 (May, 1982). Summary: Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Leasing, Wilderness Protection, Selling off Public Lands, Cave Fauna. Key Words: Endangered Species, Wilderness, Biology. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 40(6):158 (June, 1982). Summary: Bats, Endangered Species Act, Quarrying the Caves, Diamond Craters, Wilderness. Key Words: Bats, Endangered Species, Wilderness. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 40(7):132 (July, 1982). Summary: Idaho Cave Conservation Law, Cave Conservation Laws, Endangered Species Act, Wilderness and Leasing. Key Words: State Laws, Endangered Species, Wilderness. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 40(9):230 (September, 1982). Summary: Wilderness, Endangered Species Act, Mammoth and the Job Corps, Wilderness Bills, Caves and Nuclear Waste, Thanks. Key Words: Wilderness, Endangered Species, Mammoth Cave. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto, “Underground Wilderness” 41(9):229 September, 1983). Summary: Description of Cave Creek proposal in Kentucky. Key Words: Wilderness, Underground Wilderness.
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 41(10):253 (October, 1983). Summary: Wilderness update on state wilderness bills. Key Words: Conservation Notes, Wilderness.
Carol Belski, “Guadalupe Wilderness” 44(8):308 (August, 1986). Summary: USFS is changing position and may recommend wilderness in Guads. Key Words: Guadalupes, Wilderness, USFS. In Dyas Digest.
Total 38 Articles
BULLETIN OF THE NATIONAL SPELEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, 1976,
31(3):77‑88
Underground Wilderness in the Guadalupe
Escarpment
A
Concept Applied
Robert R. Stitt and William P. Bishop
ABSTRACT
The concept of underground wilderness is not new to the discussion of protection of caves and karst features and has occurred regularly since before the Wilderness Act of 1964 became law. Those who have experienced the cave wilderness have never doubted its existence, but land managers have been slow to accept it. The definition of underground wilderness is discussed in terms of the value of the resource, its impact on an observer, and its defensible boundaries. The utility of the concept in management of the cave resource and the overlying lands is applied explicitly to the Guadalupe Escarpment of New Mexico and Texas. From the considerations of underground wilderness and its application to the Guadalupe Escarpment, concrete recommendations for underground wilderness in the Guadalupe Escarpment area are derived.
INTRODUCTION
In June, 1970, the National Speleological Society (NSS)
presented to the National
Park Service (NPS) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) a proposal for a Guadalupe Escarpment
Wilderness Area (NSS,
1970), to be made up of the major portions of Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico,
Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Texas, and the southern section of the
Lincoln National Forest between the two parks. This proposed wilderness area
contains one of the world's major cave‑bearing limestone areas—the Guadalupe Reef Complex
of Permian Age.
Since that time, both the NPS and the USFS have made
management proposals for
this area which have included proposals for wilderness designation or the establishment of wilderness study
areas (NPS 1971b, 1971c; USFS, 1971).
The surface protection provided by these government proposals has not proven to be adequate for
protection of
the cave resources; thus further discussion is necessary.
The natural beauty of caves has been experienced by
countless thousands of persons who have been attracted to developed caves such as
Carlsbad Caverns. A smaller number of persons
have enjoyed the wilderness experience in caves. The extension of modern civilization and its effects has made preservation of some
of the remaining wilderness heritage, including caves in a natural state, even more
desirable. The Guadalupe Escarpment, with its
many outstanding caves of
national significance, presents an important opportunity to preserve an entire
karst area
intact for the enjoyment of future generations of Americans.
That caves are an important part of the natural heritage
which is in vital need of
protection has not been disputed.
The relatively long periods of time (thousands of
103 WILDERNESS LAWS
Milestones and Management Direction
in Wilderness Legislation
1964‑1987
By James A. Browning
John C. Hendee
Joe W. Roggenbuck
Station Bulletin 51
of the
Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station
College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 83843
October 1988
Current
Publications
Idaho
Forest, Wildlife and Range
Experiment Station
1991 ‑ 1992
John C. Hendee, Director
Leon F. Neuenschwander, Associate Director
University
Of Idaho
DISTINGUISHED LECTURE SERIES
Wilderness Research
Center
Distinguished Lecture Series
WRC‑3 Reorganization and the Department of Natural Resources: Implications for wilderness. C. D. Andrus. 1979. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 3. 16 pp. $.25
WRC‑4 Preserving America’s natural heritage: The decade of the eighties. P. F. Noonan. 1980. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 4. 24 pp. $.25
WRC‑5 Wilderness values in the national parks. R. E. Dickenson. 1981. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 5. 20 pp. $.25
WRC-6 Battle for the wilderness: Our forever conflict? M. Frome. 1982. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 6. 24 pp. $.25
WRC‑7 In celebration of wilderness: the progress and the promise. B. Evans. 1984. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 7. 28 pp. $.25
WRC‑8 Wilderness: promises, poetry; and pragmatism. J. D. Hair. 1987. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 8. 18 pp. $.25
WRC‑9 Using wilderness experiences to enhance human potential and understanding. I. Player. 1988. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 9. 20 pp. $.25
WRC‑10 Wilderness in Native American culture. O. Lyons. 1989. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 10. 10 pp. $.25
WILDERNESS RESOURCES
IN
MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK
A Regional Approach
by
|
Joseph K. Davidson Dept.
of Mechanical Engineering Ohio
State University Columbus.
Ohio |
and |
William P. Bishop Radiation
Division Sandia
Laboratories Albuquerque,
New Mexico |
CAVE RESEARCH
FOUNDATION
206 WEST 18th
AVENUE
COLUMBUS, OHIO
43210
1971
Excerpted from Proceedings, 14th Biennial Conference, Australian Speleological Federation, 1984
by Kevin Kiernan, Tasmanian Wilderness Society
Until the early 1970s karst resources were largely unrecognized in decisions regarding land-use in Tasmania. Over the past decade growing concern for the protection of the wilderness landscape of the island’s southwest has stimulated the growth both of community based environmental interest groups and of protective agencies within the administrative machinery of government. Both have attracted individuals with expertise in karst and personal commitment to its proper management. Largely through their awareness and individual efforts, caves and karst have been promoted as little‑known but worthwhile components of the wilderness.
The positive results of this have included stimulus to our knowledge of karst, increase in public awareness of karst, and a strengthening of the case for the protection of the wilderness area. On the negative side, there may be some potentially dysfunctional consequences attached to the politicizing of karst, including the loss of any first strike advantage which might otherwise have been available to karst advocates dealing with areas where it is a primary rather than subsidiary resource; and also the development in some sectors of the community of anti-cave ethos which might otherwise not yet have arisen.
WILDERNESS
MANAGEMENT
by
John C Hendee
formerly
Recreation Research Project
Leader
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station
Seattle, Wash.
now U.S.
Forest Service
Washington, D.C
George H. Stankey
Research Social Scientist
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
Missoula, Mont.
Robert C Lucas
Wilderness Management Research Project Leader
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
Missoula, Mont.
Forest Service Miscellaneous
Publication No. 1365
U.S. Department
of Agriculture October
1978
Wilderness
Management
Second Edition, Revised
John C.
Hendee
Dean
and Professor
College
of Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Sciences
University
of Idaho
Moscow,
Idaho
George
H. Stankey
Senior
Research Professor
Department
of Forest Resources
Oregon
State University
Corvallis,
Oregon
Robert
C. Lucas
Wilderness
Management Research Project Leader, retired
Intermountain
Research Station
Missoula,
Montana
|
Issued under the auspices of the International
Wilderness Leadership Foundation in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service |
North American Press An Imprint of Fulcrum
Publishing Golden, Colorado |
|
|
|
by William R. Halliday
Reprinted from Rocky Mountain Caving Spring 1992, p. 8.
In many parts of the United States, cavers are
undertaking inventories of
cave resources and values as a result of implementation of the Federal Cave Resources
Protection Act. But recently, this publication published
a tabulation of 40 significant
caves in Colorado, listing eight categories of resources and values for each cave, on a scale of
one to ten (see Larry Fish’s
article, “Some Comments on the Proposed BLM Cooperative Management Agreement,”
RMC,
Summer 1991, pages 8‑10). Prominently missing from the table was cave
wilderness. And this is in a state with exceptional
underground and surface
wilderness resources and values, and notable political support for
wilderness.
The National Speleological Society’s Wilderness
Subcommittee is vigorously organizing a campaign to persuade federal agencies to keep wild
caves wild, through recognizing
and protecting cave wilderness values as required by the Federal Cave Resources Protection
Act. The details of this campaign now are being
worked out by a 12‑person
group. The effort is too new for agreement yet on
details, and thus does not
have official NSS approval. But
one thing is certain. If inventories of caves on federal (and other!) lands do
not include evaluations of cave wilderness resources and values, the agencies
will proceed on the assumption
that no cave wilderness resources or values exist there. And in many cases, this would open a door to disaster.
Some recent members of the NSS may not be familiar with how
wilderness is defined, above
or below ground. The Wilderness Society interprets
the Wilderness Act as requiring “that an area appear to be substantially
natural and that the presence of man’s imprints not be dominant.”
I think that most
cavers would consider a wild cave to be “a cave which appears to be substantially natural, with the
presence of man’s imprints
not dominant.” In working with federal (and other)
agencies to keep wild caves
wild, we thus can make effective use of this federal definition.
No consensus exists yet on how to quantify cave
wilderness on a “one to five” or “one to ten” basis. But
in my October 1991 presentation
on cave wilderness at the National Cave Management Symposium, I mentioned the
categories used by Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park in its new Cave Management Plan:
·
A cave within which it is difficult or impossible to avoid
intrusive works of
modern humans, and whose entrance is located in a developed area and accessed by paved
roads and trails.
·
A cave within which, at ordinary rates of travel, less than 30 minutes can be spent without
encountering intrusive
works of modern humans,
and whose entrance is located at least one‑quarter mile from any developed area.
·
A cave within which, at ordinary rates of travel, less than 60 minutes can be spent without
encountering intrusive
works of modern humans,
and whose entrance is located at least one‑quarter mile from any developed area.
·
A cave within which, at ordinary rates of travel, less
than four hours can be spent without encountering intrusive works of modern humans, and whose entrance is
located at least one‑quarter
mile from any developed
area.
·
A cave within which, at ordinary rates of travel, more
than four hours can be spent without encountering intrusive works of modern humans, and whose entrance is
located within a
designated Wilderness Area.
These Hawaii descriptors are far from the last word. I criticized them on the grounds that the last half of
each descriptor is contrary to both the intent and content of the Wilderness Act. (In my opinion, significant cave wilderness can
be entered through manholes
in several cities.) Probably most of the readers of
this article can create better ones. But at least they
are a start, and a constructive
start.
While the Wilderness Subcommittee is determining whether
it can develop broadly
acceptable descriptors of this kind, I urge all cavers and speleologists involved in the inventory
process to develop their
own descriptors. And to insist
on their inclusion in management plans which will evolve from their inventories. If something better comes along later, we can work to improve the plan, but
we have to move fast now. We got caught asleep at the switch on this.
Under the Wilderness Society’s interpretation cited
above, in any “one‑to‑five” or “one to ten” system, the lowest category should indicate caves
(or parts of caves) with
few or no areas which appear to be substantially natural, where man’s imprints are not
dominant. The top category should be just the
reverse, where one is free
of the imprint of man’s work in awesome fashion—our very best wild caves. As for the in‑betweens, make them up for
yourself at the
moment. And send a copy to the Wilderness
Subcommittee. Your ideas may be better than
anything else we are working with.
This is a very urgent situation. Please do
your part—and a bit more—to help keep wild caves wild.
From NSS Board of Governors Manual
The National Speleological Society believes: That caves have unique scientific, recreational, and scenic values; That these values are endangered by both carelessness and intentional vandalism; That these values, once gone, cannot be recovered; and that the responsibility for protecting caves must be assumed by those who study and enjoy them.
Accordingly, the intention of the Society is to work for the preservation of caves with a realistic policy supported by effective programs for: the encouragement of self‑discipline among cavers; education and research concerning the causes and prevention of cave damage; and special projects, including cooperation with other groups similarly dedicated to the conservation of natural areas. Specifically:
All contents of a cave—formations, life, and loose deposits—are significant for its enjoyment and interpretation. Therefore, caving parties should leave a cave as they find it. They should provide means for the removal of waste; limit marking to a few, small and removable signs as are needed for surveys; and, especially, exercise extreme care not to accidentally break or soil formations, disturb life forms or unnecessarily increase the number of disfiguring paths through an area.
Scientific collection is professional, selective and minimal. The collecting of mineral or biological material for display purposes, including previously broken or dead specimens, is never justified, as it encourages others to collect and destroys the interest of the cave.
The Society encourages projects such as: establishing cave preserves; placing entrance gates where appropriate; opposing the sale of speleothems; supporting effective protective measures; cleaning and restoring over‑used caves; cooperating with private cave owners by providing knowledge about their cave and assisting them in protecting their cave and property from damage during cave visits; and encouraging commercial cave owners to make use of their opportunity to aid the public in understanding caves and the importance of their conservation.
Where there is reason to believe that publication of cave locations will lead to vandalism before adequate protection can be established, the Society will oppose such publication.
It is the duty of every Society member to take personal responsibility for spreading a consciousness of the cave conservation problem to each potential user of caves. Without this, the beauty and value of our caves will not long remain with us.
Brochure prepared by Richard Weisbrod for the NSS Wilderness Subcommittee, ca 1974. (Photos omitted.)
Here we lingered and reveled, rejoicing, to find so much music in stony
silence, so much
splendor in darkness, so many mansions in the depths of the mountain, buildings ever in the process of construction,
yet ever finished, developing from perfection to perfection without overabundance.
John Muir
In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by
expanding settlement and
growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States
and its
possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is
hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and
future generations the benefits
of an enduring resource of wilderness.
The Wilderness Act of 1964
With these words, the Congress of the United States created the National
Wilderness Preservation System. This brochure is about a
neglected wilderness—underground wilderness—what it is, why it is important,
and how it can be protected under the provisions of the Wilderness Act. Usually when people think of wilderness, they think of
mountains, valleys,
plains, and deserts where as far as the eye can see the “imprint of man’s work [is]
substantially unnoticeable.”
Only rarely do people look under their feet where, even in the midst of development, there may
exist a vast wilderness substantially untouched by the hand of man. The
wilderness beneath the earth is as much in need of protection as surface wilderness,
perhaps more so
because of its extreme fragility. A
person [line missing] footprints behind. A person may snap a few twigs, or trample some
flowers, or dislodge a rock or two, but within a few days or perhaps a growing season or two the damage is
no longer visible.
Contrast the surface wilderness with underground wilderness. If a person walks across a pure white flowstone floor,
there is no rain to wash away the footprints. If a person
were to walk across a floor covered with gypsum flowers or accidentally snap a formation or two, it
would be centuries, if ever, before the cave recovered. In Salts Cave in Kentucky, the bare footprints
of pre‑Columbian aborigines are still visible after 3000 years. Even the oils from one’s fingers touching a formation can cause lasting changes.
WHAT IS WILDERNESS?
Wilderness, as defined in the Wilderness Act, is “an area where the
earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not
remain.” Wilderness is an area of Federal Land which
“generally appears to have
been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work
substantially unnoticeable”
and which “has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type
of recreation.” Wilderness “may also
contain ecological,
geological, or other features of scientific educational, scenic, or historical
value.” A Wilderness must have at
least 5000 acres of land or be of sufficient size “to make practicable its preservation and
use in an unimpaired condition.”
A wilderness is an area of the earth, be it on or under land or water,
which can provide men and
women with what might be termed a “wilderness experience.” Even the person who, for reasons of age, infirmity, or inexperience, cannot
probe deeply into
the wilderness can enjoy a wilderness experience by walking a short distance
beyond the threshold,
or perhaps merely by sitting on the boundary and looking in to sense the magnificence of the unseen. An elderly woman, in support of the Wilderness Act, said
that reading and thinking about wilderness was one of the few things that continued to make
life enjoyable for many people like herself who would never again visit the wilderness.
The Wilderness Act protects an area by specifying the
kinds of management policies which govern Its use.
The purpose of a Wilderness designation is to insure that these areas “shall be
administered for the
use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them
unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.” It is
not intended to deny access to an area.
In concept, an underground wilderness is no different
than a surface wilderness. It is defined as a cave system which, to borrow the words of
the Wilderness
Act, “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work
substantially unnoticeable.”
Underground wilderness is unique in many ways. One can feel as
remote in a cave as one can anywhere on earth even though there may be a
packed parking
lot and the surging din of thousands of tourists only a few hundred feet away—through solid rock—on the
surface above. Only a few hundred
feet, and yet it may have taken hours of tortuous travel to reach that point. Only a few hundred feet, and yet one might tread where
no other person
has ever been before and no person may ever be again.
