USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

A GIS-based inventory of terrestrial caves in West Central Florida

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
A GIS-based inventory of terrestrial caves in West Central Florida implications on sensitivity, disturbance, ownership and management priority
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Harley, Grant L
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Karst
Cave survey
Karst stewardship
Environmental degradation
Vulnerability indexing
Geographic Information Systems
Dissertations, Academic -- Geography -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: Active cave management, which represents any continuous action to conserve, restore, or protect a cave environment, is virtually non-existent in west-central Florida. This study focuses on developing an inventory to rank terrestrial caves in west-central Florida by management priority. A GIS-based cave inventory system, including a cave sensitivity index and cave disturbance index, were used as a tool to gain an understanding of the management priority of west-central Florida caves. The inventory was applied to 36 terrestrial caves in west-central Florida, which demonstrated a wide range of sensitivity and disturbance. The results show that by relying solely on sensitivity and disturbance scores, management priority may not be accurately determined. Further examination revealed that ownership and management status also affect management priority. Consequently, cave sensitivity, disturbance, ownership, or management status does not solely indicate management priority. Rather, the management priority of caves in west-central Florida depends on a number of complicated, interwoven factors, and the goal of management must be examined holistically. Each cave must be individually examined for its sensitivity, disturbance, resources, management, and social and physical context in order to gain an understanding of management priority. Nonetheless, the cave inventory system developed for this project was used to gain a general understanding of which caves hold management priority, based on the cave manager's objectives. In order to ensure the conservation and protection of west-central Florida terrestrial caves, support from county or state government, combined with cave inventory data, is crucial in developing sound management policy.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Grant L. Harley.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 305 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001935517
oclc - 226252330
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002234
usfldc handle - e14.2234
System ID:
SFS0026552:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001935517
003 fts
005 20080424164640.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080424s2007 fluab sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002234
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
035
(OCoLC)226252330
049
FHMM
090
G116 (ONLINE)
1 100
Harley, Grant L.
2 245
A GIS-based inventory of terrestrial caves in West Central Florida :
b implications on sensitivity, disturbance, ownership and management priority
h [electronic resource] /
by Grant L. Harley.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2007.
3 520
ABSTRACT: Active cave management, which represents any continuous action to conserve, restore, or protect a cave environment, is virtually non-existent in west-central Florida. This study focuses on developing an inventory to rank terrestrial caves in west-central Florida by management priority. A GIS-based cave inventory system, including a cave sensitivity index and cave disturbance index, were used as a tool to gain an understanding of the management priority of west-central Florida caves. The inventory was applied to 36 terrestrial caves in west-central Florida, which demonstrated a wide range of sensitivity and disturbance. The results show that by relying solely on sensitivity and disturbance scores, management priority may not be accurately determined. Further examination revealed that ownership and management status also affect management priority. Consequently, cave sensitivity, disturbance, ownership, or management status does not solely indicate management priority. Rather, the management priority of caves in west-central Florida depends on a number of complicated, interwoven factors, and the goal of management must be examined holistically. Each cave must be individually examined for its sensitivity, disturbance, resources, management, and social and physical context in order to gain an understanding of management priority. Nonetheless, the cave inventory system developed for this project was used to gain a general understanding of which caves hold management priority, based on the cave manager's objectives. In order to ensure the conservation and protection of west-central Florida terrestrial caves, support from county or state government, combined with cave inventory data, is crucial in developing sound management policy.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 305 pages.
Includes vita.
590
Advisor: Philip Reeder, Ph.D.
653
Karst.
Cave survey.
Karst stewardship.
Environmental degradation.
Vulnerability indexing.
Geographic Information Systems.
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Geography
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2234



PAGE 1

A GIS-Based Inventory of Terrestrial Caves in West-central Florida: Implications on Sensitivity, Disturbance, Ownership, and Management Priority by Grant L. Harley A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Geography College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Philip Reeder, Ph.D. Philip van Beynen, Ph.D. Robert Brinkmann, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 6, 2007 Keywords: karst, cave survey, karst stew ardship, environment al degradation, vulnerability indexing, Geogr aphic Information Systems Copyright 2007, Grant Logan Harley

PAGE 2

Dedication To my parents for instilling in me a strong work ethic and commitment to follow my passion; my wife, Mandi, for her unconditional love and support; and fellow cavers for accepting me and offe ring their time and energy to help conserve and protect the underground...you k now who you are. Without all of your help, this project was not possible.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements Special thanks go out to my majo r advisor, Dr. Philip Reeder, and my committee members, Dr. Philip van Be ynen and Dr. Robert Brinkmann for their guidance and support throughout this proj ect. Thank you to Dr. Reeder for always being reachable, despite your busy schedule, and always adding words of wisdom and ideas for the betterment of this project. Thank you for your patience and faith in this study. A big thank you especially to fellow cavers Tom Turner and Robert Brooks for trusting me underground and helpi ng inventory each cave included in this project. Without your time and energy, this resear ch would be an amalgam of blank paper. Your experience and wisdom underground are invaluable and I am grateful for both of your help. I must also thank my partner in crime, business, and the underground Jason Polk, who took the time out of your own dissertation to help in the field. I think you need to switch your dissertati on from paleoclimate research to cave conservation. Even though I know you would enjoy it, your advisor would lose his mind...so maybe its not such a good idea. Many people have had a positive infl uence upon my life along this journey down into thirty-six caves in west-centra l Florida, and beyond. First and foremost I want to extend my heart-felt apprecia tion to my wife, Mandi. Without your

PAGE 4

unconditional love and support, these past two years of work would have been much harder. Youve been my inspiration. I need to thank my entire family, es pecially my parents, who have always been there for me. To my mother and father (Lyn da and George), thanks for raising me in a loving home and teaching me to do everything in life to my best ability. Thank you to my sister, Li ndsay, for always being there for me. There are many other people I wish to thank, and for those of you who have been a part of this project, or my lif e, if even for only a moment, thanks for always believing in me. There will be many other days and many other caves to explore, conserve, and protect, so this project is only the beginning. I want to thank the Lord for giving me this opportunity.

PAGE 5

Note to Reader Note to Reader: The original manuscript of this document contains color that is necessary for understanding the data. The original thesis is on file with the USF library in Tampa, Florida, USA.

PAGE 6

i Table of Contents List of Tabl es........................................................................................................iv List of Figur es.......................................................................................................v Abstra ct..............................................................................................................viii Chapter One: Introduct ion....................................................................................1 Human-Environmental Interaction...................................................5 Research Strategy.....................................................................................6 Problem St atement.........................................................................6 Research Purpose..........................................................................7 Research Questi ons........................................................................7 Research Ob jectives.......................................................................8 Background In formation.............................................................................9 Karst Land scape...........................................................................10 Karst Geom orpholog y...................................................................12 Karst Geomorpholog y of Fl orida...................................................13 Chapter Two: Physical and Social Context.........................................................15 Defining the Study Area: West-Central Florida........................................15 West-central Florida Caves and Geologic Framework.............................16 Physical Geography of the Study Area....................................................20 The Brooksv ille Rid ge...................................................................23 Cotton Plant Ridge, Ocala Hi lls, and Sumt er Upland....................25 Withlacoochee State Forest (WSF)...............................................26 Social C ontext..........................................................................................29 Cave M anagement..................................................................................31 The History of Ca ve Inventory.................................................................33 Types of In ventory.........................................................................37 Prior Cave Inv entory Re search................................................................40 Project-Specific Inventories...........................................................40 General-Purpose Inventor ies........................................................42 Cave and Karst Distur bance....................................................................45 Cave Studies in We st-Central Florida......................................................47 Biospeleologica l Res earch............................................................48 Speleological Research................................................................49 Chapter Three: Metho dology ..............................................................................52

PAGE 7

ii Sources of Information.............................................................................52 Site Sele ction...........................................................................................53 Analysis, Development, and Refinement of Cave Inventory Methodology............................................................................................54 Conducting the Ca ve Inv entory.....................................................58 Devices Used for Ca ve Inventory..................................................59 Locating Terrestrial Ca ves for Inventory.......................................61 Inventory Framew ork and C ontents..............................................62 Cave Sensitiv ity Vari ables.......................................................................64 Biology..........................................................................................67 Hydrol ogy......................................................................................67 Geology, Mineralogy, and Paleon tology........................................68 Culture..........................................................................................69 Sensitivity Index Scoring System..................................................70 Cave Disturbanc e Vari ables....................................................................71 Trash.............................................................................................74 Speleothem Damage....................................................................74 Graffiti...........................................................................................75 Floor Distu rbances........................................................................76 Destruction of Cult ural Arti facts.....................................................76 Condensation Corrosion...............................................................77 Desiccation...................................................................................78 Destruction of Fo ssils....................................................................78 Cave Sedim entation......................................................................79 Deforest ation.................................................................................80 Agricult ure.....................................................................................82 Urbanization..................................................................................82 Quarry Mining................................................................................83 Disturbance Index Scoring System...............................................85 Summary St atistics..................................................................................86 Chapter Four : Results........................................................................................87 Cave Inventor y Resu lts............................................................................87 Detailed Descriptions of Cave Contents........................................87 Cave Sensitivit y Index Scores.......................................................91 Cave Disturbance Index Sc ores....................................................96 Chapter Five : Discu ssion..................................................................................103 Development and Refinement of Cave Inventory Methods....................103 Cave Sens itivity.....................................................................................104 Cave Distu rbance..................................................................................105 Cave Sensitivity and Disturbance Indices..............................................106 Case Studies: Cave Ownership, Management, Sensitivity, and Disturbance............................................................................................107 Briar Cave...................................................................................108

PAGE 8

iii BRC Cave...................................................................................113 Blowing Ho le Ca ve......................................................................119 Peace Sign Cave........................................................................124 Using Inventory Data to De termine Management Priority......................129 Cave Managem ent Po licy......................................................................130 The Complexities of Cave M anagement................................................133 Chapter Six: Conclu sions.................................................................................140 List of Re ferences.............................................................................................145 Appendix A: Geodatabas e Data Dic tionary......................................................156 Appendix C: Briar Cave Release of Liabilit y.....................................................199 Appendix D: Withlacoochee State Forest Specia l Use Pe rmits........................201 Appendix E: Ca ves Geodat abase.....................................................................204 Appendix E: Caves Geodatabase (B elleview Forma tion Jeep)...........205 Appendix E: Caves Geodatabas e (Jackpot Werner)...........................237 Appendix F: Cave Inventor y Form....................................................................260 Appendix G: Photographs of Vandalism wit hin BRC........................................267 Appendix H: Cave In ventory P hotogr aphs........................................................270 About the Aut hor.....................................................................................E nd Page

PAGE 9

iv List of Tables Table 1. Inventory data with reference points. ..................................................63 Table 2. Other inventor y data pertaining to cave. ............................................63 Table 3. Cave sensitivity index. ...........................................................................66 Table 4. Cave disturbance index. ........................................................................73 Table 5. Cave sensitivity index scores. ..............................................................93 Table 6. Descriptive statisti cs for cave sensitivity index. .................................95 Table 7. Cave disturbance index scores (Jackpot Jeep). ............................97 Table 8. Cave disturbance index scores (Belleview Formation Ocala Caverns West). .....................................................99 Table 9. Descriptive statis tics for cave disturbance index. ...........................101 Table 10. Example of management priority list of west-central Florida caves included in this study.. ................................................135

PAGE 10

v List of Figures Figure 1. West-central Florida. ................................................................................5 Figure 2. Relative location of terre strial caves (included in this study) to grottos affiliated with the National Speleological Society (NSS). ...............................................................16 Figure 3. Tertiary and Quater nary geologic formations in Florida (taken from Ti kansky and Knochenmous 2001). .................20 Figure 4. Locations of caves included in this study and west-central Florida physiograph ic divisions as defined by White (1970). .....................................................................................22 Figure 5. Gentle, rolling t opography near Brooksville, Florida .........................24 Figure 6. Map showing st ate forests of Florida ..................................................27 Figure 7. Location of the WSF as related to the extent of the study area. ...............................................................................................28 Figure 8. Cave map (1982) of Whale Creek Cave,McQueens, Cat Island, Bahamas. ............................................................................34 Figure 9. Cave map (2006) of Thorntons Cave. Sumter County, Florida. .....................................................................................................35 Figure 10. An example of a qualitative form used for a reconnaissance inventory. ....................................................................38 Figure 11. Potential Items for cave inventory lists. ..............................................39 Figure 12. Methodological flow chart for determining management priority. .....................................................................................................56 Figure 13. Paper form destroyed after conducting inventory in water. .............57

PAGE 11

vi Figure 14. The tools used for invent ory data collection in the field included ArcPad 7.1 GIS software, Dell Axim PDA, and a mobile GPS device. Ar cPad 7.1 was loaded onto a Dell Axim PDA ........................................................................................60 Figure 15. The PDA was protected with an Aqua Quest, water-proof cover. ..................................................................................61 Figure 16. Mobile GPS unit linke d with PDA device for acquisition of cave locations .....................................................................................62 Figure 17. Example of buffer ring analysis in GIS. ..............................................81 Figure 18. A cave system was likely destroyed from limestone quarry practices as speleothems were found scattered on the floor of this abandoned quarry .................................................84 Figure 19. These calcite crystal formations were exposed on the surface of a boulder on the floor of an abandoned quarry .......................................................................................................85 Figure 20. Locations of terrestria l caves inventoried during this project. .....................................................................................................88 Figure 21. Locations of private caves inventoried during this project .......................................................................................................89 Figure 22. Locations of public caves inventoried during this project .......................................................................................................90 Figure 23. Cave sensitivity inde x scores of public and private caves. .......................................................................................................96 Figure 24. Cave disturbance index scores (public vs. private). .......................102 Figure 25. Echinoid in the Pool Room, lower level, Briar Cave. ......................109 Figure 26. Speleothems in t he Endless Room, upper level, Briar Cave. .............................................................................................109 Figure 27. Lake Room in lower level (photo by Sean Roberts). ......................110 Figure 28. Briar Cave gate installed by the FSS. ...............................................111

PAGE 12

vii Figure 29. Management in Briar Cave: flagging tape and spray jug near speleothems. .........................................................................112 Figure 30. Robert Brooks approaches a cluster of calcite helictites, BRC ......................................................................................114 Figure 31. Robert Brooks poses am idst translucent stalactites and stalagmites, BRC ..........................................................................114 Figure 32. Delicate helictite bush, BRC ...............................................................115 Figure 33. Tom Turner poses behind large stalactites and stalagmites, BRC ..................................................................................116 Figure 34. Just inside BRC entrance on night of discovery in December, 2002 ...................................................................................118 Figure 35. Recent photo just inside BRC entrance after vandalism ...............................................................................................118 Figure 36. Desiccated stalagmite, Railroad Tunnel Passage, Blowing Hole Cave. ..............................................................................120 Figure 37. Phil van Beynen stands in front of graffiti near Blowing Hole Cave entrance. .............................................................121 Figure 38. Seeping drapery, Form ation Room, Blowing Hole Cave. ..............122 Figure 39. Blowing Hole Cave gate installed by TBAG and Withlacoochee State Forest. ..............................................................123 Figure 40. Jason Polk poses in front of widespread graffiti, Peace Sign Cave. .............................................................................................126 Figure 41. Jason Polk kneels beside four damaged stalagmites, Peace Sign Cave. ................................................................................127 Figure 42. Hundreds of damaged/remo ved soda straws and graffiti, Peace Sign Cave. ................................................................................128 Figure 43. Trash in main passage, Peace Sign Cave. ......................................128 Figure 44. Jennings Cave, Main Passage ..........................................................133

PAGE 13

viii A GIS-Based Inventory of Terrestrial Caves in West-central Florida: Implications on Sensitivity, Disturbance, Ownership, and Management Priority Grant L. Harley Abstract Active cave management, which repr esents any continuous action to conserve, restore, or protect a cave environ ment, is virtually non-existent in westcentral Florida. This study focuses on dev eloping an inventory to rank terrestrial caves in west-central Florida by m anagement priority. A GIS-based cave inventory system, including a cave sensitiv ity index and cave disturbance index, were used as a tool to gain an understanding of the management priority of westcentral Florida caves. The inventory was applied to 36 terrest rial caves in west-central Florida, which demonstrated a wide range of sens itivity and disturbance. The results show that by relying solely on sens itivity and disturbanc e scores, management priority may not be accurately determi ned. Further examination revealed that ownership and management status al so affect management priority. Consequently, cave sensitivity, disturbance, ownership, or management status does not solely indicate managem ent priority. Rather, the management priority of caves in west-central Flor ida depends on a number of complicated,

PAGE 14

ix interwoven factors, and the goal of m anagement must be examined holistically. Each cave must be individually examin ed for its sensitivity, disturbance, resources, management, and social and physi cal context in order to gain an understanding of management priority. Nonet heless, the cave inventory system developed for this project was used to gain a general understanding of which caves hold management priority, based on the cave managers objectives. In order to ensure the conservation and protec tion of west-central Florida terrestrial caves, support from county or state gov ernment, combined with cave inventory data, is crucial in devel oping sound management policy.

PAGE 15

1 Chapter One: Introduction The exploration and study of caves in creased steadily in popularity over the last 50 years. This newfound interest is shown by substantial growth in certain cave-oriented organizations such as the National Speleological Society and affiliated grottos across the United St ates. Increasing the number of active cavers places pressure on well-known ca ves, with the destruc tion of inherent sensitive resources an almost unavoi dable outcome (DuChene 2006). Only recently are people acknowledging that cave conservation and protection are essential, otherwise these invaluable res ources will be lost to future generations. Most natural processes operate very slowly in caves. Once damaged, a cave may never recover, and scars and litter left by careless visitors will remain indefinitely. Broken cave formations look pathetically out of place when taken outside. Even the bare bedrock is a part of a caves attraction, and it looks shabby if marked. When you visit a cave, try to cause as little disturbance as possi ble. Consider even your slightest impact on the cave, then multiply it by the number of people who are likely to pass through during the caves lifespan, and the cumulative effect will be clear. Protecting, preserving, and restoring caves, as well as maintaining access to them, are essential parts of cave stewardship (Palmer 2007, pg. 19) The quotation is an excerpt from Art Palmers 2007 book Cave Geology and describes the motivation for this study. Some attempts have been made to fo rmalize the protection of caves. The enactment of the Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 (FCRPA) gave

PAGE 16

2 caves located on Federal land the opportuni ty to be protected by a number of government agencies including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, and the US Geological Survey (USGS). Ca ves located on other lands, public or private, are not protected by the FCRPA, which in many cases results in their demise. To manage these caves efficiently their disturbance, sensitivity, and resources must be evaluated through means of a cave inventory. In many states, researchers and cavers have taken the init iative to conserve and protect cave systems. However, in many localized regi ons of certain states, such as westcentral Florida, conservation ethics are deficient (Figure 1). Currently, there are no laws, regulations, or policies that require sound management of cave systems. To complicate the lack of protection e fforts at the state, or county level, each terrestrial cave in west-central Florida is unique, with varying levels sensitivity to humans and disturbance. Fo r example, during this study, Sick Bat Cave, Citrus County, Florida was inventor ied in an attempt to catalogue detailed descriptions of inherent resources, determi ne the caves relative sensitivity to human degradation, and establis h the caves current level of disturbance. Sick Bat is located on public, state-owned land and remains unmanaged and easily accessible. No cave-reliant biota, c onnections to the Floridan Aquifer System (FAS), or pristine speleothems were found dur ing inventory. While the sensitivity of the cave was quite low, its disturbanc e was found to be high, with occurrences

PAGE 17

3 of trash, widespread destruction of s peleothems, contemporary graffiti, and human-induced surface impacts. In contrast, Crumbling Rock Cave, Cit rus County, Florida is located on private land and is actively managed by a conservation-minded landowner. The cave is not open to the public and a gate a llows for controlled access. The cave contained a Florida endangered species, geological formations, and an aquifer connection that are sensitive to human degr adation. The sensitiv ity of the cave resources was found to be high and overa ll disturbance of the cave was low. Cave resources, sensitivity, dist urbance, and management are terms used throughout this manuscript. Given the multiple uses of each word, they are often in need of clarification. The term cav e resource includes any materials or substances occurring naturally within a cave including biotic, cultural, mineralogic, geologic, paleontologic, and hydrologic resources (FCRPA 1988). The phrase cave sensitivity is used fr equently to describe the vulnerability of cave resources to human degradation. Theo retically, a cave can be sensitive to many things in the natural environment; however, this study is only concerned with determining how sensitive a cave is to anthropogenic disturbances, both surface and subsurface. Cave disturbanc e is a phrase used to describe the destruction of a cave and it s inherent resources as a result of surface and subsurface anthropogenic factors. There are many degrees of cave management, hence the need to clarify the term within the context of this thesis. Cave managem ent represents any

PAGE 18

4 continuous action that conser ves, preserves, restores, or protects the well-being of a cave environment. Caves that are not actively managed are considered unmanaged. Active cave management prac tices are necessary to conserve and protect the inherent resour ces of a cave system. Henc eforth, the management priority of a group of caves represents which caves should be considered foremost when drafting management pl ans that focus on conservation and protection of these natural resources.

PAGE 19

5 Figure 1. West-central Florida. Human-Environmental Interaction The human interest in the explorat ion and utilization of caves dates back many centuries (Gillieson 1996). Many peop le have benefited from the shelter, storage capacity, and spiritual haven they provide. No matter the use, humans

PAGE 20

6 have always been fascinated with the explor ation of cave systems. The karst landscape of Florida is one of the most significant and extensive karst terrains found throughout the world (Thornbury 1960 ; Lane 1986). Because Florida is one of the most populated states in the United States, a growing population and persistent urban sprawl are only a few of the possible threats humans pose to the sensitive karst environment. Not only do certain human actions threaten the condition of surficial karst features in Florida such as sinkholes, springs, and disappearing streams, they also pose a danger to subsur face features like caves. Cavernous systems are dynamic natural res ources that are affected by surface and subterranean environmental changes. Florida lies in a particularly fragile position because of its ex ponential increase in populati on. The lack of information regarding cave contents and the environmental sens itivity of caves to anthropogenic disturbances di rectly prohibits the m anagement of cave systems in Florida. Research Strategy Problem Statement Unfortunately, active cave management in west-central Florida is virtually nonexistent. A disconnect exists betw een researchers, landowners, and the caving community regarding the knowledge of cave contents, sensitivity, and disturbance. This project provides insi ght on cave contents, sensitivity, disturbance, and presents a tool for det ermining cave management priority in west-central Florida.

PAGE 21

7 Furthermore, data were compiled and analyzed in order to evaluate the association between cave ownership, s ensitivity, disturbance, and management. Research Purpose This project was initiated through a collaborative effort between the Withlacoochee State Forest (WSF) and t he Department of Geography at the University of South Florida. The overa ll purpose of this study was to create a GIS-based inventory with the ability to determine the management priority of caves. Terrestrial caves were visited in order to assemble a detailed record of resources and determine the approximate sensitivity and di sturbance of each cave through means of a GIS-based inv entory. Given the widespread lack of cave management in west-centra l Florida, the intention of the inventory is to serve as a guide for determining wh ich caves hold management priority. Research Questions The research questions involved in this study included: 1. Can current cave inventory methods be adapted to make data collection more efficient? 2. Can cave sensitivity and disturbance be used to determine management priority? 3. How do ownership and current management status affect the overall management priority of a cave?

PAGE 22

8 Research Objectives To address these questions, several objectives were needed: 1. Analyze, develop, and refine curr ent cave inventory data collection methods; 2. Formulate indices to measure cave sensitivity and disturbance; 3. Discuss the implications cave sensitivity and disturbance have on management priority ; and 4. Discuss the association between cave sensitivity, disturbance, management, and ownership. The intended objective of this thesis was to develop an inventory to rank terrestrial caves in west-central Fl orida by management immediacy, based on relative sensitivity and disturbance. The measures developed in this research, which include the GIS-based cave inventor y, cave sensitivity index, and cave disturbance index, are int ended to be used as a tool to gain an understanding of the management priority of west-cent ral Florida caves. The geodatabase containing the inventory data collected during this study serves as a link between researchers, land owners, and the member s of the west-central Florida caving community.

PAGE 23

9 Background Information Just as Gillieson (1996) and White (1988) attest, the definition of cave is inherently dependent on the def iner. Caves naturally form in a myriad of host rocks, depending on composition, and are classified by t heir size and shape of passages, length, and general layout of openi ngs. Those which are classified as solution caves form from the chemical solution of carbonate rock such as limestone or dolomite (Whi te 1988; Gillieson 1996). However, Palmer (2002) explai ns that speleogenesis requires one necessity: the groundwater must dissolv e the carbonate bedrock quick enough to form caves before the rock is eliminated by surface erosion. Caves also form from the dissolution of evaporate rock such as gypsum and halite. Additionally, caves may form from the silicate solu tion of sandstone and basalt. All of the previous methods of cave formation are considered to be a part of the evolution of karst terrains (Gillieson 1996). Limest one caves form along groundwater paths that are characterized by high discharge and turbidity. Solution caves found in Florida are formed when there is sufficient subsurface water flow to dissolve bedrock and keep allogenic water in contact with the soluble cave walls, fissures, or cracks (Palmer 1991). Conceptually, a cave is only consi dered a cave if it is large enough to allow the human body to enter (White 1988 ). Perhaps it depends on the size and shape of the explorer that ultimately defi nes a cave. More scientifically, a cave is a natural cavity in a rock which acts as a conduit for water flow between input

PAGE 24

10 points, such as streamsinks, and output point s, such as springs or seeps (White 1984, quoted in White 1988). Rather, a more non-scientific definition clarifies caves as a natural cavity in a rock which is enterable by people (Gillieson 1996). Although the definiti on of cave differs in the liter ature, many states in the United States have their own parameters which are used to define a cavern. According to the Florida Cave Survey, a ca ve is defined as a natural cavity which equals are exceeds one of t he following dimensions: horiz ontal length of 30 feet, total vertical extent of 30 feet, or vertical drop (pit) of 30 feet. This study uses the Florida Cave Survey definition of cave (Florida Cave Survey Constitution 2005). The term terrestrial ca ve represents any cave th at has air-filled passage. It also includes caves with direct connec tions to the FAS. Terrestrial caves should not be confused with aquatic cave s, which include caves without airfilled passage. Aquatic caves are commonl y found in Florida at spring discharge locations. Only terrestrial caves are included in this study. Karst Landscape Terrestrial caves are one of the many features found in the karstified Florida landscape. The word karst has its roots as an or ographic, proper name (for more on the etymology of karst see Jakucs, 1977). It was not until years after the first usage of the term that it morphed into a general term of physical geography.

PAGE 25

11 The concept of karst terrains was m ade prevalent by E. Dudich in 1932: Karst is a geographic concept subsequently altered into a geomorphologic technical term. Today, those regions are called karst that exhibit the same features as the Karst in the geographic sense. These features tend to manifest themse lves on rocks that are comparatively readily soluble, with little or no residue. These rocks include rock salt, gypsum and limestone. The first two rarely appear in substantial masses on the surface, but limestone abounds. Hence, all the true karsts of some magnitude are in limestone regions (Dudich 1932 quoted in Jakucs 1977, pg. 32). Although there is an abundance of limestone underly ing Earths surface, approximately 10-20%, karstified areas are more atypical (Thornbury 1960). According to Thornbury (1960), the followi ng are considered si gnificant karstic areas around the world: the Causse region of southern France, Spanish Andalusia, Greece, norther n Yucatan, Jamaica, nort hern Puerto Rico, western Cuba, the coastal plain fringing the Great Australian Bight, c entral Florida, the Great Valley of Virginia and Tenness ee, southern Indiana, west-central Kentucky, and north-central Tennessee. A karst landscape is created by the chemical dissolution of limestone. As a result, certain landforms become appar ent in karst environments. Closed depressions, disrupted surface dr ainage, caves, and underground drainage systems or conduits are all examples of landforms abundant in a karst landscape (White 1988).

PAGE 26

12 The degree of karst landform developm ent depends on a number of factors, which influence the dissolution of limestone, such as precipitation (Trudgill 1985), permeability and porosity of the limest one (White 1988), amount of calcium carbonate contained in the limestone (Trudgill 1985), and turbidity of groundwater flow in the limestone (Lane 1986). Karst Geomorphology Limestone is a rock containing carbonate (CO3) as part of its chemical make-up. Limestone is also classified as a sedimentary rock composed mostly of calcite (CaCO3). Limestone is either formed th rough the actions of organisms or as a result of inorganic processes. The vast majority of limestones are biochemical limestones formed of pieces of algae, coral, and shell fragments (McGeary et al. 2004). The geomorphology of limestone is c haracterized by dissolution and erosion processes through joints and fissures in bedrock (Trudgill 1995). Limestone is dissolved when a certain acid interacts with calcite. This acid is called carbonic acid (H2CO3). Carbonic acid is produced when water mixes with carbon dioxide (H20 + C02 H2CO3). Even though carbon dioxide is found in the atmosphere (0.03 percent), mo st of the carbon dioxide responsible for combining with water to dissolve limestone is found within the soil and is produced by the decay of soil humus (Moore and Nicholas 1964).

