98 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 
Series 4, Volume 64, Supplement 1 
tion, the California Coastal Commission has regulatory authority over coastal landscapes that pro¬ 
vide limited protection for sea caves throughout the state. Our cave database lists the category of 
ownership for 1,119 caves. Of these 975 (87%) are federally owned, and a total of 1,043 (93%) are 
in some category of conservation ownership (Table 24). 
Various laws, regulations, and policies mandate protection of caves and their associated fau¬ 
nas in California. Important in this regard is the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1998 
(FCRPA-16U. S. C. 4301^4309) which mandates that federal agencies “... secure, protect, and pre¬ 
serve significant caves on federal lands ....” In addition, the California Penal Code, Section 263, 
The California Cave Protection Act, protects all caves and cave features, and includes prohibitions 
against disturbing bats and other organisms in the state. Federal and state agencies also have poli¬ 
cies to prevent destruction of caves and disturbance of bats and other organisms, i.e., The Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579) at Sec. 102 (a) 8. There are also a number 
of cave management plans in existence that detail the management of specific caves or cave 
regions. Examples include Shoshone Cave (whip-scorpion habitat) Wildlife Habitat Management 
Plan (Anonymous 1982b), and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Cave Management Plan 
(Anonymous 1998b). These are important documents in the conservation of cave resources. 
The highly fragmented distribution of cave resources because of the state’s geology poses sub¬ 
stantial conservation challenges. Nearly all troglobitic and stygobitic species are narrow endemics 
(49% are known from single sites). The most extensive range of a cave-restricted species in Cali¬ 
fornia is only 194 km. Consequently, by some criteria, most are potentially endangered even in the 
absence of additional threats. An important benefit of our annotated species list is the ready avail¬ 
ability of the known distributions of cave species that provide a resource base for conservation 
planning. It is of interest to contemplate an alternative outcome of the McLean’s Cave controver¬ 
sy if the biological importance of this cave (greatest number of species in any California cave) had 
been widely recognized prior to the initiation of construction of the New Melones Dam. More 
palatable mitigation options might have been seriously considered, such as adjustments of the 
reservoir pool level, resulting in the preservation of McLean’s Cave and its associated fauna, which 
was near the top of the pool anyway. Ironically, the modem era of California cave biology began 
with study contracts let by the agency responsible for the destmction of the 30 caves, followed by 
more studies sponsored by conservation-minded individuals and agencies. 
Few cave species (six) are listed on Federal and California threatened and endangered species 
lists. Of these only four are potentially dependent on caves to the extent that threats to caves rep¬ 
resent a conservation issue for these species. The two Hydromantes salamanders (State threatened) 
are frequent cave inhabitants (especially H. shastae), which combined with their extremely limit¬ 
ed ranges suggests that threats to caves also could represent a threat to these two listed species. 
Similarly, two bat species ( Macrotus californicus and Corynorhinus townsendii — both state 
species of concern) are habitual cave occupants, and caves represent critical habitat. The IUCN 
(International Union for the Conservation of Nature 2016), using quite different criteria, lists addi¬ 
tional cave species in California at various levels of threat. Regardless of formal listing criteria, the 
high degree of endemism among the cave-restricted species, especially the many species known 
from single localities, strongly suggests that the actual number of potentially endangered species is 
much greater than formally recognized. 
Discussion 
California’s subterranean fauna is distinctly different from the eastern U.S.A., but has some 
similarities to neighboring states. Recognition of the high biodiversity of California’s caves came 
slowly at first. Peck (1973) reported the troglobitic millipede, Plumatyla humerosa, in caves of 