In the blackness of a cave, one’s sense of solitude, of isolation from the works of man, is complete. The only sounds are one’s heartbeat and breathing, [line missing] of the largest wilderness in the country, the Bob Marshal Wilderness in Montana, one still hears airplanes—something one does not hear in an underground Wilderness.
In addition to its unique recreational value, underground wilderness is important as a baseline for management decisions and as a natural laboratory for basic and applied research. Wilderness provides a baseline for evaluating the effects of management decisions in National Parks and Forests and wherever man’s development and natural environment interact. Underground wilderness is no exception. The underground wilderness of Mammoth Cave National Park provides a standard for evaluating the effects of National Park Service decisions involving the commercialized parts of Mammoth Cave. The wild caves of the Guadalupe Escarpment provide a standard for Carlsbad Caverns. Underground wilderness enables us to evaluate the unseen pollution hazards caused by human settlements in the extensive karst regions of the eastern United States.
Underground environments, because of their simplicity, are easily defined and can be studied in toto. For this reason, underground wilderness provides a unique laboratory for solving problems in ecology, evolution, and mineralogy. Underground wilderness also may offer opportunities for the study of other sciences including geology, karst hydrology, and archaeology.
Underground wilderness can be protected in two ways by the Wilderness Act. One way is to include the surface areas overlying the caves in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Surface Wilderness designation gives maximum protection to the underground wilderness because it insures proper management of the surface areas overlying the caves, and reduces the traffic load on the caves by limiting surface access to non‑mechanized means. The caves of Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness are protected in this manner and this kind of protection is planned for parts of the Guadalupe Escarpment. In areas where the surface does not qualify for wilderness designation, such as parts of Flint Ridge in Mammoth Cave National Park, an Underground Wilderness designation, coupled with careful surface management, can be used to preserve the wilderness values of the caves below. This Underground Wilderness designation could be applied either to a specific cave or a portion of a cave, or to the area underlying a specified surface area.
The Wilderness Act does not explicitly authorize underground Wilderness, but it is clear that such a designation is within the general language and, certainly within the spirit of the Act. Many of the caves on Federal land in which the “imprint of man’s work” is “substantially unnoticeable” meet the requirements of the Wilderness Act. They provide outstanding opportunities for solitude and for a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. And they often contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, and sometimes historical value. The concept of “acreage” has little meaning underground. Few caves, even the largest, would meet the 5000 acre requirement, but the structure of a cave inherently makes “practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition” if proper access management techniques are applied. Thus, hundreds of pristine caves, even relatively small caves, can qualify for protection under the provisions of the Wilderness Act.
OUTSTANDING UNDERGROUND WILDERNESS
Two outstanding underground wildernesses which are in need of Wilderness protection are those in Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky and in the Guadalupe Escarpment in New Mexico and Texas. Extending under two of the three major limestone ridges in Mammoth Cave National Park is the Flint‑Mammoth Cave System, the world’s longest with over 180 miles of passage already mapped. The third ridge, Joppa, has barely been explored and only ten miles of passage have been mapped. But Joppa is part of the same geologic formation as the other two ridges and has a very high potential for an extensive cave system with connections to the main Flint‑Mammoth System. Except for 9.5 miles which have been commercially developed, the vast Flint-Mammoth Cave System is a wilderness—one of the most outstanding underground wildernesses in the world—and should be protected by an underground wilderness designation under the provisions of the Wilderness Act.
The Guadalupe Escarpment, a remnant of the world’s largest and best exposed fossil barrier reef, rises more than 3000 feet above the desert floor in southeastern New Mexico and western Texas. This massive limestone ridge, cut by deep, spectacularly beautiful canyons, is honeycombed with over 300 known and, undoubtedly, many more unknown caves. One end of the ridge is in Carlsbad Caverns National Park, known for one of the world’s largest and most beautiful caves. The other end is in Guadalupe Mountains National Park, a new and almost totally undeveloped Park. The central portion of the ridge is in the Lincoln National Forest.
The caves of the “Guads” are known for their immense rooms and massive formations. Except for commercial development in portions of Carlsbad Caverns and the remnants of guano mining operations, now of historical significance, in a few other caves, the imprint of man’s work is substantially unnoticeable in the caves of the Guads. Indeed, the entire surface of the ridge, with the exception of the areas immediately surrounding Carlsbad Caverns, is of Wilderness quality and should be protected by a surface Wilderness designation. The more than fifteen miles of Carlsbad Caverns which have not been developed are also of Wilderness quality and should be protected as underground Wilderness.
Mammoth Cave National Park and the Guadalupe Escarpment are two of the most outstanding examples of underground wilderness which should be protected. Because the Wilderness Act provides no mandatory review process applicable to caves, the National Park Service and other Federal agencies have shown little interest in establishing underground Wilderness. Such interest will be generated only if enough people bring to the attention of government officials the need, value, and appropriateness of underground Wilderness.
YOU CAN HELP
Wilderness protection can be given to an area only through an act of Congress and Congress will act only if there is widespread public support. The concept of underground Wilderness is not new, but it is not well known either. To date, no underground wilderness has been established. Once the first one has been established it will be much easier to apply the concept in other areas. However, the first one will not get established without your help.
You can help in several ways. Write letters to your Congressman and Senators informing them of the importance of underground Wilderness and urging them to support legislation to establish underground Wilderness in the Guadalupe Escarpment and in Mammoth Cave National Park. Get your friends and associates to write letters. If you would like to work to establish underground Wilderness, contact the
National Speleological Society
Cave Avenue
Huntsville, Alabama
The NSS Conservation Committee welcomes your comments on this brochure and its subject matter. Additional copies may be obtained from the Society office.
This brochure was written for the Conservation Committee by Richard Weisbrod. Substantive suggestions were contributed by Rob Stitt, Richard Watson, Bill Bishop, Doug and Linda Rhodes, Philip Smith, and Ells Rolfs. E. Garza and Ira Estin helped with the graphics and production. Cover photo by Richard Weisbrod.
By R. de Saussure
From Wilderness and Recreation: A Report on Resources, Values, and Problems, ORRRC Report No. 3. Washington. (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1962. Appendix 5) pp. 322-324
To be inserted.
By Rob Stitt
Published in: 1991 National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings, Bowling Green, KY October 23-26, 1991, p. 384-393.
Abstract
The concept of cave significance will be increasingly important in cave management since the passage of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, which requires that Federal Cave managers protect “significant” caves. The question of “what is a significant cave?” will be asked frequently in the future. The question is simplified if all caves are treated as “significant” unless they have been shown to be not significant. Thus caves that have not yet been evaluated are “potentially significant” and must be treated as significant. Very few caves are not “potentially significant” (the most PS cave in recent history was Lechuguilla). Strategies and methodologies for evaluating the significance of caves are discussed and a sample evaluation is presented.
Many of the concepts in this paper were developed nearly twenty years ago as a draft manuscript. A review of the literature on this subject reveals that the definitive paper on significance remains to be written. Ideas on significance and how to determine it developed by Richard Powell, Rane Curl, the California Lands Commission, and the Congress of the United States are included. Parameters of significance can include the nature of the resource, the benefits from uses to which it is put, its uniqueness, and contributory values. Methods used to prove significance include the opinions of experts, comparison to other caves, and demonstration of meeting the requirements of laws or regulations defining significance.
The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 provides protection
to “significant” caves on Federal lands. The process for
determination of significance is to be codified into regulations by the various Federal Agencies. As of the date of this writing (June 14, 1991, October 14,
1991) the regulations have not yet been published in the Federal Register, in spite of a mandate in the law
requiring that the regulations be completed within a year of the passage of the Act. The law also mandates that within a year after the adoption of the regulations,
that “significant” caves on federal lands shall be identified.
Since cavers are the most knowledgeable as to which caves are found on Federal lands, they are also
the most likely to be able to evaluate which caves are the most significant and can be listed and
protected.
Significance is defined (in my word processor’s thesaurus) as the
quality or state of being important. What we consider to be important depends on our background,
attitudes, and interest. And the
measure of
significance is value. Value is a
measure of those qualities
that determine merit, desirability, usefulness, or importance. Strictly speaking, we are considering importance, but merit, desirability,
usefulness are also of
use in evaluating significance.
One measure of value used in our society is monetary worth, but the concept is not very useful in evaluating caves. The values that we consider here are more abstract and less tangible than money, and they are certainly more subjective. While money is a common denominator that means roughly the same thing to everyone, a cave is certainly more valuable to a caver, for example, than it is to a cosmetologist or a window washer (unless, of course, they also happen to be cavers).
The above factors, and others, should be considered in determining the
significance of the cave. How they are used, of course,
depends upon the situation and the particular approach you are taking.
Method of
Determining Significance. There are several methods that can be used to aid in the
determination of
significance and in arguing this significance before the public or a government agency or
landowner. The opinions of experts, such as
speleologists, biologists,
historians, and others who are familiar with the cave can be valuable. These can be expressed in the form of letters, previously
published articles, or articles you ask them to write specifically for your particular project.
The more expert opinions you have on your side, the better off you are.
A second approach is
comparison of the cave to other caves of a similar nature.
Does the cave compare favorably to other caves of its type—is it of equal or greater importance;
does it contain equal or better features; etc. An
allied approach would involve contrasting the cave to other areas of a similar or different nature: is
it bigger, better, darker, etc.? Uniqueness is again a
factor.
Consideration of how the area meets or could meet some of the
legal requirements for the
application of different types of protection such as the Wilderness Act, inclusion in the National Parks
System, or as a Geological area or Special Use Area under Forest Service regulations should be made. These standards are the law of the land, and as such are an official recognition
of the value of the protected
features. It is reasonable to expect that lawmakers and
land planners, in deciding
which new lands, areas, or features should be protected, will turn to existing
statutes for information
about the intent of the legislatures and the people. A more
detailed discussion of the
types of protection available, and how they can be used are included in the other chapters. Here I will discuss only two: The Wilderness Act of
1964 and the Presidential
Proclamation establishing Carlsbad Caverns National Park (1923). These will provide background for a later discussion of
the Federal Cave
Resources Protection Act (1988).
Although there is considerable controversy regarding the
question of whether caves in themselves can be protected by the Wilderness Act, the principles
expressed in it are typical of the standards that must be applied to wilderness caves if their wilderness
values are to be
retained. Since thousands of words have been written on the
subject of underground wilderness,
it will not be discussed in depth here. The Wilderness
Act is quoted here as an
example of one type of legal requirement that has been established to decide whether
an area (which
implied cave) can and/or should be protected, and one set of legal standards that have been developed
to determine significance. Obviously other standards, including
the regulations
of other Federal agencies, state agencies, etc. should be consulted for more information.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat 890) defines wilderness as
“…an area of undeveloped
Federal land retaining its
primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is
protected and managed so
as to preserve its natural conditions and which is … affected primarily by the forces
of nature, has
outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation, is 5000
acres or larger, or is of
sufficient size to make practical unimpaired preservation and use, and may also contain ecological,
geological or other features of scientific, scenic or historical value.”
Another type of applicable standard is that established by the
proclamation or enabling
legislation for a National Park or Monument. The
Presidential Proclamation for Carlsbad Caverns National Monument issued by Calvin Coolidge in 1923,
describes Carlsbad Caverns
as “…of extraordinary proportions and of unusual beauty and variety of natural decoration; … other
vast chambers of unknown
character and dimensions exist; … several chambers contain stalactites, stalagmites, and other formations in
such unusual
number, size, beauty of form, and variety of figures as to make this a cavern equal, if not
superior, in both scientific and popular interest to the better known caves; … the public interest
would be promoted by reserving
this natural wonder as a National Monument.…” While it is
not likely that we will
find another Carlsbad, the type of wording typified by this proclamation is that used to describe a
cave that is recognized as
significant, and it would be valid to compare your cave to one already recognized as significant; such as
this.
In summary,
then, we can establish the following points in demonstrating the significance of a cave
or cave area:
a. What significant
features does the cave contain?
b. How do these
features compare to others of a similar nature within the region, the U.S., or the world.?
c. How prevalent or
unique are these features?
d. Are there
additional significant values present (less tangible, perhaps)?
e. Has there been
precedent set (through laws, prior protection, etc.) for the protection of this type of feature?
The evidence that can be presented to show that a cave is significant
includes the following:
a. Expert opinion
b. Descriptions of
the features themselves.
c. Opinion contained
in laws.
d. General and
public opinion, expressed by letters, personal contact, etc.
e. Published
opinion, such as newspapers, magazines, scientific journals, etc.
The following is a sample paragraph put together as an example and
combination of the situation described above. When coupled with more specific information about a particular
cave or resource, it can serve as a general guideline for a significance description:
It is the conclusion of this report that this area is a national
significance and thus deserves the protection of [applicable laws or regulations]. By national significance we mean that the area contains features of
great scientific, cultural, scenic, educational, or historical value that are of such importance
and uniqueness that they
would be of interest to persons throughout the United States and the world. Although these features may now be somewhat unknown to the public, if they
were to become generally
known, they would constitute an attraction for many persons from throughout the
country. This applies not only to such
characteristics as might
attract the general public for aesthetic and recreational purposes, but to those that would bear the
attention of specialists such as scientists. The area is
additionally of national
significance because of the possibility that wide public knowledge of such features
without proper
protection could lead to their destruction through overuse or improper use. Finally, such features are generally acknowledged by informed persons to
rank favorably with similar features found elsewhere in the U.S. that have
already been given protection, as recognized by their inclusion in the National Park System, the
National Wilderness Preservation System, or their declaration as Natural Landmarks,
or by their inclusion
in a National Recreational Area.
Anon., “Session II: Cave Inventory, Valuation and
Assessment,” National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Mountain View, Arkansas,
October 26-29, 1976. Albuquerque: Speleobooks, 1977. pp. 15‑27.
Davidson, Joe and Bill Bishop, Wilderness Resources in Mammoth Cave
National Park: A Regional Approach, Columbus, Ohio: Cave Research Foundation, 1971.
Grady, Mark and Mike McEachern, “The New Melones Cave Evaluation
Study: An Example of Management
Implementation.” In National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Big
Sky, Montana, October 2-7, 1977. Albuquerque:
Adobe Press. 1978.
Hamilton‑Smith, Elery. “Cave and Karst Management Down Under.” In 1987 Cave Management Symposium: Rapid City,
South Dakota, October 1987. Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society, 1989.
Hamilton‑Smith, Elery. “Evaluation of Caves and Karst:
The National Estate Assessment Study.” In Cave Management in Australia: Proceedings of the
Second Australian Conference on Cave
Tourism and Management, Hobart, May 1977. Victoria: Australian
Speleological Federation. 1977. pp 87‑96.
Miller, Lorenzo. “The Underground Conflict: Should Caves Be Designated
as Wilderness?” BYU Journal of Public Law, Vol. 4, No.
1, 1990, pp 133‑156.
Nieland, James. “Evaluation of Surface and Cave Resources,”
In Far West Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Redding, California 1979. Oregon City: Pygmy Dwarf Press. 1980.
Poulson, T. L. and W. B. White. “The Cave Environment,” Science, Vol. 165, pp. 171‑181, 1969.
Powell, Richard L. A
Guide to the Selection of Limestone Caverns and Springs in the United States as
Natural Landmarks, Indiana Geological Survey, 1970 (restricted
distribution). p. 101.
Stitt, Robert R. and W. P. Bishop. “Underground Wilderness
in the Guadalupe Escarpment: A Concept Applied.” Bulletin of the National Speleological
Society, Vol. 34, No. 3, July 1972.
State Lands Commission, State of California. Guidelines
for Identifying Lands Having Unique Environmental
Values. Sacramento. 1973.
Trout, Jerry. “A Cave Classification System.” National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Mountain View, Arkansas,
October 26-29, 1976. Albuquerque: Speleobooks, 1977. pp 19‑23.
Weisbrod, Richard. “Values, Decision Making and Cave Management.” National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Albuquerque, NM October 6-10, 1975. Albuquerque: Speleobooks, 1976.
