Cave Conservancy
Management
John M. Wilson and Diane Cousineau
28 Jan 2009
Cave Conservancy - Definition and
Scope
Cave
conservancies are specialized land trusts that manage caves or karst features
as their primary mission. They are usually non-profit organizations and their
management methodologies may be diverse. Conservancies that manage karst land
with few caves are appropriately called karst conservancies. These are included
in this study, although the focus of the research is cave management. When land
trusts own caves, but cave management is not a significant part of their
mission, then these land trust are not considered cave conservancies. One could
refer to them as land trusts with caves and they are not part of this study.
The number of cave conservancies in the United States grew from one in 1968 to
about 25 in 2009. Conservancies have become the primary means by which
appropriate caves and karst areas are managed, other than those caves managed
by governmental agencies. Cave conservancies in the United States now manage
more than 160 properties, with over 7875 acres of karst land and at least 370
caves, with more than 355 miles of cave passage. Abbreviations are used
exclusively in this paper to identify the 25 conservancies. Their names are listed
in column 3 in the "Factors related to the scope of cave acquisition and
management" table.
Goals and Motivation
Cavers
have experienced access problems from owners concerned about liability or
perceived undesirable high risk people entering their caves. Cavers faced with
the loss of access to caves due to land development and cave owners attempting
to avoid problems associated with visitation are some of the major reasons
caves have been closed to cavers.
The duel
driving forces of cave access and conservation, both intellectual and
emotional, drive the cave conservancy movement and account for much of its
success. The environmental philosophy has provided the intellectual
rationalization to justify the importance of cave conservation and protection by
conservancies. Mineral formations are especially vulnerable to both intentional
and unintentional damage and once damaged, they usually remain so forever. Cave
biota face the same threats and risks, as cave life has often evolved in
isolated cave environments, with small populations that are vulnerable to
extinction.
The
emphasis placed on either access or conservation varies according to the
circumstances of each conservancy. Access threats can be a powerful incentive
to a dedicated caver perceiving a favorite cave will be closed. Cave
conservation has almost universal appeal and is the basis of marketing and tax
exempt status. Educational interests also support the movement as supporters
envision the cave resource as a tool with which to educate for science and
conservation. Once a conservancy is established, it may also rely more on the
social dynamics of group cohesiveness to build an organization and achieve its
goals.
Many long
time and older cavers to feel an obligation to protect the resource and contribute
to the activity in which they have been involved for much of their lives.
Physical limitations from aging may change the nature of their participation to
more managing and conserving than caving. These cavers have come to understand
that in good stewardship includes protecting to the land above the caves as
well the cave passage below.
Volunteerism
Americans
have served extensively as volunteers in all types of organizations throughout
the history of the republic, so it is no surprise that cave conservancies reply
on volunteers almost exclusively to management and operate. With the exception
of religious activities, no other society has a comparable amount of volunteer
activity and the number and diversity of non-profit organizations as does the USA.
The form taken by cave conservancies in the USA and the level of success is
comparable to other specialty fields.
Funding
People who
give their time to an organization as a volunteer worker are making a “cash in
kind” donation, this is the primary source of wealth for many cave
conservancies and often it is conservancy members who have been the major cash
contributors as well. Several examples are BCCS, SCCI and IKC which are notable
for their success in both these areas. Dues, donations, major gifts, small fund
raising events, and fees for services are the most widely used means of
fundraising. This is in addition to extensive volunteer time that all cave
conservancies receive in significant amounts. CCV is unique among cave
conservancies in that it uses gaming as an effective fund raising tool.
Establishing a gaming infrastructure is capital and labor intensive and
accompanied by assorted risks. This form of funding is not likely to be used by
other conservancies.
Cave Management Control Type
The following
is the sequence of control levels that are used to classify the type of legal
relationship the conservancy has with a cave property. The six methods identify
in increasing order of strength of control the conservancy has in managing a
cave property. SICLEO System: Enlightened Self management by owner, Informal
management arrangement, general Contract, Lease, Conservation Easement, and
Own. Many conservancies use several of these methods. The "Factors"
table lists the primary method used by each conservancy.
Management Structure
All cave
conservancies have some form of board management. They fall into four types.
The most common is a board that is independent and self-perpetuating. The
second is boards that have members appointed by another organization such as an
NSS grotto. Two conservancies have this structure PCC, and NJCC. This structure
seems to present the most difficulty for effective management. The
conservancies with boards appointed by other organizations as a group manage
the fewest caves and have the least resources. The third board type has a
strong paid executive. Conservancies are mostly volunteer organizations. Only
two conservancies have paid staff. The president of TCC is an employee, and CCV
has several paid fundraisers. The forth type is an organization controlled by
one person or a small group. This type will have a nominal board.