PAGE 27

13 Limestone is the most abundant sediment ary rock and it is not uncommon for limestone to contain 99% calcium carbonat e, which is the reason for its high susceptibility to disso lution (Trudgill 1985). A major control on the dissolution ra te of limestone is precipitation (Trudgill 1985). Precipitation has a direct correlation to the moisture content in soils. Combined with slope, the moisture content of the soil influences run-off rates, which controls the amount of water interacting with the rock. Soil acts as a domicile for carbon dioxide and percolat ing rainwater discharge (Jakucs 1977; Trudgill 1985). In order to understand the physical context of this study, the general geomorphologic characteristi cs of Florida must be identified. Karst Geomorphology of Florida Literature regarding the geomorphology of Florida is limited and of rather broad nature. One of the only comp lete works concerning Floridas geomorphology was penned by William White in 1970. Even though his work titled The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsular was a complete representation of the entir e physiographic regions of Florida, the manuscript lacked detailed regionalism. According to White (1970), Florida c an be categorized into three separate physiographic regions: the Distal zone, t he central zone, and the proximal zone. The southern or distal zone is characte rized by lowlands. This zone is unique because it is the only place in the United St ates where the Atlant ic-Gulf of Mexico

PAGE 28

14 coastal land extends all the way to t he outer edge of the Continental Shelf. The central zone is distinguished by parallel ridges in line with the coastline of Florida). The northern or pr oximal zone of the Florida peninsula is characterized by dry highlands and hills as a result of declining sea level. Generally, the highlands of the proximal zone are above the piezometric surface (White 1970). Each terrestrial cave included in this study is located on one of the following physiographic regions defined by White (1970): Brooksville Ridge, Cotton Plant Ridge, Sumter Uplands, or Ocala Hills.

PAGE 29

15 Chapter Two: Physical and Social Context Defining the Study Area: West-Central Florida This study was conducted in west-cent ral Florida, which includes Marion, Citrus, Sumter, and Hernando c ounties (Figure 1). West-central Florida is a karst landscape conducive for researching cave se nsitivity and disturbance for several reasons. First, the study area contains hundreds of terrestrial caves spatially dispersed throughout the landscape. This study includes caves located on both public and private lands. Every cave with public ownership is located in the Withlacoochee State Forest, which is st ate-owned land. Each private cave is located on a privately-owned parcel of l and. Second, access to many of these caves is possible due to the convenient location of the study area to three of Floridas caving organizations, or gro ttos: Tampa Bay Area Grotto, Central Florida Cavers Grotto, and Florida Speleological So ciety (Figure 2). These grottos are affiliated with the National Speleological Society (NSS). Members of these three grottos were helpful in s uggesting and locating caves used in this study. Finally, the caves of west-centra l Florida vary in extent, contents, sensitivity, and disturbance, making the study area a prime location for conducting the cave inventory and dete rmining cave management immediacy.

PAGE 30

16 Figure 2. Relative location of terrestrial caves (included in this study) to grottos affiliated with the Nati onal Speleological Society (NSS). West-central Florida C aves and Geologic Framework In Florida, most caves are current ly underwater and located in the coastal lowlands where the water table is loca ted close to the surface (Florea 2006). Thick, Quaternary sediments overlie karst features in lowland ar eas of the state,

PAGE 31

17 which suppresses their surface expre ssion (Tihansky 1999). Conversely, in upland areas, such as the Brooksville Rid ge and Ocala Uplift, terrestrial caves are known to exist because the location of the water table is far below the surface. Terrestrial cave s in west-central Florida have been known for decades. For instance, Maynards Cave in Lecant o, Citrus County (Darling 1961; 1962) and the Dames Cave complex, Citrus County (Brinkmann and Reeder 1993, 1994; Brinkmann 2003) have established reco rds of visitation since the early 1900s. Other than these studies, little scient ific documentation exists regarding air-filled caves in west-central Florida. Florea (2006) presents the most comprehensive account of cave geomorphology in west-central Florida. Cave passages in west-central Florida are dominantly tabular and laterally extensive (Florea 2006). Passage directionality is controlled by a system of NE-SW and SW-NE fractures throughout the host rock. The cave passages end in tabular and fissure-type structure that are too ti ght for a human body to fit (Florea 2006). Cave passages do not act as discrete conduits in the aquife r, nor do they connect together into a dendritic-style drainage system (Florea 2006). Underlying most of Florida is the F AS, composed of Tertiary carbonates and estimated to contain over 19,000 km3 of water (Miller 1986). Even though more than 90% of 17-million Florida re sidents rely on the FAS for drinking, industry, and irrigation waters (Scott et al. 2004), little is known about the connectivity of cave systems that compri se west-central Floridas karst (Florea

PAGE 32

18 2006). The known cave systems included in this study all devel oped within one of the following rocks: Avon Park Fo rmation, Ocala Limestone, Suwannee Limestone, and Tampa Member (formerly Tampa Limestone) (Florida Geological Survey 2006) The Avon Park Formation, a cream to light-brown or tan, Middle Eocene, fossiliferous, marine limestone, ranges fr om 15-91 meters thick (Stewart 1968) (Figure 3). In a few areas of west-cent ral Florida, molds of evaporites may be present in the dolostone, which is inte rbedded in the formation (Bishop and Lane 1987) The Avon Park Formation occurs throughout Florida and comprises the oldest rock outcroppings in Florida. These sediments are locally exposed in sinks and quarries near the crest of the Ocala Platform in Citrus and Levy Counties (Lane 1986; Bishop and Lane 1987). Some of the fossils embedded in the Avon Park Formation include forams, mollusks, echinoids, algae, an d carbonized plant remains (Bishop and Lane 1987). The Ocala Limestone overlies the Avon Park Formation, is approximately 122 meters thick, and is composed of white to cream, Upper Eocene, marine limestones and occasional dolostones (Stewart 1986; Bishop and Lane 1987) (Figure 3). The texture of the limestone is usually soft and porous, but some parts have been converted into a hard, dense rock due to the cementation of particles by the deposition of calcite. Ocala Limestone is composed of almost pure calcium carbonate, which facilitates its solution in the landscape. Ocala Limestone underlies most of Florida, but is exposed at the surface in only a small

PAGE 33

19 portion of the state. In many quarries in Hernando and Citrus Counties, the rock is mined for its use as cement. Some of the fossils that are found in the Ocala Limestone include forams, echinoids, bryo zoans, mollusks, and rare vertebrates (Bishop and Lane 1987). Overlying the Ocala Limestone is t he Suwannee Limestone, a white to cream, fossiliferous, Lower Oligocene ma rine limestone. Its thickness ranges from 15-30 meters (Stewart 1968) and c ontains nearly 10% silica impurity (Cooke 1945) (Figure 3). Irregular chert lenses are commonly seen at contacts between the Ocala Limestone and the ov erlying Suwannee Limestone (Florea 2006). Mollusks, foraminifers, corals, and echinoids include many fossils that are imbedded in the limestone. Overlying the Suwannee Limestone in the study area is the Tampa Member of the Arcadia Formation (Figure 3). It ranges from 15-30 meters thick and is a yellow-colored, fossiliferous, Upper Oligocene to Lower Miocene, marine limestone containing variable amounts of dolostone, sand, clay, and phosphate (Stewart 1986; Bishop and Lane 1987). Genera lly, the Tampa Member is a hard, massive crystalline rock. Some fossils f ound in the rock include forams, mollusks, and algae. The Tampa Member is also we ll-known for containing Floridas State Stone, the silicified fossil agatized co ral (Bishop and Lane 1987). Some outcrops occur to the south of the study area near Tampa, Hillsborough County; however most of the Tampa is overlain by the Miocene Hawthorn Group and undifferentiated sand and clay deposit s (Tihansky and Knochenmus 2001).

PAGE 34

20 Figure 3.Tertiary and Quaternary geologic formations in Florida (taken from Tikansky and Knochenmous 2001). Physical Geography of the Study Area Marion, Sumter, Citrus, and Hernando counties comprise the geographical area of west-central Florida. These f our counties have a combined area of approximately 8,269 km2 and total population of nearly 689,000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2006). The highest natural point in the study area occurs in Citrus County at 94 meters above sea level (m.a.s.l.) and t he lowest point is 0 m.a.s.l. at the Gulf of Mexico. Annual climate in west -central Florida is characterized by a

PAGE 35

21 summer wet season and a winter dry season Average annual rainfall in the area is 137 centimeters with the majority fa lling from June to September. The average summer temperature in the area is 35 C while the average winter temperature is 14 C (FloridaSmart 2005). Terrestrial caves are found within four physiographic divisions in the west-c entral Florida area: Brooksville Ridge, Cotton Plant Ridge (CPR), Ocala Hills, and Sumter Upland (White 1970). A map of terrestrial cave locations included in th is study as they relate to physiographic division is seen in Figure 4.

PAGE 36

22 Figure 4. Locations of caves included in this study and west-central Florida physiographic divisions as defined by White (1970).

PAGE 37

23 The Brooksville Ridge The majority of caves included in th is study are located on the Brooksville Ridge, which includes all inventoried ca ves in Citrus, Sumter, and Hernando Counties (Figure 4). The Brooksville Ridge is the largest of the ridges located in the Central Upland of the Fl orida Peninsula. Its lengt h is approximately 177 km, but it is the width of the Brooksville Ridge area that makes it the largest of all other ridges in Florida (White 1970). T he larger, southern part of the ridge is around 95 km long and 16 to 24 km wide, while the smaller, northern part of the ridge is about 80 km long and 6 to 9 km wide. Elevations vary throughout the length of the Brooksville Ridge from 21 to 60 m above sea level. Higher portions of the ridge are located in the southern end, which are up to 22 m higher than portions in the northern end (White 1970). It should also be noted that the Broo ksville Ridge runs parallel with the other Florida ridges and shoreline. The higher elevations of the Brooksville Ridge are located in a zone which runs along t he western side of the southern part of the ridge (White 1970). At the souther n end of the Brooksville Ridge lies the lowland dubbed Western Valley. Flanking the Brooksville Ridge to the east is the Cotton Plant Ridge. The western edge of the Brooksville Ridge is suggested to be a marine terrace scarp. White (1970) based this hypothesis on the fact that certain parts of the scarp at the western edge of t he Brooksville Ridge have been shores at more than one sea level (White 1970).

PAGE 38

24 Figure 5. Gentle, rolling t opography near Brooksville, Flor ida. In the background is an upland mesic-hardwood hammock adjacent to a sinkhole lowland in the foreground. The topography of the Brooksville Ridge is rolling with internal drainage. Upland mesic-hardwood hammocks separate sinkhole lowlands that are mostly occupied by wetlands or lakes (Flo rea 2006) (Figure 5) Even though all inventoried caves of Citrus, Sumter, and Hernando Counties are located along the Brooksville Ridge, this does not acc ount for all caves included in this research. Inventoried caves in Marion C ounty are located on either the Cotton Plant Ridge (CPR), Ocala Hills or Sumter Upland regions.

PAGE 39

25 Cotton Plant Ridge, Ocala Hills, and Sumter Upland The CPR borders the Brooksville Ridge to the east (Figure 4). It is oriented differently than the Brooksville Ridge in a northwest-southeast direction. Land elevations on the CPR rarely exceed 30 m.a.s.l. Its length and width are somewhat smaller than its nei ghbor to the west at 25 km long and at the most 8 km wide. According to White (1970), ther e is little surface drainage on the CPR and it appears that the ri dge is composed mostly of wind-blown sand dunes. The Ocala Hills trend southwest from the city of Ocala for about nine miles. They span about 8 km at their wi dest part. Elevations along the Ocala Hills reach some 45 to 60 m.a.s.l. (White 1970). The Ocala Hills have a northeastsouthwest orientation, differing from other central Florida upland surface features in the area. Located just east of the Brooksville Ridge and CPR is the Sumter Upland physiographic division. This upland surf ace feature runs parallel with the Brooksville Ridge and is about 56 km long and 24 km wide (White 1970). Topographically, elevations are a bit higher in the southern end of the upland and slowly decline towards the northern end. According to White (1970), this difference in elevation is due to subsidenc e resulting from the dissolution of the underlying limestone. Southern end elevat ions range from 25-30 m and from 2533 m in the northern end.

PAGE 40

26 Withlacoochee State Forest (WSF) Of the 33 state-owned fore sts in Florida, the WSF is presently the third largest and is divided into eight tracts of land (Figures 6 and 7). This vast stretch of land covers approximately 157,500 acre s and spans four counties in westcentral Florida (Citrus, Pa sco, Hernando, and Sumter). Between 1936 and 1939, under terms of the U.S. Land Resettlement Administration, the Federal government purchased the tracts of land that are included in WSF. Land management of the forest was t he responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service until 1958, when a lease-purchase agreement transferred the property to the Florida B oard of Forestry. The relati ve location of the WSF in west-central Florida is depict ed in Figure 6. The karst features found within the WSF boundaries include: springs, sinkholes and terrestrial caves. Each public cave included in this study is located on the Citrus Tract of the WSF, which is located on the border of Citrus and Hernando Counties. The land within the boundaries of the WSF is prot ected by the state, which makes it an excellent natural laboratory for karst research.

PAGE 41

27 Figure 6. Map showing state forests of Florida. (http://www.fl-dof.com/state _forests /index.html)

PAGE 42

28 Figure 7. Location of the WSF as rela ted to the extent of the study area.

PAGE 43

29 Social Context There are hundreds of terrestrial caves located in west-central Florida. As mentioned earlier, the publ ic caves included in this study were all located in the Citrus Tract of the WSF, which is public land owned by the state of Florida. This study also includes caves located on priv ate land. Private ca ves are located on parcels of land owned by an individual, gr oup of individuals, or an organization. Access to public and private caves is discussed in the Sources of Information and Data Collection Overview section in Chapter Three. The lack of cave management is a seri ous problem in west-central Florida. Florida is one of the fastest growing stat es in the nation, with a population growth of 1.78% between December 2005 and December 2006 (Christie 2006). Land developers are continually discovering ca ves, therefore c ontinuing the need for cave conservation and protection. Yet, fe w caves are currently being managed in west-central Florida. Information regarding the contents of public and private caves is deficient. This study is a result of the needs expre ssed by the WSF. The forest is currently in need of a guided approach to manage thei r caves. As a result, WSF staff approached the Department of Geography at the Univer sity of South Florida (USF) for help in the issue, which is how this project was conceived. One of the strategies of USF is to establish t he university as a national model for an institution fully engaged with its local, national, and gl obal communities, and this project fits into that strategy.

PAGE 44

30 Initially, the WSF sought help as a re sult of a 1999 incident involving two boys on a recreational caving trip to the st ate forest acted as a wake-up call for WSF personnel (Zimmer et al. 1999; Zimmer 1999). Two boys from San Antonios Boys Village were vi siting Peace Sign Cave in the Citrus Tract of the WSF when they became stuck in a tight passage. It took rescuers from six different agencies over two hours to pull the two boys out of danger and airlift them to the nearest hospital, where they were treated for hypothermia (Zimmer et al. 1999; Zimmer 1999). This incident made it cl ear to the state forest that it needed to revise strategies of cave management so as to needed to address the liability their caves present. Prior to the 1999 incident, no permits were required for entry into Dames Caves. However, the forest now requires a special-use permit for any group of people wishing to legally enter WS F caves. Cave discoveries continue to be brought to the attenti on of WSF personnel, but they still remain unaware of their sensitivity and disturbance, and fe w caves are managed in the WSF. Management of caves continues to be def icient in both public and private land. However, before caves can be managed, land owners must understand their contents, sensitivity, and distur bance. The exploratory GIS-based cave inventory presented in this thesis serves as a tool for understanding the inherent contents of caves, their s ensitivity, and disturbance.

PAGE 45

31 Cave Management The first step of cave management is to understand caves as systems that develop through natural processes in the landscape. The term best management practice is used commonly in place of management This phrase demonstrates the realization that conservation st rategies are continually evolving and improving. With the progression of sci ence and research, the methods of cave management used today may be obsolete tomorrow. Thus, current best practice in cave conservation and management is not an end product, but rather a conscious process of defining and enhanc ing standards (Hildreth-Werker 2006, pg. 18). Not every cave is managed by the same method, or for the same reason (Gillieson 1996). When considering the envir onmental impact of humans on cave systems, it is important to include both the subsur face and surface (Gillieson 1996; Hildreth-Werker and Werker 2006; Wats on et al 1997). Protection of karst features has all too often focus ed upon caves, and not given adequate consideration to the need for protecti on and proper management of the total karst area as a land unit (Wats on et al 1997, pg. 15). Tourist caves are the most widely k nown to the public because they are openly accessible to anyone and broadly adve rtised. For this reason, tourist caves have many problems such as destruction of speleothems (Villar et al 1986), speleothem desiccation (Gillieson 1 996), dust collecting on speleothems (Jablonksy 1992), and lint clinging to walls and formations (Gillieson 1996). With

PAGE 46

32 these known problems, tourist caves accept the tradeoff between disturbance and education. Non-show caves, or wild caves, al so experience distur bance. Stitt (1977) describes a range of human impacts, bot h surface and subsurface, on caves, while Everson et al. (1987) is a more spec ific account of the recreational impacts in Missouri caves. Gamble (1981) consi dered only four types of disturbance to a cave, its overlying surface, and catc hment area; however, karst management should be holistic in its approach (Watson et al 1997). Each time a cave is visited, it is impacted. A dug or quarried entrance can be blocked, but the cave atmosphere is forever influenced (Gillieso n 1996). However, cave conservation ethics can mitigate human disturbance and pr eserve resource sensitivity. Developing a cave management strategy should adhere to the process of environmental policy, as described in Vaughn (2007). First, a problem is identified. In this stage, an inventor y is conducted to better understand and document the current condition of a cave system. Next, a m anagement plan is drafted. After considering all aspects of cave conser vation and restoration, a management strategy is outlined by a gr oup of cave specialists. After the management plan is drafted, it must be adopted by the landowner and cave manager. The next stage is implementati on, where the m anagement plan is actively enforced. Finally, an evaluation of the management strategy must be made. Since cave management is also known as best management practice it is clear that cave conservation and restorat ion methods are continually evolving,

PAGE 47

33 and new methods of management are alwa ys on the horizon (Hildreth-Werker 2006). The History of Cave Inventory Projects involving the inventory of caves rarely appear in the literature. The few inventories found in publication were conducted at various resolutions, temporal scales, and with different purposes Therefore, the definition of cave inventory depends on the projec t for which it is being co nducted. The most recent and complete definition of cave inv entory appears in DuChene (2006): Cave inventory is the systematic observation and recording of significant features found within a cave. An inventory may include many types of data on the archaeology, biology, chemistry, hydrology, geology, history, mineralogy, paleontology, speleogenesis, and impacts of modern human use. The amount and type of information collected depends on several factors: the purpose of the project; the nature and complexity of the cave; and technical financial, personnel, and temporal limitation (DuChene 2006, pg. 19). The modern framework of the cave in ventory, which involves cataloging significant features, began after the adoption of the FCRPA of 1988. Prior to the late 1980s, cave inventories usually invo lved cataloguing biota, archaeological sites, and fossil deposits, which date back to the 1700s (DuChene 2006). Over time, cave mapping changed along with inventory framework. Since the 1700s, cave maps are us ed in conjunction with cave inventory as a systematic method for collecting data from caves (DuChene 2006). Early cave maps were simple drafts of a cave s perimeter, excluding internal detail

PAGE 48

34 (Figure 8). However, cave survey and mapping evolved along with inventory methods. Today, cave cartographers atte mpt to include as much inventory information as possible on cave maps, si nce inventory personnel use them to attach a mathematical location to internal resources (Figure 9). Figure 8. Cave map (1982) of Whal e Creek Cave,McQueens, Cat Island, Bahamas (Palmer, R.J. 1982).

PAGE 49

35 Figure 9. Cave map (2006) of Thorntons Cave. Sumter C ounty, Florida (Florea 2006).

PAGE 50

36 Figures 8 and 9 possess many differ ences. Figure 8 is an example of a twenty-two year old map that shows little internal detail of Whale Creek Cave, Bahamas. In contrast, Figure 9 shows a re cent map of Thorntons Cave, Sumter County, Florida. The map shows a great am ount of internal detail and resource information that would be included during a cave inventory, such as bat roosts and guano, speleothems, mineralization fo rmations, and hydrology. It even includes information on how the cave in teracts with the surrounding environment. Even though cave inventory methods evolved over time, the purpose remained the same; cave inventories prov ide information, which is the key to appreciating and understanding caves and their contents. Additionally, understanding caves as natural systems and resources is the key to their management and protection (DuChene 2006). A bas ic cave inventory is useful to scientists and other researchers when loca ting potential study ar eas. Inventories provide the information required to make educated decisions about the management of caves and their inherent resources. When making decisions about cave access, managers use inventory information to locate areas potentially sensitive to human disturbance, or areas of scientific research within a cave. Managers then use this information to direct a travel route to bypass these areas, or close an area of the cave altogether.

PAGE 51

37 Types of Inventory Stokes and Griffiths (2000) and Du Chene (2006) define three types of cave inventory, which vary in detail and structure depending on the objectives of the project. These include: 1) reconnaissanc e inventories, which usually include a simple collection of features without specific mention of abundance, condition, or distribution (Figure 10); 2) generalpurpose inventories, the most common in the United States, include a collection of the abundance, distribution, and identity of all significant resources within a cave; 3) project-specific inventories focus on a particular resource or feature found wit hin a cave, such as an archaeological finding, or cave biota. Figure 11 illustra tes the type of detail and focus attained during this type of inventory. Project-spec ific inventories usually support a larger project, such as specific resource re storation or an archaeol ogical excavation. Each of these inventories are qualitat ive, quantitative, or both, depending on the purpose of the study (DuChene 2006).

PAGE 52

38 Figure 10. An example of a qualitative form used for a reconnaissance inventory (DuChene 2006).

PAGE 53

39 Figure 11. Potential Items for cave inventory lists (DuChene 2006).

PAGE 54

40 Prior Cave Inventory Research As mentioned earlier in this chapter, re search involving cave inventory is rarely found in the literat ure. A few cave inventor y projects involve the mechanical tabulation of cave res ources on paper (Mylroie 1978, 1979, 1981; Smith 1981; Brown and Kirk 1999; Douglas 1999; Stokes and Griffiths 2000; Roth 2004). However, since the advent of GIS, researchers realized the potential of combining cave inventory and GIS. H ence, GIS is given the credit for propelling cave inventory methods into well-known literature. Today, finding published studies that incorporate a mix ed-methods approach to cave inventory is becoming more common. Project-Specific Inventories In 1999, a project-specif ic, biological inventory of caves within the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest s in Virginia was conducted (Brown and Kirk 1999). Forest personnel applied th e inventory in two phases. The first phase of the project involved documenting and identifying all stygobitic fauna associated with the environment s of the 90 caves on their inventory list. Of the 90 caves, 25 were found as acceptable habit ats for stygobites. The inventory team only considered stygobitic fauna, or cave -obligatory, aquatic invertebrates. The second phase of the study included a detailed inventor y of aquatic stygobites and the hydrologic condition in which they liv e. In addition, the team also provided general information on a variety of other cave fauna, including pack rats,

PAGE 55

41 raccoons, bobcats, cave crickets, millipe des, collembola, harvestmen, mites, spiders, salamanders, cray fish, and bats (Brown and Kirk 1999) The inventory information gathered by the team was analyzed to address management challenges to caves in the forest. Ho wever, the inventory only considered biologic and hydrologic resources, and wa s not a holistic approach at cataloging all cave resources. Caves are inventoried for both their biological and cultural resources. On September 13, 1997, the Hubbards Cave History Project began in Hubbards Cave, Tennessee (Douglas 1999). The goal of the project was to acquire cultural resource information to aid in future protection, management, and restoration projects for the cave. Hubbards Cave c ontained a myriad of cultural resources from the Civil War era includ ing ladders, steps, bridges saltpeter vat remains, and various wall-markings. A detailed acco unt of these cultural resources was acquired by the inventory team, as well as information on bats that roosted in a western passage of the cave. With this information, the inventory team was able to coax the Nature Conservancy into in stalling a bat-friendly gate at the entrance to protect both its cultural and biologi cal resources (Douglas 1999). Like Brown and Kirk (1999), Douglas (1999) only ment ioned the inventory of a few cave resources. In 2004, Monica Roth completed a thes is that involved the study of flankmargin caves in the Bahamas and San Salvador. A project-specific, geological inventory was conducted by surveyi ng caves and analyzing their geometric

PAGE 56

42 properties. Although the in ventory described by Roth (2004) did not include information on cave resources, it did include data on the diverse geometries of 66 flank-margin caves. The objectives of the project were to inventory flankmargin caves and examine their dev elopment through geometric analysis. Geometric data was collected in the fi eld and analyzed with both AutoCAD and Microsoft Excel. Because the objective was to analyze geometric data, a basic inventory met the needs of the st udy. Even though Roth (2004) described a method of manually colle cting inventory data on paper and a computer-based analysis of the data, GIS was not implemented. General-Purpose Inventories General purpose inventories are curr ently the most common type used in the United States (DuChene 2006). A revi ew of the literature revealed several general purpose inventories that implement ed GIS to analyze results. However, GIS was used as a post-inventory tool, not in field data collection. One such example was Hurricane Crawl Cave in Sequoia National Park, California. Despain and Fryer (2002) explain how GIS and a general-purpose inventory were used to manage the cave. The project first focused on the inventory of rare, fragile, and significant cave res ources. Once collected on paper in situ the inventory data was loaded into a GIS and used to provide statistical analysis on the relationship between certain signific ant and sensitive resources and travel routes within the cave.

PAGE 57

43 Using analysis of buffer zones ar ound key features in a GIS, management restrictions were made in certain sensitiv e areas where travel routes were unable to avoid these features. Since there were over 1,200 key features in the inventory database, a GIS was the only option for analyzing such a large database of features. This method of using cave inventory data and GIS was successful in aiding management concerns for the park. Despain and Fryer (2002) planned to use the same methodology to address cave management challenges in other national parks in California. In another national park, Horrocks and Szulkalski (2002) conducted a study using GIS to map the potential ext ent for Wind Cave, South Dakota. Wind Cave is one of the largest cave systems in the United States with a total passage length of 166 km as of 2002. Initially, a general-purpose inventory and GIS were used to make management easier, but re searchers noticed further uses for the GIS-stored inventory database. By usi ng geological data acquired from the inventory and various GIS layers in cluding slope, aspect, orthophotoquads, land ownership maps, the park bound ary maps, and a map of the current extent of the cave, they determined the current cave boundaries cover only 1/ 10 of the total potential or maximum likely extent of the cave. Such research would be impossible without the combinat ion of inventory data and GIS. Similar to Horrocks and Szulkalski (2002), Ohms and Reece (2002) conducted a study utilizing GIS to aid the management of Wind and Jewel Caves, South Dakota. Cave managers of both caves were presented with daily

PAGE 58

44 challenges given the sheer length and co mplexity of the two separate cave systems. The primary goal of the study was to determine the relationship of specific cave resources with overlying su rface features, which was accomplished by using GIS. A GIS was also used in both Wind and Jewel Caves to display general-purpose inventory data tied to eac h survey station. The storage and display of inventory data within a GIS enables the managers of each cave to make management-related decisions in a swift and accurate manner. For instance, at Jewel Cave, GIS was used to aid management decisions regarding the use of herbicides above the cave and to more accurately distinguish where the cave crosses surficial political boundar ies (Ohms and Reece 2002). By using GIS, cave specialists at Timpanogos Cave National Monument (TICA) addressed the strains over 70,000 visitors place on the cave system and its resources each year (McNeil et al. 2002) Because of the functionality of GIS, management of the cave, inherent res ources, and land above the cave was possible. After conducting a general-purpos e inventory of the significant and sensitive features within TICA, the dat a was loaded into Cave and Karst GIS software developed by the Environmental and Science Research Institute (ESRI). This special software along with inventory information enabled interpretive mapping, 3-D visualization, and cave resource management of TICA (McNeil et al. 2002). In order to manage and analyze an archaeological cave site, Moyes (2002) used GIS and cultural inventory in formation. In the past, archaeologists

PAGE 59

45 used GIS only as a tool for studying large regions; however, Moyes (2002) applied the tool to study a cave site: Actun Tunichil Muknal (ATM). ATM is a Terminal Classic Maya ceremonial cave in Upper Belize Valley, Cayo District, Belize. This study demonstrated the ef fectiveness of GIS as a means for data storage, display, visua lization, analyzation, and generation. Terminal Classic Maya artifacts were clustered by combining GIS technology and a K-means clustering analysis. Basic GIS functions, such as buffers and overlays, were used to evaluate the distances between artifact clusters and morphological features in the cave. These clusters of artifacts we re also used to analyze and distinguish areas of the cave used by the Maya. New insights into ancient Maya ritual cave use were accomplished by the use of GI S, which are implausible by standard methods of mapping and analysis (Moyes 2002). McNeil et al. (2002), Moyes (2002), Ho rrocks and Szulkalski (2002), Ohms and Reece (2002), and Despain and Fryer (2 002) considered cave sensitivity in each of their inventories, but not cave disturbance. Moreover, each of the aforementioned studies used GIS as a tool for post-processing data, but not for inventory data collection. Cave and Karst Disturbance This study is concerned with comb ining GIS with cave inventory, sensitivity, disturbance, management, and ownership. In order to measure the disturbance of karst environments at the county level, Van Beynen and

PAGE 60

46 Townsend (2005) created a hierarchal and standardized index. Rather than focusing on one aspect of the environment, the Karst Disturbance Index (KDI) is a holistic approach at measuring hum an impact on karst environments, which includes cave systems. Disturbance indi cators used to measure the approximate degree of human-induced degrad ation of cave environment s include the amount of cave flooding due to surface altera tions, vandalism, sediment removal, condensation corrosion, desiccation, removal of cultural artifacts, removal of minerals, and floor sediment compaction. The KDI is an appropriate tool for understanding the disturbance of a karst env ironment at the count y level, but not on a smaller scale, such as a single cave system. Similar to the KDI described by van Beynen and Townsend (2005), visitor impact mapping is another method of det ermining the amount of human-induced cave disturbance. During the 1995 National Cave and Karst Management Symposium, Hans Bodenhamer first present ed his concept of a tool that enabled the mapping of visitor impact levels in caves (Bodenhamer 1995; 2006). Each area of the cave was classified and co lor-coded according to the severity of visitor impact. Five different classes of visitor impact were defined: pristine, no observable impacts, light impacts, heavy impacts, and severe impacts. No foot traffic was found on floor surf aces classified as pristi ne. Areas of no observable impact had floor surfaces on which visitor impacts were not noticed, even under close inspection by the research team.