Note: The index has not yet been prepared. A list of terms to be indexed is being developed and will be used to generate the final index. The terms included here were left over from a previous version of Word.
and w
—N—
National WildernessXE “wilderness” Preservation System, 20, 28
National Wildlife Refuge System, 29
—W—
wilderness, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 167
Wilderness Act, 20, 28
Wilderness Act of 1964, 21
Wilderness, Underground, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 110
References Cited
Statutes
16 U.S.C. § 404 (1988) (Mammoth Cave)................................................................................................................... 195
16 U.S.C. § 431 (1988) (Carlsbad Caverns)................................................................................................................ 195
56 Stat. 317, 16 U.S.C. sec. 404c-1............................................................................................................................... 175
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA (P.L. 96‑487),..................................................... 39
Carroll’s Kentucky Statutes, sec. 3766e-17, Acts of 1930, ch. 132, p. 405............................................................ 175
Colorado Wilderness Act (P.L. 96‑560),...................................................................................................................... 40
Eastern Wilderness Act (P.L. 93‑622)......................................................................................................................... 37
Eastern Wilderness Act. Public Law 93-622. Act of Jan. 3, 1975. 88 Stat. 2096. 16 U.S.C. 1131 (note).... 14, 118
Endangered American Wilderness Act (P.L. 95‑237)............................................................................................... 38
Endangered Species Act of 1973................................................................................................................................ 342
Federal Cave Resources Management Act of 1987. (In deliberation), H.R. 1975, S. 927..................................... 14
Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, 16 U.S.C. §§ 4301‑4309 (1988)................................................ 195
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, or FLPMA (P.L. 94‑579),............................................. 38, 118
Freedom of Information Act. Public Law 93-502. Act of Nov. 21, 1974. 88 Stat. 1561. 5 U.S.C. 552............. 118
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.............................................................................................................. 337
National Park Service Organic Act. Public Law 64-235. Act of Aug. 25, 1916. c. 408, 39 Stat. 535. 16 U.S.C. 1. 119
National Scenic Trails Enabling Legislation, Public Law 90-543............................................................................. 31
Proclamation No. 1618, 42 Stat. 2260 (1922) (Lehman Cave).................................................................................. 195
Proclamation No. 1640, 42 Stat. 2285 (1922) (Timpanogas Cave).......................................................................... 195
Proclamation No. 3413, 75 Stat. 1058 (1961) (Russell Cave)................................................................................... 195
Proclamation No. 799, 35 Stat. 2180 (1908) (Jewel Cave)......................................................................................... 195
Public Law 88-577, the Wilderness Act....................................................................................................................... 43
Public Law 93‑622........................................................................................................................................................... 53
Wild and Scenic Rivers System Enabling Legislation (P. L. 90‑542)....................................................................... 28
Wilderness Act (P.L. 88‑577) of 1964.......................................................................................................................... 37
Wilderness Act. Public Law 88-577. Act of Sept. 3, 1964. 78 Stat. 890. 16 U.S.C. 1131 (note)...................... 120
Wilderness Act. Public Law 88-577. Act of Sept. 3, 1964. 78 Stat. 890. 16 U.S.C. 1131 (note)........................... 16
Other
Authorities
31 A.L.R. 1533................................................................................................................................................................ 175
62 Am. Jur. 2nd 301....................................................................................................................................................... 175
S. REP. No. 559, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 5, reprinted in 1988 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5938.............. 192
The Segregative Effect Upon a Federal Oil and Gas Lease of a Partial Unitization Embracing Less than All Formations, Horizons, or Strata, or Limited to a Particular Depth, Interval, or Zone within the Exterior Boundaries of the Lease, Interior Department Legal Opinion M-36776 (May 7, 1969)............................................................................................................................ 174
Books
C. Allin, The Politics Of Wilderness Preservation (1982)....................................................................................... 193
Culver, David C. Cave life: evolution and ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 1982. 189 pp. 14, 117
D Dustin, L Mcavory & J. Schultz, Stewards Of Access Custodians Of Choice: A Philosophical Foundation For The Park And Recreation Professional (1982);................................................................................................................................................. 193
D. Jackson, Planet Earth, Underground Worlds 38 (1982);.................................................................................... 192
Davies & Morgan, Geology of Caves, U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (GPO 1986)............................................. 192
E. Evans, A Pedestrious Tour Of Four Thousand Miles Through The Western States and Territories 335 (1819). 197
Edington, I. M. and M. A. Edington. Ecology and Environmental Planning (Chapman and Hall. London. 1979) 287
Graber, Linda N. Wilderness as sacred place. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers; 1976. 124 pp. 118
Halliday, W., American Caves And Caving 250 (1974)........................................................................................... 201
Hendee, John C.; Stankey, George H.; Lucas, Robert C. Wilderness management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1978; 381 p............................................................................ 15
Hill, Carol A.; Forti, Paolo. Cave minerals of the world. Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society; 1986. 238 p. 15
J. Middleton & T. Waltham, The Underground Atlas: A Gazetteer OF THE World’s Underground Cave Regions 232‑33 (1986). 193
J. Sax, Mountains Without Handrails (1980);........................................................................................................... 193
Mitchell, R. G., Jr. 1983. Mountain experience. Univ. of Chicago Press. 272 p............................................... 102
Mohr, Charles E. The life of the cave. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 1966, 232 pp.......................................... 119
Nash , Roderick, “The American Environment” (1976)............................................................................................. 10
Nash, R. 1973. Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. 300 p........................... 102
R. Nash, Wilderness And The American Mind (3d Ed. 1982)............................................................................... 193
W White, Geomorphology And Hydrology Of Karst Terrains 220‑63 (1988)........................ 191
Watson, Patty Jo, editor. Archeology of the Mammoth Cave area. New York: Academic Press; 1974. 225 p. 16, 120
Watson, R. A. and P. J. Watson, Man and Nature (Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1969) 172 pp.......... 95
Wilderness Management (First Edition).U. S. Department of Agriculture U. S. Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365, October 1978, PP 9‑14............................................................................................................................................................... 20
Articles
Anon., “Session II: Cave Inventory, Valuation and Assessment,” National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Mountain View, Arkansas, October 26 29, 1976. Albuquerque: Speleobooks, 1977. pp. 15‑27................................................ 374
Bessone, Welcome to the Cave of Contention, Outside, Jan. 1990, at 15, 16...................................................... 192
Bolton, David W. Underground Frontiers. Earth Science. 40(2): 16-18; 1987........................................................ 14
C. D. Ollier. “Scientific research and cave tourism’’ Proceedings Australian Conf. on Cave Tourism 1, 53‑66 ( 1976) 287
C. Mohr and H. N. Sloane. Celebrated American Caves Rutgers Univ. Press. New Brunswick. 1955)...... 287
Conservation Foundation, The. Loving wilderness to death. In: Nash, Roderick, ed. The American environment. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley: 1976: 265-276.............................................................................................................................. 14
de Saussure, R., Cave Resources. Wilderness and Recreation: A Report on Resources, Values, and Problems, ORRRC Report Nr. 3. Washington. (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1962. Appendix S) pp. 322-324.......... 95
Estes, E. K and Alexander, E. C., (in press), Karst hydrogeologic research at Mammoth Cave National Park, Submitted to Science in the National Parks............................................................................................................................................................ 84
F. M. Niven. “A note on the protection of caves” (Unpublished Report to the Transvaal Provincial Administration) 287
Gamble, F. “Atmospheric considerations in the management of cave systems” Paper presented at South African Geographical Society Conference. Cape Town (June 1979)................................................................................................................... 287
Gamble, F.M. Disturbance of underground wilderness in karst caves. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 18(1): 33-39; 1981. 14
Ganter, J. H. 1989a. Will we map as we survey? National Speleological Society News 47(6): 143-44............ 102
Ganter, J. H. 1989b. Cave exploration, cave conservation: Some thoughts on compatibility. National Speleological Society News 47(10):249-53................................................................................................................................................................................ 102
Glover, Jim. Journey to the underworld. National Parks 59(5 & 6): 22-27; 1985............................................... 118
Glover, Jim. Journey to the underworld. National Parks. 59(5&6): 22-27; 1985............................................. 14, 108
Grady, Mark and Mike McEachern, “The New Melones Cave Evaluation Study: An Example of Management Implementation,” in National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Big Sky, Montana, October 27, 1977. Albuquerque: Adobe Press. 1978. 374
Hallberg, George R.; Libra, Robert D.; Hoyer, Bernard. Nonpoint source contamination of ground water in karst-carbonate aquifers in Iowa. Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution Proceedings. EPA 440/5-8- 001. Kansas City, MO: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards; 1985; 109-114................................................................................................ 15
Halliday, W. R, “The largest cave? The story of Flint Ridge” in Depths of the Earth (Harper & Row, New York, 1966) pp. 333-347. 95
Hamilton‑Smith, Elery. “Cave and Karst Management Down Under.” 1987 Cave Management Symposium: Rapid City, South Dakota, October 1987. Huntsville, National Speleological Society, 1989.................................................................... 375
Hummel, J. B., 1982, Is the underground wilderness concept practical?, 1980 National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings, Mammoth Cave National Park, KY, Pygmy Dwarf Press, Oregon City, OR, pp. 199‑200.......................................... 84, 118
Huppert, G. N. and Wheeler, B. J., 1986, Underground wilderness: can the concept work?, Proceedings‑National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, General Technical Report INT‑212, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, U. S Department of Agriculture, 516‑522.................................................................................................................................................. 84
Huppert, G. N., 1986, Potential sites for underground wilderness in the United States, Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Speleology, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 236‑238...................................................................................................... 15, 84
Huppert, George N.; Wheeler, Betty J. Underground wilderness; can the concept work? Proceedings—national wilderness research conference: current research. General Technical Report INT- 212, USDA, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT; 1986, 516-522....................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
J. Wilson. “Caves: changing ecosystems” Studies in Speleology 3, 35‑37 (1977)............................................ 287
Kerbo, R. and Roth, J., 1989, Lechuguilla Cave: on the edge of wilderness, 1987 National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings, Rapid City, SD, National Speleological Society, Huntsville, AL, pp. 56‑62................................................................. 84
Kiernan, Kevin. Wilderness karst in Tasmanian resource politics. Proceedings of the 14th biennial conference, Australian Speleological Federation; 1984: 25-40............................................................................................................................................. 15
Krumpe, Edwin E.; McLaughlin, William J. Research needs for wilderness management—an update from the National Wilderness Management Workshop. Proceedings—national wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions. General Technical Report INT-220, USDA, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT; 1987, 59-62..................... 15
McCool, Stephen F. Does wilderness designation tend to increase recreational use? Journal of Forestry. 83(1): 39-41; 1985. 119
Merriman, 1988.............................................................................................................................................................. 108
Miller, Lorenzo, “The Underground Conflict: Should Caves Be Designated as Wilderness?” BYU Journal of Public Law, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp 133‑156................................................................................................................................................................. 375
Mohr, C. E. and T. L. Poulson, The Life of the Cave (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966........................................... 95
National Parks Association, A wilderness plan for Mammoth Cave National Park. National Parks Magazine 42, No. 244, 14-16 (January 1968)....................................................................................................................................................................................... 95
Nieland, James. “Evaluation of Surface and Cave Resources,” Far West Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Redding, California 1979. Oregon City: Pygmy Dwarf Press. 1980..................................................................................................... 375
Poulson, T. L. and W. B. White, “The Cave Environment,” Science, Vol. 165, pp. 971‑981, 1969. 15, 95, 119, 375
Powell, Richard L., A Guide to the Selection of Limestone Caverns and Springs in the United States as Natural Landmarks, Indiana Geological Survey, 1970 (restricted distribution). p. 101................................................................................... 375
Rhinehart, R., 1989, The paper dragon: commercialization and Lechuguilla Cave. Rocky Mountain Caving, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 11‑13. 84
Roberts, Caving Comes into Its Golden Age, Smithsonian, Nov. 1988, at 52‑64............................................... 193
Rolston, Holmes, III. Valuing wildlands. Environmental Ethics. 7(1): 23-48; 1985.......................................... 119
Rolston, Holmes, III. Valuing wildlands. Environmental ethics. 7(1): 23-48; 1985....................................... 15, 84
S. E. Foresell. “The concept of carrying capacity and how it relates to caves” National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings 1976 (Speleobooks. Albuquerque. 1977).................................................................................................................... 287
Schmidt, V. A., A Wilderness Proposal for Mammoth Cave National Park. National Speleological Society, NSS News, 25, No. 3, 55-58 (1967)...................................................................................................................................................................................... 95
Smith, P. M., “Some problems and opportunities at Mammoth Cave National Park” National Parks Magazine 41, No. 233, 14-19 (February 1967)............................................................................................................................................................................ 95
Smith, Philip M., Watson, Richard A. New wilderness boundaries. Environmental Ethics. 1(1); 61-64; 1979. 16, 119
Stankey, George H. Scientific issues in the definition of wilderness. Proceedings—national wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions. General Technical Report INT-220, USDA, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT; 1987, 47-53. 16
Stitt, Robert R. and William P. Bishop. “Underground Wilderness in the Guadalupe Escarpment: A Concept Applied.” Bulletin of the National Speleological Society, 34(3):77-88, 1972................................................................................ 16, 184, 375
Stitt, Robert R.; Bishop, William P. Underground wilderness in the Guadalupe Escarpment: a concept applied. Bulletin of the National Speleological Society. 34(3): 77-88; 1972........................................................................................................... 120
Stone, B. 1983. A philosophy for the vertical caver. The Texas Caver (Texas Speleological Association) 28(1):3-8. 102
Stone, B. 1989. Wakulla Springs Project: High tech deep cave diving. National Speleological Society News 47(8): 191-96. 102
Straus, Lawrence. Caves: a paleoanthropological resource. World Archaeology. 10(3): 331-339; 1979..... 120
T. Shaw, History Of Cave Science (1979).................................................................................................................. 194
The Conservation Foundation. Loving wilderness to death. In: Nash, Roderick, ed. The American environment. 2nd. ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1976: 265-276.......................................................................................................................... 117
Trout, Jerry. “A Cave Classification System.” National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings, 1977. pp 19‑23. 375
Watson, Richard A.; Smith, Philip M. Underground wilderness: a point of view. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 2:217-220; 1971...................................................................................................................................................................... 16, 120
Weisbrod, Richard. “Values, Decision Making and Cave Management. National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Albuquerque, NM October 6-10, 1975. Albuquerque: Speleobooks, 1976............................................................................... 375
White, W. B., R. A. Watson, E. R. Pohl and R. W. Brucker, “The central Kentucky karst” Geographical Review 60. No. 1. 88-115 (1970). 95
White, William B. Caves: Underground laboratories and underground wilderness. Earth and Mineral Sciences. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania state University, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; 46(2): 9-12; 1976........................... 16
Wilm 1974......................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Shorter
Works
Davidson, Joseph K. Statement of Dr. Joseph K. Davidson, President of the Cave Research Foundation, at the meeting with the Mammoth Cave National Park Master Planning Team, Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky, May 25, 1968. Washington, DC: Cave Research Foundation; 1971, 34 p........................................................................................................................................... 118
Davidson, Joseph K. and William P. Bishop. Wilderness Resources in Mammoth Cave National Park: A Regional Approach. Columbus, Ohio: Cave Research Foundation, 1971...................................................................................................... 184, 374
de Saussure, Raymond. Cave resources. In: Wilderness and recreation: a report on resources, values, and problems. ORRRC Report No. 3. Appendix B. Washington, D.C. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission; 1962; 322-324..... 118
Fieseler, R. G., J. Jasek, and M. Jasek 1978. An introduction to the caves of Texas. Austin: Texas Speleological Survey. 115 p. 102
H.R. Rep. No. 1538 on the Wilderness Act, 2 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News at, pp. 3616-17 (1964)............ 178
Halliday, William R. Underground wilderness potentials of Mammoth Cave, KY. Miscellaneous Services Bulletin No. 15. Seattle, WA: Western Speleological Survey; 1971. 7 pp......................................................................................................... 118
Hart, William J.; Boardman, Walter S. A wilderness plan for Mammoth Cave National park and the surrounding region. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association: 1976; 16 pp............................................................................ 118
Hendee, John C., Stankey, George H., Lucas, Robert C. Wilderness Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1978; 381 pp......................................................................... 118
Hendee, John C.; Catton, William R., Jr.; Marlow, Larry D.; Brockman, Frank. Wilderness users in the Pacific Northwest—their characteristics, values, and management preferences. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1968, 92 p......................................................................................... 15, 118
Hill, Carol. Cave minerals. Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society; 1976. 137 pp............................. 118
House Report 95-540...................................................................................................................................................... 60
McCloskey (1966)..................................................................................................................................................... 21, 49
National Park Service, Mammoth Cave National Park. Draft environmental impact statement for the master plan and wilderness study for Mammoth Cave National Park. Mammoth Cave, KY: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service; 1974, 194 pp. 119
National Speleological Society. A Wilderness Proposal for Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky. Vienna, Va.: National Speleological Society, 1967............................................................................................................................................................ 184
National Speleological Society. Guadalupe Escarpment Wilderness. Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society; 1970. 119
Schmidt, Victor A. A wilderness proposal for Mammoth Cave National park, Kentucky. Arlington, VA: National Speleological Society; 1967; 20 pp................................................................................................................................................................ 119
Senate Report 93-803...................................................................................................................................................... 59
Sides, Stanley D. Statement of Dr. Stanley D. Sides, President Cave Research Foundation for the public hearing regarding the wilderness proposal, Mammoth Cave National Park, Bowling Green, Kentucky, May 29, 1974. Lexington, KY: Cave Research Foundation: 1974. 15 pp............................................................................................................................................................................... 119
Smith, P. M., “The Flint Ridge cave system: A wilderness opportunity” (The Cave Research Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1961) 15 pp....................................................................................................................................................................................... 95
Smith, Philip M. The Flint Ridge Cave System: a wilderness opportunity. Washington, D.C.: Cave Research Foundation; 1961. 15 p. 15
St. Ores, Jeffrey; Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr.; Halsey, Clifton F. Groundwater pollution prevention in Southeast Minnesota’s karst region. Extension bulletin 465-1982. Minneapolis, MN: Agricultural Extension Service, University of Minnesota; 1982; 19 p. 15
State Lands Commission, State of California. Guidelines for Identifying Lands having Unique Environmental Values. Sacramento. 1973..................................................................................................................................................................................... 375
Stevens, Paul J. Testimony of the National Speleological Society, Inc. at a hearing conducted by the National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. U.S. House of Representatives, concerning: H.R. 1975, The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act. July 23, 1987................................................................................................................ 16