Nominal and Incidental Cave
Conservancies
Some cave
conservancies are not cave and land managers, but rather organizations with
cave related missions such as public education, grant making, and cave
conservation. While these functions are worthwhile and are often needed, they
are not the focus of this study, which evaluated functions that relate to cave
management and control. This type of conservancy is included in this study for
comparison purposes. Some very significant land trusts were not included in
this study. The Nature Conservancy, which owns many caves as an incidental part
of its mission, is the most significant example of this type. Governmental
agencies which own many of the most significant caves were also not included in
the study.
Cave Acquisition Success Factors
The
conservancy movement success can be attributed to various factors. Competence
and success are norms within the organized caving community and these values
inspire other cavers to greater effort. Each subsequent managing group has
built upon the accomplishments of the previous leaders. Relatively high living
standards in the United States since World War II, along with sufficient
leisure time, have allowed enough interested cavers to have the resources
necessary to build these organizations. All conservancies have had some degree
of success in meeting their goals. The significance of these varied
accomplishments has often been quite important; however, this study only
evaluated success of cave acquisition by any means that achieved operational
control of caves. Public trust is necessary for the long term survival of the
organization and most conservancies have done some work in establishing
credibility among some components of the public. A potential follow up study
could evaluate karst land management by conservancies. Long term success of
cave acquisition methods is more difficult to measure. For example, one may
conclude that fee simple ownership represents a more effective long-term
solution than leasing or other means of cave management control. There is
insufficient long term data to make a valid comparison. Present information
indicates that many leased cave agreements continue for many years and that
some convert to ownership. Ownership is usually very capital intensive. More
time is needed to make conclusions on the relative effectiveness of different
cave management control methods.
Methodology
We found
seven factors related to cave acquisition success by cave conservancies. The
twenty-five known cave conservancies were ranked according to their success in
acquiring significant caves and cave properties in quantity.
The size
of the managed property and length of the cave passage were used for practical
reasons as proxies for cave and land significance, since no adequate
information on the geologic, biologic, and aesthetic value of caves and land is
available in a comparative format. The number of properties owned or leased is
an indicator of cave acquisition commitment and effectiveness. These three
criteria were used to create ten groups of increasingly stringent
qualifications with group ten having the highest standards. Each of the twenty
five conservancies was placed in the highest group in which it met all three
standards for that group. A weighting system of these three criteria was used
to rank each conservancy within its group.
The
researchers examined the practices, publications, reports, and websites of each
conservancy in addition to interviewing selected leaders. This study did not
evaluate other valid accomplishment areas such as public education, grant
making, or karst land management that involved few or no caves.
Conclusions
The seven
most important factors contributing to cave acquisition success are listed in
an approximate order of importance. Please refer to the "Factors” table
for data on each item.
1. Mission
- All of the cave conservancies that own or manage significant caves either
have cave ownership as a primary mission or have cave acquisition by various
means as an important component of its mission. All the conservancies in the
four most effective groups, seven through ten, have one or both of mission
types. All conservancies with more than ten miles of cave passage have cave
acquisition as their primary mission, except for two national organizations and
CCV which acquired a large cave under special circumstances. Organizations with
missions that are clear and consistent have more properties than those that
have experienced mission creep or flip between different or opposing missions.
Conservancies
have a continuum of different cave access models. Their acquisitions range from
caves that are completely open, to very restrictive and closed access caves,
depending of the circumstances and philosophy of each conservancy leadership.
The explorers, the preserver, the conservers, the scientists, the
recreationalists, and the managers have specific interests. The mission
emphasis of each conservancy varies significantly depending on the degree to
which the leadership adheres to the interest of one or more of these groups.
The explorer philosophy predominates in some conservancies that have made
exceptional efforts to find, explore, map, and control new caves. They often
have acquired caves that were never popular or were newly discovered.
Recreational cavers and some project cavers dominate conservancies that have
concentrated on acquiring popular recreational caves usually for the purpose of
maintaining open access. Conservation emphasis often predominates in
conservancies that have restricted access.
2.
Location - The conservancy’s area of operation must have sufficient caves with
perceived significance to justify the effort to acquire caves. Conservancies in
Michigan, New Jersey, and the Northeast, for example, are constrained in cave
acquisition by a more limited supply compared to conservancies in Hawaii,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. The "Factors" table
shows that groups 5 through 10 have more than 99 percent of the managed cave
passage and all of the conservancies but two are in cave rich areas. The WCC is
limited in cave acquisition, as most of the significant caves in the western
United States area are government owned. Conservancies in groups 6 and above
function as cave conservancies and may have a karst conservancy function.