PAGE 61

47 Finally, areas classified as lightly, heavily, or severely impacted were defined according to their relative amount of disturbance (Bodenhamer 2006). Bodenhamer drew point maps to locate and describe damaged resources, as well as drafted area maps to show t he extent of floor disturbance. Each time the cave was visited by the research team, they re-mapped the same areas and measured visitor impact. This enabled them to compare impact maps within a single cave, or between multiple caves to determine where each area of the cave had changed over time due to continued impact from visitors. Bodenhamer (1995, 2006) focused mainly on mapping fl oor disturbances from visitation, and did not include human impacts on geologic formations, biota, or hydrology. Cave Studies in West-Central Florida Literature containing information on Florida caves is of limited nature and predominately focuses on biological, bot anical, geomorphological, and geological topics. Past research conducted in west-c entral Florida is biologic, hydrologic, and speleogenetic in nature. No studies regarding cave inventory were conducted in Florida. Theref ore, a regional cave inve ntory and study of cave sensitivity and human disturbance in we st-central Florida is necessary to determine management priority.

PAGE 62

48 Biospeleological Research Several caves included in this st udy were mentioned for their biological resources. George H. H ubbard (1901) published the firs t paper on Florida cave biology titled Insect Life in Florid a Caves. Since Hubbards publication, a number of troglogibitic arthropods were di scovered in Florida, mostly aquatic crustaceans. However, the most recent de scription of Florida cave fauna is Peck (1970), and only includes records of three trogloxenes, 13 troglophiles, and two troglobites. Although Peck (1970) ment ions fauna in many Flor ida caves, the following is a description of fauna collected and descr ibed in caves included in this study. Nesticus pallidzis is a common cave spider that is found in caves throughout the United States. Peck (1970) describes collecti ng this spider in Blowing Hole Cave and the Dames Caves, Citrus County. A cave cricket ( Ceuthopilus latibuli ) with a range from Florida to G eorgia was documented in Blowing Hole, the Dames Caves, Belleview Cave, Waldo Cave, and Jennings Cave (Peck 1970). The Florida Department of Envir onmental Protection (FDEP) (2005) described cave flora and fauna found wit hin the Withlacoochee Basin (WB). Terrestrial caves within the WB are only found in the Citrus Tract of the WSF, Citrus County. FDEP (2005) is a water qualit y status report of the WB compiled a collaborative effort between the WSF and FD EP. This report briefly mentions the fauna and flora of terrestria l caves within the WSF.

PAGE 63

49 Several fern species were descri bed in the entrances of caves: two species of maidenhair fern (Adiantum tenerum and A. capillus-veneris), two species of brake fern (Pteris vittata and P. cretica), a number of species of spleenwort (Asplenium heterochroum, A. resiliens A. cristatum, A. pumilum, A. verecundum, A. auritum, and A. subtile), and the southern lip fern ( Cheilanthes microphylla) (FDEP, 2005). Numerous species of fauna were also found: deer mice (Peromyscus spp.), eastern woodrats (Neotoma floridana), and rat snakes (Elaphe spp.). The southeastern bat (Myotis austroriparius), with colonies numbering in the thousands, were found in a few caves during summer maternity months. The eastern pipistrelle ( Pipistrellus subflavus ), Floridas smallest bat species, was also identified in the report. Several cave invertebrates were also described. Invertebrate species included two spiders (Gaucelmus augustinus and Nesticus pallidus), two springtails (Isotoma notabilis and Tomocerus dubius), cave crickets (Ceuthopilus latibuli) mites (Acarina) and harvestmen (Phalangida) Aquatic invertebrates were not mentioned in the r eport, even though t hey are known to exist in several WSF caves (Werner, personal communication 2007). Speleological Research Other studies involving west-centra l Florida caves are more speleogenetic and geomorphological in nature. Brinkmann and R eeder (1994) conducted a

PAGE 64

50 study of speleogenesis in a section of the WSF, Citrus Count y, Florida. The caves studied were Vandal Cave, Peace Sign Cave, and Danger Cave located within the karst terrain of the Brooksville Ridge region of west-central Florida. They found that the uplift of the Ocala Arch during t he Miocene created joints in the Suwannee Limestone. The dissoluti on of this limestone formed cave passages. Not only did the uplift create joints, but it also placed the study area in a mixing zone of fresh water from the aqui fer and saline waters from the Gulf of Mexico, which expedited the dissoluti on process of limestone. As uplift continued, the caves were lifted above t he mixing zone and separated into six different passages by surface eros ion (Brinkmann and Reeder 1994). Vandal, Peace Sign, a nd Danger Caves are examples of vadose caves without direct aquifer connection. Florea et al. (2003) conducted a study of a water table cave. Briar Cave is loca ted in Marion County, Florida and formed within the Eocene Ocala Limestone. They found that Briar Cave consisted of a bimodal distribution of conduit elevati ons. Upper and lower conduit levels are horizontal and developed at 19 and 13 m.a.s.l. More importantly, the study results and historical evidence of the land ab ove the cave indicate water levels in the Upper Floridan Aquifer decreased due to anthropogenic disturbances (Florea et al. 2003). Florea (2006) surveyed seven air-fill ed caves in the Brooksville Ridge area of west-central Florida. Caves are late rally extensive and tiered with principle cavernous zones located at +3, +5, +12, +20, and +22 m.a.s.l. Primarily, cave

PAGE 65

51 passages are oriented NE-SW and NWSE. The cave passages included in Florea (2006) were not found to repr esent an integrated system of conduits between aquifer inputs and outputs. The studies conducted by Brinkm ann and Reeder (1994), Florea et al. (2003), and Florea (2006) all similarly fo cus on the geomorphology, geology, or hydrology of caves in west-central Flor ida. While studies involving projectspecific inventory, measuring cave s ensitivity, determining cave and karst disturbance, and using GIS as a tool fo r post-processing inventory data exist; however, no study uses a completely GIS -based inventory to provide a detailed account of cave resources, measuring cave sensitivity, and determining cave disturbance in an attempt to rank cave systems by their management priority.

PAGE 66

52 Chapter Three: Methodology This chapter summarizes the sources of information, da ta organization, and methods used to conduct this study. Discu ssed in this chapter are: 1) how to develop and refine cave inventory and data collection methods in the most efficient manner; and 2) how to best formulate indices to measure cave sensitivity and cave disturbance. Sources of Information Cavers are, in every way, an underground society. Far fewer people explore caves than, for example, hike or ride mountain bikes. Some carry a national directory of NSS members so that wherever they travel, they can find a comrade (Dewitt 2003). However, by fo llowing the proper procedures, access to both public and private caves is possi ble. The first step of conducting an inventory in a cave is acquiring access. This study included both public caves, located in the WSF, and private caves, located on privately-owned parcels of land. Access to caves on public land was given by WSF personnel, which required a special-use permit in order to drive on closed roads and enter any terrestrial cave.

PAGE 67

53 The first step in gaining access to pr ivate caves was to become a member of the National Speleological Society (NSS) and one of its lo cal, affiliated grottos. After becoming a member of the Tampa Ba y Area Grotto (TBAG), trips to private caves were made available by severa l fellow members. These members had previous knowledge of cave locati ons and a good relationship with each landowner. Before each private cave wa s inventoried, permission was given by the landowner to ensure continuati on of positive researcher-landowner relationships. Site Selection A convenience sampling technique wa s used to select caves in westcentral Florida (Johnson and Wichern 1998). A random sample was not practical given the lack of comprehensive cave knowledge. A collective database of terrestrial cave locations would make a random sample possible, but no such tool exists. West-central Florida was selected as a study area for this project because of the abundance of caves, previous res earch was conducted in several caves, and lack of cave management. In no other area of Florida is there a more suitable spatial distribution of public and pr ivate caves, making the area the most logical location in which to conduct this research.

PAGE 68

54 Analysis, Development, and Refineme nt of Cave Inventory Methodology One of the tasks associated with th is thesis was to analyze and refine current cave inventory methods. As m entioned earlier, cave inventories are currently conducted throughout the United States by a number of groups with varying objectives. No ma tter the inventory type, a paper inventory form is the most widely accepted tool for recording inventory data (Vukel ich 1995; ODowd and Broeker 1996; Vesley and Stock 1998; St okes and Griffiths, 2000; Walz and Spoelman, 2005; DuChene, 2006). However, this research required a change in data collection methods for two reasons : 1) paper forms were destroyed by water; and 2) the amount of information required to assess to ability to rank caves by management priority was not conducive for data collection on paper inventory form. Certain caves in west-central Flori da contain a direct connection to the FAS; therefore, conducting t he inventory while swimming or wading in water was not uncommon. Printing the inventory on wa ter-proof paper is an option, but this can be expensive given the cost of the paper and length of the inventory form (9 pages). Nonetheless, destruction of the paper inventory form by water during field data collection was a problem in the beginning stages of this research. An example of the damaged paper inventory fo rm used in the beginning stages of this study is seen in Figure 13. Furthermore, in order to determine cave management priority, the inventory required gathering more in formation and data than usually found in

PAGE 69

55 general-purpose inventories. The inventor y I applied to caves in west-central Florida was a combination of three parts: 1) detailed account of cave features, including digital photographs; 2) cave sens itivity index; and 3) cave disturbance index (Figure 12). This amount of information would require a lengthy paper inventory form. Therefore, a more effici ent tool for data collection was needed.

PAGE 70

56 Cave Sensitivity Index Cave Management Priority Cave Disturbance Index Can cave inventory be used as a tool to suggest management priority of west-central Florida caves? Hydrology Geology Paleontology Mineraology Biota Culture/ History Trash Damaged Speleothems Floor Disturbance Destuction of cultural artifacts Graffiti Condensartion Corrosion Desiccation Sedimentation Deforestation Damaged/removal of Fossils Biota-Population Density Biota-Species Richness Urbanization Surface Subsurface GIS-based Cave Inventory Geographic Information Systems Agriculture Quarry Mining Detailed account of cave features per survey station Figure 12. Methodological flow char t for determining management priority.

PAGE 71

57 Figure 13. Paper form destroyed after conducting inventory in water. Integrating cave inventory and GIS provided a non-paper method and solved the problem of destruc tion-prone inventory forms. In the recent past, cave specialists in several National Parks began us ing GIS as a tool for cave inventory and management (Knutson 1997; Despai n and Fryer 2002; Ohms and Reece

PAGE 72

58 2002; Horrocks and Szukalski 2002; Pfaff et al. 2000; Walz and Spoelman 2005). However, the aforementioned sources use a geodatabase to store inventory information acquired in the field by paper form, not the collection of inventory data in the cave using GIS. Conducting the Cave Inventory After realizing the need for GIS and inventory integration during data collection, caves were evaluated with electronic cave inventory during the summer of 2007. The cave inventory fr amework is based on a paper inventory model described by ODowd and Broeker (1996) (Appendix F). This model was used to inventory caves located wit hin the Umpqua National Forest, Oregon and was developed as a collaborative effort between the National Speleological Society and the United Stat es Department of Agricult ure Division of Forestry. Other cave inventory models descri bed by Brown and Kirk (1999), Douglas (1999), Walz and Spoelman (2005), Ve sley and Stock (1998), and Nepstad (1991) were considered, but the ODo wd and Broeker (1996) model was the most comprehensive and proved to be easily adaptable to suit the objectives of this project. The inventory model was adjusted to comprehensively fit in a GIS geodatabase. One of the purpos es of my inventory was to provide a more detailed account of cave contents t han the inventory used by ODowd and Broeker (1996).

PAGE 73

59 After adapting the form used by ODowd and Broeker (1996), minor adjustments and additions were made in order for the form to be more specific to west-central Florida caves. Devices Used for Cave Inventory During the switch from a manual paper inventory to a completely electronic inventory, it was determined t hat mobile GIS software was necessary. ArcPad 7.1 is GIS software for mobile dev ices and provides the ability to collect field data in a reliable and efficient m anner. Furthermore, it allowed inventory data to be collected and stor ed directly into a geodatabase, making the process of transcribing data from paper form in to a geodatabase obsolete. For example, after an inventory is completed on a paper form, someone mu st transfer the written data into a database. Collecting and storing inventory data in the same step is a more efficient method that sa ves time and work, and eliminates human error during data transcription. In order to facilitate data collecti on, ArcPad 7.1 was loaded onto a Dell Axim X51 personal digital assistant (P DA) (Figure 14). An Aqua Quest waterproof case was used to ensure the protec tion of the PDA device while conducting the inventory in aquatic cave environment s (Figure 15). Certain GIS data layers were loaded into ArcPad 7.1 for use in the field. These layers included: a polygon-shapefile of Florida counties, a point-shapefile of west-central Florida caves, and a polygon-shapef ile of the WSF.

PAGE 74

60 Both polygon-shapefiles were acquired fr om the Florida Geographic Data Library and served as a spatial reference for t he point-shapefile of west-central Florida caves, which was created and updated during this study. Figure 14. The tools used for inventory data collection in the field included ArcPad 7.1 GIS software, Dell Axim PDA, and a mobile GPS device. ArcPad 7.1 was loaded onto a Dell Ax im PDA. A PDA and a mobile Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, which plugged directly into the PDA, were used for inventory data collection in the field.

PAGE 75

61 Figure 15. The PDA was protected with an Aqua Quest, water-proof cover. Locating Terrestrial Caves for Inventory A Global Positioning System (GPS) device was linked with ArcPad 7.1, which allowed for cave location acquisition in the field and storage directly into the geodatabase (Figure 16). A mobile Haicom HI-303III GPS unit was used to locate cave entrances with known way points. However, caves with unknown waypoints were marked in the field usin g the mobile GPS unit. Because of the link between GPS and GIS, these caves were immediately added to ArcPad 7.1 and made available for inv entory data input directly in the geodatabase.

PAGE 76

62 Figure 16 shows how the mobile GPS unit was linked directly to the PDA, and used in the field to collect and locate caves. Figure 16. Mobile GPS unit linked with PDA device for acquisition of cave locations (photo by Jason Polk). Inventory Framework and Contents Several caves were previously surveyed and maps were acquired from the cartographers. However, the majority of caves were surveyed while the inventory was conducted, which is a widely accepted method (Ohms and Reece 2002; Horrocks and Szukalski 2002; DuChene 2006). As previously mentioned, a cave map containing survey stations is necessary to give cave resources a reference point when conducting an inventor y. For each cave without a previous map, a survey was conducted using a compass and tape. At and between each

PAGE 77

63 survey station, a detailed account of s pecific cave contents were inventoried (Table 1). A map of each cave included in this study is seen in Appendix B. Additional information pertaining to each cave was noted and stored in the geodatabase, which is seen in Table 2. entrance characteristics passage characteristics surveyed length surveyed depth geologic strata biological resources hydrological resources geological resources paleontological resources mineralogical resources cultural resources roots mold bones roost stains floor characteristics fossils Table 1. Inventory data with reference points. latitude longitude inventory date inventory ID inventory personnel cave ownership equipment needed entrance elevation cave map status cave management notes cave sensitivity notes cave disturbance notes biologic notes geologic notesentry status cultural notes hydrologic notes sediment notes disturbance index scores sensitivity index scores Table 2. Other inventory data pertaining to cave. Cave inventory data was stored in a GIS geodatabase. The cave inventory geodatabase was created in Ar cCatalog and maintained in ArcMap 9.1, both of which are applications in cluded in the ArcV iew 9.1 ArcGIS software package.

PAGE 78

64 ArcPad 7.1 and ArcView 9.1 are comple tely interchangeable GIS applications, making data transfer from the PDA to the geodatabase straightforward. When data were ready to be transferred to the geodatabase after applying the inventory, the PDA was synced to a pers onal computer via Microsoft ActiveSync version 4.1.0. Once synchroni zed, the data were copied from the PDA directly to the geodatabase in ArcMap 9.1. Additionally, each cave was docum ented with photographs using a digital camera. Documenting cave features with photographs produces a visual representation of those feat ures during the time of in ventory and is useful when comparing cave conditions through ti me (DuChene 2006). Sample photographs for each cave included in this study are seen in Appendix H. Cave Sensitivity Variables No cave inventory was found that included the measurement of cave sensitivity and cave disturbance for the us e in management strategies. In order to rank caves by their management prio rity, cave sensitivity and disturbance were measured during invent ory. Sensitivity and distur bance were determined for each cave by applying two standardized indi ces, which resulted in a sensitivity score and disturbance score for each cave. Every cave is sensitive to human di sturbance. The measurement of cave sensitivity can include many aspects of a cave environment, including direct

PAGE 79

65 aquifer connection, fragile speleothems, or the presence of endangered, cavereliant biota. Therefore, it was cr ucial to define the purpose and scale of measuring cave sensitivity. In order to standardize the cave sensitivity index, certain variables were considered. The cave sensitivity index variables were based on the cave resource inventory described by ODowd and Broek er (1996). The cave sensitivity index included variables of biology, hydrol ogy, geology, mineralogy, paleontology, and culture. These variables represent ca ve resources that were noted during inventory and found to be potentially sensit ive to both surface and subsurface human-induced degradation. Each variable was standardized into four evaluation criteria, which correlated into a score. Each sensitivity scale ranged from , indicating not sensitive, to , indicating high sensitivity (Table 3). For example, if drips, seeps, or pools and an aquifer connection were pr esent in a cave during inventory, that cave received a sco re of on the hydrology scale.

PAGE 80

66 Variable 3 2 1 0 Biota widespread individuals of single species; or multiple individuals of multiple species; or listed as Florida endangered species; or possible new species found multiple individuals of single species single individual or single species no biota Hydrology drips, seeps, pools widespread; or direct aquifer connection; or intermittent stream drips, seeps, pools, multiple areas drips, seeps, pools sparse, localized no features Speleothems widespread multiple areas localized area no features Mineralogy widespread; or possible new mineral found multiple areas sparse; localized no features Paleontology widespread multiple ar eas sparse; localized no features Cultural/Historical cave listed as protected site on Florida Master Site File multiple areas sparse; localized no features Table 3. Cave sensitivity index.

PAGE 81

67 Biology The biology variable was intended to assess the approximate sensitivity of cave biota to human dist urbance. This scale was based on the number of species and individuals found during inventory. Project-s pecific studies of cave biota, which are intended to understand all cave-dwelling biota, are complex and tedious. Estimating and measuring species richness and population densities of cave biota are projects within themselv es (Gillieson 1996; Li 2000; Schneider and Culver 2004). The intention of the scale was to assess the approximate number of cave biota found during inventory, which correlates to the final sensitivity score of a cave on the bi ology scale. Currently, the richness and density of cave biota in west-central Flor ida is not well underst ood. This data is needed in order to accurately assess the ac tual sensitivity of cave biota, but these studies take years to complete. The scope of this project only required a general understanding of the sens itivity of biota found insi de a cave at the time of inventory. Hydrology The hydrologic influence of a cave can make it vulnerable to contaminant inputs from surface disturbance. Cave hydrology can be modified by many human activities including well pumping, construction of paved areas within the general vicinity of the cave, and clear-cu tting of trees near the cave (van Beynen and Townsend 2005). The hydrologic sensit ivity scale included the spatial

PAGE 82

68 distribution and condition of drips, seeps, pools, aquifer connections, and intermittent streams that were noted during cave inventory. Geology, Mineralogy, and Paleontology Geological, mineralogical, and pal eontological cave resources are considered separate variables, but ar e discussed together because of their similarities. Note that g eologic resources and speleothems are synonymous and used interchangeably. The protection of fragile and rare geologic, mineralogic, and paleontologic resources constitu tes an important concern in the management of a cave (Despain and Fryer 2002). A speleothem is any secondary mineral deposit in a cave (Hill and Forti 1997). Certain sensitive speleothems, specifically stalagmites, are used by researchers for paleoclimate reconstruction (Dorale et al. 1992, 1998, 2002; Webster 2000; Richards and Dorale 2003; van Beynen et al. 2004; Po lk et al. 2006; Webster et al. 2007). Geologic resources included soda straws, stalactites, stalagmites, drapery, helictites, columns, flowstone, or any other potentially sens itive speleothem found in a cave during inventory. T he geology scale was based on distribution and quantity of undisturbed speleothems. Cave minerals and fossils are also included as variables sensitive to disturbance. A cave mineral is a secondar y mineral derived by a physio-chemical reaction from a primary mineral in bedrock. A cave mineral is not the same as a speleothem, even though speleothems ar e composed of minerals (Hill and Forti

PAGE 83

69 1997). The classification of cave miner als is a tedious and complicated process that requires an expert. Howe ver, the objective of th e mineralogic sensitivity variable is to gain an understanding of the abundance of cave minerals within a cave. Mineralogic features included any miner al resource, other than calcite, that was present during inventory. Fossils are often found in cave syst ems. Such fossils are important because they serve as sources of primary information on past organisms and ecosystems (Toomey 2006). The Ocala, Suwannee, Avon Park, and Tampa Limestone are fossiliferous, shallow mari ne limestones found in the study area. Each of the caves included in this study developed within at least one of these host rocks. Caves developed within these rocks can have an abundance of clear, well-defined fossils embedded in the walls and ceiling, as well as other fossilized remnants of animals (Brodkorb 1956; Ho lman 1958) Paleontologic features included any form of fossilized resource noted in the cave during inventory. Both the mineralogic and paleontologic scales ar e based on distribution and quantity of undisturbed resources. Culture Cultural resources should be protec ted and preserved, not only because there are laws saying so, but also because they are the basis of history (Bilbo and Bilbo 2006, page 113). The culture s ensitivity variable was included to recognize objects significant to Americ an or Floridan history, architecture,

PAGE 84

70 archaeology, and culture that were potent ially vulnerable to human degradation. The inclusion of cultural items in any in ventory is crucial, for these objects may posses national, state, or local importance (Bilbo and Bilbo 2006). The sensitivity scale for cultural resources was based on quantity of objects and inclusion of the cave as a protected cultural site on the Florida Master Site File (FMSF). The expert on cultural resources in Florida is considered to be the Stat e Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in Tallahassee, Florida. The SHPO maintains an archived comput er database of cultural/historical resources in Flori da called the FMSF. The FMSF organizes cultural resource sites alphabetically by county, which are assigned numbers sequentially as they are recorded. Re cords are searchable by county or township-range-section number. Any artifact s or items found dur ing inventory of questionable cultural significance we re noted, photographed, and sent to a specialist at the SHPO for further study. Sensitivity Index Scoring System Every cave is sensitive to human disturbance. However, depending on the occurrence of certain sensitive, inherent resources, some caves may be more sensitive to human disturbance than others. Scores from each sensitivity variable were summed to produce an aggregate number. The sum was then divided by the total possible score, which resulted in a final number between 0.0 and 1.0. This final number represents the rela tive sensitivity of a cave to human

PAGE 85

71 degradation. The closer the score is to one, the greater the over all sensitivity of the cave. If a cave receives a score of 0. 00 on the sensitivity index, this does not indicate the cave is not sensitive to human disturbance. A score of 0.00 on the sensitivity index r epresents the cave contained no sensitive, inherent resources included on the index duri ng inventory. Producing a final score for each cave enabled them to be ranked by t heir relative sensitivity. Cave Disturbance Variables All cave systems are modified by factors operating below and on the karst land surface. As precipitat ion inundates karst, vegetati on controls the course of water as it intercepts organic matter and so il, which facilitates the production of carbonic acid in the root zone (Wats on et al. 1997). Therefore, changing the overlying surface by clear-cutting, mining, or agricultural practices can radically alter the flow and quality of water in a cave system. Water is the primary mechanism by which surface actions become subsurface impacts (Watson et al. 1997). Measuring cave disturbance can comprise many aspects of a cave, including the amount of trash, dam aged speleothems, or deforestation around the cave. Therefore, in order to m easure human disturbance to a cave, a standardized cave disturbance index wa s created, which included certain variables. The disturbance variables included in the index were modified from the Karst Disturbance Index (KDI) described by van Beynen and Townsend (2005).

PAGE 86

72 The KDI serves as a holistic approach to determine the disturbance of any karst environment and included specific cave di sturbance indicators, many of which were integrated into this study. As mentioned earlier in this manuscrip t, the interest and exploration of terrestrial caves increased ex ponentially over the last 50 years. An increase in cavers results in problems of in creased human disturbance from weekend recreationists, enthusiastic students, or even novice, flashlight-cavers who are unaware of the caving code of ethics and guidelines (Hildr eth-Werker and Werker 2006). The code of ethics is a list of best practice guidelines to minimize effects of cavers on the cave environment. A complete explanation of the code of ethics is found in Hildreth -Werker and Werker (2006). Since every cave is unique, human di sturbance varies among public and private caves in the study area. Creating an index to provide an objective measurement of the amount of cave disturbance required the inclusion of both surface and subsurface human-induced degr adation. The cave disturbance index included disturbance variables that repr esented the general amount of holistic human-induced disturbance to a cave (Table 4). Similar to the cave sensitivity index, each variable in the disturbance index is standardized into four evaluation criteria, which correlates to a score. Ea ch disturbance scale ranged from , indicating no disturbance, to , indicating a high le vel of disturbance. For example, if widespread damage to speleot hems was noted in a cave, the cave received a score of on the speleothem damage scale.

PAGE 87

73 Category Variable 3 2 1 0 Subsurface Trash widespread multiple areas localized area none Speleothems (% damaged/broken) widespread destruction ~50% damaged localized damage none Graffiti widespread multiple areas localized area none Floor Disturbances severe impacts mode rate impacts light impacts pristine Destruction of cultural artifacts (% destroyed) >50 20-49 1-19 0 Condensation Corrosion widespread multiple areas localized area pristine Desiccation widespread multiple areas localized area pristine Sedimentation widespread sedimentation; or cave completely infilled multiple areas localized at entrance none, rock surface in cave Biota-population density (% decline) >50 20-49 1-19 0 Biota-species richness (% decline) >50 20-49 1-19 0 Destruction of Fossils widespread destru ction multiple areas localized area none Surface Deforestation (% within 1km buffer) >50 20-49 1-19 none Agriculture (% within 1km buffer) >50 20-49 1-19 none Urbanization (% within 1km buffer) >50 20-49 1-19 none Quarry Mining cave located in active quarry past quarrying affected cave in multiple locations past quarrying opened small entrance none Table 4. Cave disturbance index.

PAGE 88

74 Trash The occurrence of material dispos ed by humans is one of the most obvious forms of disturbance in a cave (Veni 2006). Any occurrence of trash negatively impacts the aesthetics of a cave environment, but it also affects the well-being of microbial life. Native bacte ria, which are adapted to low nutrient cave conditions, are harmfully impacted by the introduction of trash, household waste, and human waste (Boston et al. 2006). The trash disturbance variable is based on the distribution of tr ash in the cave at time of observation. Trash included any type of disposed material, su ch as cans, bottle, paper, etc. Trash was observed at four different scale dist ributions: none, localized trash, trash in multiple areas, or widespread occurrence of trash. Speleothem Damage A speleothem is a secondary mineral deposited in a cave by the action of water. There are dozens of types of s peleothem forms, but calcite and gypsum speleothems are the most common. These fragile formations are sensitive to both subsurface and surface disturbances. Increased visitation in caves generally results in increased speleothem break age (Hildreth-Werker and Werker 2006). Speleothems are also sensitive to any change in chemistry of water percolating from the surface to t he bedrock (Veni 2006). During the application of the disturbance index, damaged speleothems in cluded any stalactite, stalagmite, soda straw, drapery, flowstone, helictite, ri mstone, column, or any other type of

PAGE 89

75 speleothem found broken or damaged during ti me of inventory. The approximate amount of broken speleothems wa s included in the scale at four levels: pristine, localized damage/removal, ~50% removed/damaged, and widespread destruction (van Beynen and Townsend 2005) Even though these amount levels are somewhat subjective to anyone applyi ng the index, giving the scale a low number of categories from wh ich to choose reduces subjectivity (van Beynen and Townsend 2005). Graffiti The purpose of the graffiti distur bance variable was to determine the actual disturbance from graffiti in a ca ve, which included both contemporary and historical graffiti. Even though historical graffiti were considered as part of the culture sensitivity variable, it repr esents human-induced cave disturbance. As mentioned previously, any possi ble historical or cultural resource including rock art or graffiti was photographed and sent to cultural resource experts at the SHPO. Graffiti is any occurrence of a lett er, word, phrase, or symbol etched, spray-painted, or written anywhere inside a cave. All types of graffiti have a negative impact on a cave environment. Li ke trash, spray-paint introduces foreign chemicals into a cave environment potentially harmful to biota and microbial habitat (Boston et al. 2006).

PAGE 90

76 The graffiti disturbance scale was based on the distribution and q uantity of graffiti inside a cave, which was organized into four categories: none, localized area, multiple areas, or widespread. Floor Disturbances The floor disturbance variable incl uded floor disturbances like sediment compaction and general foot traffic. The va riable is based on the severity of floor disturbances inside a cave. Disturbances to the cave floor were classified as either none/pristine, light impacts, moderate impacts, or severe impacts. This scoring method was adapted from B odenhamer (1995, 2006), which were discussed in Chapter Two. General foot traffic and sediment compaction include the damage a cave floor induces from each vi sitor. In some cases, a narrow foot path is marked to minimize the damage to passage floors and sediment compaction (Hildreth-Werker and Werk er 2006). For example, even though Lechuguilla Cave has been explored since 1986, floor disturbances have been kept to a minimum because of strict adherence to a narrow, marked trail throughout the cave. However, in an unmana ged cave with a high amount of foot traffic, floor disturbances are often se vere (Hildreth-Werker and Werker 2006). Destruction of Cultural Artifacts The destruction of cultural artifacts is a type of cave disturbance. Over the years, the destruction or removal of cult ural artifacts occurred in many caves.