Stitt, Robert R. Law and sound policy require the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior to review the underground portions of Mammoth Cave National Park as to their suitability for wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964. Legal brief. Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society; 1974 June 25. 26 pp........................................................................................ 120
Study Report No. 3 of the ORRRC, entitled Wilderness And Recreation—A Report on Resources, Values, and Problems 176
The Federal Cave Resource Protection Act S. 927 and H. R. 1975: A Statement Prepared by the National Speleological Society, Inc., 1 (Apr. 1987) (unpublished manuscript, available from the National Speleology Society)....................................... 192
Thornton, Gerald T. A position statement and background information pertinent to the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act: H.R. 1975. Testimony presented before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of the U.S. House of Representatives. July 23, 1987....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
U.S. Forest Service, Daniel Boone National Forest. Draft Environmental Statement. Winchester KY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1984. (non consecutively paged)......................................................................................................... 120
Watson, Patty Jo. The Prehistory of Salts Cave, Kentucky. Report of Investigations No. 16. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Museum; 1969; 86 pp......................................................................................................................................................................... 16, 120
Watson, R. A. and P. M. Smith, The Mammoth Cave National Park Research Center (The Cave Research Foundation, Yellow Springs, Ohio, 1963). 50 pp................................................................................................................................................................ 95
Watson, Richard A. Statement on the proposed master plan for Mammoth Cave National park, Kentucky, presented by Dr. Richard A. Watson, 28 May 1974. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association; 1974. 3 pp... 120
Watson, Richard A. The preservation of wilderness karst in central Kentucky, U.S.A. Washington, D.C.: Cave Research Foundation; 1967; 12 pp.............................................................................................................................................................. 16, 95, 120
Weisbrod, Richard. Underground wilderness. Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society; 1974. (unpaged) 120
White, William B. Caves: Underground laboratories and underground wilderness. Earth and Mineral Sciences; University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, college of Earth and Mineral Sciences; 46(2): 9-12; 1976.......................... 120
Personal
Interviews
Aley, Tom. Director, Ozark Underground Laboratory. (Personal Interview). February 16, 1985................... 117
Hummel, J. B. Bureau of Land Management. (Personal Interview). February 16, 1985................................... 118
Kerbo, Ron. National park Service. (Personal Interview). February 16, 1985................................................... 119
Nieland, James. U.S. Forest Service. (Personal Interview). February 16, 1985................................................. 119
Telephone interview with Janet Thorn, chair‑person of the Cave Conservation Committee of the NSS (Feb 9, 1989) 193
Telephone interview with Ron Kerbo, Cave Specialist, Carlsbad Caverns National Park (Mar. 7, 1989)........ 193
Telephone interview with Sarah Bishop, member of both NSS and CRF, CRF Director and Chair‑person of the Cave Wilderness Subcommittee of the NSS (Feb. 3, 1989).............................................................................................................. 193
Thornton, Jerry. Executive Director, American Cave Conservation Association. (Personal Interview). February 16, 1985. 120
Whitfield, Phil. British Columbia Provincial parks. (Personal interview). February 16, 1985.......................... 120
Dissertations
Huppert, George N. Cave Conservation in the United States: a historical perspective and analysis. Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado; 1979. 179 pp. D.A. Dissertation........................................................................................................ 119
Huppert, George N. Cave conservation in the United States: a historical perspective and analysis. Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado; 1979. 179 p. D.A. dissertation............................................................................................................... 15
Zuber, Ronald E. A compendium of components relevant to cave resource management. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin; 1977. 154 pp. M.S. Thesis....................................................................................................................................................... 121
Zuber, Ronald E. A compendium of components relevant to cave resource management. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin; 1977. 154 p. M.S. thesis............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Personal
Communications
Office of the Secretary of the Interior. [Letter to the President]. 1974 August 23. 1 leaf................................ 119
Office of the Secretary of the Interior. [Letter to Robert Stitt]. 1975 May 12. 3 leaves.................................... 119
Ranger's Talk, Interpretive Program, New Cave, Carlsbad National Park, Carlsbad, N.M. (Dec. 29, 1988)..... 191
Cave
Wilderness Sourcebook
Prepared by the Wilderness Subcommittee of the Conservation Committee of the National Speleological Society
William R. Halliday, M.D.
Subcommittee Chairman and Editor
Robert R. Stitt, Production Editor
National Speleological Society
2318 Cave Avenue
Huntsville, Alabama 35810-4431
USA
Cave Wilderness Sourcebook
Published
by
National Speleological Society
2318 Cave Avenue
Huntsville, AL 35810-4431
USA
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. [to be determined]
ISBN # [to be determined]
Printed in the United States of America
© 1994, 1996 National Speleological Society
All rights reserved. No part of this work which is not in the public domain may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any data storage or retrieval system without the express written permission of the National Speleological Society, Inc. Individual papers are the property of the authors or publishers.
This book was conceived of by Bill Halliday, who obtained most of the source materials and assembled them into a very rough draft manuscript, intending to simply Xerox it for the use of the NSS Wilderness Subcommittee. Rob Stitt (fool that I be) volunteered to scan the material and assemble it into a typeset manuscript. Because of the poor quality of some of the multi-generation Xeroxes, this has been an ordeal. Bill Halliday, George Huppert, Ed Lisowski, and Mel Park reviewed the manuscript in detail at various phases of the process. Al Krause, NSS Conservation Chairman, was invaluable in obtaining support from the NSS for publication.
Foreword......................................................................................................................................................
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................
The Case for Underground Wilderness..................................................................................................
PART I. WILDERNESS AS
A RESOURCE AND GOVERNMENTALLY DEFINED WILDERNESS............
What Is Wilderness?.................................................................................................................................
Wilderness as a Form of Land Use..........................................................................................................
Cultural Relativity and the Wilderness Concept...................................................................................
The National Wilderness Preservation System And Related Areas..................................................
Milestones in Wilderness Legislation.....................................................................................................
Enactment Of The Wilderness Act..........................................................................................................
Analysis Of The Wilderness Act And The Eastern Wilderness Act................................................
PART II: CREATION OF
CLASSIFIED WILDERNESS AREAS........................................................................
Standards for Admission of New Wilderness Areas............................................................................
Wilderness Attributes and Their Components......................................................................................
A Flawed Methodology:
The Rare Process..........................................................................................
Classification Of Department Of The Interior Roadless Lands...........................................................
Early National Park Wilderness Planning...............................................................................................
BLM Criteria For Wilderness....................................................................................................................
PART III CAVE
WILDERNESS RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................
Underground Wilderness:
The Time Is Right.......................................................................................
Recognition And Designation Of Caves As Underground Wilderness............................................
Underground Wilderness and the NSS...................................................................................................
Underground Wilderness
A Point Of View..........................................................................................
Taking Wilderness Underground............................................................................................................
Caves As Unknown Wilderness..............................................................................................................
New Wilderness Boundaries....................................................................................................................
Cave Wilderness: Why Don’t We Have One?......................................................................................
Underground Wilderness: Can The Concept Work?............................................................................
Potential Sites For Underground Wilderness In The United
States...................................................
Cave Wilderness Designation in America: A New Action Proposal.................................................
PART IV WILDERNESS IN
MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK.............................................................
Wilderness In The Eastern United States...............................................................................................
A Wilderness Proposal For Mammoth Cave National Park.................................................................
NSS Participates In Planning Symposium At Mammoth Cave............................................................
The Preservation Of Wilderness Karst In Central Kentucky, U.
S. A................................................
1967 Postponement Of Wilderness Study Of Mammoth Cave National
Park...................................
Underground Wilderness Potentials Of Mammoth Cave, Ky.............................................................
Mammoth Cave: A Model Plan................................................................................................................
PART V CAVE WILDERNESS
IN CARLSBAD CAVERNS NATIONAL PARK............................................
Cave Wilderness At Carlsbad Caverns National Park..........................................................................
Lechuguilla Cave As Cave Wilderness...................................................................................................
PART VI. THE STITT
LEGAL BRIEF.....................................................................................................................
Legal Brief: Law And
Sound Policy Require The National Park Service And The Secretary Of The
Interior To Review The Underground Portions Of Mammoth Cave National Park As To
Their Suitability For Wilderness Under The Wilderness Act Of 1964..................................................................................................................................................
PART VII THE DEVIL’S
ADVOCATE AND A RESPONSE...............................................................................
The Underground Conflict:
Should Caves Be Designated as Wilderness?.....................................
A Perplexing View of Cave Wilderness: A REVIEW.............................................................................
The Underground Conflict:
A Response...............................................................................................
PART VIII SOME
CONCEPTS OF WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT................................................................
Wilderness Cave Management................................................................................................................
Philosophies Of Wilderness Management.............................................................................................
Wilderness Management..........................................................................................................................
Restraint in Regulating Wilderness Use.................................................................................................
Some Specific Principles Of Wilderness Management.........................................................................
Visitor Management in Wilderness.........................................................................................................
Ecological Knowledge in Interpreting and Managing Wilderness.....................................................
Wilderness Carrying Capacity..................................................................................................................
Disturbance: Of Underground Wilderness In Karst Caves.................................................................
Bighorn Caverns Wilderness Management Issues...............................................................................
PART IX TEXTS OF
PERTINENT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES................................................
The Wilderness Act...................................................................................................................................
Eastern Wilderness Act.............................................................................................................................
Federal Cave Resources Protection Act.................................................................................................
Archaeological Resources Protection Act.............................................................................................
National Parks Act of 1916........................................................................................................................
Selections from National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978................................................................
Department Of The Interior Departmental Manual
Organization: Part 145 National Park
Service
National Environmental Policy Act..........................................................................................................
Selected Portions of Endangered Species Act.......................................................................................
PART X ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES AND REFERENCES......................................................
The Wilderness Society............................................................................................................................
Partial List of Conservation Articles in the NSS News on
Wilderness and Underground Wilderness Prior to May 1991
First Page from Underground Wilderness in the Guadalupe
Escarpment.........................................
Title Page from 103 Wilderness Laws......................................................................................................
Title page and wilderness references from Current Publications
of the Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station.......................................................................................................................................................................
Title Page from Wilderness Resources in Mammoth Cave National
Park.........................................
Wilderness Karst in Tasmanian Resource Politics................................................................................
Title page from Wilderness Management...............................................................................................
Title page from Wilderness Management, Second Edition..................................................................
Cave Wilderness in Inventories of Cave Resources and Values........................................................
NSS Policy For Cave Conservation.........................................................................................................
NSS Policy on Cave Wilderness..............................................................................................................
Underground Wilderness..........................................................................................................................
ORRRC Report Appendix on Cave Resources.......................................................................................
The Significance Of A Cave......................................................................................................................
Index.............................................................................................................................................................................
References Cited.........................................................................................................................................
42 U.S.C. §§4321‑4370a
§4321. [NEPA §2]
The purposes of this chapter are: To declare a national policy which will encourage
productive and
enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or
eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to
enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the
Nation; and to establish a
Council on Environmental Quality.
(Pub.L. 91‑190, §2, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852.)
Section 1 Pub. L. 91‑190 provided: “That this Act [enacting this
chapter] may be cited as the ‘National Environmental Policy Act of 1969’.”
§4331. [NEPA §101].
Congressional declaration of national environmental policy
(a) The Congress,
recognizing the profound
impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural
environment, particularly
the profound influences of population growth, high‑density urbanization,
industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances
and recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and maintaining
environmental quality to
the overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of
the Federal
Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private
organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical
assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare,
to create and
maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill
the social, economic, and
other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.
(b) In order to carry
out the policy set forth
in this chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal
Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of
national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and
resources to the end that the Nation may—
(1) fulfill the
responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations;
(2) assure for all
Americans safe, healthful,
productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
(3) attain the widest
range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety,
or other undesirable and
unintended consequences;
(4) preserve important
historic, cultural, and
natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment
which supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
(5) achieve a balance
between population and
resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and
(6) enhance the
quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling
of depletable resources.
(c) The Congress
recognizes that each Person should enjoy a healthful environment and that each person has a
responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.
(Pub.L. 91‑190, tit. 1, §101, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat.
852.)
§4332.
[NEPA §102]
Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of
Information; recommendations; international and national coordination of efforts
The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent
possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted
and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter, and (2) all agencies
of the Federal Government
shall—
(A) utilize a
systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and
social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which
may have an impact on man’s
environment;
(B) identify and
develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality
established by subchapter II of this chapter, which will insure that presently
unquantified environmental
amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision
making along with
economic and technical considerations;
(C) include in every
recommendation or report
on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on—
(i) the environmental
impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse
environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented,
(iii) alternatives to
the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship
between local short term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long‑term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible
and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the
proposed action should it be implemented.
Prior to making any detailed
statement, the responsible
Federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law
or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved.
Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental
standards, shall be made available to the President, the Council on
Environmental Quality and to the public as provided by section 552 of title 5, and shall
accompany the
proposal through the existing agency review processes;
(D) Any detailed
statement required under
subparagraph (c) after January 1, 1970, for any major Federal action funded under a program
of grants to States shall not be deemed to be legally insufficient solely by reason of having been prepared
by a State agency or official, if:
(i) the State agency
or official has statewide
jurisdiction and has the responsibility for such action,
(ii) the responsible
Federal official furnishes guidance and participates in such preparation,
(iii) the responsible
Federal official independently evaluates such statement prior to its approval and
adoption, and
(iv) after January 1,
1976, the responsible Federal
official provides early notification to, and solicits the views of, any other State or any Federal land
management entity of any
action or any alternative thereto which may have significant impacts upon such State or affected Federal land
management entity
and, if there is any disagreement on such impacts, prepares a written assessment of such impacts and
views for incorporation
into such detailed statement.
The procedures in this
subparagraph shall not
relieve the Federal official of his responsibilities for the scope,
objectivity, and content of the entire statement or of any other responsibility under
this chapter; and further, this subparagraph does not affect the legal sufficiency of
statements prepared by State
agencies with less than statewide jurisdiction. [1]
(E) study, develop,
and describe appropriate
alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved
conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources;
(F) recognize the
worldwide and long‑range character of environmental problems and, where consistent with the foreign
policy of the
United States, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize
international cooperation
in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankind’s world environment;
(G) make available to
States, counties, municipalities, institutions, and individuals, advice and
information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment
(H) initiate and
utilize ecological information in the planning and development of resource‑oriented
projects; and
(I) assist the
Council on Environmental
Quality established by subchapter II of this chapter.
(Pub.L. 91-190, tit. I, §102,
Jan. l, 1970, 83 Stat. 853; Pub.L. 94‑83, Aug. 9, 1975, 89 Stat. 424.)
§4333. [NEPA §103]
Conformity of administrative procedures to national environmental policy
All agencies of the Federal Government shall review their present statutory authority, administrative regulations, and current policies and procedures for the purpose of determining whether there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit full compliance with the purposes and provisions of this chapter and shall propose to the President not later than July 1, 1971, such measures as may be necessary to bring their authority and policies into conformity with the intent, purposes, and procedures set forth in this chapter.
(Pub.L. 91‑190, tit.I, §103, Jan. 1, l970, 83 Stat. 854.)
4334. [NEPA §104]
Other statutory obligations of agencies
Nothing in section 4332 or 4333 of this title shall
in any way affect the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency (1) to
comply with
criteria or standards of environmental quality, (2) to coordinate or consult with any other Federal or
State agency, or (3) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations or
certification of any other Federal or State agency.
(Pub.L. 91‑190, tit.I, § 104 Jan. 1,1970, 83Stat.854.)
4335. [NEPA §105]
Efforts supplemental to existing authorizations
The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are
supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of Federal
agencies.
(Pub.L. 91-190, tit. I, §105,
Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 854)
Be it enacted by the
Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled; that this Act may be cited as the
“Endangered Species Act of 1973”.