Groups 3, 4, and 5 are mostly karst conservancies or one cave conservancies.
Both location and mission may be a significant factor in the organization’s
emphasis as a caver or karst conservancy.
3.
Management Structure - All of the conservancies in the groups 4 through 10 are
independent organizations. Three of the five conservancies in group 2 and 3 are
dependent organizations. For example, in dependent organizations, most of their
board members are appointed by other organizations. This arrangement prevents
the development of a strong organization agenda with the leadership to
implement it. Leadership is dependent on the whims of other groups. Dependent
organization structure appears to be very strongly correlated with limited cave
acquisition.
4. Risk
Management - Irrational fear of law suits and other calamities will prevent
conservancies from pursuing cave acquisition. Cave acquisition will be
effectively stopped if people, who have an expectation that cave acquisition
must have zero risk before it can be done, become influential in the
organizational leadership. The most effective conservancies have realistic and
cost effective risk management plans including plans to reduce negligence in
the management of their properties. Some additional methods include liability
insurance and liability waivers. A few conservancies are self insured. They have
also mitigated members with irrational fears.
5.
Leadership - Mission consistency, developing leadership, and a membership base
are important factors for any organization to achieve. Organizations must
develop and replenish their leadership base and have effective decision making
processes. There is a positive correlation with the number of people involved
in the leadership and the number of caves managed. All of the failed
conservancies were weak in the leadership area.
6.
Resource gathering - Various fundraising methods, property gifts, barter, and
volunteer labor have all been used by successful cave acquiring conservancies.
All of the conservancies in groups 4 through10 have been effective in at least
one area of resource gathering. Only one conservancy in group 3, Bubble has
been effective in resource gathering. At this time only one conservancy
generated most of its assets from unrelated sources. No evaluation was done on
unrelated funding.
7. Owners,
Servers, Customers, and Beneficiaries - In addition to the legal qualifications
for tax exempt status, conservancies provide services to varied beneficiaries.
In addition to future generations who benefit from protected caves, the main
beneficiaries of the conservancies’ efforts may vary. Historically, cavers have
worked with cave owners as an effective strategy in meeting their various cave
related goals.
This
approach has evolved into the "servers" branch of conservancies. This
branch has taken the idea of working with cave owners to its logical conclusion
and provides cave management services to the cave owners. There are three sub
branches depending on the type of owner served. The "private cave owners
branch" manages caves for land owners who appreciate this usually free
service offered to them. In return, the conservancy gains cave access and can protect
the cave. The “government branch servers" assist government agencies with
publicly owned caves. The "developers" branch servers assist
companies and civic groups to manage caves in developments which have set aside
land required as part of the land development. Cave management and consultant
services may be provided to the developers.
The caver
"owners” branch, of conservancies have become the cave owners through fee
simple ownership or long term leases and have effectively becomes the cave
owner. The "owners" branch is split into sub branches. One sub
branch, "cavers," serves cavers in general in addition to the general
public in some cases. They make their properties accessible to most people with
a few special exceptions of caves requiring special protection for
conservation. The "owners" model best typified by the SCCI allows
almost anyone to have access to its cave.
The other
sub branch of "owners," the "members," has fairly strict
control of its caves. Their management plans tend to make their caves open for
members and restrictive to others. The "members" best typified by the
BCCS restricts access to members and their guests to most of its caves. It has
regular expeditions during which other cavers and people with limited caving
skills are allowed to enter appropriate caves. The "owners" branch
has acquired more caves than the "servers"; however, in recent years
the "servers" have been increasing their rate of cave acquisition.
A
potential eighth factor, age, appears to be somewhat related to cave acquisition;
however, the correlation is low. All of the oldest conservancies that started
conservancy work before 1980 have done well and are in groups six and above;
however, several conservancies founded in the 1980’s are the least successful
in acquiring caves. The most successful cave acquirer, SCCI, was not founded
until 1991.
These
seven factors are correlated with cave acquisition success and we think the
conservancies that consider these factors in their organization's management
will acquire more caves than those that do not. It is recognized that
correlation does not necessarily mean causation; so judgment is needed to
evaluate decisions regarding cave acquisition in each situation. Additional
information is available at the NSS Cave Conservancy Committee website www.caves.org/committee/ccc.