PAGE 91

77 Examples include the controversy surroundi ng the removal of 83 artifacts from Big Island Cave, Hawaii in 1905 (Dingem an 2003), and the destruction of cave paintings and subsequent closin g of the Altamira touris t cave in Spain. After further analysis, destruction of the paint ings was found to be caused by higher concentrations of heat and CO2 from over-visitation (V illar et al. 1984, 1986; Cigna 1993). In the cave disturbance inde x, the scoring system for this variable was based on the percentage of destroyed arti facts in the cave (van Beynen and Townsend 2005). Condensation Corrosion Condensation corrosion can occur naturally in caves, or be humaninduced (Villar et al. 1984, 1986; Sarbu and Lascu 1997; Tarhule-Lips and Ford 1998; Dreybrodt et al. 2005). Carbonic acid is formed when carbon dioxide from a persons breath combines with water inside a cave. As many speleothems are often coated with a thick film of water, the respired carbon dioxide in a cave can cause the corrosion of speleothems (P ulido-Bosch et al. 1997). The exact amount of condensation corrosion is a tedious and complex undertaking requiring time and equipment (Dreybodt et al 2005). However, in order to get an estimation of condensation corrosion, walls, ceiling, and formations were observed for isolated areas, multiple areas, or widespread areas of corrosion throughout the cave.

PAGE 92

78 Desiccation When the relative humidity of a ca ve drops too low, evaporation can increase and cause speleothems to lose th eir surface moisture and dry out (van Beynen and Townsend 2005). Desiccation can occur when cave entrances are widened or modified, which is common in caves in lime-rock quarries or tourist caves (Pulido-Bosch et al. 1997). Another problem in tourist caves is the increase in body heat from large am ounts of visitors, which increases evaporation inside the cave, causing spel eothem desiccation (Villar et al. 1986). Just like condensation corrosion, desi ccation was determined by examining speleothems for disturbance in isolated areas, multiple areas, or widespread areas throughout the cave. Destruction of Fossils Caves often serve as natural arch ival vaults and can protect valuable scientific information through the ages. Fossi ls are important because they are the primary sources of information on biodiversity and ecosystems of the past (Toomey 2006, pg. 83). The caves within t he study area are all developed within at least one of the following fossilif erous, marine limestones: Avon Park Formation, Ocala Limestone, Suwannee Li mestone, or Tampa Member (of the Arcadia Formation). Caves developed wit hin these rocks can have an overabundance of clear, well-defined fossils embedded in the walls and ceiling. Certain fossils in the fo llowing formations are found:

PAGE 93

79 1) Avon Park Formation: mollusks, foraminifera, and algae. 2) Ocala Limestone: abundant large and smaller foraminifers, echinoids, bryozoans, mollusks and rare vertebrates. 3) Suwannee Limestone: mollusks, fo raminifers, corals and echinoids. 4) Tampa Member: mollusks, forami nifera, and algae (Bishop and Lane 1987) These fossils have the potential of being di sturbed by heavy visitor traffic, human induced condensation corrosion, or fossilhunters. The destruction or removal of fossils was noticed as occurring in a localized area, multiple areas, or widespread throughout the cave. Cave Sedimentation Cave sedimentation can either be autogenic or allogenic (Brinkmann and Reeder 1993). In a karst landscape, as t he dissolution of limestone occurs, the process of allogenic deposition allows the transporta tion of sediment from the surface to the floor of a cave. Cave s edimentation can also be derived from the weathering of a caves parent materi al. This process is called autogenic deposition and produces clay within the cave environment (Brinkmann and Reeder 1993). The process of cave sedimentati on can be caused by anthropogenic or natural processes. The amount of allogenic sedimentation depends on a multitude of factors: topogr aphic position of the entr ance on the landscape, the

PAGE 94

80 size of the entrance, t he type and quantity of surface soils above a cave, and the porosity and permeability of the rock in which the cave developed. Without conducting a variety of differ ent analyses of the sediment, it is impossible to know exactly how much sedimentation has occurred and where it came from. However, this project was only concerned with the spatial distribution of humaninduced sedimentation in a cave duri ng inventory. Therefore, the cave sedimentation variable was based on four criteria: none (mostly rock surface in cave), localized at entrance, multiple areas, and widespread sedimentation (or cave is completely infilled). Deforestation Deforestation has a negative effect on karst systems (van Beynen and Townsend 2005; Milanovic, 2006). Deforest ation removes roots and vegetation, which hold soil in place and mitigate erosion. When trees and vegetation are removed, soil erosion increases and can c ause increased sedimentation rates in a cave. Calculating deforestation was acco mplished by determining the extent of vegetation removal within a 1 km buffer ring applied in Arc GIS. Deforestation data was acquired from the Florida Geogr aphic Data Library for each county in the study area and uploaded into the ArcGIS project. A 1 km buffer ring was applied around each cave and the percent age of deforestation inside each ring was calculated using the Xtools Pro ext ension for ArcGIS desktop. The more deforestation within a buffer, the higher the score was for each cave. The longest

PAGE 95

81 cave in the dataset is around 1 km; ther efore a buffer ring of 1 km was used to ensure the inclusion of all cave passage. An example of this process is seen in Figure 17. Figure 17. Example of buffer ring analysis in GIS.

PAGE 96

82 Agriculture Agricultural practices can have a negative affect on a karst environment (van Beynen and Townsend 2005). In Bohol Philippines, Urich (1989) described the stresses that wet-rice/c arabao agriculture has on the water quantity of a karst region. In an area like west-central Florid a, agricultural practices include vast farms of citrus, row crops, and pasture land for grazing cattle. The use of pesticides and herbicides by farms and the ni trates found in cattle waste are only a few of the potential hazar ds agriculture has on a cave system. Since a general understanding of the affect agriculture has on each cave in the study area, the amount of agricultural disturbance to a ca ve was calculated by the same method described for the deforestation variable. Urbanization Building over or near karst feat ures has a negative impact on karst environments (van Beynen and Townsend 2005). Depending on the position of a cave entrance within the landscape, certain caves have ephemeral sinking streams that act as direct transports fo r water from the surface to the aquifer during rain events. A cave can be negativel y impacted by urbanization in many ways, including stormwater runoff polluti on and increased visitation. Calculating the affects of urbanization on each cave was accomplished by determining the percentage of urbanized land within a 1 km buffer around each cave.

PAGE 97

83 A 1 km buffer ring was applied around eac h cave in ArcMap and the percentage of urbanized land inside the buffer ring was calculated. Quarry Mining The most destructive practice to surface karst is quarrying (van Beynen and Townsend 2005). Over the past decades, large opencast mining in Great Britain has increased. In the United Kingdom, humans have removed more rock in the past century than nature remo ved in the last 10,000 years (Gunn and bailey 1993). Quarrying has many negative impacts to karst features, especially caves. Quarrying can cause drawdown of the water table, resulting in the formation of sinkhole, and destroy caves (van Beynen and Townsend 2005). Many caverns are destroyed, along with certai n sensitive resources, each year in west-central Florida by mining practice s (Figure 18, 19). The quarry mining sensitivity variable was based on the gener al affect quarrying had, or has on a cave system. During inventory, if a cave was found to be located in an active quarry, it received the highest score on the index. However, if past quarry practices affected a cave in multiple lo cations, like opening a large entrance, it received a score of two. A score of one was given to caves where past quarry practices opened a small entrance.

PAGE 98

84 Figure 18. A cave system was likel y destroyed from limestone quarry practices as speleothems were found sca ttered on the floor of this abandoned quarry. Tom Turner stands on a boulder for scale, which is the same boulder mentioned in Figure 18 ( photo by Dan Straley).

PAGE 99

85 Figure 19. These calcite crystal formati ons were exposed on the surface of a boulder on the floor of an abandoned quarry Note the sunglasses for scale (photo by Tom Turner). Disturbance Index Scoring System The scoring system for the cave disturbance index wa s adapted from van Beynen and Townsend (2005). Scores from each disturbance variable were summed to produce an aggregate number. The sum was then divided by the total possible score, which resulted in a final number between 0.0 and 1.0. This final number represented the relative hum an disturbance to a cave. The closer the disturbance score was to one, the greater the overal l disturbance.

PAGE 100

86 Producing a final score for each cave enabl es them to be r anked by amount of overall disturbance. When data for a disturbance variable was not able to be determined, but was still applicable to the cave, that va riable was noted with a Lack of Data (LD) score. In order to determine the level of confidence of the final cave disturbance score, the total number of LDs was summ ed and divided by the total number of variables, which resulted in a score from 0.0-1.0. A higher LD score resulted in a lower degree of confidence, which sugges ted more research is needed in that area. If a variable was not applicable to a cave, it was not included in the scoring system (van Beynen and Townsend 2005). Summary Statistics In order to gain an under standing of the sensitiv ity and disturbance of public and private caves within the datase t, summary statistics were conducted. These statistics included a calculation of the mean, maximum, minimum, and standard deviation of both public and pr ivate caves using SPSS 15.0 for Windows software. These data calculati ons are used to analyze and compare cave sensitivity and disturbance val ues between public and private caves included in this study.

PAGE 101

87 Chapter Four: Results Cave Inventory Results During this study, 36 terrestrial caves were inventoried (Figure 20). Of the 36 caves, 17 are located on private l and and 19 are located on public land (Figures 21 and 22). The overall objective of the cave inventory is to prioritize caves by management priority through measuring cave sensitivity and disturbance. As previously mentioned, the cave inventory included three categories of data: 1) deta iled descriptions of cave contents, resources, and features; 2) cave sensitivity index score s; and 3) cave disturbance index scores. Detailed Descriptions of Cave Contents Data acquired during the inventory were stored and maintained in a geodatabase in a GIS. The geodatabase includes 36 records and 86 fields (Appendix E). However, not all fields from the geodatabase are included in Appendix E. Certain descriptive data pertain ing to the location of each cave, such as latitude, longitude, to wnship, range, and section, were not published in this thesis because of an agreem ent with the landowners no t to disclose exact or approximate locations of their caves.

PAGE 102

88 Figure 20. Locations of terrestrial ca ves inventoried during this project.

PAGE 103

89 Figure 21. Locations of private caves in ventoried during this project. Of the 36 total caves, 17 were private.

PAGE 104

90 Figure 22. Locations of public caves in ventoried during this project. Of the 36 caves, 19 were located on the public, state-owned land of the Withlacoochee State Forest, west-central, Florida.

PAGE 105

91 In order to completely understand eac h inventory field, a data dictionary was included as a supplement to the geodatabase (Appendix A). The data dictionary includes an explanation of each geodatabase field with a list of possible values/codes. For example, t he field of Geologic_Strata in the geodatabase is used to record the geologic unit(s) a cave developed within, and is collected in the field dur ing inventory. The data dictionary explains the purpose of the field and possible val ues: Geologic unit in which cave developed. Codes = Ocala Limestone (Eocene), Suwannee Limestone (Oligocene), Avon Park Formation (Middle Eocene), Tampa Me mber (Arcadia Formation) (Upper Oligocene-Lower Miocene). Terrestrial ca ves in the dataset are only found within four geologic units in the study area and these served as possible values, or codes (Appendix A). Cave Sensitivity Index Scores The cave sensitivity index scores are presented in Table 5. The cave sensitivity index variables are based on the cave resource significance inventory described by ODowd and Broeker (1996). In this study, t he cave sensitivity index variables include biology, hydrology geology, mineralogy, paleontology, and culture. Each scale was standardized in to four evaluation criteria, which correlates into a score. Each sensitiv ity scale ranged from , indicating no sensitive resources, to , indicating a high amount of sens itive resources.

PAGE 106

92 The goal of the sensitivity index was to gain a general understanding of cave sensitivity based on the condition of a caves inherent resources.

PAGE 107

93 Name OwnershipBiota Hydrology Speleothems Mineralogy Paleontology Cultural Score BRC Private 3 3 3 3 3 0 0.83 Briar Private 3 3 3 3 3 0 0.83 Crumbling Rock Private 3 3 3 3 2 0 0.78 Turpentine Private 3 3 1 2 3 1 0.72 Belleview Formation Private 2 3 3 3 1 0 0.66 Goat Mummy Private 3 2 3 2 1 0 0.61 Thorntons Private 3 3 1 2 2 0 0.61 Werner Public 3 3 0 2 3 0 0.61 Bottle Cap Public 2 3 3 1 2 0 0.61 Legend Public 2 3 3 1 2 0 0.61 Blowing Hole Public 2 2 3 2 1 0 0.56 Jackpot Public 3 3 0 1 3 0 0.56 Football Private 2 3 2 2 1 0 0.55 Jennings Private 3 3 0 1 2 0 0.50 Finchs Private 2 3 1 1 1 0 0.44 Sneak Private 3 3 0 0 2 0 0.44 Maynards Private 1 3 2 1 1 0 0.44 Trail 10 Public 3 1 1 1 0 0 0.33 Table 5. Cave sensitivity index scores.

PAGE 108

94 Name Ownership Biota Hydrology Speleothems Mineralogy Paleontology Cultural Score Big Mouth Public 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.33 Ocala Caverns East Private 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.33 Girl Scout Public 1 1 0 0 0 3 0.28 Sick Bat Public 1 1 0 0 0 3 0.28 Vandal Public 1 1 0 0 0 3 0.28 Dog Drop Public 2 1 1 0 0 0 0.22 Floating Rock Public 0 3 0 0 1 0 0.22 Peace Sign Public 0 1 0 0 0 3 0.22 Hitchhiker Private 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.17 Holy Oak Public 1 1 0 1 0 0 0.17 Ocala Caverns West Private 0 3 0 0 0 0 0.16 Rattlesnake Public 0 3 0 0 0 0 0.16 Quarter Public 0 2 0 0 0 0 0.11 Fallen Oak Public 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 Indigo Public 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 Reuffs Private 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 Jeep Public 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.05 Heroine Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Table 5. (continued)

PAGE 109

95 Two caves (BRC and Briar) received the highest sensitivity score in the index with scores of 0.83, and one cave (Heroine) received the lowest possible score, 0.00 (Table 5). BRC and Briar Ca ves received the highest scores because of the abundance of sensitive features found in the caves. During inventory, BRC contained widespread, fragile speleothems, widespread drips, seeps, and pools, widespread mineral deposits, and wides pread echinoids, mollusks, and other pristine fossils embedded in the walls and ceiling. Briar Cave also contained widespread speleothems and drips, an aquifer connection, widespread mineral coatings, and widespread echinoids and mollusks that were undisturbed. In contrast, no sensitivity variables were not ed in Heroine Cave, which resulted in the lowest possible score in the index. N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Cave Sensitivity 36 0 0.83 0.38 0.26 Table 6. Descriptive statisti cs for cave sensitivity index. The mean sensitivity of all 36 caves in the dataset was 0.36 (Table 6). More specifically, the mean sensitivity for public caves was 0.30 and the mean sensitivity for private caves was 0.48. As a whole, there are more sensitive caves located on private land than on public l and (Figure 23). Since the sensitivity scores were determined by in situ observations during inventory, no cave received a LD score for any variable.

PAGE 110

96 Cave Sensitivity Index Scores (Public vs. Private)0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00 Private Caves (17) Public Caves (19) Figure 23. Cave sensitivity index sco res of public and private caves. Cave Disturbance Index Scores In order to gain an under standing of the amount of human disturbance to a cave, a cave disturbance index was created and applied. Several variables included in the index were modified and adapted from the KDI explained by van Beynen and Townsend (2005). The cave disturbance index included the following variables: trash, speleothem damage, contemporary graffiti, floor disturbances, removal of cultural artifa cts, condensation corro sion, desiccation, removal of fossils, urbanization, and defor estation. The results from the cave disturbance index are displayed in Tables 7 and 8.

PAGE 111

97 Name Ownership Speleothems Graffiti Trash Floor Disturbances Cultural CC DesiccationSedimentation Jackpot Public NA 0 0 1 NA 0 NA NA Turpentine Private 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 NA Briar Private 1 1 0 1 NA 0 0 NA Crumbling Rock Private 1 0 0 1 NA 0 0 2 Finch's Private NA 0 1 1 NA 0 NA NA Thornton's Private NA 0 1 1 NA 1 NA NA BRC Private 2 0 0 2 NA 0 0 1 Sneak Private NA 0 0 1 NA 0 NA 1 Trial 10 Public 2 0 1 2 NA 0 0 3 Dog Drop Public NA 2 1 3 NA 0 NA NA Indigo Public NA 0 1 3 NA 0 NA NA Bottle Cap Public 1 1 1 3 NA 0 0 1 Big Mouth Public NA 0 1 2 NA 0 NA 1 Quarter Public NA 0 0 3 NA 0 NA 1 Reuff's Private NA 0 0 1 NA 0 NA 1 Werner Public NA 0 1 2 NA 0 NA 3 Fallen Oak Public NA 1 2 3 NA 0 NA NA Jeep Public NA 2 1 3 1 0 NA 2 Table 7. Cave disturbance i ndex scores (Jackpot Jeep).

PAGE 112

98 Name Biota Pop Den Biota Spec Rich Fossils Deforestatio nUrbanizationAgriculture Quarry Mining Score Jackpot LD LD 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 Turpentine LD LD 0 0 1 3 0 0.17 Briar LD LD 0 0 1 2 0 0.18 Crumbling Rock LD LD 0 1 1 2 1 0.25 Finch's LD LD 1 1 1 2 0 0.26 Thornton's LD LD 0 0 1 3 0 0.26 BRC LD LD 1 0 1 2 1 0.28 Sneak LD LD 0 1 1 2 3 0.30 Trial 10 LD LD 2 0 1 0 0 0.31 Dog Drop LD LD 2 0 1 0 0 0.33 Indigo LD LD 3 0 1 1 0 0.33 Bottle Cap LD LD 1 0 1 3 1 0.36 Big Mouth LD LD 2 1 1 1 2 0.37 Quarter LD LD 3 0 1 2 1 0.37 Reuff's LD LD 0 3 1 2 3 0.37 Werner LD LD 1 1 1 0 2 0.37 Fallen Oak LD LD 3 0 1 0 0 0.37 Jeep LD LD 3 0 1 0 0 0.39 Table 7. (continued)

PAGE 113

99 Table 8. Cave disturbance index scores (B elleview Formation Ocala Caverns West). Name Ownership Speleothems GraffitiTrash Floor Disturbances Cultural CC Desiccation Sedimentation Belleview Formation Private 2 1 0 2 NA 0 0 3 Maynard's Private 1 1 1 2 NA 0 0 3 Floating Rock Public NA 0 0 2 NA 0 NA 3 Holy Oak Public NA 3 2 3 NA 0 NA NA Legend Public 1 2 2 2 NA 0 0 2 Blowing Hole Public 2 3 2 3 NA 0 1 NA Football Private 2 3 1 3 NA 0 1 NA Goat Mummy Private 2 1 1 2 NA 2 1 1 Jenning's Private NA 3 2 3 NA 0 NA 3 Rattlesnake Public NA 1 2 3 NA 0 NA 3 Peace Sign Public 3 3 3 3 NA 0 0 3 Sick Bat Public 3 3 3 3 NA 0 0 3 Vandal Public 3 3 3 3 NA 0 0 3 Girl Scout Public NA 3 3 3 NA 0 NA 3 Heroine Private NA 3 3 3 NA 0 NA NA Ocala Caverns East Private NA 1 3 3 NA 1 NA 3 Hitchhiker Private 3 3 3 3 NA 0 0 3 Ocala Caverns West Private NA 3 3 3 NA 1 NA 3

PAGE 114

100 Name Biota Pop Den Biota Spec Rich Fossils Deforestatio nUrbanizationAgriculture Quarry MiningScore Belleview Formation LD LD 1 3 2 1 0 0.42 Maynard's LD LD 2 1 1 3 0 0.42 Floating Rock LD LD 1 1 1 2 2 0.44 Holy Oak LD LD 2 0 1 1 0 0.44 Legend LD LD 2 0 1 3 1 0.44 Blowing Hole LD LD 2 0 1 1 0 0.45 Football LD LD 1 1 1 3 0 0.48 Goat Mummy LD LD 2 0 1 3 2 0.50 Jenning's LD LD 2 0 2 1 0 0.53 Rattlesnake LD LD 3 1 1 0 2 0.53 Peace Sign LD LD 3 0 1 1 0 0.56 Sick Bat LD LD 3 0 1 1 0 0.56 Vandal LD LD 3 0 1 1 0 0.56 Girl Scout LD LD 3 0 1 1 0 0.63 Heroine LD LD 3 0 3 2 0 0.63 Ocala Caverns East LD LD 3 0 3 1 1 0.63 Hitchhiker LD LD 3 0 3 2 0 0.64 Ocala Caverns West LD LD 3 0 3 1 1 0.70 Table 8. (continued)

PAGE 115

101 N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Cave Disturbance 36 0.11 0.70 0.42 0.14 Table 9. Descriptive statisti cs for cave disturbance index. Jackpot Cave received the lowest disturbance score, 0.11 (Table 7), and Ocala Caverns West received the highes t disturbance score, 0.70 (Table 8). Jackpot Cave is a public cave located in the WSF and Hitchhiker Cave is a private cave in Marion County, Florida. Jackpot Cave had no trash, contemporary graffiti, no destruction of fossils, and light floor disturbance. Jackpot Cave is an example of a relatively pristine cave env ironment, while Ocala Caverns West is an example of a highly disturbed cave environment. The mean disturbance of all caves is 0.41 (Table 9), while the mean disturbance of private caves is 0.41 and public caves 0.42. In general, cave dist urbance in public and private caves is virtually the same (Figure 24). Data were unavailable to determine the population density and species richness of biota variables in the distur bance index. Therefore, all caves received a LD score for both variables, which resulted in an aggregate LD score of 0.14 for each cave. This low number signifies a relatively high degree of confidence for the final disturbance scores. Howeve r, the lack of biospeleologic data represents the need for research in this area.

PAGE 116

102 Cave Disturbance Index (Public vs. Private)0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00 Public Caves (19) Private Caves (17) Figure 24. Cave disturbance index scores (public vs. private).

PAGE 117

103 Chapter Five: Discussion Beyond an inventory of cave resources, this thesis provides a method for using inventory data to rank cave managem ent priority by assessing sensitivity and disturbance in conjunction wit h ownership and management status. Furthermore, the cave sensitivity and dist urbance scores from this study do not definitively explain management immedi acy. Consequently, the management immediacy of caves in west-central Florida depends on a number of complicated factors that cannot be simply explai ned without examining sensitivity, disturbance, management status, and ownership of each cave. Development and Refinement of Cave Inventory Methods As previously mentioned, the vast majority of cave inventories are currently being conducted on paper and data is transcribed into a post-inventory geodatabase (Vukelich 1995; ODowd an d Broeker 1996; Vesley and Stock 1998; Stokes and Griffiths 2000; Wa lz and Spoelman 2005; DuChene 2006). This transcription of inventory data requi res extra time and money, and increases human error. During this study, a progre ssion of methodology occurred. By conducting a completely electronic inventor y, data were immedi ately stored into a geodatabase, circumventing data transcription.

PAGE 118

104 By conducting the inventory using this method, I was able to collect a wide variety of data, allowing for the ab ility to determine cave sensitivity and disturbance. Cave Sensitivity Little is known about the sensitivity of west-central Florida caves. A cave system can contain numerous features t hat make it sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance. A cave containing a direct aquifer connection, pristine speleothems, and endangered biota is more sensitive to human degradation than a completely dry cave containing merely breakdown. Certain cave resources demand conservation attention because of their fragile nature. From the sample of 36 caves, a re latively wide range in cave resource sensitivity was demonstrated, as seen in Figure 23. The study includes a sample of caves from Citrus, Marion, Hernando, and Sumter counties, all of which have caves ranked high on the sensitiv ity index. Therefore, cave resource sensitivity is spatially well-distributed in the study ar ea. Both public and private caves are represented throughout the ranking. Howe ver, the mean sensitivity for public caves is 0.30, while the mean sensitivity for private caves is 0.48. The difference in sensitivity between public and priv ate caves demonstrates the need to examine other variables, as cave sensit ivity itself does not indicate management immediacy without knowing the threat of human disturbance, ownership, or current management practices.

PAGE 119

105 When a cave manager begins drafting a management plan for a cave, one of the foundations for t he management framework is resource sensitivity. Resource sensitivity can determine passage access limitations, whether or not to gate a cave, and what kind of gate to construct. Given the limited knowledge derived from cave sensitivity scores di stributed throughout the study area, other parameters must be considered. Cave Disturbance From the sample of 36 caves, a wide range in disturbance scores is demonstrated. In terms of ownership and spatiality, cave disturbance is well represented. The mean disturbance for public caves (0.42) and private caves (0.41) is relatively the same. Yet, ther e are both public and private caves that contained vast amounts of graffiti, damaged speleothems, and sedimentation. In contrast, there were also private and public caves that were virtually pristine, with localized damage to speleothems, no gr affiti, and no urbanization above the cave within several kilometers. Combining cave sensitivity and di sturbance scores provides a more holistic understanding of a cave en vironments current condition and management immediacy. However, as seen from the results wherein the mean disturbance for public and private caves ar e similar, ownership must be more closely examined in conjunction wi th current management status.

PAGE 120

106 Ownership alone, even when combined wit h cave sensitivity and disturbance, does not necessarily indica te management immediacy. There are many ways in which human ac tivity results in the disturbance of a cave. When considering these activities, it is crucial to include both surface and subsurface disturbances. Various agricultu ral practices cause cave disturbance, as well as urbanization and defores tation (van Beynen and Townsend 2005). A cave is disturbed each time it is visited by a person, whether it be left-behind lint, increased carbon dioxide levels, touching walls and speleothems, or body heat (Hildreth-Werker and Werker 2006) This project defines cave disturbance as any human-induced activity, whether surface or subsurface, that contri butes to the deterior ation of any feature within a cave. It is crucial to underst and, the amount of ca ve disturbance when deciding restoration plans. It can determi ne whether or not to restore graphitized flowstone or walls, broken stal agmites, or damaged drapery. Cave Sensitivity and Disturbance Indices There are several issues that mu st be addressed regarding the cave sensitivity and disturbance indices. Not enough information was found regarding the population density and species richness of biota in west-central Florida caves. This resulted in a LD score for each cave of 0.14. This LD score represents a high level of confidence fo r each cave in terms of disturbance. However, the lack of biospeleologic data represented the need for research in

PAGE 121

107 this area. Without understanding the conditi on of cave biota, any cave inventory requires further analysis. Both the sensitivity index and dist urbance index assumed equal weight to each variable. Various researchers (Low ry et al. 1995; Montz and Evans 2001; Kedrowski 2006) argue for the use of wei ghts in vulnerability indexing. In contrast, other researchers (Cutter et al. 2000; Chakraborty et al. 2005) argue that ranking variables by their im portance is seldom agreed upon, and is therefore inappropriate. For this reason, van Beynen and Townsend (2005) reject weighting the KDI. When the cave sens itivity and disturbance indices were applied, it was impossible to imply which variables are more im portant, therefore, weighting was not used. It is important to note that final score s from the cave sensitivity index and cave disturbance index should not be co mpared, because they are two separate and different indices that measure two s eparate and different aspects of a cave. Rather, cave sensitivity and disturbanc e scores should be considered along with ownership and current management stat us to better determine management priority for each cave. Case Studies: Cave Ownership, Manage ment, Sensitivity, and Disturbance The complex interrelationship betw een cave sensitivity, disturbance, management, and ownership is best illustra ted using several case studies of inventoried caves in west-central Flori da. These case studies demonstrate how

PAGE 122

108 combining the results of sensitivit y and disturbance data with ownership and management status provide a more holistic approach in determining management immediacy. Briar Cave Briar Cave, Marion County, Florida is privately owned and developed within the Ocala Limestone (Eocene). Pliocene and Miocene Hawthorn Group sediments and younger undifferentiated s ediments overlie the Ocala Limestone in the area (Florea et al. 2003). Briar rece ived a sensitivity index score of 0.83, which represents the wide r ange of sensitive resources found within the cave. After conducting the inventory, Briar c ontained widespread connections to the FAS; widespread, pristine speleothems including soda straws, flowstone, helictites, stalagmite, stalactites, drapery, and columns; widespread, pristine echinoids and other fossils; and cave cr ayfish. Several sensitive resources inventoried in Briar Cave are seen in Figures 25-27.

PAGE 123

109 Figure 25. Echinoid in the Pool Room, lower level, Briar Cave. Figure 26. Speleothems in the Endl ess Room, upper level, Briar Cave.

PAGE 124

110 Figure 27. Lake Room in lower level (photo by Sean Roberts). Briar also contained little human-induc ed disturbance, with a disturbance index score of 0.18. Few occurrences of graffiti, damaged speleothems, and damaged or removed fossils were found. Also, floor disturbances were concentrated to a single trail that is used for foot traffic throughout the cave. Furthermore, little urbanization and deforesta tion were present in the 1 km buffer around the cave. Briar Cave is managed by the FSS, which is one the Florida grottos affiliated with the NSS. Due to Briars sensitive nature, the landowner requested that FSS manage the cave. Part of the r equirement to enter the cave is to complete a waiver, so the landowner is not held liable for any accidents occurring in the cave during visitation. (Appendix C).