Sec. 2. Findings, purposes, and policy.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Determination of endangered
species and threatened species
Sec. 5. Land acquisition.
Sec. 6. Cooperation with the States.
Sec. 7. Interagency cooperation.
Sec. 8. International cooperation.
Sec. 8A. Convention implementation:
Sec. 9. Prohibited acts. Sec. 10. Exceptions.
Sec. 11. Penalties and enforcement.
Sec. 12. Endangered plants.
Sec. 13. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 14. Repealer.
Sec. 15. Authorization of
appropriations.
Sec. 16. Effective date.
Sec. 17. Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972.
Sec. l8. Annual cost analysis by the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Sec. 2. (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds and declares that—
(l) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the
United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth
and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation;
(2) other species of
fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened
with extinction;
(3) these species of
fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational,
historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people;
(4) The United States
has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to
conserve to the extent
practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to—
(A) migratory
bird treaties with Canada and Mexico;
(B) the
Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan;
(C) the
Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere;
(D) the
International Convention for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries;
(E) the
International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean;
(F) the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora; and
(G) other
international agreements; and
[2(4)(G) amended by PL 100‑478]
(5) encouraging the
States and other interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives,
to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international
standards is a key to
meeting the Nation’s international commitments and to better safeguarding, for the benefit of
all citizens, the Nation’s
heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants.
[(5) amended by PL 96‑159]
(b) PURPOSES.—The
purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered
species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program
for the conservation of
such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as
may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set
forth in subsection (a) of this section.
(c) POLICY.—( l) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.
[(c)(l) designated by PL 97‑304]
(2) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that Federal agencies
shall cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation of
endangered species.
[(c)(2) added by PL 97‑304]
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act—
(l) The term “alternative courses of action” means all
alternatives and thus is not limited to original project objectives and agency
jurisdiction.
[3(1) added by PL 95‑632]
(2) The term
“commercial activity” means all activities of industry and trade, including,
but not limited to,
the buying or selling of commodities and activities conducted for the purpose of facilitating
such buying and selling:
Provided, however, That it does not
include exhibitions of commodities by museums or similar cultural or historical
organizations.
(3) The terms
“conserve”, “conserving”, and “conservation” mean to use and the use of all
methods and procedures
which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point
at which the measures
provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures
include, but are not
limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research,
census, law enforcement, habitat‑acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given
ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
(4) The term “Convention” means the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, signed on March 3, 1973, and the appendices thereto.
(5)(A) the term “critical habitat” for a threatened or endangered species
means—
(i) the spatial areas
within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed
in accordance with
the provisions of section 4 of this Act, on which are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protection; and
(ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed
in accordance with
the provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon a determination by the Secretary
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
(B) Critical habitat
may be established for these species now listed as threatened or endangered species for which no critical habitat
has heretofore been established as set forth in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.
(C) Except in those
circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire geographical area
which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species.
[3(5) added by PL 95‑632]
(6) The term “endangered
species” means any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to
constitute a
pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and
overriding risk to man.
(7) The term “Federal
agency” means any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
[3(7) added by PL 95‑632]
(8) The term “fish or
wildlife” means any member of the animal kingdom, including without limitation any mammal, fish, bird
(including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which
protection is also
afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk,
crustacean, arthropod or
other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof,
or the dead body or parts thereof.
(9) The term “foreign
commerce” includes, among
other things, any transaction—
(A) between persons
within one foreign country;
(B) between persons in
two or more foreign countries;
(C) between a person
within the United States and a person in a foreign country; or
(D) between persons
within the United States, where the fish and wildlife in question are moving in any country or
countries outside the United States.
(l0) The term “import” means to land on, bring into, or introduce into, or
attempt to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place subject to the
jurisdiction of the United
States, whether or not such landing, bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation
within the meaning of the customs laws of the United States.
“The more civilized man becomes, the more he needs and craves a great background of forest wildness, to which he may return like a contrite prodigal from the husks of an artificial life.”
ELLEN BURNS SHERMAN
The Wilderness Society is a non‑profit membership
organization devoted to preserving wilderness and wildlife, protecting America’s forests,
parks, rivers and shore lands, and fostering an American land ethic. The passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964 was the culmination
of more than twenty years of effort by The Wilderness Society. The Society was also instrumental in the
passage of one
of the most significant pieces of public land legislation in this century—the Alaska
Lands Act of 1980, which preserved more than one hundred million acres of spectacular
wild country. The Society has continued to play
a leading role in efforts to expand and complete the wilderness system, and
has joined with other conservation groups in seeking to establish sound multiple use management
for our federal
forest and range lands through such legislation as the National Forest Management Act and the
Federal Land Management and Planning Act.
The Society is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and has
field offices in
Atlanta, Denver, Boise, San Francisco, Seattle and Juneau. Within the Society, the Conservation Department covers
wilderness and
land management issues involving national parks and refuges, national forests,
Bureau of Land Management lands, Alaska lands, and rivers and trails. The Economic Policy Department, established in 1981, provides
economic analysis to support the Society’s efforts on behalf of resource conservation. The Public Affairs Department directs the
educational mission of the Society and produces its quarterly magazine Wilderness.
For further information about public lands issues, please
contact the
Conservation Department, The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C., or the
nearest regional office.
Prepared by Rob Stitt. Not previously published. Many of these articles are included in this document.
Vic Schmidt, “Directors Adopt Conservation Resolutions”
20(4):40 (April, 1962).
Summary: 3 resolutions
expressing NSS position on Wilderness Act, Ozark Rivers, and Rainbow
Bridge. Key Words: Wilderness Act,
Conservation Positions.
Anon., “Mammoth Cave Public Hearings Upcoming” 25(2):19 (February, 1967). Summary: Participation encouraged. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, Wilderness. In Notes and News.
Vic Schmidt, “A Wilderness Proposal for Mammoth Cave National Park” 25(3):55 (March, 1967). Summary: See title. Key Words: NPS, Mammoth Cave National Park, Underground Wilderness.
L. D. Matthews, “Noises from Washington” 25(6):108 (June, 1967). Summary: Mammoth review may be postponed. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, Wilderness.
William Mixon, “Mammoth Cave Wilderness Proposal” 25(8):142 (August, 1967). Summary: w/ reply by Vic Schmidt. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, NPS, Underground Wilderness. In Letters.
Rob Stitt, “A Wilderness Proposal for the Guadalupe Escarpment, New Mexico and Texas” 28(10):152 (October, 1970). Summary: A description of the NSS proposal for wildness in the Guads. Key Words: Wilderness, Guadalupes, NPS.
Rob Stitt, “A Review of ‘Wilderness Resources in Mammoth Cave National Park’ 29(8):104 (August, 1971). Summary: See title. Key Words: Wilderness, Underground Wilderness, Zoning. In Reviews.
Rob Stitt, “The Status of Wilderness in Three State Parks (sic)” 29(9):111 (September, 1971). Summary: Discusses the wilderness proposals for CACA, GUMO, and MCNP. Key Words: Wilderness, NPS.
Anon., “Mammoth Cave: Hearings Soon” 30(4):75 (April, 1972). Summary: announcement of forthcoming hearings. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, Wilderness, Underground Wilderness.
Dennis Seekins, “Shadow over the Wilderness” 30(5):90 (May, 1972). Summary: A plea for letters to the president in support of an Executive Order to protect de facto wilderness. Key Words: Wilderness.
Doug Rhodes, “Hearings scheduled for Mammoth Cave National Park” 30(5):94 (May, 1972. Summary: See title. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, NPS, Wilderness.
Rob Stitt, “Conservation Committee Statement on USFS Wilderness Study Area Proposal” 31(7):83 (July, 1973). Summary: See Title. Key Words: Wilderness, USFS, Federal Agencies.
Rob .Stitt, “Has the National Park Service lost its Resolve at Mammoth Cave?” 32(3):54 (March, 1974). Summary: Write the Supt. asking when the hearings will be. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, NPS, Wilderness.
Rob Stitt, “Wilderness at Mammoth Cave NP, a Progress Report” 32(5):82 (May, 1974). Summary: Key Words: Wilderness, Mammoth Cave.
Joe .Saunders, “Mammoth Cave Wilderness” 32(7)164 (July, 1974). Summary: Presents local viewpoint towards wilderness at Mammoth. Key Words: Mammoth Cave. Wilderness. In Letters.
Rob Stitt, “Conservation Notes” 32(12):240 (December, 1974). Summary: Guadalupe CTF, Underground Wilderness, Cave conservation in the media. Key Words: CTF, Underground Wilderness. In Conservation Notes.
Rob Stitt, “Park Service Ignores Public and Recommends no Wilderness at Mammoth Cave National Park” 33(3):41 (March, 1975). Summary: No wildness recommended, if you wish, write! Key Words: Mammoth Cave, Wilderness.
Rob Stitt, “Conservation Notes” 33(11):179 (November, 1975). Summary: Nick Noe new Chair, Underground wilderness, Cave Gating. Key Words: Wilderness, Gates, Conservation Committee. In Conservation Notes.
Anon., “Beaver Creek Wilderness Threatened by Miners” 35(9):190 (September, 1977). Summary: Asking for support. Key Words: Wilderness, Mining.
Tom Strong, “Conservation Happenings” 36(6):137 (June, 1978). Summary: New Melones, Leigh Cave access, BLM Wilderness, Bat slaughter. Key Words: Wilderness, New Melones, Bats. In Conservation Notes.
Beth Estes, “Help Conservation” 37(1):16 (January, 1979). Summary: Plea for volunteers for Wilderness Subcommittee. Key Words: Volunteers, Wilderness Subcommittee. In Newsgram.
Beth Estes, “How ‘Bout Some Facts On Mammoth Cave National Park” 38(3):56 (March, 1980). Summary: Discussion of current issues at Mammoth Cave. Key Words: Mammoth Cave, Wilderness, NPS.
Sharon Kautto, “The Wilderness Idea” 38(3):183 (August, 1980). Summary: Excerpts from “The Sound of Mountain Water”, by Wallace Stegner. Key Words: Wilderness.
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 39(6):126 (June, 1981). Summary: Archeological Act, National Parks, Desert Pupfish, Anti‑Wilderness proposals, WIPP, Stanislaus Canyon, MX, Senate Bill 842. Key Words: Wilderness, NPS, Pup fish. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto and Len Gaska, “Wilderness Subcommittee” 39(7):144 (July, 1981). Summary: WIPP, Mining in Wilderness, Guadalupes EIS, Bob Marshall Wilderness, Anti‑Wilderness Bill. Key Words: Wilderness, Guadalupes.
Sharon Kautto and Len Gaska, “Wilderness Subcommittee” 39(8):166 (August, 1981). Summary: Bob Marshall Wilderness. Key Words: Wilderness.
Sharon Kautto and Len .Gaska, “Wilderness Subcommittee” 39(12):259 (December, 1981). Summary: Endangered Indiana Bats, Cave Wilderness Sloan’s Valley, Diamond Craters, Mineral King. Key Words: Bats, Wilderness, Conservation Notes. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto and Len Gaska, “Wilderness Subcommittee” 40(1):8 (January, 1982). Summary: Caves, Gas and Oil; Guadalupes; Wilderness Act; Wilderness Area Leases; Oregon: Caves in the ACEC Program. Key Words: Wilderness. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto, “Wilderness Subcommittee” 40(2):21 February, t982) Summary: Pupfish, Endangered Species Act, Bob Marshall Wilderness, Wilderness, Wilderness Leasing Decision, wilderness and Leasing, Key Words: Wilderness. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 40(4): 114 April, 1982). Summary: Wilderness, Endangered Species Act, Gray Bat Recovery Plan, Call for papers for Conservation Session. Key Words: Wilderness, Bats, Endangered Species. In Conservation Notes
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 40(5):134 (May, 1982). Summary: Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Leasing, Wilderness Protection, Selling off Public Lands, Cave Fauna. Key Words: Endangered Species, Wilderness, Biology. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 40(6):158 (June, 1982). Summary: Bats, Endangered Species Act, Quarrying the Caves, Diamond Craters, Wilderness. Key Words: Bats, Endangered Species, Wilderness. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 40(7):132 (July, 1982). Summary: Idaho Cave Conservation Law, Cave Conservation Laws, Endangered Species Act, Wilderness and Leasing. Key Words: State Laws, Endangered Species, Wilderness. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 40(9):230 (September, 1982). Summary: Wilderness, Endangered Species Act, Mammoth and the Job Corps, Wilderness Bills, Caves and Nuclear Waste, Thanks. Key Words: Wilderness, Endangered Species, Mammoth Cave. In Conservation Notes.
Sharon Kautto, “Underground Wilderness” 41(9):229 September, 1983). Summary: Description of Cave Creek proposal in Kentucky. Key Words: Wilderness, Underground Wilderness.
Sharon Kautto, “Conservation Notes” 41(10):253 (October, 1983). Summary: Wilderness update on state wilderness bills. Key Words: Conservation Notes, Wilderness.
Carol Belski, “Guadalupe Wilderness” 44(8):308 (August, 1986). Summary: USFS is changing position and may recommend wilderness in Guads. Key Words: Guadalupes, Wilderness, USFS. In Dyas Digest.
Total 38 Articles
BULLETIN OF THE NATIONAL SPELEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, 1976,
31(3):77‑88
Underground Wilderness in the Guadalupe
Escarpment
A
Concept Applied
Robert R. Stitt and William P. Bishop
ABSTRACT
The concept of underground wilderness is not new to the discussion of protection of caves and karst features and has occurred regularly since before the Wilderness Act of 1964 became law. Those who have experienced the cave wilderness have never doubted its existence, but land managers have been slow to accept it. The definition of underground wilderness is discussed in terms of the value of the resource, its impact on an observer, and its defensible boundaries. The utility of the concept in management of the cave resource and the overlying lands is applied explicitly to the Guadalupe Escarpment of New Mexico and Texas. From the considerations of underground wilderness and its application to the Guadalupe Escarpment, concrete recommendations for underground wilderness in the Guadalupe Escarpment area are derived.
INTRODUCTION
In June, 1970, the National Speleological Society (NSS)
presented to the National
Park Service (NPS) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) a proposal for a Guadalupe Escarpment
Wilderness Area (NSS,
1970), to be made up of the major portions of Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico,
Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Texas, and the southern section of the
Lincoln National Forest between the two parks. This proposed wilderness area
contains one of the world's major cave‑bearing limestone areas—the Guadalupe Reef Complex
of Permian Age.
Since that time, both the NPS and the USFS have made
management proposals for
this area which have included proposals for wilderness designation or the establishment of wilderness study
areas (NPS 1971b, 1971c; USFS, 1971).
The surface protection provided by these government proposals has not proven to be adequate for
protection of
the cave resources; thus further discussion is necessary.
The natural beauty of caves has been experienced by
countless thousands of persons who have been attracted to developed caves such as
Carlsbad Caverns. A smaller number of persons
have enjoyed the wilderness experience in caves. The extension of modern civilization and its effects has made preservation of some
of the remaining wilderness heritage, including caves in a natural state, even more
desirable. The Guadalupe Escarpment, with its
many outstanding caves of
national significance, presents an important opportunity to preserve an entire
karst area
intact for the enjoyment of future generations of Americans.
That caves are an important part of the natural heritage
which is in vital need of
protection has not been disputed.
The relatively long periods of time (thousands of
103 WILDERNESS LAWS
Milestones and Management Direction
in Wilderness Legislation
1964‑1987
By James A. Browning
John C. Hendee
Joe W. Roggenbuck
Station Bulletin 51
of the
Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station
College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 83843
October 1988
Current
Publications
Idaho
Forest, Wildlife and Range
Experiment Station
1991 ‑ 1992
John C. Hendee, Director
Leon F. Neuenschwander, Associate Director
University
Of Idaho
DISTINGUISHED LECTURE SERIES
Wilderness Research
Center
Distinguished Lecture Series
WRC‑3 Reorganization and the Department of Natural Resources: Implications for wilderness. C. D. Andrus. 1979. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 3. 16 pp. $.25
WRC‑4 Preserving America’s natural heritage: The decade of the eighties. P. F. Noonan. 1980. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 4. 24 pp. $.25
WRC‑5 Wilderness values in the national parks. R. E. Dickenson. 1981. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 5. 20 pp. $.25
WRC-6 Battle for the wilderness: Our forever conflict? M. Frome. 1982. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 6. 24 pp. $.25
WRC‑7 In celebration of wilderness: the progress and the promise. B. Evans. 1984. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 7. 28 pp. $.25
WRC‑8 Wilderness: promises, poetry; and pragmatism. J. D. Hair. 1987. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 8. 18 pp. $.25
WRC‑9 Using wilderness experiences to enhance human potential and understanding. I. Player. 1988. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 9. 20 pp. $.25
WRC‑10 Wilderness in Native American culture. O. Lyons. 1989. Wilderness Research Center Distinguished Lectureship No. 10. 10 pp. $.25
WILDERNESS RESOURCES
IN
MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK
A Regional Approach
by
|
Joseph K. Davidson Dept.
of Mechanical Engineering Ohio
State University Columbus.
Ohio |
and |
William P. Bishop Radiation
Division Sandia
Laboratories Albuquerque,
New Mexico |
CAVE RESEARCH
FOUNDATION
206 WEST 18th
AVENUE
COLUMBUS, OHIO
43210
1971
Excerpted from Proceedings, 14th Biennial Conference, Australian Speleological Federation, 1984
by Kevin Kiernan, Tasmanian Wilderness Society
Until the early 1970s karst resources were largely unrecognized in decisions regarding land-use in Tasmania. Over the past decade growing concern for the protection of the wilderness landscape of the island’s southwest has stimulated the growth both of community based environmental interest groups and of protective agencies within the administrative machinery of government. Both have attracted individuals with expertise in karst and personal commitment to its proper management. Largely through their awareness and individual efforts, caves and karst have been promoted as little‑known but worthwhile components of the wilderness.
The positive results of this have included stimulus to our knowledge of karst, increase in public awareness of karst, and a strengthening of the case for the protection of the wilderness area. On the negative side, there may be some potentially dysfunctional consequences attached to the politicizing of karst, including the loss of any first strike advantage which might otherwise have been available to karst advocates dealing with areas where it is a primary rather than subsidiary resource; and also the development in some sectors of the community of anti-cave ethos which might otherwise not yet have arisen.
WILDERNESS
MANAGEMENT
by
John C Hendee
formerly
Recreation Research Project
Leader
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station
Seattle, Wash.
now U.S.
Forest Service
Washington, D.C
George H. Stankey
Research Social Scientist
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
Missoula, Mont.
Robert C Lucas
Wilderness Management Research Project Leader
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
Missoula, Mont.
Forest Service Miscellaneous
Publication No. 1365
U.S. Department
of Agriculture October
1978
Wilderness
Management
Second Edition, Revised
John C.
Hendee
Dean
and Professor
College
of Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Sciences
University
of Idaho
Moscow,
Idaho
George
H. Stankey
Senior
Research Professor
Department
of Forest Resources
Oregon
State University
Corvallis,
Oregon
Robert
C. Lucas
Wilderness
Management Research Project Leader, retired
Intermountain
Research Station
Missoula,
Montana
|
Issued under the auspices of the International
Wilderness Leadership Foundation in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service |
North American Press An Imprint of Fulcrum
Publishing Golden, Colorado |
|
|
|
by William R. Halliday
Reprinted from Rocky Mountain Caving Spring 1992, p. 8.
In many parts of the United States, cavers are
undertaking inventories of
cave resources and values as a result of implementation of the Federal Cave Resources
Protection Act. But recently, this publication published
a tabulation of 40 significant
caves in Colorado, listing eight categories of resources and values for each cave, on a scale of
one to ten (see Larry Fish’s
article, “Some Comments on the Proposed BLM Cooperative Management Agreement,”
RMC,
Summer 1991, pages 8‑10). Prominently missing from the table was cave
wilderness. And this is in a state with exceptional
underground and surface
wilderness resources and values, and notable political support for
wilderness.
The National Speleological Society’s Wilderness
Subcommittee is vigorously organizing a campaign to persuade federal agencies to keep wild
caves wild, through recognizing
and protecting cave wilderness values as required by the Federal Cave Resources Protection
Act. The details of this campaign now are being
worked out by a 12‑person
group. The effort is too new for agreement yet on
details, and thus does not
have official NSS approval. But
one thing is certain. If inventories of caves on federal (and other!) lands do
not include evaluations of cave wilderness resources and values, the agencies
will proceed on the assumption
that no cave wilderness resources or values exist there. And in many cases, this would open a door to disaster.
Some recent members of the NSS may not be familiar with how
wilderness is defined, above
or below ground. The Wilderness Society interprets
the Wilderness Act as requiring “that an area appear to be substantially
natural and that the presence of man’s imprints not be dominant.”
I think that most
cavers would consider a wild cave to be “a cave which appears to be substantially natural, with the
presence of man’s imprints
not dominant.” In working with federal (and other)
agencies to keep wild caves
wild, we thus can make effective use of this federal definition.
No consensus exists yet on how to quantify cave
wilderness on a “one to five” or “one to ten” basis. But
in my October 1991 presentation
on cave wilderness at the National Cave Management Symposium, I mentioned the
categories used by Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park in its new Cave Management Plan:
·
A cave within which it is difficult or impossible to avoid
intrusive works of
modern humans, and whose entrance is located in a developed area and accessed by paved
roads and trails.
·
A cave within which, at ordinary rates of travel, less than 30 minutes can be spent without
encountering intrusive
works of modern humans,
and whose entrance is located at least one‑quarter mile from any developed area.
·
A cave within which, at ordinary rates of travel, less than 60 minutes can be spent without
encountering intrusive
works of modern humans,
and whose entrance is located at least one‑quarter mile from any developed area.
·
A cave within which, at ordinary rates of travel, less
than four hours can be spent without encountering intrusive works of modern humans, and whose entrance is
located at least one‑quarter
mile from any developed
area.
·
A cave within which, at ordinary rates of travel, more
than four hours can be spent without encountering intrusive works of modern humans, and whose entrance is
located within a
designated Wilderness Area.
These Hawaii descriptors are far from the last word. I criticized them on the grounds that the last half of
each descriptor is contrary to both the intent and content of the Wilderness Act. (In my opinion, significant cave wilderness can
be entered through manholes
in several cities.) Probably most of the readers of
this article can create better ones. But at least they
are a start, and a constructive
start.
While the Wilderness Subcommittee is determining whether
it can develop broadly
acceptable descriptors of this kind, I urge all cavers and speleologists involved in the inventory
process to develop their
own descriptors. And to insist
on their inclusion in management plans which will evolve from their inventories. If something better comes along later, we can work to improve the plan, but
we have to move fast now. We got caught asleep at the switch on this.
Under the Wilderness Society’s interpretation cited
above, in any “one‑to‑five” or “one to ten” system, the lowest category should indicate caves
(or parts of caves) with
few or no areas which appear to be substantially natural, where man’s imprints are not
dominant. The top category should be just the
reverse, where one is free
of the imprint of man’s work in awesome fashion—our very best wild caves. As for the in‑betweens, make them up for
yourself at the
moment. And send a copy to the Wilderness
Subcommittee. Your ideas may be better than
anything else we are working with.
This is a very urgent situation. Please do
your part—and a bit more—to help keep wild caves wild.
From NSS Board of Governors Manual
The National Speleological Society believes: That caves have unique scientific, recreational, and scenic values; That these values are endangered by both carelessness and intentional vandalism; That these values, once gone, cannot be recovered; and that the responsibility for protecting caves must be assumed by those who study and enjoy them.
Accordingly, the intention of the Society is to work for the preservation of caves with a realistic policy supported by effective programs for: the encouragement of self‑discipline among cavers; education and research concerning the causes and prevention of cave damage; and special projects, including cooperation with other groups similarly dedicated to the conservation of natural areas. Specifically:
All contents of a cave—formations, life, and loose deposits—are significant for its enjoyment and interpretation. Therefore, caving parties should leave a cave as they find it. They should provide means for the removal of waste; limit marking to a few, small and removable signs as are needed for surveys; and, especially, exercise extreme care not to accidentally break or soil formations, disturb life forms or unnecessarily increase the number of disfiguring paths through an area.
Scientific collection is professional, selective and minimal. The collecting of mineral or biological material for display purposes, including previously broken or dead specimens, is never justified, as it encourages others to collect and destroys the interest of the cave.
The Society encourages projects such as: establishing cave preserves; placing entrance gates where appropriate; opposing the sale of speleothems; supporting effective protective measures; cleaning and restoring over‑used caves; cooperating with private cave owners by providing knowledge about their cave and assisting them in protecting their cave and property from damage during cave visits; and encouraging commercial cave owners to make use of their opportunity to aid the public in understanding caves and the importance of their conservation.
Where there is reason to believe that publication of cave locations will lead to vandalism before adequate protection can be established, the Society will oppose such publication.
It is the duty of every Society member to take personal responsibility for spreading a consciousness of the cave conservation problem to each potential user of caves. Without this, the beauty and value of our caves will not long remain with us.
Brochure prepared by Richard Weisbrod for the NSS Wilderness Subcommittee, ca 1974. (Photos omitted.)
Here we lingered and reveled, rejoicing, to find so much music in stony
silence, so much
splendor in darkness, so many mansions in the depths of the mountain, buildings ever in the process of construction,
yet ever finished, developing from perfection to perfection without overabundance.
John Muir
In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by
expanding settlement and
growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States
and its
possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is
hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and
future generations the benefits
of an enduring resource of wilderness.
The Wilderness Act of 1964
With these words, the Congress of the United States created the National
Wilderness Preservation System. This brochure is about a
neglected wilderness—underground wilderness—what it is, why it is important,
and how it can be protected under the provisions of the Wilderness Act. Usually when people think of wilderness, they think of
mountains, valleys,
plains, and deserts where as far as the eye can see the “imprint of man’s work [is]
substantially unnoticeable.”
Only rarely do people look under their feet where, even in the midst of development, there may
exist a vast wilderness substantially untouched by the hand of man. The
wilderness beneath the earth is as much in need of protection as surface wilderness,
perhaps more so
because of its extreme fragility. A
person [line missing] footprints behind. A person may snap a few twigs, or trample some
flowers, or dislodge a rock or two, but within a few days or perhaps a growing season or two the damage is
no longer visible.
Contrast the surface wilderness with underground wilderness. If a person walks across a pure white flowstone floor,
there is no rain to wash away the footprints. If a person
were to walk across a floor covered with gypsum flowers or accidentally snap a formation or two, it
would be centuries, if ever, before the cave recovered. In Salts Cave in Kentucky, the bare footprints
of pre‑Columbian aborigines are still visible after 3000 years. Even the oils from one’s fingers touching a formation can cause lasting changes.
WHAT IS WILDERNESS?
Wilderness, as defined in the Wilderness Act, is “an area where the
earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not
remain.” Wilderness is an area of Federal Land which
“generally appears to have
been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work
substantially unnoticeable”
and which “has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type
of recreation.” Wilderness “may also
contain ecological,
geological, or other features of scientific educational, scenic, or historical
value.” A Wilderness must have at
least 5000 acres of land or be of sufficient size “to make practicable its preservation and
use in an unimpaired condition.”
A wilderness is an area of the earth, be it on or under land or water,
which can provide men and
women with what might be termed a “wilderness experience.” Even the person who, for reasons of age, infirmity, or inexperience, cannot
probe deeply into
the wilderness can enjoy a wilderness experience by walking a short distance
beyond the threshold,
or perhaps merely by sitting on the boundary and looking in to sense the magnificence of the unseen. An elderly woman, in support of the Wilderness Act, said
that reading and thinking about wilderness was one of the few things that continued to make
life enjoyable for many people like herself who would never again visit the wilderness.
The Wilderness Act protects an area by specifying the
kinds of management policies which govern Its use.
The purpose of a Wilderness designation is to insure that these areas “shall be
administered for the
use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them
unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.” It is
not intended to deny access to an area.
In concept, an underground wilderness is no different
than a surface wilderness. It is defined as a cave system which, to borrow the words of
the Wilderness
Act, “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work
substantially unnoticeable.”
Underground wilderness is unique in many ways. One can feel as
remote in a cave as one can anywhere on earth even though there may be a
packed parking
lot and the surging din of thousands of tourists only a few hundred feet away—through solid rock—on the
surface above. Only a few hundred
feet, and yet it may have taken hours of tortuous travel to reach that point. Only a few hundred feet, and yet one might tread where
no other person
has ever been before and no person may ever be again.
In the blackness of a cave, one’s sense of solitude, of isolation from the works of man, is complete. The only sounds are one’s heartbeat and breathing, [line missing] of the largest wilderness in the country, the Bob Marshal Wilderness in Montana, one still hears airplanes—something one does not hear in an underground Wilderness.
In addition to its unique recreational value, underground wilderness is important as a baseline for management decisions and as a natural laboratory for basic and applied research. Wilderness provides a baseline for evaluating the effects of management decisions in National Parks and Forests and wherever man’s development and natural environment interact. Underground wilderness is no exception. The underground wilderness of Mammoth Cave National Park provides a standard for evaluating the effects of National Park Service decisions involving the commercialized parts of Mammoth Cave. The wild caves of the Guadalupe Escarpment provide a standard for Carlsbad Caverns. Underground wilderness enables us to evaluate the unseen pollution hazards caused by human settlements in the extensive karst regions of the eastern United States.
Underground environments, because of their simplicity, are easily defined and can be studied in toto. For this reason, underground wilderness provides a unique laboratory for solving problems in ecology, evolution, and mineralogy. Underground wilderness also may offer opportunities for the study of other sciences including geology, karst hydrology, and archaeology.
Underground wilderness can be protected in two ways by the Wilderness Act. One way is to include the surface areas overlying the caves in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Surface Wilderness designation gives maximum protection to the underground wilderness because it insures proper management of the surface areas overlying the caves, and reduces the traffic load on the caves by limiting surface access to non‑mechanized means. The caves of Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness are protected in this manner and this kind of protection is planned for parts of the Guadalupe Escarpment. In areas where the surface does not qualify for wilderness designation, such as parts of Flint Ridge in Mammoth Cave National Park, an Underground Wilderness designation, coupled with careful surface management, can be used to preserve the wilderness values of the caves below. This Underground Wilderness designation could be applied either to a specific cave or a portion of a cave, or to the area underlying a specified surface area.
The Wilderness Act does not explicitly authorize underground Wilderness, but it is clear that such a designation is within the general language and, certainly within the spirit of the Act. Many of the caves on Federal land in which the “imprint of man’s work” is “substantially unnoticeable” meet the requirements of the Wilderness Act. They provide outstanding opportunities for solitude and for a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. And they often contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, and sometimes historical value. The concept of “acreage” has little meaning underground. Few caves, even the largest, would meet the 5000 acre requirement, but the structure of a cave inherently makes “practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition” if proper access management techniques are applied. Thus, hundreds of pristine caves, even relatively small caves, can qualify for protection under the provisions of the Wilderness Act.
OUTSTANDING UNDERGROUND WILDERNESS
Two outstanding underground wildernesses which are in need of Wilderness protection are those in Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky and in the Guadalupe Escarpment in New Mexico and Texas. Extending under two of the three major limestone ridges in Mammoth Cave National Park is the Flint‑Mammoth Cave System, the world’s longest with over 180 miles of passage already mapped. The third ridge, Joppa, has barely been explored and only ten miles of passage have been mapped. But Joppa is part of the same geologic formation as the other two ridges and has a very high potential for an extensive cave system with connections to the main Flint‑Mammoth System. Except for 9.5 miles which have been commercially developed, the vast Flint-Mammoth Cave System is a wilderness—one of the most outstanding underground wildernesses in the world—and should be protected by an underground wilderness designation under the provisions of the Wilderness Act.
The Guadalupe Escarpment, a remnant of the world’s largest and best exposed fossil barrier reef, rises more than 3000 feet above the desert floor in southeastern New Mexico and western Texas. This massive limestone ridge, cut by deep, spectacularly beautiful canyons, is honeycombed with over 300 known and, undoubtedly, many more unknown caves. One end of the ridge is in Carlsbad Caverns National Park, known for one of the world’s largest and most beautiful caves. The other end is in Guadalupe Mountains National Park, a new and almost totally undeveloped Park. The central portion of the ridge is in the Lincoln National Forest.
The caves of the “Guads” are known for their immense rooms and massive formations. Except for commercial development in portions of Carlsbad Caverns and the remnants of guano mining operations, now of historical significance, in a few other caves, the imprint of man’s work is substantially unnoticeable in the caves of the Guads. Indeed, the entire surface of the ridge, with the exception of the areas immediately surrounding Carlsbad Caverns, is of Wilderness quality and should be protected by a surface Wilderness designation. The more than fifteen miles of Carlsbad Caverns which have not been developed are also of Wilderness quality and should be protected as underground Wilderness.
Mammoth Cave National Park and the Guadalupe Escarpment are two of the most outstanding examples of underground wilderness which should be protected. Because the Wilderness Act provides no mandatory review process applicable to caves, the National Park Service and other Federal agencies have shown little interest in establishing underground Wilderness. Such interest will be generated only if enough people bring to the attention of government officials the need, value, and appropriateness of underground Wilderness.
YOU CAN HELP
Wilderness protection can be given to an area only through an act of Congress and Congress will act only if there is widespread public support. The concept of underground Wilderness is not new, but it is not well known either. To date, no underground wilderness has been established. Once the first one has been established it will be much easier to apply the concept in other areas. However, the first one will not get established without your help.