PAGE 125

111 This site illustrates how a positive lando wner-caver relationship can work toward the conservation and preservation of a cave. Figure 28. Briar Cave gat e installed by the FSS. Of the 36 caves inventoried during th is project, Briar Cave is the best example of how to manage a cave with the best intensions of protecting inherent sensitive resources. There is a secured, locked, gate at the entrance and access is restricted to one trip per month, which must be led by a member of the FSS to ensure visitors follow the management guide lines and show respect to the cave and its resources (Figure 28). Additiona lly, the FSS placed flagging tape around fragile speleothems that are in close proxim ity to the foot traffic trail and spray bottles of water near several speleothem clus ters in order to rinse mud off of the

PAGE 126

112 formations (Figure 29). Once a month, mem bers from the FSS make a trip to the cave in order to perform various maint enance duties, which includes: checking the water table level in the cave, rinsi ng mud from speleothems, replacing broken flagging tape, and ensuring the trail is clearly marked. Figure 29. Management in Briar Cave : flagging tape and spray jug near speleothems. These actions of cave conserva tion and restoration are an excellent example of how a cave should be managed. In this case, the overall management strategies have a direct associ ation with the high se nsitivity and low disturbance found during invent ory. If Briar Cave was not closely monitored and access restricted, there would likely be an increase in distur bance because of the increase in visitation. Briar Cave is pr ivately owned and contains highly sensitive

PAGE 127

113 resources with a management plan, result ing in a low level of disturbance. However, this is not the case for all pr ivately owned, highly sensitive caves as shown by the next case study. BRC Cave BRC Cave, Hernando County, Flori da is privately owned and developed within the Suwannee and Ocala Limestones BRC Cave is perhaps the most decorated cave in Florida (Turner 2003). BRC Cave, discovered in November of 2002, is like many air-filled caves of Florida in that the cave lacked a natural entrance (Turner 2003). Nothing could prepare the cavers for what lie beyond their dug entrance. Underground, BRC Cave is a wonderland of speleothems. Translucent helictites of calcite, observed only at a few sites in Florida, sprout from the wall in bushes and acquire a multitude of bizarre shapes. Snow-white stalactites and stalagmites, like giant crystal carrots, loom above shallow pools of sparkling calcite spar. Recent isotope data from two of these stalagmites has revealed a wealth of information about the climate in west-central Florida during the Holocene (Soto 2005). With more than a kilometer of mapped passages, BRC Cave is currently the 5th longest dry cave in Florida (Florea 2006, pg. 5) (Figures 30-33). This quotation, from Florea (2006), is a vivid description of the uniqueness of BRC Cave and is an accurate account of the inventory data. The inventory also shows the cave contained widespread drip s, seeps, pools, fossils, and biota. Since its discovery in 2002, the cave has been tied up in a whirl-wind of controversy. The landowner is unconcer ned with the conservation and protection of the cave on their land because of liabi lity and plans for future development around the cave. However, to the caving co mmunity and researchers, the cave is an excellent natural labor atory, as demonstrated by Soto (2005).

PAGE 128

114 Figure 30. Robert Brooks approaches a cluster of calcite helictites, BRC (photo by Bruce Brewer). Figure 31. Robert Brooks poses am idst translucent stalactites and stalagmites, BRC (photo by Bruce Brewer).

PAGE 129

115 Figure 32. Delicate helictite bus h, BRC (photo by Bruce Brewer).

PAGE 130

116 Figure 33. Tom Turner poses behind large stalactites and stalagmites, BRC (photo by Bruce Brewer). The tragedy of BRC Cave is that it remains unmanaged. Unlike Briar Cave, caver-landowner relations are not positive. A management plan for the cave was drafted by mem bers of TBAG and students at the University of South Florida, but was not adopted or implement ed by the landowner. As a result, BRC Cave has suffered increased disturbance since its discovery (Turner, personal communication 2007). Figures 34 and 35 demonstrate before and after disturbance to sensitive resources withi n BRC. The before photograph of the cave entrance was taken on the night of the discovery by Tom Turner, and the

PAGE 131

117 after photograph was recently taken by an anonymous caver interested in the preservation of the cave. Additio nal photographs of BRC can be seen in Appendix G. Even though disturbance in creased in BRC Cave since its discovery, the overall sensitivity of the cave remains high. In fact, BRC Cave received the highest score on the sensitivit y index at 0.83, wh ich is comparable to the sensitivity score of Briar Cave. In terms of disturbance, the cave received a score of 0.28 and ranks as the 6th least disturbed cave that was inventoried. It is important to realize that at one ti me, before its discovery, BRC Cave was pristine. The disturbance score would be much lower if the inventory was conducted closer to when the cave was disc overed. This is an inherent flaw in the knowledge and management practices of west-central Florida caves. Similar to Briar Cave, BRC Cave c ontains highly sensitive resources. However, the moderate level of distur bance found in BRC during inventory could have been mitigated by actively managing the cave. This reiterates that sensitivity, ownership, disturbance, and management status must all be considered when determining a caves management immediacy, even when privately owned.

PAGE 132

118 Figure 34. Just inside BRC entrance on night of discovery in December, 2002 (photo by Tom Turner). Figure 35. Recent photo just insi de BRC entrance after vandalism (photo by anonymous).

PAGE 133

119 Blowing Hole Cave The previous two case studies ill ustrated private caves with varying degrees of management and disturbance. Blo wing Hole Cave is located in the WSF, which is public, state-owned land. Blowing Hole dev eloped within the Suwannee Limestone and is consider ed a managed cave (Werner, personal communication 2007). The cave is not locat ed in close proximity to any type of forestry road. In the sensitivity index, Bl owing Hole Cave ranks as one of the two most sensitive caves in the WSF with a score of 0.56. It contained widespread speleothems, drips, seeps, and pools in multip le locations, multiple individuals of a single species, and mineral deposits other then calcite in multiple locations (Figure 38). However, the cave was found to be moderately disturbed, with a score of 0.45. Blowing Hole cont ained graffiti, damaged speleothems, and damage fossils in multiple locations, as well as widespread floor disturbances, localized speleothem desiccation, and agr iculture and urbanization covered 019% of the proximity buffer aroun d the cave (Figures 36 and 37).

PAGE 134

120 Figure 36. Desiccated stalagmite, Railroad Tunnel Passage, Blowing Hole Cave.

PAGE 135

121 Figure 37. Phil van Beynen stands in front of graffiti near Blowing Hole Cave entrance.

PAGE 136

122 Figure 38. Seeping drapery, Form ation Room, Blowing Hole Cave. Even though Blowing Hole is consi dered a sensitive, managed cave, the current management status must be considered when determining the management priority of the cave. Blowing Hole was gated several years ago by a collaborative effort between the WSF and Tampa Bay Area Grotto (Figure 39). The state forest also requires a specia l use permit for anyone wishing to enter the cave, and it remains closed to visi tation from May through October for bat maternity season (Appendix D). However, most of the disturbance to Blowing

PAGE 137

123 Hole Cave happened before the gate was c onstructed and access controlled, for it has been a well-known cave for decades (Werner, personal communication 2007). Since a management strategy wa s not implemented at the caves discovery, this resulted in the modera te level of disturbance found in Blowing Hole. Thus, a detailed examination of sensitivity, distur bance, management status, ownership, and the social contex t of the cave within the community is needed in order to understand m anagement priority. Figure 39. Blowing Hole Cave gate installed by TBAG and Withlacoochee State Forest.

PAGE 138

124 Peace Sign Cave Peace Sign Cave is also a public ca ve located in the WSF, however it remains unmanaged. Unlike Blowing Hole Ca ve, Peace Sign is located in close proximity to a paved road and parking lot, and a clearly marked trail leads recreational weekend cavers directly to the site. Separate studies on the geomorphology and sedimentol ogy were conducted in the past (Brinkmann and Reeder 1993; 1994; Wood 1996). Peace Sign Cave is a part of the Dames Cave area, a group of caves all within a couple meters from each other that probably once existed as a single cave system (Brinkmann and Reeder 1994). Peace Sign is developed within the Suwannee Li mestone (Oligocene), which overlies the Ocala Limestone (Eocene) in the area. Brinkmann and Reeder (1994) suggest that the cave formed from phreatic movement when the water table was higher during the Cenozoic. It is possible the cave formed from mixing-zone corrosion, which is a condition where lenses of fr esh water and salt water meet to enhance dissolution of rock (Bri nkmann and Reeder 1994). Regardless of the caves formati on process, it has been a popular destination for many recreationists for over 60 years (Turner, personal communication, 2007; Werner, pers onal communication, 2007). The WSF currently treats Peace Sign Cave as open access, which means people wishing to visit the cave are not required to have a special use permit, unless you are part of a group (e.g. Boy Scout trip). It is not uncommon to see numerous recreationists at Peace Sign Cave duri ng the weekend. In fact, while conducting

PAGE 139

125 the inventory, I noticed at least 15 people who were there to visit the cave system. As a result of the caves lack of management, over the years, recreationists have highly disturbed t he cave environment. Peace Sign Cave ranks as one of the most disturbed caves in the WSF, with a score of 0.56. In fact, the cave is the fourth-most distur bed cave in the entire dataset. Widespread graffiti, damaged speleothems, widespr ead trash abound (Figures 40-43). The cave contained a localized drip in the ma in passage, and floor disturbances were catastrophic with holes, trenches, and high sediment compaction. Furthermore, cave sedimentation in the cave has in creased over the years and remains at a high level due to the construction of dirt roads by the WSF. The roads tend to be topographically low, thus acting as ephemer al stream beds that transport water and sediment to the cave during high ener gy rainfall events (Brinkmann 1993). Peace Sign Cave is highly disturbed and has a low level of sensitivity. The cave received a score of 0.22 on the sensitivity index because biota, speleothems, mineral deposits, and foss ils were absent during inventory. However, one localized drip was notic ed and the cave is recognized as an archaeological site on the Florida Master Site File. At one point in time, Peace Sign Cave was a pristine environment of dripping soda straws, stalactites, stalagmites, drapery, and flowstone. Ho wever, through the years, vandals and over-visitation have destroyed the ca ve due to its lack of management. Although the WSF is managed land, the caves ar e unmanaged because their sensitivity and disturbance are unknown.

PAGE 140

126 In this case, the management protection of the land does not extent into the subsurface. Figure 40. Jason Polk poses in front of widespread graffiti, Peace Sign Cave.

PAGE 141

127 Figure 41. Jason Polk kneels bes ide four damaged stalagmites, Peace Sign Cave.

PAGE 142

128 Figure 42. Hundreds of damaged/remov ed soda straws and graffiti, Peace Sign Cave. Figure 43. Trash in main passage, Peace Sign Cave.

PAGE 143

129 Using Inventory Data to Determine Management Priority Given the lack of information regar ding cave contents, sensitivity, and disturbance of caves in west-central Flori da, the inventory data presented in this thesis are intended to be a guideline to progress cave management in the study area. This progression of cave management is aided by determining the management priority of caves based on se veral factors: cave sensitivity, disturbance, inherent res ources, and current managem ent status. The case studies illustrate the sensit ivity of a cave differs from the amount of disturbance found in a cave. Additionally, BRC and Briar Cave are privately owned, yet their management statuses differ. The case study data also show publicly owned caves differ in sensitivity, di sturbance, and management status. Ultimately, management priority d epends on the objectives of the person or group of people wishing to draft a management strategy. Some of these objectives include conservation or restoration of the cave as a whole, as well as the conservation or restoration of an indi vidual resource within a cave, such as an endangered species, or rare speleot hems. Therefore, when determining management priority, one cannot only cons ider the current sensitivity or disturbance score a cave received on the index. Rather, cave sensitivity, disturbance, resource data, ownersh ip, and current management practices should be studied in detail before making decisions of management priority and developing management plans.

PAGE 144

130 For example, if cave conservation is the objective of the management strategy, caves with higher sensitivity score s would likely hold priority over caves with lower scores. In contrast, if the objective of management is restoration, caves with higher disturbance scores would likely hold priority over caves with lower scores. However, in reality, it is unlikely for a management strategys goal to only consider conservation or restoration, which is why it is necessary to use a holistic management strategy. Since cave management depends heavily on the objectives of the person or group wishing to formulate a management strategy, any inventory needs to produce malleable data. By using a refined cave inventory, the data in this thesis serves both as a database of cave resources and is used to determine sensitivity and disturbance of a cave system. In combining sensitivity and disturbance scores with an assessment of current management practices and ownership status, this approach provides a guide to management priority. Cave Management Policy Before a management strategy for a ca ve is developed, a cave must be understood as a natural, livin g system. Our conservation ethic must be born out of understanding caves as natural proce ssesas systems that are greater than the sum of their parts (Kerbo 2006, pg. 1). Cave management, or best management practices, is a multi-face ted consideration that extends beyond visiting a cave once and conducting an inventory. An inventory is a crucial part of

PAGE 145

131 any conservation ethic, but it will not su ffice on its own. Even though a cave is considered managed, it does not mean the cave is protected. Like Briar Cave, Jennings Cave, Marion County, Florida, is another example of a private, managed cave by the FSS. Jennings Cave developed within the Ocala Limestone and received a sensitivity score of 0.50 and a disturbance score of 0.53. A management plan for the cave was drafted, adopted, and implemented. A gate was cons tructed in the entrance and the management plan stipulates that access is c ontrolled to 15 cavers per trip, to be led by a FSS member. However, unlike Briar Cave, the management plan is not actively enforced and the gate is never locked. Even though Jennings Cave appears as a managed cave on paper, the best management practice is not being actively enforced, which is the key to cave and karst conservation and protection. Developing a cave management strategy adheres to the general model of the environmental policy process, as described in Vaughn (2007). First, a problem is identified. In this stage, an inventory is conducted to better understand and document the current condition of a cave system. Next, a management plan is drafted. After considering all aspects of cave conservation and restoration, a management strategy is outlined by a gr oup of cave specialists. After the management plan is drafted, it must be adopted by the landowner or cave manager. Following the adoption of the plan, the management strategy must be implemented and actively enforced. Enforc ement includes restricting access,

PAGE 146

132 monitoring sensitive resources, and re storation processes. Finally, the management strategy must be continually evaluated to ensure the protection of the cave. Jennings Cave is a disastrous ex ample of a managed cave for several reasons: 1) the gate is never locked; 2) a ccess is not controlled; and 3) graffiti removal did not follow best management prac tices (Figure 44). In the recent past, the FSS attempted to remove graffiti from the walls of Jennings. As a solution, they heavily pressure-washed the walls of the main passage, which is not an accepted method of graffiti removal because of the potential damage to microbial habitats and general destructive nature to cave walls (Hildreth-Werker and Werker 2006). Perhaps Jennings Cave is not ac tively enforced because the FSS lacks certain resources, like money, time, or personnel. Similar obstacles are involved with the management of public caves in t he WSF. The lack of money, personnel, and cave knowledge are the possible factor s inhibiting progress in WSF cave management. The WSF relies on monies allo cated by the state of Florida to operate. Unfortunately, terrestrial cave s are low on the list of WSF natural resources. The WSF does not currently staff a cave specialist, therefore, personnel with cave knowledge are lim ited (Werner, personal communication 2007). However, cave management in the WSF is progressing. In the recent past, the WSF was able to collaboratively construct, with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, a f ence around three caves that are known

PAGE 147

133 habitats for the southeastern bat: Trail 10, Werner, and Big Mouth. This offers some form of protection, but is not ho listic in its conservation approach. This further illustrates when determining cave management priority, the current status of cave management must be in cluded in the examination. Figure 44. Jennings Cave, Main Passage. Note the destruction from pressurewashing the walls of the passage. The Complexities of Cave Management One of the goals of this study was to determine how ownership and current management status affect the over all management priority of a cave. The answer to this question depends on many fa ctors regarding a cave, or group of caves, and varies across regional landsca pes, states, or even countries. Due to the uniqueness of individual caves, perhaps it is best to approach the question at

PAGE 148

134 a regional level, as the caves inventor ied within this thesis have demonstrated the complex relationship between ca ves, community, and landscape. The process of managing a cave transcends ownership. Sensitivity and disturbance must be considered before management immediacy can be determined. However, the ownership of a cave, whether public or private, may dictate the ease with whic h a management plan is im plemented and enforced. My results show several caves within the study area are highly sensitive, yet remain unmanaged. The mean disturbance score is the same for public and private caves, yet management status diffe rs throughout the study area. Privately owned caves remain unmanaged, yet are st ill highly sensitive and undisturbed. Publicly owned and well-managed caves are not sensitive, yet are still highly disturbed. Consequently, nei ther the sensitivity, di sturbance, ownership, nor management status of a cave solely indi cates management priority. Rather, the management priority of caves in west -central Florida depends on a number of complicated, interwoven factors, and t he goal of management must be examined holistically. Each cave must be indivi dually examined for its sensitivity, disturbance, resources, m anagement, and social and physica l context in order to gain an understanding of managem ent immediacy (Table 10).

PAGE 149

135 Rank Name Ownership SI Score DI ScoreJustification 1 BRC Private 0.83 0.28 widespread speleothems; rare helictite formations, cave pearls; development threats; recent vandalism; managemen t plan drafted, but landowner not cooperating; remains unmanaged 2 Belleview Formation Private 0.66 0.42 highly decorated; entire cave area defores ted; immediate cave area used as cattle land; recent threats to fill cave in and develop over cave; cave not managed 3 Ocala Caverns East Private 0.33 0.63 unclear of landowner intentions for cave ; property fenced in but a couple holes in fence offers easy access; no gate; wide spread direct connection to aquifer; abundant troglobitic crayfish; frequent trips by scouts 4 Sneak Private 0.44 0.30 located in active quarry; blind minnows and several species of troglobitic crayfish; direct aquifer connection; no gate. 5 Goat Mummy Private 0.61 0.50 past quarry practices opened large ent rance, likely caused condensation corrosion; large southeastern bat roost; wide variety of speleothems; rare helictites; perhaps largest speleothem in Florida; unidentified mineral deposits on wall; no gate 6 Thorntons Private 0.61 0.26 no protection; southeastern bat roost; widespread direct aquifer connections; fish in deep water area; acts as estevelle between Gum Slough and Withlacoochee River; unidentified mineral resource: "corn flakes." 7 Maynard's Private 0.44 0.42 recent developmental threats from S un Coast Highway; human skull found few decades ago, but not documented-archaeological excavation needed; speleothems; possible largest chamber in Florida; no gate; no management plan 8 Girl Scout Public 0.28 0.63 no gate; treated as open access; sedimentat ion filling in cave; cave is arch-site for cultural resources; no management plan Table 10. Example of management priority list of west-central Florida caves incl uded in this study. The issue is more complex than determining sensitiv ity and disturbance for each cave.

PAGE 150

136 Rank Name Ownership SI Score DI ScoreJustification 9 Peace Sign Public 0.22 0.56 treated as open access; sedimentation filling in cave; cave is arch-site for cultural resources; no gate or management plan 10 Sick Bat Public 0.28 0.56 no gate; treated as open access; sedimentation filling in cave; cave is archsite for cultural resources; no management plan 11 Vandal Public 0.28 0.56 no gate; treated as open access; sedimentation filling in cave; cave is archsite for cultural resources; no management plan 12 Bottle Cap Public 0.61 0.36 newly discovered, pristine speleothem s; area quarried in 1960s, but no longer active; bat roost found near entrance, but no bats-possible maternity site; no gate or management plan 13 Crumbling Rock Private 0.78 0.25 shrimp-like invertebrate found, current ly being identified; crayfish; aquifer connections; speleothems; secure, lo cked gate; surveilla nce cameras; no management plan 14 Briar Private 0.83 0.18 widespread speleothems; aquifer connections; fossils; unique size of passages; secure, locked gate; managed, but needs best management practices implemented 15 Turpentine Private 0.72 0.17 newly discovered passage added 70+ meters to original survey; rare species of shrimp-like invertebrate f ound in aquifer; troglobitic crayfish; aquifer connection; no gate; no management plan 16 Big Mouth Public 0.33 0.37 fenced and locked; bat maternity site; crayfish currently being identified by DNA test; unique entrance size; no gate; no management plan Table 10. (continued)

PAGE 151

137 Rank Name Ownership SI Score DI ScoreJustification 17 Werner Public 0.61 0.37 fenced and locked; bat maternity site; once believed to have bat population up to 10,000, but numbers have declined over recent years; habitat to certain tick that lives only on southeastern myotis; species of crayfish currently being DNA tested for identification; no management plan 18 Legend Public 0.61 0.44 area quarried in 1960s, but no longer active; no gate; active speleothems; widespread bones; active dig in back room-possible connection to Bottle Cap; no management plan 19 Jenning's Private 0.50 0.53 southeastern bat site; unique size-most pas sage allows walking; seasonal pool; gate installed, but never locked; great educa tional resource; management plan, but not actively enforced 20 Jeep Public 0.05 0.39 close to hiking trail; widespread graffiti, but contains historic graffiti on wall; no gate; no management plan 21 Jackpot Public 0.56 0.11 pristine fish fossil in wall; aquifer; close pr oximity to another cave which is well-known; technical entrance, so not likely enter able by many people; no gate; no management plan 22 Finch's Private 0.44 0.26 unique size of passages; aquifer connecti ons; no gate; no management plans; fossils; bones 23 Football Private 0.55 0.48 unique size of passages; speleothems; intermittent stream from surface; developmental threats; no gate; no management plan Table 10. (continued)

PAGE 152

138 Rank Name Ownership SI Score DI ScoreJustification 24 Trail 10 Public 0.33 0.31 fenced and locked; bat maternity site; unknown biological invertebrates that live on guano-biological study ne eded; no gate; no management plan 25 Blowing Hole Public 0.56 0.45 bat maternity site; speleothems; widespread hydrologic influence; secure, locked gate; no management plan 26 Dog Drop Public 0.22 0.33 no gate; safety hazard because of ent rance pit drop; bones 27 Quarter Public 0.11 0.37 current dig in cave, but safety hazard because of unstable condition; no gate 28 Rattlesnake Public 0.16 0.53 current dig in cave, but safety hazard because of unstable condition; no gate 29 Indigo Public 0.06 0.33 current dig in cave, but safety hazard because of unstable condition; no gate 30 Heroine Private 0.00 0.63 no gate; safety hazard 31 Hitchhiker Private 0.17 0.64 surrounded by urban area; no protection/gate; hydrologic study needed; unique entrance size 32 Holy Oak Public 0.17 0.44 no gate; vi sible entrance, no management plan 33 Reuffs Private 0.06 0.37 located in active quarry ; no gate; no management plan; frogs and crickets 34 Fallen Oak Public 0.06 0.37 no gate; bones; no management plan 35 Ocala Caverns West Private 0.16 0.70 once a show cave mid-century historical value; no gate; no management plan 36 Floating Rock Public 0.22 0.44 aquifer connections; biota; entrance filled in by sediment caused by past quarry mining; no management plan; required further study for best management practices Table 10. (continued)

PAGE 153

139 The list of caves displayed in T able 10 is intended to illustrate the complexities behind ranking caves by management priority. Based on a detailed description of cave contents, sensitiv ity, disturbance, current management status, and the social and physical context of a cave within the landscape, it is possible to rank caves by management pr iority. This complex system relies on the inclusion and balance of quantitativ e and qualitative data, which together make it possible to better understand a cave before a management plan is implemented, actively enforced, and analyzed.

PAGE 154

140 Chapter Six: Conclusions The goal of this project was to develop an inventory to rank caves in westcentral Florida by management immedia cy, based on relative sensitivity and disturbance. The novel measures developed in this research, which include the GIS-based cave inventory, cave sensitiv ity index, and cave disturbance index, were used to gain an understanding of t he management priority of west-central Florida caves. Through analysis of the result s, it became evident that by relying solely on sensitivity and disturbance scores, management immediacy may not be accurately determined. Further exami nation revealed that ownership and management status also affect managem ent immediacy. The management of caves can serve to mitigate human disturba nces and preserve cave sensitivity; however, cave management is a comp lex and controversial issue. Since the 1700s, methods of systematic ally cataloguing the features and resources within caves have evolved (D uChene 2006), yet many inventories still involve the tabulation of cave res ources on paper (Mylroie 1978, 1979, 1981; Smith 1981; Brown and Kirk 1999; Douglas 1999; Stokes and Griffiths 2000). More sophisticated techniques of ca ve inventory include the use of GIS; however, these inventories use GIS to st ore and analyze data, not to collect data in the field (Despain and Fryer 2002; Ohms and Reece 2002; Horrocks and Szukalski 2002; Walz and Spoelman 2005).

PAGE 155

141 This thesis steps beyond these methods to a fully-functional GIS-based, paperless inventory system with the goal of ranking caves by management priority. Understanding the relative sens itivity and disturbance of a cave system is a critical step toward understanding man agement strategies. This thesis posed three questions: 1. Can current cave inventory methods be adapted to make data collection more efficient? 2. Can cave sensitivity and di sturbance be used to determine management priority? 3. How do ownership and current management status affect the overall management priority of a cave? To answer these questions, I used mobile GIS to collect data on cave features, sensitivity, and disturbance. After t he data was collected, it was stored and analyzed in a desktop GIS. The first part of this project involved the analysis, development, and refinement of cave inventory methodology, in order to suite the needs of this study. The most widely accepted cave in ventory data collection method is the paper inventory form and pencil, which wa s used during the beginning stages of this project. However, after conducti ng the inventory in less than favorable conditions, I realized this method of dat a collection was not suitable for this study. Therefore, a change fr om a manual data collection method to a completely electronic inventory was made. By using GI S to collect inventory data in the field

PAGE 156

142 using a PDA and ArcPad 7.1, I was able to efficiently collect and transfer data directly into a GIS geodatabase, without the need for countless hours of data input from paper forms. This development in methodology saved time and human error, and was an advantage throughout this project. Once data was collected in the fi eld and stored in a desktop GIS, caves were ranked by sensitivity and distur bance scores in an attempt to understand management priority. The applic ation of the inventory to 36 terrestrial caves in west-central Florida provided a vast geodatabase of data. Of the 36 caves included in the dataset, 17 are located on private proper ty and 19 are located on public land. The inventory demonstrates a wide range of cave sensitivity and disturbance in the study area. BRC Cave and Briar Cave received the highest sensitivity score in the dataset (0.83). The lowest sensitivity score, 0.00, was given to one cave (Heroine). In terms of disturbance, Jackpot Cave received the lowest disturbance score (0.11) and Ocal a Caverns West received the highest disturbance score (0.70). Cave sensitivity and disturbance ar e crucial when considering the management priority of a group of caves, like in the study area. However, they cannot be used alone to determine which ca ves hold priority over others, for many other factors are involved. Curr ent management strategies, ownership, and objectives of the cave manage r(s) must also be considered. In the context of this research, data from caves in the WSF serve as a step towards progressing best management practices, which is virtually devoid of such conservation ethics.

PAGE 157

143 The final goal of this thesis was to assess how ownership and current management status affect t he overall management priori ty of a cave. The four case studies discussed in Chapter Five (Briar, BRC, Blowing Hole, and Peace Sign Cave) demonstrate the wide range of sens itivity and disturbance of caves in terms of management and ownership. Cons equently, neither the sensitivity, disturbance, ownership, nor management st atus of a cave solely indicates management priority. Rather, the management priority of caves in west-central Florida depends on a number of complicated interwoven factors, and the goal of management must be examined holistically. Each cave must be individually examined for its sensitivity, disturbanc e, resources, management, and social and physical context in order to gain an understanding of management immediacy. During this study, each cave was in ventoried once, providing a snapshot of cave features, sensitivity, and disturbance. The possibility of missing certain biological species, or conducti ng the inventory during a drought could give a false impression of the condition of cave hydrology. Therefore, the detailed descriptions of cave contents, sensit ivity, and disturbance scores noted during inventory are not an accurate repres entation of the cave over time. Treating a cave inventory as an open-ended project provides a more accurate depiction of cave features, s ensitivity, disturbance, and resources. Caves were inventoried once because ti me was a factor during this thesis; however, inventory data should be reco rded on a regular basis. This reduces subjectivity and allows for cave res ources and characteristics to be more

PAGE 158

144 accurately represented in an inventory and monitored over time. In the context of this study, the data gathered for public caves will be given to WSF personnel and used to draft management plans for priority caves, which are determined by their objectives. This study revealed the need for both private and public cave management in west-central Florida in or der to ensure the conservation and protection of sensitive cave resources. This thesis provides a step towards progressing cave management in the study area. The inventory is a tool with the ability to produce the information needed to accurately assess cave management priority. Yet, to date, no county or st ate law exists regarding the conservation and protection of terrestrial cave s. In order to ensure the conservation and protection of caves in west-central Florida, s upport from county or state government, combined with cave inventory data, is crucial in developing sound policy regarding the management of terrestrial caves.

PAGE 159

145 List of References Bilbo, B. and Bilbo, M. 2006. Rock Art and Histori c Writing in Caves: Restoration Implications. In: Hildre th-Werker, V. and Werker, J.C. eds. Cave Conservation and Restoration Huntsville: National Speleological Society, pp. 99-119. Bishop, E.W. and Lane, E. 1987. A Guide to Rocks and Minerals of Florida. Florida Bureau of Geology S pecial Publication 8, 61 p. Bodenhamer, H. 1995. Monitoring human-c aused changes with visitor impact mapping. In: Rea, G.T., ed. Proceedings of the 1995 National Cave Management Symposium: Spring M ill State Park, Mitchell, Indiana, October 25-28, 1995 Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Karst Conservancy, pp. 2837. Bodenhamer, H. 2006. Visitor Impact Mapping in Caves. In: Hildreth-Werker, V. and Werker, J.C., eds. Cave Conservation and Restoration Huntsville: National Speleologica l Society, pp. 193-202. Boston, P.J., Northup, D.E., and Lavoi e, K.H. 2006. Protecting Microbial Habitats: Preserving the Unseen. In: Hildreth-Werker, V. and Werker, J.C., eds. Cave Conservation and Restoration Huntsville: National Speleological Society, pp. 61-82. Brinkmann, R. 2003. Geologic and Geomorphic Charac teristics of the Dames Cave Area, Withlacoochee State Fores t, Florida. In: Flor ea, L.J., Vacher, H.L., and Oches, E.O., eds. Karst Studies in West Central Florida: USF Seminar in Karst Environments pp. 103-104. Brinkmann, R. and Reeder, P. 1993. T he Relationship Between Surface Soils and Cave Sediments in We st-Central Florida, USA. Transactions of the British Cave Research Association 22(3): 95-102. Brinkmann, R., and Reeder, P. 1994. The Influence of Sea-Level Change and Geologic Structure on Cave Devel opment in West-Central Florida. Physical Geography 15(1): 52-61.