You can help in several ways. Write letters to your Congressman and Senators informing them of the importance of underground Wilderness and urging them to support legislation to establish underground Wilderness in the Guadalupe Escarpment and in Mammoth Cave National Park. Get your friends and associates to write letters. If you would like to work to establish underground Wilderness, contact the
National Speleological Society
Cave Avenue
Huntsville, Alabama
The NSS Conservation Committee welcomes your comments on this brochure and its subject matter. Additional copies may be obtained from the Society office.
This brochure was written for the Conservation Committee by Richard Weisbrod. Substantive suggestions were contributed by Rob Stitt, Richard Watson, Bill Bishop, Doug and Linda Rhodes, Philip Smith, and Ells Rolfs. E. Garza and Ira Estin helped with the graphics and production. Cover photo by Richard Weisbrod.
By R. de Saussure
From Wilderness and Recreation: A Report on Resources, Values, and Problems, ORRRC Report No. 3. Washington. (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1962. Appendix 5) pp. 322-324
To be inserted.
By Rob Stitt
Published in: 1991 National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings, Bowling Green, KY October 23-26, 1991, p. 384-393.
Abstract
The concept of cave significance will be increasingly important in cave management since the passage of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, which requires that Federal Cave managers protect “significant” caves. The question of “what is a significant cave?” will be asked frequently in the future. The question is simplified if all caves are treated as “significant” unless they have been shown to be not significant. Thus caves that have not yet been evaluated are “potentially significant” and must be treated as significant. Very few caves are not “potentially significant” (the most PS cave in recent history was Lechuguilla). Strategies and methodologies for evaluating the significance of caves are discussed and a sample evaluation is presented.
Many of the concepts in this paper were developed nearly twenty years ago as a draft manuscript. A review of the literature on this subject reveals that the definitive paper on significance remains to be written. Ideas on significance and how to determine it developed by Richard Powell, Rane Curl, the California Lands Commission, and the Congress of the United States are included. Parameters of significance can include the nature of the resource, the benefits from uses to which it is put, its uniqueness, and contributory values. Methods used to prove significance include the opinions of experts, comparison to other caves, and demonstration of meeting the requirements of laws or regulations defining significance.
The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 provides protection
to “significant” caves on Federal lands. The process for
determination of significance is to be codified into regulations by the various Federal Agencies. As of the date of this writing (June 14, 1991, October 14,
1991) the regulations have not yet been published in the Federal Register, in spite of a mandate in the law
requiring that the regulations be completed within a year of the passage of the Act. The law also mandates that within a year after the adoption of the regulations,
that “significant” caves on federal lands shall be identified.
Since cavers are the most knowledgeable as to which caves are found on Federal lands, they are also
the most likely to be able to evaluate which caves are the most significant and can be listed and
protected.
Significance is defined (in my word processor’s thesaurus) as the
quality or state of being important. What we consider to be important depends on our background,
attitudes, and interest. And the
measure of
significance is value. Value is a
measure of those qualities
that determine merit, desirability, usefulness, or importance. Strictly speaking, we are considering importance, but merit, desirability,
usefulness are also of
use in evaluating significance.
One measure of value used in our society is monetary worth, but the concept is not very useful in evaluating caves. The values that we consider here are more abstract and less tangible than money, and they are certainly more subjective. While money is a common denominator that means roughly the same thing to everyone, a cave is certainly more valuable to a caver, for example, than it is to a cosmetologist or a window washer (unless, of course, they also happen to be cavers).
The above factors, and others, should be considered in determining the
significance of the cave. How they are used, of course,
depends upon the situation and the particular approach you are taking.
Method of
Determining Significance. There are several methods that can be used to aid in the
determination of
significance and in arguing this significance before the public or a government agency or
landowner. The opinions of experts, such as
speleologists, biologists,
historians, and others who are familiar with the cave can be valuable. These can be expressed in the form of letters, previously
published articles, or articles you ask them to write specifically for your particular project.
The more expert opinions you have on your side, the better off you are.
A second approach is
comparison of the cave to other caves of a similar nature.
Does the cave compare favorably to other caves of its type—is it of equal or greater importance;
does it contain equal or better features; etc. An
allied approach would involve contrasting the cave to other areas of a similar or different nature: is
it bigger, better, darker, etc.? Uniqueness is again a
factor.
Consideration of how the area meets or could meet some of the
legal requirements for the
application of different types of protection such as the Wilderness Act, inclusion in the National Parks
System, or as a Geological area or Special Use Area under Forest Service regulations should be made. These standards are the law of the land, and as such are an official recognition
of the value of the protected
features. It is reasonable to expect that lawmakers and
land planners, in deciding
which new lands, areas, or features should be protected, will turn to existing
statutes for information
about the intent of the legislatures and the people. A more
detailed discussion of the
types of protection available, and how they can be used are included in the other chapters. Here I will discuss only two: The Wilderness Act of
1964 and the Presidential
Proclamation establishing Carlsbad Caverns National Park (1923). These will provide background for a later discussion of
the Federal Cave
Resources Protection Act (1988).
Although there is considerable controversy regarding the
question of whether caves in themselves can be protected by the Wilderness Act, the principles
expressed in it are typical of the standards that must be applied to wilderness caves if their wilderness
values are to be
retained. Since thousands of words have been written on the
subject of underground wilderness,
it will not be discussed in depth here. The Wilderness
Act is quoted here as an
example of one type of legal requirement that has been established to decide whether
an area (which
implied cave) can and/or should be protected, and one set of legal standards that have been developed
to determine significance. Obviously other standards, including
the regulations
of other Federal agencies, state agencies, etc. should be consulted for more information.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat 890) defines wilderness as
“…an area of undeveloped
Federal land retaining its
primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is
protected and managed so
as to preserve its natural conditions and which is … affected primarily by the forces
of nature, has
outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation, is 5000
acres or larger, or is of
sufficient size to make practical unimpaired preservation and use, and may also contain ecological,
geological or other features of scientific, scenic or historical value.”
Another type of applicable standard is that established by the
proclamation or enabling
legislation for a National Park or Monument. The
Presidential Proclamation for Carlsbad Caverns National Monument issued by Calvin Coolidge in 1923,
describes Carlsbad Caverns
as “…of extraordinary proportions and of unusual beauty and variety of natural decoration; … other
vast chambers of unknown
character and dimensions exist; … several chambers contain stalactites, stalagmites, and other formations in
such unusual
number, size, beauty of form, and variety of figures as to make this a cavern equal, if not
superior, in both scientific and popular interest to the better known caves; … the public interest
would be promoted by reserving
this natural wonder as a National Monument.…” While it is
not likely that we will
find another Carlsbad, the type of wording typified by this proclamation is that used to describe a
cave that is recognized as
significant, and it would be valid to compare your cave to one already recognized as significant; such as
this.
In summary,
then, we can establish the following points in demonstrating the significance of a cave
or cave area:
a. What significant
features does the cave contain?
b. How do these
features compare to others of a similar nature within the region, the U.S., or the world.?
c. How prevalent or
unique are these features?
d. Are there
additional significant values present (less tangible, perhaps)?
e. Has there been
precedent set (through laws, prior protection, etc.) for the protection of this type of feature?
The evidence that can be presented to show that a cave is significant
includes the following:
a. Expert opinion
b. Descriptions of
the features themselves.
c. Opinion contained
in laws.
d. General and
public opinion, expressed by letters, personal contact, etc.
e. Published
opinion, such as newspapers, magazines, scientific journals, etc.
The following is a sample paragraph put together as an example and
combination of the situation described above. When coupled with more specific information about a particular
cave or resource, it can serve as a general guideline for a significance description:
It is the conclusion of this report that this area is a national
significance and thus deserves the protection of [applicable laws or regulations]. By national significance we mean that the area contains features of
great scientific, cultural, scenic, educational, or historical value that are of such importance
and uniqueness that they
would be of interest to persons throughout the United States and the world. Although these features may now be somewhat unknown to the public, if they
were to become generally
known, they would constitute an attraction for many persons from throughout the
country. This applies not only to such
characteristics as might
attract the general public for aesthetic and recreational purposes, but to those that would bear the
attention of specialists such as scientists. The area is
additionally of national
significance because of the possibility that wide public knowledge of such features
without proper
protection could lead to their destruction through overuse or improper use. Finally, such features are generally acknowledged by informed persons to
rank favorably with similar features found elsewhere in the U.S. that have
already been given protection, as recognized by their inclusion in the National Park System, the
National Wilderness Preservation System, or their declaration as Natural Landmarks,
or by their inclusion
in a National Recreational Area.
Anon., “Session II: Cave Inventory, Valuation and
Assessment,” National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Mountain View, Arkansas,
October 26-29, 1976. Albuquerque: Speleobooks, 1977. pp. 15‑27.
Davidson, Joe and Bill Bishop, Wilderness Resources in Mammoth Cave
National Park: A Regional Approach, Columbus, Ohio: Cave Research Foundation, 1971.
Grady, Mark and Mike McEachern, “The New Melones Cave Evaluation
Study: An Example of Management
Implementation.” In National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Big
Sky, Montana, October 2-7, 1977. Albuquerque:
Adobe Press. 1978.
Hamilton‑Smith, Elery. “Cave and Karst Management Down Under.” In 1987 Cave Management Symposium: Rapid City,
South Dakota, October 1987. Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society, 1989.
Hamilton‑Smith, Elery. “Evaluation of Caves and Karst:
The National Estate Assessment Study.” In Cave Management in Australia: Proceedings of the
Second Australian Conference on Cave
Tourism and Management, Hobart, May 1977. Victoria: Australian
Speleological Federation. 1977. pp 87‑96.
Miller, Lorenzo. “The Underground Conflict: Should Caves Be Designated
as Wilderness?” BYU Journal of Public Law, Vol. 4, No.
1, 1990, pp 133‑156.
Nieland, James. “Evaluation of Surface and Cave Resources,”
In Far West Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Redding, California 1979. Oregon City: Pygmy Dwarf Press. 1980.
Poulson, T. L. and W. B. White. “The Cave Environment,” Science, Vol. 165, pp. 171‑181, 1969.
Powell, Richard L. A
Guide to the Selection of Limestone Caverns and Springs in the United States as
Natural Landmarks, Indiana Geological Survey, 1970 (restricted
distribution). p. 101.
Stitt, Robert R. and W. P. Bishop. “Underground Wilderness
in the Guadalupe Escarpment: A Concept Applied.” Bulletin of the National Speleological
Society, Vol. 34, No. 3, July 1972.
State Lands Commission, State of California. Guidelines
for Identifying Lands Having Unique Environmental
Values. Sacramento. 1973.
Trout, Jerry. “A Cave Classification System.” National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Mountain View, Arkansas,
October 26-29, 1976. Albuquerque: Speleobooks, 1977. pp 19‑23.
Weisbrod, Richard. “Values, Decision Making and Cave Management.” National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Albuquerque, NM October 6-10, 1975. Albuquerque: Speleobooks, 1976.
Note: The index has not yet been prepared. A list of terms to be indexed is being developed and will be used to generate the final index. The terms included here were left over from a previous version of Word.
and w
—N—
National WildernessXE “wilderness” Preservation System, 20, 28
National Wildlife Refuge System, 29
—W—
wilderness, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 167
Wilderness Act, 20, 28
Wilderness Act of 1964, 21
Wilderness, Underground, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 110
References Cited
Statutes
16 U.S.C. § 404 (1988) (Mammoth Cave)................................................................................................................... 195
16 U.S.C. § 431 (1988) (Carlsbad Caverns)................................................................................................................ 195
56 Stat. 317, 16 U.S.C. sec. 404c-1............................................................................................................................... 175
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA (P.L. 96‑487),..................................................... 39
Carroll’s Kentucky Statutes, sec. 3766e-17, Acts of 1930, ch. 132, p. 405............................................................ 175
Colorado Wilderness Act (P.L. 96‑560),...................................................................................................................... 40
Eastern Wilderness Act (P.L. 93‑622)......................................................................................................................... 37
Eastern Wilderness Act. Public Law 93-622. Act of Jan. 3, 1975. 88 Stat. 2096. 16 U.S.C. 1131 (note).... 14, 118
Endangered American Wilderness Act (P.L. 95‑237)............................................................................................... 38
Endangered Species Act of 1973................................................................................................................................ 342
Federal Cave Resources Management Act of 1987. (In deliberation), H.R. 1975, S. 927..................................... 14
Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, 16 U.S.C. §§ 4301‑4309 (1988)................................................ 195
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, or FLPMA (P.L. 94‑579),............................................. 38, 118
Freedom of Information Act. Public Law 93-502. Act of Nov. 21, 1974. 88 Stat. 1561. 5 U.S.C. 552............. 118
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.............................................................................................................. 337
National Park Service Organic Act. Public Law 64-235. Act of Aug. 25, 1916. c. 408, 39 Stat. 535. 16 U.S.C. 1. 119
National Scenic Trails Enabling Legislation, Public Law 90-543............................................................................. 31
Proclamation No. 1618, 42 Stat. 2260 (1922) (Lehman Cave).................................................................................. 195
Proclamation No. 1640, 42 Stat. 2285 (1922) (Timpanogas Cave).......................................................................... 195
Proclamation No. 3413, 75 Stat. 1058 (1961) (Russell Cave)................................................................................... 195
Proclamation No. 799, 35 Stat. 2180 (1908) (Jewel Cave)......................................................................................... 195
Public Law 88-577, the Wilderness Act....................................................................................................................... 43
Public Law 93‑622........................................................................................................................................................... 53
Wild and Scenic Rivers System Enabling Legislation (P. L. 90‑542)....................................................................... 28
Wilderness Act (P.L. 88‑577) of 1964.......................................................................................................................... 37
Wilderness Act. Public Law 88-577. Act of Sept. 3, 1964. 78 Stat. 890. 16 U.S.C. 1131 (note)...................... 120
Wilderness Act. Public Law 88-577. Act of Sept. 3, 1964. 78 Stat. 890. 16 U.S.C. 1131 (note)........................... 16
Other
Authorities
31 A.L.R. 1533................................................................................................................................................................ 175
62 Am. Jur. 2nd 301....................................................................................................................................................... 175
S. REP. No. 559, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 5, reprinted in 1988 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5938.............. 192
The Segregative Effect Upon a Federal Oil and Gas Lease of a Partial Unitization Embracing Less than All Formations, Horizons, or Strata, or Limited to a Particular Depth, Interval, or Zone within the Exterior Boundaries of the Lease, Interior Department Legal Opinion M-36776 (May 7, 1969)............................................................................................................................ 174
Books
C. Allin, The Politics Of Wilderness Preservation (1982)....................................................................................... 193
Culver, David C. Cave life: evolution and ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 1982. 189 pp. 14, 117
D Dustin, L Mcavory & J. Schultz, Stewards Of Access Custodians Of Choice: A Philosophical Foundation For The Park And Recreation Professional (1982);................................................................................................................................................. 193
D. Jackson, Planet Earth, Underground Worlds 38 (1982);.................................................................................... 192
Davies & Morgan, Geology of Caves, U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (GPO 1986)............................................. 192
E. Evans, A Pedestrious Tour Of Four Thousand Miles Through The Western States and Territories 335 (1819). 197
Edington, I. M. and M. A. Edington. Ecology and Environmental Planning (Chapman and Hall. London. 1979) 287
Graber, Linda N. Wilderness as sacred place. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers; 1976. 124 pp. 118
Halliday, W., American Caves And Caving 250 (1974)........................................................................................... 201
Hendee, John C.; Stankey, George H.; Lucas, Robert C. Wilderness management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1978; 381 p............................................................................ 15
Hill, Carol A.; Forti, Paolo. Cave minerals of the world. Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society; 1986. 238 p. 15
J. Middleton & T. Waltham, The Underground Atlas: A Gazetteer OF THE World’s Underground Cave Regions 232‑33 (1986). 193
J. Sax, Mountains Without Handrails (1980);........................................................................................................... 193
Mitchell, R. G., Jr. 1983. Mountain experience. Univ. of Chicago Press. 272 p............................................... 102
Mohr, Charles E. The life of the cave. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 1966, 232 pp.......................................... 119
Nash , Roderick, “The American Environment” (1976)............................................................................................. 10
Nash, R. 1973. Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. 300 p........................... 102
R. Nash, Wilderness And The American Mind (3d Ed. 1982)............................................................................... 193
W White, Geomorphology And Hydrology Of Karst Terrains 220‑63 (1988)........................ 191
Watson, Patty Jo, editor. Archeology of the Mammoth Cave area. New York: Academic Press; 1974. 225 p. 16, 120
Watson, R. A. and P. J. Watson, Man and Nature (Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1969) 172 pp.......... 95
Wilderness Management (First Edition).U. S. Department of Agriculture U. S. Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365, October 1978, PP 9‑14............................................................................................................................................................... 20
Articles
Anon., “Session II: Cave Inventory, Valuation and Assessment,” National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Mountain View, Arkansas, October 26 29, 1976. Albuquerque: Speleobooks, 1977. pp. 15‑27................................................ 374
Bessone, Welcome to the Cave of Contention, Outside, Jan. 1990, at 15, 16...................................................... 192
Bolton, David W. Underground Frontiers. Earth Science. 40(2): 16-18; 1987........................................................ 14
C. D. Ollier. “Scientific research and cave tourism’’ Proceedings Australian Conf. on Cave Tourism 1, 53‑66 ( 1976) 287
C. Mohr and H. N. Sloane. Celebrated American Caves Rutgers Univ. Press. New Brunswick. 1955)...... 287