PAGE 160

146 Brodkorb, P. 1956. Pleistocene birds fr om Eichelberger Cave, Florida. The Auk 73: 136-137. Brown, T. and Kirk, D. 1999. A Karst Resource Inventor y of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Proceedings of the 14th National Cave and Karst Managem ent Symposium. October 1999 Chattanooga, TN: Southeastern Cave Conservancy, pp. 12-18. Chakraborty, J., Tobin G.A., and Montz, B.E., (2005). Population Evacuation: Assessing Spatial Variability in GeoPhysical Risk and Soci al Vulnerability to Natural Hazards, Natural Hazards Review 6(1): 23-33. Christie, Les. 2006. Growth states: Ar izona overtakes Nevada. December 26th, 2006. http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/ 22/real_estate/fastest_growing _states/index.htm. Cigna, A. 1993. Environmental management of tourist caves. Environmental Geology 21:173. Cutter, S. L., Mitche ll, J. T., and Scott, M. S. 2000. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: A case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90(4): 713. Darling, T. Florida Rarities. 1961. American Fern Journal 51(1): 1-15. Darling, T. More Florida Rarities. 1962. American Fern Journal 52(4): 137-148. Despain, J. and Fryer, S. 2002. Hu rricane Crawl Cave: A GIS-based cave management plan analysis and review. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 64(1): 71-76. DeWitt, D. 2003. Explorers lips are sealed about cave discovery. St. Petersburg Times, St. Petersburg, FL: June 8, 2003. Dingeman, R. 2003. Panel to rule on mo ve of Hawaiian artifacts. Honolulu Advertiser, Honolulu HI: April 30, 2003. Dorale, J.A., Gonzalez, L.A., Reagan, M.K., Pickett, D.A., Murrell, M.T., and Baker, R.G. 1992. A high-resolution re cord of Holocene climate change in speleothem calcite from Cold Water Cave, Northeast Iowa. Science 258: 1626-1630. Dorale, J.A., Edwards, R.L., Ito, E., and Gonzalez, L. A. 1998. Climate and Vegetation History of the Midcontinent from 75 to 25 ka: A Speleothem Record from Crevice Cave, Missouri, USA. Science 282: 1871-1874.

PAGE 161

147 Dorale, J.A., Edwards, R.L., and O nac, B.P., 2002. Stable isotopes as environmental indicators in speleothems. In: Karst Processes and the Carbon Cycle Yuan, D.-X. (ed.).Geological Publishing House: Beijing, China, pp. 107-120. Douglas, J. 1999. Historic Preserva tion at Hubbards Cave: Inventory and Management of Cultural Resources. Proceedings of the 14th National Cave and Karst Management Symposium. October 1999 Chattanooga, TN: Southeastern Cave Conservancy, pp. 46-50. Dreybrodt, W., Gabrovek, F., and Perne, M. 2005. Condensation Corrosion: A Theoretical Approach. Speleogenesis and Evolution of Karst Aquifers 3(2): 2-23 DuChene, H.R. 2006. Resource Invent ory: A Tool for Cave Science, Management, and Restoration. In: Hildre th-Werker, V. and Werker, J.C., eds. Cave Conservation and Restoration Huntsville: National Speleological Society, pp. 193-202. Everson, A.R., Chilman, K. C., White, C., and Foster, D. 1987. Recreational use of seven wild caves in Missouri. In: Wilson, J.M., ed. Proceedings of the NSS 1987 Cave Mana gement Symposium Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society, pp. 11-21. Gamble, F.M. 1981. Disturbance of under ground wilderness in karst caves. Journal of Environmental Studies 18: 33-39. Florea, L. J., Hashimoto, T., Kelley, K. N., Miller, D., Mry kalo, R. 2003. Karst Geomorphology and Relation to the Phreat ic Surface, Briar Cave, Marion County, Florida. In: Florea, L.J. Vacher, H.L., and Oches, E.A. eds. Karst Studies in West Central Florida, USF Seminar In Karst Environments pp. 9-19. Florea, L.J. 2006. Architecture of ai r-filled caves within the karst of the Brooksville Ridge, west-central Florida. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 68(2): 64. Florea, L.J. 2006. The Karst of West-Cent ral Florida. Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Flor ida, Tampa, Florida, 523 p. Federal Cave Protection Act. 1988. http://www.acave.us/ccms/federalcav eprotectionact.htm. Accessed March 18, 2007.

PAGE 162

148 Florida Cave Survey Constitution, 2005. http://www.caves.org/survey /fcs/constitution.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2007. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. Withlacoochee Water Quality Status Report. Florida Stat e University, Tallahassee, FL. 230 pp. FloridaSmart. 2005. http://www.floridasma rt.com/local/. Accessed September 25, 2007. Gillieson D, 1996, Caves: Processes, Development, Management Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. 324pp. Gunn, J., and D. Bailey. 1993. Limest one quarrying and quarry reclamation in Britain. Environmental Geology 21:167. Gunn, J., P. Hardwick, and P. J. Wood. 2000. The invertebrate community of the PeakSpeedwell Cave system, De rbyshire, England: pressures and considerations for conservation management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 10: 353. Hale, E. 2006. Visitor Impact Mapping Progress at Oregon Caves. NSS News Bulletin 65(3): pp. 13. Hildreth-Werker, V.2006. Cu rrent Best Practices. In : Hildreth-Werker, V. and Werker, J.C., eds. Cave Conservation and Restoration Huntsville: National Speleologica l Society, pp. 17-18. Hildreth-Werker, V. and Werk er, J.C .2006. Overview of Cave Restoration. In: Hildreth-Werker, V. and Werker, J.C., eds. Cave Conservation and Restoration Huntsville: National Speleologic al Society, pp. 293-302. Hildreth-Werker, V. and Werker, J.C. 2006. Do cavers need a conduct? In: Hildreth-Werker, V. and Werker, J.C., eds. Cave Conservation and Restoration Huntsville: National Speleological Society, pp. 263-267. Hill, C.A., and Forti, P., 1997. Cave Mi nerals of the World: Huntsville, AL. National Speleologi cal Society, 463 p. Holman, J.A. 1958. The Pleistocene He rpetofauna of Saber-Tooth Cave, Citrus County, Florida. Copeia 1958(4): 276-280. Horrocks, R. and Szukalski, B.W. 2002. Us ing geographic information systems to develop a cave potential map for Wind Cave, South Dakota. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 64(1): 63-70.

PAGE 163

149 Hubbard, H. G. 1901. Insect life in Florida caves Proceedings of the Entomology Society of Washington 4(4): 394-396. Hutt, S., Jones, E.W., and McCallister, M.E. 1992. Archaeological Resource Protection Washington, DC: Preservati on Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation. 179 p. Jablonsky, P. 1992. Implications of lin t in caves. NSS News 50(4): 99-100. Johnson, R.A. and Wi chern, D.W. 1998. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kedrowski, J. 2006. Assessing Human-En vironmental Impacts On Colorado's 14,000-Foot Mountains. MS Thesis, Univ ersity of South Florida, Tampa, FL. 203 p. Kerbo, R.C. 2006. Endless Caves and Lost Stalagmites. In: Hildreth-Werker, V. and Werker, J.C. eds. Cave Conservation and Restoration Huntsville: National Speleologica l Society, pp. 1-8. Knutson, S. 1997. Cave maps as geograph ical information systems: An example from Oregon Caves National Monum ent. In: Proceedings of the 1997 Cave and Karst Management Symposium, 116 p. Lane, E., 1986. Karst in Florida Florida Geological Surv ey Special Publication no. 29,100 p. Li, H., Listeman,L.R., Doshi, D., and Coo per, R.L. 2000. Heart rate measures in blind cave crayfish during environmental disturbances and social interactions. Comparati v e Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 127: 55 70. Lowry, J. H., Jr., Miller, H. J., and Hepner, G. F. (1995). A GIS-based sensitivity analysis of community vu lnerability to hazardous contaminants on the Mexico/US border. Photogra mm. Eng. Remote Sens., 61(11): 1347 1359. McNeil, B.E., Jasper, J.D., Luchsinger D.A., and Rainsmier, M.V. 2002. Implementation and application of GIS at Timpanogos Cave National Monument, Utah. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 64(1): 34-37. Milancovic, P. 2006. Water Resources and Environmental Problems in Karst. Environmental Geology 51: 673

PAGE 164

150 Miller, J.A. 1986. Hy drogeologic Framework of the Floridan Aquifer System in Florida and in Parts of Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. United States Geological Survey Pr ofessional Paper 1403-B, 91 p. Montz, B. E., and Evans, T. A. 2001. GIS and social vulnerability analysis. Coping with flash floods, E. Gruntfe st and J. Handmer, eds., Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Moore, G. W., and B. G. Nicholas. 1964. Speleology: The Study of Caves D. C. Heath and Company: Boston. 150 p. Moyes, H. 2002. The use of GIS in the spatial analysis of an archaeological cave site. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 64(1): 9-16. Mylroie, J. E., ed., 1978, Western Kentucky Speleologi cal Survey Annual Report, 1978: Murray State University, 55 p. Mylroie, J. E., ed., 1979, Western Kentucky Speleologi cal Survey Annual Report, 1979: Murray State University, 84 p. Mylroie, J. E., ed., 1981, Western Kentucky Speleologi cal Survey Annual Report, 1980: Murray State University, 79 p. Nepstad, J., 1991, An inventory syst em for large cave systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th National Cave Management Symposium pp. 222-234. ODowd, James and Broeker, Larry. Cave Management Handbook, 1996. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/umpqua/public ations/cave-mgt-handbook-12-0204_files/cave-mgt-handbook-12-0204.htm#_Toc87245850. Accessed February 25, 2007. Ohms, R. and Reece, M. 2002. Using GIS to manage two large cave systems, Wind and Jewel Caves, South Dakota. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 64(1): 4-8. Pano, S.V. 2006. Karst Aquife rs: Can They Be Protected? Groundwater 44(4): 494. Palmer, R.J., 1982. The caves and blue holes of Cat Island, Bahamas. Cave Science 13(2): 71-78. Palmer, A.N. 1991. Origin and Mo rphology of Limestone Caves. Geological Society of America Bulletin 103: 1-21.

PAGE 165

151 Palmer, A.N. 1996. The Role of Cave Exploration in Karst Research. Journal of Caves and Karst Studies 58(1): 4-5. Palmer, A.N., 2002. Speleogenesis in Carb onate Rocks. In: Gabrovsek, F. ed., Evolution of Karst: From Prekarst to Cessation. Zaloza-ZRC, PostojnaLjubljana pp. 43 60. Palmer, A.N. 2007. Cave Geology Dayton, OH: Cave Books. 454 p. Peck, S.B.1970. The Terrestrial Ar thropod Fauna of Florida Caves. The Florida Entomologist 53(4): 203-207. Petit, S., Rojer, A., and Pors, L. Survey ing bats for conservati on: the status of cave-dwelling bats on Curacao from 1993 to 2003. Animal Conservation 9: 207. Pfaff, R., Glennon, J., Groves, C., Meiman, J., and Fry, J. 2000. Geographic information systems as a tool for t he protection of the Mammoth Cave karst aquifer, Kentucky. Proceedings of the 8th Mammoth Cave Science Conference, Mammoth Cave, Kentu cky: Mammoth Cave, KY, National Park Service pp. 89-99. Polk, J.S., van Beynen, P.E., and Reeder, P.P. 2007. Late Holocene environmental reconstruction using cave sediments from Belize. Quaternary Research 68: Pulido-Bosch, A., Martn-Rosales, W. Lpez-Chicano, M., Rodrguez-Navarro, C.M., and Vallejos, A. 1997. Human impact in a tourist karstic cave (Aracena, Spain). Environmental Geology 31(3/4): 142-149. Richards, D.A. and Dorale, J.A., 2003. Uranium-series chronology and environmental applications of speleothems. In, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, B. Bourdon, G.M. Henders on, C.C. Lundstrom, and S.P. Turner, (eds .) 52, pp. 407-460. Roth, Monica. 2004. Inventory and Geometri c Analysis of Flank Margin Caves of the Bahamas. MS Thesis. Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS.134 p. Sarbu, S.M. and Lascu, C. 1997. Condensation Corrosion in Movile Cave, Romania. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 59(3): 99-102. Schneider, K., and Culver, D.C. 2004. Estimating subterranean species richness using intensive sampling and rarefact ion curves in a high density cave region in West Virginia. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 66:39.

PAGE 166

152 Scott, T.M., Means, G.H., Meegan, R.P., Me ans R.C., Upchurch, S.B., Copeland, R.E., Jones, J., Roberts, T., and W illet, A. 2004. Springs of Florida. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 66, 377 p. Smith, P. M. 1981. The F lint Ridge Cave System: A wilderness opportunity. In: Watson, R.A., ed., The Cave Research Foundation Origins and the First Twelve years 1957 Mammoth Cave, KY: The Cave Research Foundation, pp. 157. Soto, L. R. 2005. Reconstruction of Lat e Holocene Precipitation for Central Florida as Derived by Isotopes in Speleothems, MS Thesis, University of South Florida, Ta mpa, Florida, 81 p. Speakman J.R., Webb, P.I., and Racey, P.A. 1991. Effects of Disturbance on the Energy Expenditur e of Hibernating Bats. The Journal of Applied Ecology 28(3): 1087-1104. Stitt, R. 1977. Human impact on caves. Proceedings of the National Cave Management Symposium, October 26-29, 1976 Albuquerque, NM: Speleobooks, pp. 36-43. Stokes, T.R. and Griffiths, P. 2000. A Pr eliminary Discussion of Karst Inventory Systems and Principles (KISP) for Br itish Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Forestry, Victoria, B.C. Work Paper. 51 p. Strong, T.R. 2006. Vertebrat e Species Use of Cave Resources in the Carlsbad Caverns Region of the Chihuahu an Desert. In: Harmon, D., ed., People, Places, and Parks: Proceedings of the 2005 George Wright Society Conference on Parks, Protec ted Areas, and Cultural Sites Hancock, MI: The George Wright Society. Tamir, R., 2007. Personal co mmunication. Quarry manager. Thornbury, W. 1960. Principles of Geomorphology John Wiley and Sons, Inc: New York. 618 p. Tarhule-Lips, R.F.A and Ford, D.C.1998. Condensation Corrosion in Caves on Cayman Brac and Isla de Mona. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 60(2): 84-95. Trajoano, E. 2000. Cave F aunas in the Atlantic Tropical Rain Forest: Composition, Ecology, and Conservation. Biotropica 32(4b): 882.

PAGE 167

153 Tihansky, A.B. 1999. Sinkholes, West-Cent ral Florida. In: Galloway D., Jones, D.R., Ingebritsen S.E, eds., Land Subsidence in the United States United States Geological Survey Circular 1182, 177 p. Tihansky A.B. and Knochenmus L.A. 2001. Karst Features and Hydrogeology in Westcentral FloridaA Field Pe rspective. In: Kuniansky, E.L. ed., U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011 pp. 198-211. Turner, T., 2003, Brooksville Ridge Cave: Floridas Hidden Tr easure: NSS News, May 2003, p. 125-131, 143. Turner, T., 2007. Personal communica tion. Tampa Bay Area Grotto. Urich, P.B. 1989: Tropi cal karst management and agricultural development: example from Bohol, Philippines. Geography Annals 71B(2): 95-108. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. http://qui ckfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html. Accessed July 17, 2007 van Beynen, P.E., Schwarcz, H.P., and Ford, D.C., 2004. Holocene climatic variation recorded in a speleothe m from McFails Cave, New York. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 66(1), 20-27. van Beynen, P. and Townsend, K. 2005. A Disturbance Index for Karst Environments. Environmental Management 36(1): 101. van Beynen, P.E., Asmeron, Y., Poly ak, V., Soto, L., and Polk, J.S. 2007. Variable intensity of teleconnections during the late Holocene in subtropical North America from an isotopic study of speleothem from Florida. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 1-5. Vaughn, J. 2007. Environmental Politics: Do mestic and Global Dimensions 5th edition. Thomson Wadsworth: Belmont, CA. 398 p. Veni, G. 2006. Guidelines for trash and rubble cleanup projects. In: HildrethWerker, V. and Werker, J.C., eds. Cave Conservation and Restoration Huntsville: National Speleo logical Society, pp. 363-366. Vesely, C.A. and Stock, G.M. 1998. Cave inventory protocol for caves in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: Monr ovia, California, Cave Research Foundation, 94 p.

PAGE 168

154 Villar E, Bonet A, Daz B, Fernndez PL, Gutirrez I, Quinds LS, Solana JR, Soto J. 1984. Ambient temperature vari ations in the Hall of Paintings of Altamira Cave due to the presence of visitors. Cave Science 11: 99. Villar E, Fernndez PL, Gu tirrez I, Quinds LS, Soto J, 1986. Influence of visitors on carbon concentra tions in Altamira Cave. Cave Science 13: 21 23. Vukelich, V. 1995. Recreation Resource Inventory Standards and Procedures Draft Report. Ministry of Forests Range, Recreation & Forest Practices Branch Recreation Section. h ttp://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs /culture/rec/index.htm. Accessed July 2, 2006 Walz, J. and Spoelman, S. 2005. Integr ating Cave and Karst Inventory Methods with GIS, 2003-2004 Cave and Karst In ventory Project, Wind Cave National Park. Watson, J., Hamilton-Smith, E., Gillieson, D., and Kiern aned, K. 1997. Guidelines for cave and karst protection. IUCN, Gland. 63 p. Weaver, H.D. 1992. Glyph talk and graffiti. Ozark Speleograph Sept. 1992. 36 p. Webster, J. W., Brook, G.A., Railsback, L.B., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., Alexander, C., and Reeder, P. 2007. Stalagmite evidence from Belize indicating significant droughts at t he time of Preclassic Abandonment, the Maya Hiatus, and the Classic Maya collapse. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 250(1-4): 1-17 Welsch, R.L. 1993. Off the wa ll: Kilroy strikes again. Natural History 102(5): 3032. Werner, C., 2007. Personal communication. Withlacoochee State Forest biologist. Wisenbaker, M. undated. Flor idas aquatic troglobites. http://myfwc.com/Fishing/nongame/mw 3.html. Accessed August 11, 2007 White, C.M. 1993. The big E challenge: Large scale graffiti removal. Recnote. R-931:1-4. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. White, W.B., 1988, Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terrains : Oxford University Press, New York, 464 p.

PAGE 169

155 White, W.A. 1970. The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula State of Florida Department of Natural Resource s Geological Bulletin 51, 164 p. White, W.B. 1984. Rate processes: chemical kinetics and karst landform development. In: R. G. La Fleur, R.G., ed., Groundwater as a Geomorphic Agent Boston: Allen and Unwin, pp. 227-48. Zimmer, J., Behrendt, B ., and Wexler, K. 1999. Two trapped boys rescued from cave St. Petersburg Times: St. Petersburg, FL. December 28th, 1999. Zimmer, J. 1999. Rescue leads to review of caves St. Petersburg Times: St. Petersburg, FL. December 29th, 1999.

PAGE 170

156 Appendix A: Geodatabase Data Dictionary

PAGE 171

157 Appendix A: Geodatabase Data Dictionary Name All known names of cave Inv_Date Date the inventory was conducted Inv_ID Unique ID given to each cave for geodatabase identification Township Township in which cave is located (Public Land Survey System) Range Range in which cave is located (Public Land Survey System) Section Section in which cave is locate (Public Land Survey System) County Florida county in which cave is located Personnel People who conducted inventory Cave_Ownership Ownership of cave. Values = Commercial Private, Public, Government Park, Unknown Status Equipment_Needed Equipment needed to cave. Values = Boat or Floatation, Diving Equipment, Handline, Kneepads, Cable ladder, Normal Speleo Gear, Shovel-Blasting, Rope or Vertical Equipment, Other special equipm ent, Unknown, Wet-Suit, Mask/snorkel, None, NA Other_Equipment_Needed Same values as "Equipm ent needed" to list multiple equipment needs Elevation_masl Elevation of cave entrance in meters above sea-level Cave_Map_Status Current status of cave map. Values = Im proved map, New map/survey, Redraw of old map, In progress, No map, Complete map, Sketch only, not to scale Cave_Length_m Current surveyed length of cave Cave_Vertical_Extent_m Current su rveyed vertical extent of cave Management_Notes Notes pertaining to the management of cave Entry_Status Accessibility of cave. Values = Fees ch arged for entry, Destroyed or closed, Forbidden by owner, Locked/Gated, Navigable Waterway, Opwn access, Permission required, Waiver required, Te mporarily blocked, Unknown status, NA

PAGE 172

158 Appendix A: (Continued) Multiple_Entrances Indicates whether there are multiple entr ances to cave. Values = Y (Yes) or N (No) Type_Of_Entrance_Vertical Indicates type of cave entrance if vertical. Values = Artificial shaft, Bottleneck/small but bells out, Chimney/clim b, Very wide pit (+20 ft), Pit, Tight pit, Enlarged fissure, Tight squeeze, NA Type_Of_Entrance_Horizontal_Or_Downward_Sloping Indicates type of cave entrance if horiz ontal or downward sloping. Values = Large horizontal (+ 20 ft), Stoop/duck walk, Crawl, Artificial tunnel, Tight squeeze, NA Entrance_Topo_Position Describes the topographic position of t he cave entrance. Values = Sinkhole, Hillside, Topographic low, Hilltop, Quarry, Floodplain Ent_Visibility Indicates visibility of cave entrance. Values = Clearly visible, Obscured by vegetation, Obscured by rocks Entrance_Modification Describes any modifications made to th e cave entrance. Values = Widened, Artificial entrance, Gated, Road cons truction, Quarry, Blocked, Dug out/open Ent_Min_Size Indicates the minimum size of cave entrance. Values = Squeeze, Crawl, Stoop, Walk, Vertical drop Ent_Drop_Depth Depth of entrance drop if vertical in meters Ease_Of_Access_Score Describes the general ease at which a person can access the cave. Values = 1-5 Entrance_Notes Any notes relating to cave entrance Passage_Orientation List of the majority of passage orientations in cave. Values = N-S, E-W, NESW, NW-SE, NE-SW & NW-SE, NE-SW & NW-SE & N-S & E-W Passage_Types List of the passage types in cave. Exam ple: values could be enlarged fissure, key hole, plus-sign, breakdown, and/or phreatic.

PAGE 173

159 Appendix A: (Continued) Passage_Min_Sizes List of all general sizes of passages in cave. Example: values could be squeeze, crawl, stoop, and/or walk Passage_Hydrology List of all hydrological resour ces in cave. Example: seeps, drips, pool, aquifer Passage_Floor List of all floor types in ca ve. Example: sediment, clay, breakdown, etc. Passage_Hazards List of all possible hazards in cave and location. Example: guano, unstable breakdown, steep drop, etc. Passage_Notes Notes pertaining to passage characteristics Tites_Mites_Columns_Condition Location of any stalactites, stalagmites, or columns and condition (depositing, dry, damaged) Drapery_Condition Location of drapery and condition Helictites_Condition Location of helictites and condition Rimstone_Condition Location of rimstone and condition Popcorn_Condition Location of popcorn and condition Flowstone_Condition Location of flowstone and condition Spar_Condition Location of spar and condition Calcite_Coating Location of ca lcite coating and description Calcite_Rafts Location of calcite rafts and description Ripple Marks/Scallops Location of ripple marks and/or scallops Anastomosen Location of anastomosen Sediments Describes sediments in cave. Example: sorted, unsorted, clay, fine lamination, organics present Sediment_Notes Any notes relating to cave sediments Fossils Location and description of fossils Bones Location and description of bones

PAGE 174

160 Appendix A: (Continued) Geologic_Strata Geologic unit found in cave. Values = Ocala limestone (Eocene), Suwannee Limestone (Oligocene), Avon Park Formation (Middle Eocene), Tampa Member (Arcadia Formation)(Upper Oligocene-Lower Miocene) Other_Geologic_Strata Other geologic unit found in cave. Same values as "Geologic_Strata" Geologic_Notes Any notes for geology of cave Biological_Vertebrates List and location of biological vertebrates Biological_Invertebrates List and location of biological invertebrates Mold_Bacteria List and location of any mold or bacteria in cave Roots Location of roots in cave RoostStains Location of roost stains in cave GuanoPiles Location of guano piles in cave Biological_Notes Any notes pertaining to cave biology Artifcats_Historical List and location of possible historical artifacts in cave Cultural_Notes Any notes pertai ning to possible cave artifacts Scientific_Potential_Areas_Notes Notes for scient ific potential areas (location and description) Special_Interest_Areas_Notes Notes for special interest areas that have no scientific potential (location and description) Si_Biota Cave sensitivity index Biological variable score. Values = 0-3 SI_Hydrology Cave sensitivity index Hy drology variable score. Values = 0-3 SI_Speleothems Cave sensitivity index S peleothems variable score. Values = 0-3 SI_Mineralogy Cave sensitivity index Mi neralogy variable score. Values = 0-3 SI_Paleontology Cave sensitivity index Pa leontology variable score. Values = 0-3 SI_Cultural Cave sensitivity index Cu ltural variable score. Values = 0-3 SI_Score Aggregate sensitivity score compiled for each cave. Represents relative sensitivity of cave to human disturbance. Values range from 0-1.

PAGE 175

161 Appendix A: (Continued) DI_Speleothems Cave disturbance index Damaged Speleothem s variable score. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_Graffiti Cave disturbance index Graffiti variable score. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_Trash Cave disturbance index Trash variable score. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_Floor_Dist Cave disturbance index Floor Dist urbance variable score. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_Cultural Cave disturbance index Destroyed Cu ltural variable score. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_CC Cave disturbance index Condensation Corrosion variable score. Values = 0-3 DI_Desiccation Cave disturbance index Desiccat ion variable score. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_Sedimentation Cave disturbanc e index Sedimentation variable sc ore. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_Biota_Pop_Den Cave disturbance index Biota Population Density variable score. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_Biota_Spec_Rich Cave disturbance index Biota Species Ri chness variable score. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_Fossils Cave disturbance index Fossils variable score. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_Deforestation Cave disturbance index Deforest ation variable score. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_Urbanization Cave disturbanc e index Urbanization variable score. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_Agriculture Cave disturbance index Agricu lture variable score. Values = 0-3; LD; NA DI_Score Aggregate disturbance score compiled for each cave. Represents the approximate human-induced disturbance in each cave. Values range from 0-1.

PAGE 176

162 Appendix B: Cave Maps

PAGE 177

163 Appendix B. Cave Maps

PAGE 178

164 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 179

165 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 180

166 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 181

167 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 182

168 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 183

169 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 184

170 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 185

171 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 186

172 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 187

173 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 188

174 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 189

175 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 190

176 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 191

177 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 192

178 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 193

179 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 194

180 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 195

181 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 196

182 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 197

183 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 198

184 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 199

185 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 200

186 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 201

187 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 202

188 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 203

189 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 204

190 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 205

191 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 206

192 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 207

193 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 208

194 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 209

195 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 210

196 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 211

197 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 212

198 Appendix B: (Continued)

PAGE 213

199 Appendix C: Briar Cave Release of Liability

PAGE 214

200 Appendix C: Briar Cave Release of Liability

PAGE 215

201 Appendix D: Withlacoochee Stat e Forest Special Use Permits

PAGE 216

202 Appendix D: Withlacoochee Stat e Forest Special Use Permits

PAGE 217

203 Appendix D: (Continued)

PAGE 218

204 Appendix E: Caves Geodatabase

PAGE 219

205 Appendix E: Caves Geodatabase (Belleview Formation Jeep) Name Invdate Invid County BELLEVIEW FORMATION 9/21/2003 INV033 MARION BIG MOUTH 6/3/2007 INV008 CITRUS BLOWING HOLE 6/15/2007 INV027 CITRUS BOTTLE CAP 8/12/2007 INV030 CITRUS BRC 6/1/2003 INV009 HERNANDO BRIAR 9/23/2007 INV040 MARION CRUMBLING ROCK 5/19/ 2007 INV002 CITRUS DOG DROP 6/9/2007 INV019 CITRUS FALLEN OAK 6/9/2007 INV017 CITRUS FINCH'S 5/26/2007 INV003 MARION FLOATING ROCK 5/11/2007 INV012 CITRUS FOOTBALL 8/4/2007 INV028 CITRUS GIRL SCOUT 6/9/2007 INV020 CITRUS GOAT MUMMY 8/4/2007 INV029 CITRUS HEROINE 8/18/2007 INV034 MARION HITCHHIKER 9/23/200 7 INV041 MARION HOLY OAK 5/11/2007 INV001 CITRUS INDIGO 6/15/2007 INV025 HERNANDO

PAGE 220

206 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Personnel BELLEVIEW FORMATION GRANT HARL EY, JASON POLK, MONICA EXNER BIG MOUTH GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK, SONJA WESCOMB BLOWING HOLE GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK, PHIL VAN BEYNEN BOTTLE CAP GRANT HARLEY, TO M TURNER, MONICA EXNER BRC GRANT HARLEY, TOM TURNER ROBERT BROOKS, JASON POLK BRIAR GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK, JUSTIN MARKS CRUMBLING ROCK GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK, TOM TURNER DOG DROP GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK FALLEN OAK GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK FINCH'S GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK FLOATING ROCK LEE FLOREA, BETH FRATESI, DON SEALE FOOTBALL GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK, TOM TURNER, ROBERT BROO KS, MONICA EXNER GIRL SCOUT GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK GOAT MUMMY GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK, TO M TURNER, ROBERT BROO KS, MONICA EXNER HEROINE GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK, MONICA EXNER HITCHHIKER GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK HOLY OAK GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK COLLEEN WERNER, MONICA EXNER INDIGO GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK

PAGE 221

207 Appendix E: (Continued) Name CaveOwnership EquipmentNeeded BELLEVIEW FORMATION PRIVATE PR OPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR BIG MOUTH PUBLIC PROPER TY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR BLOWING HOLE PUBLIC PR OPERTY CABLE LADDER BOTTLE CAP PUBLIC PROPERTY KNEEPADS BRC PRIVATE PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR BRIAR PRIVATE PROPERTY WET-SUIT CRUMBLING ROCK PRIVATE PRO PERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR DOG DROP PUBLIC PROPERTY ROPE OR VERTICAL EQUIPMENT FALLEN OAK PUBLIC PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR FINCH'S PRIVATE PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR FLOATING ROCK PUBLIC PROPERTY NONE FOOTBALL PRIVATE PROPERTY KNEEPADS GIRL SCOUT PUBLIC PROPER TY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR GOAT MUMMY PRIVATE PROPER TY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR HEROINE PRIVATE PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR HITCHHIKER PRIVATE PROPER TY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR HOLY OAK PUBLIC PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR INDIGO PUBLIC PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR

PAGE 222

208 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Other_Equipment_Needed Elevation_m asl Cave_Map_Status Cave_Length_Meters BELLEVIEW FORMATION NA -9999 COMPLETE MAP 54.3 BIG MOUTH NA 25.829 COMPLETE MAP 95.7 BLOWING HOLE KNEEPADS 30.17 COMPLETE MAP 257 BOTTLE CAP NA 22.66 IN PROGRESS 101.5 BRC KNEEPADS 30.48 COMPLETE MAP 1030.22 BRIAR BOAT OR FLOATATION -9999 COMPLETE MAP 2000 CRUMBLING ROCK WET-SUIT 16.46 COMPLETE MAP 1024 DOG DROP NA 31.97 COMPLETE MAP 46 FALLEN OAK NA -9999 COMPLETE MAP 10.4 FINCH'S NA 32 COMPLETE MAP 176.8 FLOATING ROCK NA 16.125 COMPLETE MAP 92.4 FOOTBALL NA 29.69 COMPLETE MAP 142.2 GIRL SCOUT KNEEPADS 31.4 COMPLETE MAP 17.8 GOAT MUMMY NA 27.94 COMPLETE MAP 50.4 HEROINE NA -9999 COMPLETE MAP 27 HITCHHIKER NA -9999 COMPLETE MAP -9999 HOLY OAK NA 30.57 COMPLETE MAP 21.5 INDIGO NA 39.61 COMPLETE MAP 14

PAGE 223

209 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Cave_Vertical_Extent_Meters BELLEVIEW FORMATION 7 BIG MOUTH 21.2 BLOWING HOLE 16.3 BOTTLE CAP -9999 BRC 10.67 BRIAR -9999 CRUMBLING ROCK -9999 DOG DROP -9999 FALLEN OAK -9999 FINCH'S 20.5 FLOATING ROCK 16.0 FOOTBALL 18.7 GIRL SCOUT -9999 GOAT MUMMY -9999 HEROINE -9999 HITCHHIKER -9999 HOLY OAK 12.7 INDIGO -9999

PAGE 224

210 Appendix E: (Continued) Name ManagementNotes BELLEVIEW FORMATION UNMANAGED, NEEDS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, DEVELOPMENTAL THREATS BIG MOUTH FENCED-IN BY WSF BC BAT AND WITH LACOOCHEE LIGHT-FLEEING CRAYFISH HABITAT BLOWING HOLE GATED, ACCESS CONTROLLED, MANAGED BY WSF BOTTLE CAP UNMANAGED BRC MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFTED, BUT NO T ACCEPTED BY LAND OWNER, UNMANAGED BRIAR MANAGED BY FSS AND LANDOWNER; CURRENT SPEL EOTHEM RESTORATION, TRAFFIC LOCALIZED ON TRAIL CRUMBLING ROCK PRIVATELY MANAGED BY LA NDOWNER, GATED, 2 SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS DOG DROP UNMANAGED, FENCE NEEDED BECAUSE OF ENTRANCE DROP DEPTH FALLEN OAK UNMANAGED FINCH'S UNMANAGED, SPOKE WITH OWNER, NO ONE ELSE ALLOWED ACCESS AFTER 5/26/2007 FLOATING ROCK UNMANAGED; ENATRNCE FILLED IN WITH SEDIMENT OCTOBER 2007 FOOTBALL UNMANAGED; DEVELOPMENTAL THREATS GIRL SCOUT UNMANAGED, GREAT CAVE FOR GROUPS/RE CREATIONAL FIELD TRIPS, ALREADY DISTURBED GOAT MUMMY UNANAGED, NEEDS ACCESS CONTROL DUE TO SE BAT ROOST HEROINE UNMANAGED, CAVE CLEAN-UP NECESSARY HITCHHIKER UNMANAGED, RESTORATION NECESSARY HOLY OAK UNMANAGED INDIGO UNMANAGED

PAGE 225

211 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Entry_Status Other_Entr y_Status Multiple_Entrances BELLEVIEW FORMATION FORBIDDEN BY OWNER NA Y BIG MOUTH LOCKED OR GATED WAIVER REQUIRED N BLOWING HOLE LOCKED OR GATED WAIVER REQUIRED N BOTTLE CAP WAIVER REQUIRED PERMISSION REQUIRED N BRC FORBIDDEN BY OWNER TEMPORARILY BLOCKED N BRIAR PERMISSION REQUIRED WAIVER REQUIRED N CRUMBLING ROCK LOCKED OR GATED PERMISSION REQUIRED N DOG DROP WAIVER REQUIRED PERMISSION REQUIRED N FALLEN OAK WAIVER REQUIRED PERMISSION REQUIRED N FINCH'S FORBIDDEN BY OWNER TEMPORARILY BLOCKED N FLOATING ROCK TEMPORARILY BL OCKED DESTROYED OR CLOSED N FOOTBALL PERMISSION REQUIRED NA N GIRL SCOUT OPEN ACCESS NA N GOAT MUMMY PERMISSION REQUIR ED FORBIDDEN BY OWNER N HEROINE UNKNOWN STATUS NA N HITCHHIKER UNKNOWN STATUS NA N HOLY OAK PERMISSION REQUIR ED WAIVER REQUIRED N INDIGO WAIVER REQUIRED PERMISSION REQUIRED N

PAGE 226

212 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Type_of_Entrance_Vertical Type_of_Entrance_Horizontal_or_Downward_Sloping BELLEVIEW FORMATION ENLARGED FISSURE NA BIG MOUTH NA LARGE HORIZONTAL (20 FT +) BLOWING HOLE BOTTLENECK/SMALL BUT BELLS OUT NA BOTTLE CAP NA TIGHT SQUEEZE BRC NA TIGHT SQUEEZE BRIAR CHIMNEY OR CLIMB NA CRUMBLING ROCK ENLARGED FISSURE NA DOG DROP PIT NA FALLEN OAK NA TIGHT SQUEEZE FINCH'S TIGHT PIT NA FLOATING ROCK NA STOOP OR DUCK WALK FOOTBALL CHIMNEY OR CLIMB NA GIRL SCOUT NA STOOP OR DUCK WALK GOAT MUMMY NA LARGE HORIZONTAL (20 FT +) HEROINE NA TIGHT SQUEEZE HITCHHIKER NA LARGE HORIZONTAL (20 FT +) HOLY OAK CHIMNEY OR CLIMB NA INDIGO NA TIGHT SQUEEZE

PAGE 227

213 Appendix E: (Continued) Name EntranceTopoPosition EntVisibility Entmodification BELLEVIEW FORMATION SINKHOLE OBSCURED BY VEGETATION NONE BIG MOUTH SINKHOLE CLEARLY VISIBLE QUARRY BLOWING HOLE HILLSIDE CLEARLY VISIBLE GATED BOTTLE CAP HILLSIDE OBSCURED BY ROCKS NONE BRC SINKHOLE OBSCURED BY VEGETATION WIDENED BRIAR SINKHOLE OBSCURED BY VEGETATION GATED CRUMBLING ROCK QUARRY OBSC URED BY VEGETATION QUARRY DOG DROP HILLSIDE CLEAR LY VISIBLE WIDENED FALLEN OAK SINKHOLE CLEARLY VISIBLE DUG OUT/OPEN FINCH'S SINKHOLE OBSCUR ED BY VEGETATION BLOCKED FLOATING ROCK SINKHOLE CLEARLY VISIBLE WIDENED FOOTBALL SINKHOLE OBSCURED BY VEGETATION WIDENED GIRL SCOUT SINKHOLE CLEARLY VISIBLE WIDENED GOAT MUMMY QUARRY OBSCUR ED BY VEGETATION QUARRY HEROINE SINKHOLE OBSCURED BY ROCKS WIDENED HITCHHIKER SINKHOLE OBSC URED BY VEGETATION NONE HOLY OAK HILLTOP CLEARLY VISIBLE WIDENED INDIGO HILLSIDE OBSCURED BY VEGETATION DUG OUT/OPEN

PAGE 228

214 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Ent_minimum_size Entrance_Drop_Depth BELLEVIEW FORMATION SQUEEZE 4 BIG MOUTH WALK 0 BLOWING HOLE SQUEEZE 8 BOTTLE CAP SQUEEZE 0 BRC SQUEEZE 0 BRIAR SQUEEZE 2 CRUMBLING ROCK SQUEEZE 3 DOG DROP VERTICAL DROP 12 FALLEN OAK SQUEEZE 0 FINCH'S SQUEEZE 2 FLOATING ROCK STOOP 0 FOOTBALL SQUEEZE 0 GIRL SCOUT STOOP 0 GOAT MUMMY WALK 0 HEROINE SQUEEZE 0 HITCHHIKER WALK 0 HOLY OAK SQUEEZE 4 INDIGO SQUEEZE 0

PAGE 229

215 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Entrance_Notes BELLEVIEW FORMATION TWO ENTRANCES, SINKHOLE BIG MOUTH LARGE DOWNWARD-SLOPING ENTRANCE BLOWING HOLE ENTRANCE WAS WIDENED. CAVE IS GATED AND LOCKED. PERMISSION FROM STATE FOREST REQUIRED FOR ENTRY. BOTTLE CAP TIGHT DROP DOWN BRC VERY TIGHT SQUEEZE, TEMPORARILY BLOCKED TO DISCOURAGE VISITORS BRIAR ENTRANCE GATED AND LOCKED, ENTRYALLOWED ONE SUNDAY EACH MONTH CRUMBLING ROCK ENTRANCE LOCATED IN SHALLOW QUARRY, NOT NATURAL DOG DROP PHREATIC/BR EAKDOWN ENTRANCE PIT FALLEN OAK MUST TRAVERSE DOWN COVERCOLLAPSE SINKHOLE TO ACCESS ENTRANCE FINCH'S ENTRANCE BLOCKED WITH 2 HEAVY ROCKS, PLYWOOD,AND DEBRIS FLOATING ROCK ENTRANCE BLOCKED WI TH SEDIMENT, NO LONGER ACCESSIBLE FOOTBALL TIGHT SQUEEZE, VERY TECHNICAL GIRL SCOUT BREAKDOWN ENTR ANCE, EASILY ACCESIBLE GOAT MUMMY LARGE, WALK-IN ENTRANCE NOT TYPICAL TO FLORIDA HEROINE BREAKDOWN ENTRANCE HITCHHIKER LARGEST CAVE ENTRANCE IN FLORIDA HOLY OAK SINKHOLE ENTRANCE, TIGHT INDIGO ENTRANCE DUG OUT, COVERED WITH VEGETATION AND DEBRIS

PAGE 230

216 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Passage_Orientation Passage_Types BELLEVIEW FORMATION NE-SW ENLARGED FISSURE BIG MOUTH NE-SW BREAKDOWN, ENLARGED FISSURE BLOWING HOLE NE-SW & NW-SE PHREATIC TUBES, BREAKDOWN, ENLARGED FISSURE, PLUS-SIGN BOTTLE CAP NE-SW BREAKDOWN BRC NE-SW & NW-SE ENLARGED FISSURE, BREAKDOWN BRIAR NE-SW, NW-SE, N-S, & E-W ENLARG ED FISSURE, PHREATIC, JOINT CONTROLLED CRUMBLING ROCK NE-SW & NW-SE PHREATIC, ENLARGED FISSURE, HORIZONTALLY EXTENSIVE DOG DROP NW-SE BREAKDOWN FALLEN OAK NW-SE BREAKDOWN FINCH'S NE-SW BREAKDOWN, ENLARGED FISSURE FLOATING ROCK NE-SW BREAKDOWN, ENLARGED FISSURE FOOTBALL NW-SE BREAKDOWN, ENLARGED FISSURE GIRL SCOUT NW-SE BREAKDOWN GOAT MUMMY NE-SW BREAKDOW N, SOLUTION CHAMBER HEROINE NE-SW BREAKDOWN HITCHHIKER BREAKDOWN HOLY OAK NE-SW ENLARGED FI SSURE: A1,2; BREAKDOWN:A0,3,4 INDIGO NE-SW BREAKDOWN

PAGE 231

217 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Passage_Min_Sizes BELLEVIEW FORMATION SQUEEZ E, CRAWL, STOOP, WALK BIG MOUTH CRAWL, STOOP, WALK BLOWING HOLE CRAWL, STOOP, WALK BOTTLE CAP SQUEEZE, CRAWL BRC SQUEEZEM CRAWL, STOOP, WALK BRIAR SQUEEZE, CRAWL, STOOP, WALK CRUMBLING ROCK SQUEEZE, CRAWL, STOOP, WALK DOG DROP CRAWL, STOOP, WALK FALLEN OAK SQUEEZE, CRAWL FINCH'S SQUEEZE, CRAWL, WALK FLOATING ROCK STOOP, WALK FOOTBALL SQUEEZE, CRAWL, STOOP, WALK GIRL SCOUT STOOP, CRAWL GOAT MUMMY WALK HEROINE SQUEEZE, CRAWL, STOOP HITCHHIKER STOOP, WALK HOLY OAK CRAWL:A0,2,3; WALK:A1,4 INDIGO SQUEEZE, CRAWL

PAGE 232

218 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Passage_Hydrology BELLEVIEW FORMATION INTERMITTENT STREAM, SEEPS, DRIPS BIG MOUTH POOLS, INTERMITTENT STREAM, WATERFALL BLOWING HOLE DRIPS:E3,2A,8,A2 ,3,5,7,D1; POOL:D4;SEEPING:D4 BOTTLE CAP NA BRC DRIPS, SEEPS, POOLS, EPHIMERAL STREAM ENTERS CAVE FROM SINKHOLE AT B71 AND SINKS AT B45 BRIAR DRIPS, SEEPS, POOL, AQUIFER CRUMBLING ROCK DRIPS, SEEPS, POOLED, AQUIFER DOG DROP MODERN WATER FLOW NOTED ON MAP WASH-IN FROM ENTRANCE PIT FALLEN OAK NA FINCH'S POOL-A15,17-17C,19-28 FLOATING ROCK POOLS, INTERMITTENT STREAM, WATERFALL, SUMP FOOTBALL A1,2,3-DRIP GIRL SCOUT NA GOAT MUMMY DRIPS, SEEPS HEROINE NA HITCHHIKER NA HOLY OAK NA INDIGO NA

PAGE 233

219 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Passage_Floor Passage_Hazards BELLEVIEW FORMATION SED IMENT, BREAKDOWN NA BIG MOUTH SEDIMENT, WATER, BREAKDOWN MOLD ON GUAN O, LOOSE BREAKDOWN:A1 BLOWING HOLE SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN UNST ABLE BREAKDOWN, TIGH T-VERTICAL PIT:E0 BOTTLE CAP SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN UNSTABL E BREAKDOWN, LOOSE CEILING ROCKS BRC SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN SOME PASS AGES ARE TECHNICAL, VERY TIGHT BRIAR SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN, DEEP AQUIFER DEEP AQUIFER, STEEP DROPS, UNSTABLE BREAKDOWN, BAD AIR IN BACK OF CAVE CRUMBLING ROCK BREAKDOWN, VARVED CLAY SEDIMENTS NA DOG DROP SEDIMENT, BREAKD OWN UNSTABLE BREAKDOWN:A1 FALLEN OAK GRAVEL, SEDIMENT T OO TIGHT NEAR STATION A4 FINCH'S SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN UNSTABL E BREAKDOWN:A9-18;DEEP CREVASSE:A11 FLOATING ROCK SEDIMENT, BREAKD OWN UNSTABLE BREAKDOWN, SUMP FOOTBALL SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN STEEP DROPS BETWEEN LARGE BREAKDOWN, UNSTABLE BREAKDOWN, BRITTLE LIMESTONE WALLS GIRL SCOUT BREAKDOWN, SEDIMENT NA GOAT MUMMY SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN GUANO HEROINE BREAKDOWN HYPODERMIC NEEDLES, BIOHAZARD TRASH, LOOSE BREAKDOWN HITCHHIKER SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN NA HOLY OAK SEDIMENT:A0,A1,A4; BREAKDOWN:A2,A3 VERTICAL PIT:A0; UNSTABLE BREAKDOWN:A2,A3,A4; STEEP SLOPE:A0,A2,A3 INDIGO BREAKDOWN UNSTABLE CEILING AND WALL BREAKDOWN

PAGE 234

220 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Passage_Notes Tites_Mites_Columns_Condition BELLEVIEW FORMATION FISSURE CONTROLLED A9,10,11,3 BIG MOUTH LARGE PASSAGE NA BLOWING HOLE MAZE CAVE. FEEDER TUBES IN MAIN PASSAGE NEAR STATIONS A2-4 A4:REMOVED;A5,B1:DEPOSITING, DRY;D4:DEPOSITING; D5,6:DRY; C6:DEPOSITING, DRY BOTTLE CAP BREAKDOWN PASAGE A13,13A,14, 15,17,17A:DEPOSITING; A10A:DRY BRC BREAKDOWN A3,E6-10,D17C,B 16,CA7,B48,B45:DEPOSITING BRIAR PASSAGED LIKELY FORMED BY MIXING CORROSION, RISING/FALLING AQUIFER A0-20:DEPOSITING CRUMBLING ROCK FISSURE CONTROLLED A2:DRY; A3,4,5: DEPOSITING DOG DROP NA A2A-SODA STRAW:DRY FALLEN OAK NA NA FINCH'S MOST PASSAGE ALLOWS FOR WALKING WITH HIGH CEILING NA FLOATING ROCK NA NA FOOTBALL BREAKDOWN EVERYWHERE, SIMILAR TO FINCH'S A10-DRY GIRL SCOUT NA NA GOAT MUMMY LARGE CHAMBER A2 ,3:DEPOSITING; A5:DRY HEROINE ALL PASSAGES ARE BREAKDOWN NA HITCHHIKER LARGE PASSAGE NA HOLY OAK NA NA INDIGO CAVE HAS BEEN DUG OUT/OPEN NA

PAGE 235

221 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Drapery_Condition Helictites_Condition BELLEVIEW FORMATION A9,3,5 NA BIG MOUTH NA NA BLOWING HOLE B1,A4,D4:DEPOSIT ING; C6:DEPOSITING, DRY NA BOTTLE CAP A13,13A,14,15,17,17A:DEPOS ITING; A10A:DRY A17:DEPOSITING BRC A3,E6-10,D17C,B16,CA7,B48, B45:DEPOSITING A3,E6-10,D17C ,B16,CA7,B48,B45:DEPOSITING BRIAR A0-15, 16-20; DEPOSITING A3,5,11, 21 CRUMBLING ROCK A5:DEPOSITING NA DOG DROP NA NA FALLEN OAK NA NA FINCH'S NA NA FLOATING ROCK NA NA FOOTBALL A10-DRY NA GIRL SCOUT NA NA GOAT MUMMY A2:DEPOSITING; A5:DRY A5:DRY HEROINE NA NA HITCHHIKER NA NA HOLY OAK NA NA INDIGO NA NA

PAGE 236

222 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Rimstone_Condition Popcorn_ Condition Flowstone_Condition BELLEVIEW FORMATION A5,10,11 NA A9,10,11,3,4,5,9 BIG MOUTH NA NA NA BLOWING HOLE A5,B1,D4:DEPOSITING; C6:DRY C6:DRY D5,6:DEPOSITING; A2:DRY; A4:DAMAGED; D1,3:DEPOSITING; A5,B1:DEPOSITING, DRY BOTTLE CAP A17,17A:DEPOSITING; A10A:DRY NA A13,13A,14,15,17,17A:DEP OSITING; A10A:DRY BRC A3,E610,D17C,B16,CA7,B48,B45:DEPOSITING NA A3,E6-10,D17C,B16,CA 7,B48,B45:DEPOSITING BRIAR A0-20 A3,14 A0-20 CRUMBLING ROCK NA NA A5:DEPOSITING DOG DROP NA NA A2A:DRY FALLEN OAK NA NA NA FINCH'S NA NA NA FLOATING ROCK NA NA NA FOOTBALL A10-DRY NA A1,2-DRY; A10-DRIP GIRL SCOUT NA NA A1-3:DAMAGED, REMOVED GOAT MUMMY A5:DRY NA A2:DEPOSITING; A5:DRY HEROINE NA NA NA HITCHHIKER NA NA NA HOLY OAK NA NA NA INDIGO NA NA NA

PAGE 237

223 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Spar_Condition Calcite_Coating_ Condition Calcite_Rafts Scallops BELLEVIEW FORMATION NA A1,2 NA A1,2 BIG MOUTH NA NA NA NA BLOWING HOLE NA B4:GREY NA NA BOTTLE CAP NA NA NA NA BRC NA NA NA NA BRIAR NA A0-20:GRAY A18,19 A0-20 CRUMBLING ROCK NA NA NA A1-5 DOG DROP NA NA NA NA FALLEN OAK NA NA NA NA FINCH'S NA NA A15,17 NA FLOATING ROCK NA NA NA NA FOOTBALL NA A7-11-GREY NA A12 GIRL SCOUT NA NA NA NA GOAT MUMMY NA NA NA NA HEROINE NA NA NA NA HITCHHIKER NA NA NA NA HOLY OAK NA NA NA NA INDIGO NA NA NA NA

PAGE 238

224 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Anastomosen Sediments BELLEVIEW FORMATION NA LAYERED; HUMAN-INDUCED / NATURAL SEDIMENTATION BIG MOUTH NA LAYERED; HUMAN-IN DUCED / NATURAL SEDIMENTATION BLOWING HOLE NA PACKED, UNSORTED CLAY; NATURAL SED. BOTTLE CAP NA UNSORTED; HUMAN-INDUCED / NATURAL SED. BRC NA LAYERED ORGANICS AND SAN D; HUMAN-INDUCED / NATURAL SED. BRIAR NA LAYERED SAND AND CLAY; NATURAL SED. CRUMBLING ROCK NA LAYERED VARVED CL AY; HUMAN-INDUCED / NATURAL SED. DOG DROP NA LAYERED, COMPACTED CLAY; NATURAL SED. FALLEN OAK NA UNSORTED; NATURAL SED. FINCH'S NA A0-9E,11-13; NATURAL SED. FLOATING ROCK NA UNSORTED; HUMAN-INDUCED / NATURAL SED. FOOTBALL NA LAYERED, COMPACTED; NATURAL SED. GIRL SCOUT NA UNSORTED; HUMAN-INDUCED / NATURAL SED. GOAT MUMMY NA LAYERED ORGANICS ; HUMAN-INDUCED / NATURAL SED. HEROINE NA NA HITCHHIKER NA LAYERED; HUMA N-INDUCED / NATURAL SED. HOLY OAK NA A0,1,4; NATURAL SED. INDIGO NA NA; NATURAL SED.

PAGE 239

225 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Sediments_Notes Fossils BELLEVIEW FORMATION LAYERED ORGANIC WASH-IN FROM SURFACE, GOOD FOR CORE NA BIG MOUTH NA NA BLOWING HOLE CLAY FLOOR, HEAVY COMPACTIONLIKE CONCRETE NA BOTTLE CAP ORGANIC WASH-IN FROM SURFACE, UNLAYERED-NOT GOOD FOR SEDIMENT CORE NA BRC GOOD FOR CORE NA BRIAR GOOD FOR CORE ECHONOIDS, CRAB FOSSILED IN WALL CRUMBLING ROCK GOOD FOR SEDIMENT CORE NA DOG DROP HIGH COMPACTION FROM HEAVY CAVER TRAFFIC NA FALLEN OAK HEAVY IN ORGANICS NA FINCH'S LAYERED SEDIMENT AND ORGANIC DEBRIS WASH-IN FROM SURFACE MEGALODON VERTEBRAL CENTRA:A7; FULL TURTLE SHELL ~6 INCHES IN DIAMETER FOSSILIZED IN WALL:A7 FLOATING ROCK SANDY SEDIMENTS, UNSORTED NA FOOTBALL LOW SEDIMENT COMPACTION NEAR STATIONS A6,A9, GOOD FOR SEDIMENT CORE NA GIRL SCOUT SEDIMENTS PRESENT, BUT NOT GOOD FOR SEDIMENT CORE NA GOAT MUMMY GOOD FOR CORE NA HEROINE SOME SEDIEMNTS WASHING IN FROM SURFACE NA HITCHHIKER DISTURBED, COMPACTED, NOT GOOD FOR CORE NA HOLY OAK LAYERED SEDIMENTS, FINE LAMINAE NA INDIGO NA NA

PAGE 240

226 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Bones Geologic_Strata Other_Geologic_Strata BELLEVIEW FORMATION NA OCAL A LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA BIG MOUTH NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA BLOWING HOLE NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA BOTTLE CAP NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA BRC NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) SUWANNEE LIMESTONE (OLIGOCENE) BRIAR NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA CRUMBLING ROCK NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA DOG DROP DOG BONES:A0 OCAL A LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA FALLEN OAK UNIDENTIFIED LARGE BONES:A2 OCALA LIME STONE (EOCENE) NA FINCH'S NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA FLOATING ROCK NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA FOOTBALL NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA GIRL SCOUT NA OCALA LI MESTONE (EOCENE) NA GOAT MUMMY A1:GOAT OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA HEROINE NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA HITCHHIKER NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA HOLY OAK NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA INDIGO NA OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA

PAGE 241

227 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Geologic_Notes Biological_Vertebrates BELLEVIEW FORMATION CHERT IMBEDDED FISSURE PASSAGES THROUGHOUT CAVE NA BIG MOUTH NA SOUTHEASTERN BATS NEAR STATIONS A5,7 BLOWING HOLE SPONGEWORK:C2,3,5,7,8; IN TERESTING GYPSUM CRYSTAL FORMATION NEAR STATION C7 SOUTHEASTERN BAT:A4 BOTTLE CAP NA NA BRC CAVE PROBABLY FORMED AT CO NTACT BETWEEN OCALA AND SUWANNE LIMESTONES NA BRIAR HAWTHORN GROUP SEDIMENTS OVERLIE OCALA LIMESTONE NA CRUMBLING ROCK NA NA DOG DROP GREAT BEDDING STRUCTURES; FLAT-ROOF BREAKDOWN SIMILAR TO FEATURES IN WERNER CAVE NA FALLEN OAK DIPPING BEDDING STRUCTURE:A0 NA FINCH'S NUMEROUS CHERT NODULES IN WALL:A5-7; GREAT BEDDING STRUCTURES:A9-10; NE-SW FRAC TURE:A6-A15,A17-28; NW-SE FRACTURE:A15-17C NA FLOATING ROCK DOME NEAR STATION A2 NA FOOTBALL BEDROCK PILLAR NEAR STATION A12, HAWTHORNE GROUP FILLED IN SPONGEWORK NA GIRL SCOUT NA NA GOAT MUMMY VERY LARGE CHAMBER ROOM, NOT TYPICAL IN FLORIDA SOUTHEASTERN BAT HEROINE CAVE CONSISTS EN TIRELY OF BREAKDOWN NA HITCHHIKER NA NA HOLY OAK GOOD BEDDING STRUCTURES NA INDIGO NA NA

PAGE 242

228 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Invertebrates Mold_Bacteria BELLEVIEW FORMATION BROWN CRICKET, FR OG:AA, A9 MOLD ON ORGANICS:AO BIG MOUTH WITHLACOOCHEE LIGHT-FL EEING CRAYFISH NEAR STATION A6 WHITE MOLD ON BAT GUANO NEAR STATIONS A5,7 BLOWING HOLE TREE HOUSE FROGS:E0 A4 BOTTLE CAP BROWN CRICKETS, FROGS A2A BRC CAVE CRAYFISH, SPIDERS, CAVE CRICKETS, FROGS NA BRIAR CAVE CRAYFISH, SPIDERS, ROACHES, SNAKE A0-1 CRUMBLING ROCK SPIDERS, FROGS, CAVE SHRIMP NA DOG DROP NA NA FALLEN OAK FROGS; CAVE CRIC KETS ANIMAL DUNG MOLD:A3 FINCH'S NUMEROUS SPIDERS, BROWN CRICKETS, YELLOW RAT SNAKE ~.5M LONG NA FLOATING ROCK NA NA FOOTBALL CRICKET; FROG:A0-7 NA GIRL SCOUT GARDER SNAKE LIVING IN SMALL SPONGEWORK:A2 MOLD ON ORGANIC MATERIAL, HUMAN WASTE GOAT MUMMY SPIDERS, FROGS, CRICKET A4:ON GUANO HEROINE SPIDERS MOLD ON BOTTLE FILLED WITH URINE HITCHHIKER SPIDERS NA HOLY OAK BLACK WIDOW SPIDER:A3; BROWN CAVE CRICKETS:A0,1 NA INDIGO CRICKETS, INDIGO SNAKE:A0 NA

PAGE 243

229 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Roots Roost_Stains Guano_Piles BELLEVIEW FORMATION AA,A0 NA NA BIG MOUTH NA A5,7 A5,7 BLOWING HOLE NA A4 A4 BOTTLE CAP A1,2,3 A2 NA BRC NA NA NA BRIAR A0-5 NA NA CRUMBLING ROCK A1 NA NA DOG DROP A1,2,2A,4 NA NA FALLEN OAK A1-3 NA NA FINCH'S A0-8 NA NA FLOATING ROCK NA NA NA FOOTBALL A0-6 NA NA GIRL SCOUT A1,2 NA NA GOAT MUMMY NA A3,4,5 A3,4,5 HEROINE A1 NA NA HITCHHIKER NA NA NA HOLY OAK A1,3 NA NA INDIGO A0,1 NA NA