Conservation Foundation, The. Loving wilderness to death. In: Nash, Roderick, ed. The American environment. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley: 1976: 265-276.............................................................................................................................. 14
de Saussure, R., Cave Resources. Wilderness and Recreation: A Report on Resources, Values, and Problems, ORRRC Report Nr. 3. Washington. (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1962. Appendix S) pp. 322-324.......... 95
Estes, E. K and Alexander, E. C., (in press), Karst hydrogeologic research at Mammoth Cave National Park, Submitted to Science in the National Parks............................................................................................................................................................ 84
F. M. Niven. “A note on the protection of caves” (Unpublished Report to the Transvaal Provincial Administration) 287
Gamble, F. “Atmospheric considerations in the management of cave systems” Paper presented at South African Geographical Society Conference. Cape Town (June 1979)................................................................................................................... 287
Gamble, F.M. Disturbance of underground wilderness in karst caves. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 18(1): 33-39; 1981. 14
Ganter, J. H. 1989a. Will we map as we survey? National Speleological Society News 47(6): 143-44............ 102
Ganter, J. H. 1989b. Cave exploration, cave conservation: Some thoughts on compatibility. National Speleological Society News 47(10):249-53................................................................................................................................................................................ 102
Glover, Jim. Journey to the underworld. National Parks 59(5 & 6): 22-27; 1985............................................... 118
Glover, Jim. Journey to the underworld. National Parks. 59(5&6): 22-27; 1985............................................. 14, 108
Grady, Mark and Mike McEachern, “The New Melones Cave Evaluation Study: An Example of Management Implementation,” in National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Big Sky, Montana, October 27, 1977. Albuquerque: Adobe Press. 1978. 374
Hallberg, George R.; Libra, Robert D.; Hoyer, Bernard. Nonpoint source contamination of ground water in karst-carbonate aquifers in Iowa. Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution Proceedings. EPA 440/5-8- 001. Kansas City, MO: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards; 1985; 109-114................................................................................................ 15
Halliday, W. R, “The largest cave? The story of Flint Ridge” in Depths of the Earth (Harper & Row, New York, 1966) pp. 333-347. 95
Hamilton‑Smith, Elery. “Cave and Karst Management Down Under.” 1987 Cave Management Symposium: Rapid City, South Dakota, October 1987. Huntsville, National Speleological Society, 1989.................................................................... 375
Hummel, J. B., 1982, Is the underground wilderness concept practical?, 1980 National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings, Mammoth Cave National Park, KY, Pygmy Dwarf Press, Oregon City, OR, pp. 199‑200.......................................... 84, 118
Huppert, G. N. and Wheeler, B. J., 1986, Underground wilderness: can the concept work?, Proceedings‑National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, General Technical Report INT‑212, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, U. S Department of Agriculture, 516‑522.................................................................................................................................................. 84
Huppert, G. N., 1986, Potential sites for underground wilderness in the United States, Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Speleology, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 236‑238...................................................................................................... 15, 84
Huppert, George N.; Wheeler, Betty J. Underground wilderness; can the concept work? Proceedings—national wilderness research conference: current research. General Technical Report INT- 212, USDA, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT; 1986, 516-522....................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
J. Wilson. “Caves: changing ecosystems” Studies in Speleology 3, 35‑37 (1977)............................................ 287
Kerbo, R. and Roth, J., 1989, Lechuguilla Cave: on the edge of wilderness, 1987 National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings, Rapid City, SD, National Speleological Society, Huntsville, AL, pp. 56‑62................................................................. 84
Kiernan, Kevin. Wilderness karst in Tasmanian resource politics. Proceedings of the 14th biennial conference, Australian Speleological Federation; 1984: 25-40............................................................................................................................................. 15
Krumpe, Edwin E.; McLaughlin, William J. Research needs for wilderness management—an update from the National Wilderness Management Workshop. Proceedings—national wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions. General Technical Report INT-220, USDA, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT; 1987, 59-62..................... 15
McCool, Stephen F. Does wilderness designation tend to increase recreational use? Journal of Forestry. 83(1): 39-41; 1985. 119
Merriman, 1988.............................................................................................................................................................. 108
Miller, Lorenzo, “The Underground Conflict: Should Caves Be Designated as Wilderness?” BYU Journal of Public Law, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990, pp 133‑156................................................................................................................................................................. 375
Mohr, C. E. and T. L. Poulson, The Life of the Cave (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966........................................... 95
National Parks Association, A wilderness plan for Mammoth Cave National Park. National Parks Magazine 42, No. 244, 14-16 (January 1968)....................................................................................................................................................................................... 95
Nieland, James. “Evaluation of Surface and Cave Resources,” Far West Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Redding, California 1979. Oregon City: Pygmy Dwarf Press. 1980..................................................................................................... 375
Poulson, T. L. and W. B. White, “The Cave Environment,” Science, Vol. 165, pp. 971‑981, 1969. 15, 95, 119, 375
Powell, Richard L., A Guide to the Selection of Limestone Caverns and Springs in the United States as Natural Landmarks, Indiana Geological Survey, 1970 (restricted distribution). p. 101................................................................................... 375
Rhinehart, R., 1989, The paper dragon: commercialization and Lechuguilla Cave. Rocky Mountain Caving, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 11‑13. 84
Roberts, Caving Comes into Its Golden Age, Smithsonian, Nov. 1988, at 52‑64............................................... 193
Rolston, Holmes, III. Valuing wildlands. Environmental Ethics. 7(1): 23-48; 1985.......................................... 119
Rolston, Holmes, III. Valuing wildlands. Environmental ethics. 7(1): 23-48; 1985....................................... 15, 84
S. E. Foresell. “The concept of carrying capacity and how it relates to caves” National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings 1976 (Speleobooks. Albuquerque. 1977).................................................................................................................... 287
Schmidt, V. A., A Wilderness Proposal for Mammoth Cave National Park. National Speleological Society, NSS News, 25, No. 3, 55-58 (1967)...................................................................................................................................................................................... 95
Smith, P. M., “Some problems and opportunities at Mammoth Cave National Park” National Parks Magazine 41, No. 233, 14-19 (February 1967)............................................................................................................................................................................ 95
Smith, Philip M., Watson, Richard A. New wilderness boundaries. Environmental Ethics. 1(1); 61-64; 1979. 16, 119
Stankey, George H. Scientific issues in the definition of wilderness. Proceedings—national wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions. General Technical Report INT-220, USDA, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT; 1987, 47-53. 16
Stitt, Robert R. and William P. Bishop. “Underground Wilderness in the Guadalupe Escarpment: A Concept Applied.” Bulletin of the National Speleological Society, 34(3):77-88, 1972................................................................................ 16, 184, 375
Stitt, Robert R.; Bishop, William P. Underground wilderness in the Guadalupe Escarpment: a concept applied. Bulletin of the National Speleological Society. 34(3): 77-88; 1972........................................................................................................... 120
Stone, B. 1983. A philosophy for the vertical caver. The Texas Caver (Texas Speleological Association) 28(1):3-8. 102
Stone, B. 1989. Wakulla Springs Project: High tech deep cave diving. National Speleological Society News 47(8): 191-96. 102
Straus, Lawrence. Caves: a paleoanthropological resource. World Archaeology. 10(3): 331-339; 1979..... 120
T. Shaw, History Of Cave Science (1979).................................................................................................................. 194
The Conservation Foundation. Loving wilderness to death. In: Nash, Roderick, ed. The American environment. 2nd. ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1976: 265-276.......................................................................................................................... 117
Trout, Jerry. “A Cave Classification System.” National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings, 1977. pp 19‑23. 375
Watson, Richard A.; Smith, Philip M. Underground wilderness: a point of view. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 2:217-220; 1971...................................................................................................................................................................... 16, 120
Weisbrod, Richard. “Values, Decision Making and Cave Management. National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings: Albuquerque, NM October 6-10, 1975. Albuquerque: Speleobooks, 1976............................................................................... 375
White, W. B., R. A. Watson, E. R. Pohl and R. W. Brucker, “The central Kentucky karst” Geographical Review 60. No. 1. 88-115 (1970). 95
White, William B. Caves: Underground laboratories and underground wilderness. Earth and Mineral Sciences. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania state University, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; 46(2): 9-12; 1976........................... 16
Wilm 1974......................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Shorter
Works
Davidson, Joseph K. Statement of Dr. Joseph K. Davidson, President of the Cave Research Foundation, at the meeting with the Mammoth Cave National Park Master Planning Team, Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky, May 25, 1968. Washington, DC: Cave Research Foundation; 1971, 34 p........................................................................................................................................... 118
Davidson, Joseph K. and William P. Bishop. Wilderness Resources in Mammoth Cave National Park: A Regional Approach. Columbus, Ohio: Cave Research Foundation, 1971...................................................................................................... 184, 374
de Saussure, Raymond. Cave resources. In: Wilderness and recreation: a report on resources, values, and problems. ORRRC Report No. 3. Appendix B. Washington, D.C. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission; 1962; 322-324..... 118
Fieseler, R. G., J. Jasek, and M. Jasek 1978. An introduction to the caves of Texas. Austin: Texas Speleological Survey. 115 p. 102
H.R. Rep. No. 1538 on the Wilderness Act, 2 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News at, pp. 3616-17 (1964)............ 178
Halliday, William R. Underground wilderness potentials of Mammoth Cave, KY. Miscellaneous Services Bulletin No. 15. Seattle, WA: Western Speleological Survey; 1971. 7 pp......................................................................................................... 118
Hart, William J.; Boardman, Walter S. A wilderness plan for Mammoth Cave National park and the surrounding region. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association: 1976; 16 pp............................................................................ 118
Hendee, John C., Stankey, George H., Lucas, Robert C. Wilderness Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1978; 381 pp......................................................................... 118
Hendee, John C.; Catton, William R., Jr.; Marlow, Larry D.; Brockman, Frank. Wilderness users in the Pacific Northwest—their characteristics, values, and management preferences. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1968, 92 p......................................................................................... 15, 118
Hill, Carol. Cave minerals. Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society; 1976. 137 pp............................. 118
House Report 95-540...................................................................................................................................................... 60
McCloskey (1966)..................................................................................................................................................... 21, 49
National Park Service, Mammoth Cave National Park. Draft environmental impact statement for the master plan and wilderness study for Mammoth Cave National Park. Mammoth Cave, KY: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service; 1974, 194 pp. 119
National Speleological Society. A Wilderness Proposal for Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky. Vienna, Va.: National Speleological Society, 1967............................................................................................................................................................ 184
National Speleological Society. Guadalupe Escarpment Wilderness. Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society; 1970. 119
Schmidt, Victor A. A wilderness proposal for Mammoth Cave National park, Kentucky. Arlington, VA: National Speleological Society; 1967; 20 pp................................................................................................................................................................ 119
Senate Report 93-803...................................................................................................................................................... 59
Sides, Stanley D. Statement of Dr. Stanley D. Sides, President Cave Research Foundation for the public hearing regarding the wilderness proposal, Mammoth Cave National Park, Bowling Green, Kentucky, May 29, 1974. Lexington, KY: Cave Research Foundation: 1974. 15 pp............................................................................................................................................................................... 119
Smith, P. M., “The Flint Ridge cave system: A wilderness opportunity” (The Cave Research Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1961) 15 pp....................................................................................................................................................................................... 95
Smith, Philip M. The Flint Ridge Cave System: a wilderness opportunity. Washington, D.C.: Cave Research Foundation; 1961. 15 p. 15
St. Ores, Jeffrey; Alexander, E. Calvin, Jr.; Halsey, Clifton F. Groundwater pollution prevention in Southeast Minnesota’s karst region. Extension bulletin 465-1982. Minneapolis, MN: Agricultural Extension Service, University of Minnesota; 1982; 19 p. 15
State Lands Commission, State of California. Guidelines for Identifying Lands having Unique Environmental Values. Sacramento. 1973..................................................................................................................................................................................... 375
Stevens, Paul J. Testimony of the National Speleological Society, Inc. at a hearing conducted by the National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. U.S. House of Representatives, concerning: H.R. 1975, The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act. July 23, 1987................................................................................................................ 16
Stitt, Robert R. Law and sound policy require the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior to review the underground portions of Mammoth Cave National Park as to their suitability for wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964. Legal brief. Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society; 1974 June 25. 26 pp........................................................................................ 120
Study Report No. 3 of the ORRRC, entitled Wilderness And Recreation—A Report on Resources, Values, and Problems 176
The Federal Cave Resource Protection Act S. 927 and H. R. 1975: A Statement Prepared by the National Speleological Society, Inc., 1 (Apr. 1987) (unpublished manuscript, available from the National Speleology Society)....................................... 192
Thornton, Gerald T. A position statement and background information pertinent to the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act: H.R. 1975. Testimony presented before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of the U.S. House of Representatives. July 23, 1987....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
U.S. Forest Service, Daniel Boone National Forest. Draft Environmental Statement. Winchester KY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1984. (non consecutively paged)......................................................................................................... 120
Watson, Patty Jo. The Prehistory of Salts Cave, Kentucky. Report of Investigations No. 16. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Museum; 1969; 86 pp......................................................................................................................................................................... 16, 120
Watson, R. A. and P. M. Smith, The Mammoth Cave National Park Research Center (The Cave Research Foundation, Yellow Springs, Ohio, 1963). 50 pp................................................................................................................................................................ 95
Watson, Richard A. Statement on the proposed master plan for Mammoth Cave National park, Kentucky, presented by Dr. Richard A. Watson, 28 May 1974. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association; 1974. 3 pp... 120
Watson, Richard A. The preservation of wilderness karst in central Kentucky, U.S.A. Washington, D.C.: Cave Research Foundation; 1967; 12 pp.............................................................................................................................................................. 16, 95, 120
Weisbrod, Richard. Underground wilderness. Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society; 1974. (unpaged) 120
White, William B. Caves: Underground laboratories and underground wilderness. Earth and Mineral Sciences; University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, college of Earth and Mineral Sciences; 46(2): 9-12; 1976.......................... 120
Personal
Interviews
Aley, Tom. Director, Ozark Underground Laboratory. (Personal Interview). February 16, 1985................... 117
Hummel, J. B. Bureau of Land Management. (Personal Interview). February 16, 1985................................... 118
Kerbo, Ron. National park Service. (Personal Interview). February 16, 1985................................................... 119
Nieland, James. U.S. Forest Service. (Personal Interview). February 16, 1985................................................. 119
Telephone interview with Janet Thorn, chair‑person of the Cave Conservation Committee of the NSS (Feb 9, 1989) 193
Telephone interview with Ron Kerbo, Cave Specialist, Carlsbad Caverns National Park (Mar. 7, 1989)........ 193
Telephone interview with Sarah Bishop, member of both NSS and CRF, CRF Director and Chair‑person of the Cave Wilderness Subcommittee of the NSS (Feb. 3, 1989).............................................................................................................. 193
Thornton, Jerry. Executive Director, American Cave Conservation Association. (Personal Interview). February 16, 1985. 120
Whitfield, Phil. British Columbia Provincial parks. (Personal interview). February 16, 1985.......................... 120
Dissertations
Huppert, George N. Cave Conservation in the United States: a historical perspective and analysis. Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado; 1979. 179 pp. D.A. Dissertation........................................................................................................ 119
Huppert, George N. Cave conservation in the United States: a historical perspective and analysis. Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado; 1979. 179 p. D.A. dissertation............................................................................................................... 15
Zuber, Ronald E. A compendium of components relevant to cave resource management. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin; 1977. 154 pp. M.S. Thesis....................................................................................................................................................... 121
Zuber, Ronald E. A compendium of components relevant to cave resource management. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin; 1977. 154 p. M.S. thesis............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Personal
Communications
Office of the Secretary of the Interior. [Letter to the President]. 1974 August 23. 1 leaf................................ 119
Office of the Secretary of the Interior. [Letter to Robert Stitt]. 1975 May 12. 3 leaves.................................... 119
Ranger's Talk, Interpretive Program, New Cave, Carlsbad National Park, Carlsbad, N.M. (Dec. 29, 1988)..... 191