PAGE 244

230 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Biological_Notes Artifacts_Historical Artifacts_Modern BELLEVIEW FORMATION NA NA NA BIG MOUTH NA NA NA BLOWING HOLE NA NA NA BOTTLE CAP CAVE ONCE WAS HABITAT FO R BATS, BUT VACANT IN RECENT YEARS NA NA BRC NA NA NA BRIAR NA NA NA CRUMBLING ROCK CAVE SHRIMP BEING IDENTIFIED AT UF NA NA DOG DROP NA NA NA FALLEN OAK NA NA NA FINCH'S NA NA NA FLOATING ROCK NA NA NA FOOTBALL NA NA NA GIRL SCOUT NA NA NA GOAT MUMMY ONE ROOST OF SE BAT NEAT STATION A4 NA NA HEROINE NA NA NA HITCHHIKER NA NA NA HOLY OAK NA NA NA INDIGO NA NA NA

PAGE 245

231 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Cultural_Notes Scient ific_Potential_Areas_Notes BELLEVIEW FORMATION NA SEDIMENT CORE, SPELEOTHEM COLLECTION AND DRIP WATER COLLECTION BIG MOUTH NA BIOTA, AQUIFER STUDY BLOWING HOLE NA SPELEOTHEM WATER COLLECTION BOTTLE CAP NA SPELEOTHEM WATER COLLECTION SITE BRC NA SPELEOTHEM, WATER COLLECTION, SEDIMENT STUDY BRIAR NA GREAT FOR STUDIES OF SPELEOGENESIS, SPELEOTHEMS, SEDIMENTS CRUMBLING ROCK NA SPELEOTHEM, AQ UIFER, SEDIMENT, BIOTA STUDIES DOG DROP NA NA FALLEN OAK NA NA FINCH'S NA AQUIFER WATER COLLECTION SITE, SEDIMENT CORE COLLECTION SITE FLOATING ROCK NA AQUIFER STUDY FOOTBALL NA NA GIRL SCOUT ARCH SITE LISTED IN FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE NA GOAT MUMMY NA NA HEROINE NA NA HITCHHIKER NA NA HOLY OAK NA NA INDIGO NA NA

PAGE 246

232 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Special_Interest_Areas_Notes BELLEVIEW FORMATION CHERT IMBEDDED IN FISSURE BIG MOUTH NA BLOWING HOLE GOOOD DRIP WATER COLLECTION SITES SINCE CAVE IS GATED AND ACTIVELY DRIPPING IN MAY PLACES BOTTLE CAP NA BRC EPHIMERAL STREAMS ENTERS CAVE FROM SINKHOLE AT STATION B71 AND FLOWS TO B45 WHERE IT SINKS BRIAR NA CRUMBLING ROCK NA DOG DROP NA FALLEN OAK NA FINCH'S IMBEDDED CHERT NODULES:A5-7; CALCITE RAFTS:A15,17 FLOATING ROCK NA FOOTBALL NA GIRL SCOUT NA GOAT MUMMY NA HEROINE NA HITCHHIKER NA HOLY OAK NA INDIGO NA

PAGE 247

233 Appendix E: (Continued) Name SI_Biota SI_HydrologySI_SpeleothemsSI_M ineralogy SI_PaleontologySI_CulturalSI_Score BELLEVIEW FORMATION 2 3 3 3 1 0 0.66 BIG MOUTH 3 3 0 0 1 0 0.33 BLOWING HOLE 2 2 3 2 1 0 0.56 BOTTLE CAP 2 3 3 1 2 0 0.61 BRC 3 3 3 3 3 0 0.83 BRIAR 3 3 3 3 3 0 0.83 CRUMBLING ROCK 3 3 3 3 2 0 0.78 DOG DROP 2 1 1 0 1 0 0.22 FALLEN OAK 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.06 FINCH'S 2 3 1 1 1 0 0.44 FLOATING ROCK 0 3 0 0 1 0 0.22 FOOTBALL 2 3 2 2 1 0 0.55 GIRL SCOUT 1 1 0 0 1 3 0.28 GOAT MUMMY 3 2 3 2 1 0 0.61 HEROINE 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.00 HITCHHIKER 1 1 1 0 1 0 0.17 HOLY OAK 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.17 INDIGO 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.06

PAGE 248

234 Appendix E: (Continued) Name DI_Speleothems DI_Graffiti DI_Trash DI _Floor_Dist DI_Cultura l DI_CC DI_Desiccation BELLEVIEW FORMATION 2 1 0 2 NA 0 0 BIG MOUTH NA 0 1 2 NA 0 NA BLOWING HOLE 2 2 2 3 NA 0 1 BOTTLE CAP 1 1 1 3 NA 0 0 BRC 2 0 0 2 NA 0 0 BRIAR 1 1 0 1 NA 0 0 CRUMBLING ROCK 1 0 0 1 NA 0 0 DOG DROP NA 2 1 3 NA 0 NA FALLEN OAK NA 1 2 3 NA 0 NA FINCH'S NA 0 1 1 NA 0 NA FLOATING ROCK NA 0 0 2 NA 0 NA FOOTBALL 2 3 1 3 NA 0 1 GIRL SCOUT NA 3 3 3 NA 0 NA GOAT MUMMY 2 1 1 2 NA 3 1 HEROINE NA 3 3 3 NA 0 NA HITCHHIKER 3 3 3 3 NA 0 0 HOLY OAK NA 3 2 3 NA 0 NA INDIGO NA 0 1 3 NA 0 NA

PAGE 249

235 Appendix E: (Continued) Name DI_Sedimentation DI_Biota_Pop_Den DI_B iota_Spec_Rich DI_Fossils DI_Deforestation BELLEVIEW FORMATION 3 LD LD 1 3 BIG MOUTH 1 LD LD 2 1 BLOWING HOLE NA LD LD 2 0 BOTTLE CAP 1 LD LD 1 0 BRC 2 LD LD 1 0 BRIAR NA LD LD 0 0 CRUMBLING ROCK 2 LD LD 0 1 DOG DROP NA LD LD 2 0 FALLEN OAK NA LD LD 3 0 FINCH'S NA LD LD 1 1 FLOATING ROCK 3 LD LD 1 1 FOOTBALL NA LD LD 1 1 GIRL SCOUT 3 LD LD 3 0 GOAT MUMMY 1 LD LD 2 0 HEROINE NA LD LD 3 0 HITCHHIKER 3 LD LD 3 0 HOLY OAK NA LD LD 2 0 INDIGO NA LD LD 3 0

PAGE 250

236 Appendix E: (Continued) Name DI_Urbanization DI_Agriculture DI_Score BELLEVIEW FORMATION 2 1 0.42 BIG MOUTH 1 1 0.37 BLOWING HOLE 1 1 0.45 BOTTLE CAP 1 3 0.36 BRC 1 2 0.28 BRIAR 1 2 0.18 CRUMBLING ROCK 1 2 0.25 DOG DROP 1 0 0.33 FALLEN OAK 1 0 0.37 FINCH'S 1 2 0.26 FLOATING ROCK 1 2 0.44 FOOTBALL 1 3 0.48 GIRL SCOUT 1 1 0.63 GOAT MUMMY 1 3 0.50 HEROINE 3 2 0.63 HITCHHIKER 3 2 0.64 HOLY OAK 1 1 0.44 INDIGO 1 1 0.33

PAGE 251

237 Appendix E: Caves Geodatabase (Jackpot Werner) Name Inv_date Inv_id County Personnel JACKPOT 9/23/2007 INV041 CITRUS GRAN T HARLEY, JASON POLK, ROBERT BROOKS JEEP 6/9/2007 INV016 CITRUS GR ANT HARLEY, JASON POLK JENNING'S 8/18/2007 INV032 MARION GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK LEGEND 8/12/2007 INV031 CI TRUS GRANT HARLEY, TOM TURNER, MONICA EXNER MAYNARD'S 8/19/2007 INV038 CITRUS JASON POLK, TOM TURNER, DAN STRALEY, LANCE ELDER, GRANT HARLEY, ROBERT BROOKS OCALA CAVERNS EAST 8/18/2007 INV036 MARION GRANT HA RLEY, JASON POLK, MONICA EXNER OCALA CAVERNS WEST 8/18/2007 INV035 MARION GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK, MONICA EXNER PEACE SIGN 6/3/2007 INV006 CITRUS GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK QUARTER 8/17/2007 INV032 HERNANDO GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK RATTLESNAKE 8/12/2007 INV039 CITRUS GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK REUFF'S 5/19/2007 INV005 HERNANDO GRANT HA RLEY, JASON POLK, JAY LANDT, MATT REUFF SICK BAT 6/3/2007 INV011 CITRUS GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK SNEAK 8/18/2007 INV037 MARION GRANT HA RLEY, JASON POLK, MONICA EXNER THORNTON'S 5/26/2007 INV004 SUMTER GR ANT HARLEY, JASON POLK, TOM TURNER TRAIL 10 BAT 6/9/2007 INV015 CITRUS GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK TURPENTINE 6/15/2007 INV026 HERNANDO GRANT HARLEY, J ASON POLK, PHIL VAN BEYNEN VANDAL 6/3/2007 INV007 CITRUS GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK WERNER 6/3/2007 INV010 CITRUS GRANT HARLEY, JASON POLK, TOM TU RNER, ROBERT BROOKS

PAGE 252

238 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Cave_Ownership Equipment_Needed Other_Equipment_Needed Elevation_masl JACKPOT PUBLIC PROPER TY CABLE LADDER NORMAL SPELEO GEAR 33.35 JEEP PUBLIC PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR NA -9999 JENNING'S PRIVATE PRO PERTY CABLE LADDER ROPE OR VERTICAL EQUIPMENT -9999 LEGEND PUBLIC PROPERTY KNEEPADS HANDLINE 24.38 MAYNARD'S PRIVATE PROPERTY ROPE OR VERTICAL EQUIPMENT NORMAL SPELEO GEAR -9999 OCALA CAVERNS EAST PRIVATE PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR BOAT OR FLOATATION -9999 OCALA CAVERNS WEST PRIVATE PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR NA -9999 PEACE SIGN PUBLIC PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR NA 27.43 QUARTER PUBLIC PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR SHOVEL-BLASTING 33.17 RATTLESNAKE PUBLIC PROPERTY SHOVEL-BLASTING NA 8.4 REUFF'S PRIVATE PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR NA 34.57 SICK BAT PUBLIC PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR NA 27.43 SNEAK PRIVATE PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR NA -9999 THORNTON'S PRIVATE PR OPERTY BOAT OR FLOATATION WET-SUIT 14.4 TRAIL 10 BAT PUBLIC PRO PERTY KNEEPADS NA -9999 TURPENTINE PRIVATE PROPER TY WET-SUIT KNEEPADS 27.43 VANDAL PUBLIC PROPERTY NORMAL SPELEO GEAR NA 27.43 WERNER PUBLIC PROPER TY KNEEPADS WET-SUIT 5

PAGE 253

239 Appendix E: (Continued) Name CaveMapStatus CaveLengthMeters CaveVerticalExtentMeters ManagementNotes JACKPOT COMPLETE MAP 243.5 16.3 UNMANAGED, BUT PLANS IN PROGRESS FOR GATE BY TBAG JEEP COMPLETE MAP 17 3.01 UNMANAGED JENNING'S COMPLETE MAP 175.4 -9999 MANAGED BY FSS, PROPERTY OWNED BY SOUTHEASTERN CAVE CONSERVANCY, PLAN NOT ACTIVELY ENFORCED LEGEND COMPLETE MAP 67.21 -9999 UNMANAGED MAYNARD'S COMPLETE M AP 52.5 -9999 UNMANAGED OCALA CAVERNS EAST COMPLETE MAP 58.5 -9999 UNMANAGED; CAVE WAS COMMERCIAL IN 1950'S-60'S AND HAS SINCE BEEN SHUT DOWN OCALA CAVERNS WEST COMPLETE MAP 23 -9999 UNMANAGED; CAVE WAS COMMERCIAL IN 1950'S-60'S AND HAS SINCE BEEN SHUT DOWN PEACE SIGN COMPLETE MAP 41 -9999 UNMANAGED; GOOD RECREATIONAL CAVE QUARTER COMPLETE MAP 19.7 -9999 UNMANAGED; CONSISTS OF LARGE, UNSTABLE BREAKDOWN. NEEDS GATE OR FENCE. RATTLESNAKE COMPLETE MAP 19.7 -9999 UNMANAGED; CAVE SHOULD BE CLOSED DUE TO UNSTABLE BREAKDOWN REUFF'S COMPLETE MAP 18.82 2.07 UNMANAGED SICK BAT COMPLETE MAP 6 -9999 UNMANAGED; GOOD RECREATIONAL CAVE SNEAK COMPLETE MAP 91 -9999 UNMANAGED THORNTON'S COMPLETE MAP 314.8 1.7 UNMANAGED TRAIL 10 BAT COMPLETE MAP 18.32 -9999 FENCED; HABITAT FOR SE BAT TURPENTINE COMPLETE MAP 140 -9999 UNMANAGED VANDAL COMPLETE MAP 15 -9999 UNMANAGED; GOOD RECREATIONAL CAVE WERNER COMPLETE MAP 651 21.5 FENCED; SE, CRAYFISH BAT HABITAT

PAGE 254

240 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Entry_Status Other_Entry_Status Mult iple_Entrances Type_of_Entrance_Vertical JACKPOT WAIVER REQUIRED PERMISSION REQUIRED N NA JEEP PERMISSION REQUIRED WAIVER REQUIRED N NA JENNING'S LOCKED OR GATED PERMISSION REQUIRED N PIT LEGEND WAIVER REQUIRED PERMISSION REQUIRED N TIGHT PIT MAYNARD'S PERMISSION REQUIRED NA Y BOTTLENECK/SMALL BUT BELLS OUT OCALA CAVERNS EAST PERMISSION REQUIRED NA N NA OCALA CAVERNS WEST PERMISSION REQUIRED NA N NA PEACE SIGN OPEN ACCESS NA N CHIMNEY OR CLIMB QUARTER PERMISSION REQUIRED WAIVER REQUIRED N PIT RATTLESNAKE WAIVER REQUIRED PERMISSION REQUIRED N NA REUFF'S FORBIDDEN BY OWNER PERMISSION REQUIRED N NA SICK BAT OPEN ACCESS NA N NA SNEAK FORBIDDEN BY OWNER NA N NA THORNTON'S PERMI SSION REQUIRED NAVIGABLE WATERWAY Y NA TRAIL 10 BAT LOCKED OR GATED WAIVER REQUIRED N NA TURPENTINE PERMISSION REQUIRED NA N CHIMNEY OR CLIMB VANDAL OPEN ACCESS NA Y VERY WIDE PIT (20 FT +) WERNER LOCKED OR GATED WAI VER REQUIRED N TIGHT SQUEEZE

PAGE 255

241 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Type_of_Entrance_Horizontal_or_Downward _Sloping Entrance_Topo_Position Ent_Visibility JACKPOT TIGHT SQUEEZE HILLSIDE CLEARLY VISIBLE JEEP STOOP OR DUCK WALK SINKHOLE CLEARLY VISIBLE JENNING'S NA TOPOGRAPHIC LOW CLEARLY VISIBLE LEGEND NA HILLSIDE OBSCURED BY ROCKS MAYNARD'S LARGE WALK-IN SINKHOLE OBSCURED BY VEGETATION OCALA CAVERNS EAST ARTIFICIAL TUNNEL QUARRY OBSCURED BY VEGETATION OCALA CAVERNS WEST ARTIFICIAL TUNNEL QUARRY OBSCURED BY VEGETATION PEACE SIGN NA TOPOGRAPHIC LOW CLEARLY VISIBLE QUARTER NA QUARRY CLEARLY VISIBLE RATTLESNAKE CRAWL SINKHOLE OBSCURED BY VEGETATION REUFF'S STOOP OR DUCK WALK QUARRY CLEARLY VISIBLE SICK BAT TIGHT SQUEEZE SINKHOLE CLEARLY VISIBLE SNEAK TIGHT SQUEEZE QUARRY OBSCURED BY VEGETATION THORNTON'S STOOP OR DUCK WALK FLOODPLAIN OBSCURED BY VEGETATION TRAIL 10 BAT STOOP OR DUCK WA LK SINKHOLE CLEARLY VISIBLE TURPENTINE NA SINKHOLE CLEARLY VISIBLE VANDAL STOOP OR DUCK WALK SINKHOLE CLEARLY VISIBLE WERNER NA SINKHOLE OBSCURED BY ROCKS

PAGE 256

242 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Ent_modification Ent_mini mum_size Entrance_Drop_Depth JACKPOT NONE SQUEEZE 0 JEEP NONE STOOP 0 JENNING'S NONE CRAWL 7 LEGEND ROAD CONSTRUCTION SQUEEZE 2 MAYNARD'S NONE CRAWL 10 OCALA CAVERNS EAST ARTIFICIAL ENTRANCE WALK 0 OCALA CAVERNS WEST ARTIFI CIAL ENTRANCE WALK 0 PEACE SIGN GATED VERTICAL DROP 2 QUARTER WIDENED VERTICAL DROP 2 RATTLESNAKE QUARRY CRAWL 0 REUFF'S QUARRY STOOP 0 SICK BAT WIDENED SQUEEZE 0 SNEAK QUARRY SQUEEZE 0 THORNTON'S NONE STOOP 0 TRAIL 10 BAT WIDENED CRAWL 0 TURPENTINE NONE VERTICAL DROP 4 VANDAL NONE STOOP 5 WERNER QUARRY SQUEEZE 3

PAGE 257

243 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Entrance_Notes Passage_Orientation JACKPOT TIGHT ENTRANCE NE-SW JEEP EASILY ACCESSIBLE IF LOCATION IS KNOWN NE-SW JENNING'S LARGE PIT DROP, CAVE HAS GATE, BU T NEVER LOCKED. MANAGED BY MIKE GORDON OF FSS. OWNED BY SCC NE-SW & NW-SE LEGEND NA NW-SE MAYNARD'S IRON LADDER INSTALLED AT ONE OF THE VERTICA L ENTRANCES NW-SE OCALA CAVERNS EAST ARTIFICIAL HORIZONTAL ENTRANCE NATURAL ENTRANCE WIDENED NE-SW OCALA CAVERNS WEST ARTIFICIAL CAVE ENTRANCE, NATU RAL VERTICAL ENTRANCE BLOCKED AND HORIZONTAL ENTRANCE DUG OPEN NE-SW PEACE SIGN GATE IS NEVER LOCKED NW-SE QUARTER 2M DROP PIT NE-SW RATTLESNAKE ENTRANCE IS LARGE BREAKDOWN DEBRIS SLIDE, UNSAFE NE-SW, NW-SE, N-S, & E-W REUFF'S ENTRANCE EXPOSED IN QUARRY WALL NE-SW SICK BAT NA NW-SE SNEAK ENTRANCE COVERED BY ROCKS AND VEGETATION NE-SW & NW-SE THORNTON'S MULTIPLE ENTR ANCES, KARST WINDOWS/SKYLIG HTS ABUNDANT NE-SW & NW-SE TRAIL 10 BAT ENTIRE CAVE AREA IS FENCED, GATED, AND LOCKED NW-SE TURPENTINE CHIMNEY CLIMB DOWN NW-SE VANDAL VERTICAL ENTRANCE REPRESENTS UNROOFED PORTION OF CAVE NE-SW, NW-SE, N-S, & E-W WERNER ENTRANCE WAS WIDENED, CAVE LOCATE D IN QUARRY NE-SW, NW-SE, N-S, & E-W

PAGE 258

244 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Passage_Types Passage_Min_Sizes JACKPOT ENLARGED FISS URE, BREAKDOWN SQUEEZE, CRAWL, STOOP, WALK JEEP ENLARGED FISSURE STOOP, WALK JENNING'S ENLARGED FISSURE CRAWL, STOOP, WALK LEGEND BREAKDOWN, ENLARGED FISSURE SQUEEZE, CRAWL, STOOP, WALK MAYNARD'S BREAKDOWN, LARGE SOLUTI ON CHAMBER CRAWL, STOOP, WALK OCALA CAVERNS EAST ARTIFICIAL TUNNEL, ENLARGED FI SSURE, PHREATIC SQUEEZE, CRAWL, STOOP, WALK OCALA CAVERNS WEST ARTIFICIAL TUNNEL ENLARGED FISSURE CRAWL, STOOP, WALK PEACE SIGN BREAKDOWN, PHREATIC TUBES, ENLARGED FISSURES SQU EEZE, CRAWL, STOOP, WALK QUARTER BREAKDOWN SQU EEZE, CRAWL, STOOP RATTLESNAKE BREAKDOWN SQUEEZE, CRAWL REUFF'S BREAKDOWN STOOP, WALK SICK BAT BREAKDOWN SQUEEZE, CRAWL, STOOP, WALK SNEAK ENLARGED FISSURE, PLUS-SIGN SQUEEZE, CRAWL, STOOP, WALK THORNTON'S ENLA RGED FISSURE, PHREATIC TUBES CRAWL, STOOP, SWIM TRAIL 10 BAT ENLARGED FISSURE, BREAKDOWN STOOP, CRAWL, WALK TURPENTINE PHREATIC, BREAKDOWN, EN LARGED FISSURE CRAWL, STOOP, WALK VANDAL BREAKDOWN, ENLARGED FISSURE SQUEEZE, CRAWL, STOOP, WALK WERNER BREAKDOWN, SEDIMENT, P HREATIC, ENLARGED FISSURE SQU EEZE, CRAWL, STOOP, WALK

PAGE 259

245 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Passage_Hydrology Passage_Floor JACKPOT DRIPS, SEEPS, AQUIFER SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN JEEP NA SEDIMENT JENNING'S DRIPS, POOL BREAKDOWN, SEDIMENT LEGEND INTERMITTENT STREAM DURING RAIN, DRIPS, SEEPS SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN MAYNARD'S SEEPING, DRIPPING SEDIMENT, CLAY OCALA CAVERNS EAST AQUIFER SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN OCALA CAVERNS WEST INTERMITTENT STREAM WASH IN FROM SURFACESED IMENT, BREAKDOWN PEACE SIGN NA SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN QUARTER NA BREAKDOWN, SEDIMENT RATTLESNAKE NA BREAKDOWN, SEDIMENT REUFF'S NA SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN SICK BAT NA SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN SNEAK AQUIFER POOLS, DEEP AQUIFER CONNECTION SEDIM ENT, BREAKDOWN THORNTON'S DRIPS, POOL, AQUIFER, CAVE ACTS AS ESTEVELLE SEDIMENT, SMALL BREAKDOWN, WATER, GUANO, CLAY TRAIL 10 BAT A2:DRIP SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN TURPENTINE INTERMITTENT STREAM, POOLED, AQUIFER SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN VANDAL NA SEDIMENT, BREAKDOWN WERNER POOLED, INTERMITTENT STREAM AQUIFER BREAKDOWN, SEDIMENT, GUANO

PAGE 260

246 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Passage_Hazards Passage_Not es Tites_Mites_Columns_Condition JACKPOT TIGHT, TECHNICAL PASSAGES; STEEP DROP NA NA JEEP NA NA NA JENNING'S NA SEASONAL POOL: A11 NA LEGEND UNSTABLE BREAKDNW NA A3,5,8:DEPOSITING MAYNARD'S LOOSE, SPLIPPERY ROCK, STEEP ROCK, VERTICAL SHAFT/PIT NA A3,6,7:DEPOSITING OCALA CAVERNS EAST NA NA NA OCALA CAVERNS WEST NA NA NA PEACE SIGN NA NA DAMAGED, REMOVED, DRY:A0-A6 QUARTER UNSTABLE BREAKDOWN NA NA RATTLESNAKE UNSTABLE CEILING BREAKDOWN COLLAPSED BREAKDOWN SINKHOLE NA REUFF'S LOOSE BREAKDOWN, BRITTLE WALLS NA NA SICK BAT TOO TIGHT NA A1,2:REMOVED SNEAK NA NA NA THORNTON'S EAR-DIP PASSAGES, DEEP PITS INTO AQUIFER DIAMOND PATTERN PASSAGES B14-16:DEPOSITING TRAIL 10 BAT MOLD ON GUANO:A2 NA A2-THREE SODA STRAWS-DRY TURPENTINE CAVE FLOODS DURING RAIN EVENTS NA NA VANDAL TOO TIGHT NA A3,6:REMOVED WERNER GUANO, UNSTABLE BREAKDOWN, FLOODING CAVE FLOODS DURING RAIN EVENTS NA

PAGE 261

247 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Drapery_Condition Helictites_Condi tion Rimstone_Condition Popcorn_Condition JACKPOT NA NA NA NA JEEP NA NA NA NA JENNING'S NA NA NA NA LEGEND A3,5,8:DEPOSITING NA A5:DEPOSITING NA MAYNARD'S A3,6,7:DEPOSITING NA A3:DEPOSITING NA OCALA CAVERNS EAST NA NA NA NA OCALA CAVERNS WEST NA NA NA NA PEACE SIGN DAMAGED, REMOVED:A0,1 NA NA NA QUARTER NA NA NA NA RATTLESNAKE NA NA NA NA REUFF'S NA NA NA NA SICK BAT NA NA NA NA SNEAK NA NA NA NA THORNTON'S NA NA NA NA TRAIL 10 BAT A2-DRY NA NA NA TURPENTINE NA NA NA NA VANDAL A3,6:REMOVED NA NA NA WERNER NA NA NA NA

PAGE 262

248 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Flowstone_Condition Spar_Condition Ca lcite_Coating_Condition Calcite_Rafts JACKPOT NA NA NA NA JEEP NA NA NA NA JENNING'S NA NA NA NA LEGEND A5,8:DEPOSITING; A8:DAMAGED NA NA NA MAYNARD'S A3,6,7:DEPOSITING NA NA NA OCALA CAVERNS EAST NA NA NA NA OCALA CAVERNS WEST NA NA NA NA PEACE SIGN DAMAGED:A0,1,5 NA GREY:A0,1 NA QUARTER NA NA NA NA RATTLESNAKE NA NA NA NA REUFF'S NA NA NA NA SICK BAT A2:DAMAGED;DRY NA NA NA SNEAK NA NA NA A4,5,10 THORNTON'S NA NA NA NA TRAIL 10 BAT A2-DRY NA NA NA TURPENTINE NA NA NA NA VANDAL A3,6:REMOVED NA NA NA WERNER NA NA NA NA

PAGE 263

249 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Scallops Anastomosen Sediments Sediments_Notes JACKPOT WIDESPREAD NA LAYERED ORGANICS AND SAND GOOD FOR CORE, BUT IN TIGHT SPACE JEEP A3 NA A0-3 LAYERED SEDIMEN TS, POSSIBLE FOR SEDIMENT CORE JENNING'S A1-11 NA LAYERED, FINE LAMINAE, MIXED ORGANICS AND SAND GOOD FOR CORE LEGEND NA NA LAYERED SEDIMENT GOOD FOR CORE MAYNARD'S NA NA LAYERED ORGANICS AND SAND GREAT LAYERED SEDIMENTS, GOOD FOR CORE OCALA CAVERNS EAST A1-5 NA COMPACTED CLAY NOT GOOD FOR CORE OCALA CAVERNS WEST A2,3,4 NA VARVED CLAY, HEAVILY COMPACTED CORE POSSIBLE, BUT IN TIGHT LOCATION PEACE SIGN NA NA UNSORTED HIGH COMPACTION WASH-IN FROM SURFACE, NOT GOOD FOR CORE QUARTER NA NA NA NA RATTLESNAKE NA NA UNSORTED NOT GOOD FOR CORE REUFF'S NA NA LAYERED LAYERED SEDIMENTS, BUT NO ROOM FOR SEDIMENT CORE SICK BAT NA NA UNSORTED HIGH COMPACTION, NOT GOOD FOR CORE SNEAK A1-11 NA UNSORTED NOT GOOD FOR CORE THORNTON'S NA NA LAYERED CLAY AND ORGANIC MATTER SEDIMENT IS CLAYEY, BUT GOOD PLACE FOR SEDIMENT CORE TRAIL 10 BAT NA NA LAYERED, UNSORTED NA TURPENTINE NA NA LAYERED OR GANICS GOOD FOR SEDIMENT CORE VANDAL NA NA UNSORTED COMPACTED SEDIMENT, NOT GOOD FOR CORE WERNER CC4 NA LAYERED, VARVED CLAYS; UNSORTED SANDS GOOD FOR SEDIMENT CORE IN VARVED CLAYS AREAS

PAGE 264

250 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Fossils Bones JACKPOT UNIQUE FISH FOSSIL CURRENTLY BEING ANALYZED BY SPECIALIST BOBCAT JEEP NA NA JENNING'S NA NA LEGEND A3:ARTICULATED SPINE OF UNKNOWN MAMMAL A1,2:COW, DEER MAYNARD'S NA HUMAN SKULL OCALA CAVERNS EAST NA NA OCALA CAVERNS WEST NA NA PEACE SIGN NA NA QUARTER NA NA RATTLESNAKE NA NA REUFF'S NA NA SICK BAT NA NA SNEAK NA NA THORNTON'S FOSSILIZED TURTLE SHELL IN CEILING:A4 NA TRAIL 10 BAT NA NA TURPENTINE UNIDENTOFIED VERTI BRAE WHOLE TURTLE SHELLS VANDAL NA NA WERNER NA SNAKE SKELETON

PAGE 265

251 Appendix E: (Continued) Name GeologicStrata OtherGeologicStrata GeologicNotes JACKPOT OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA NA JEEP OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA POSSIBLE PALEO-SPRING NEAR STATION A3 JENNING'S OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA FISSURE CONTOLLED PASSAGES LEGEND OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA NA MAYNARD'S OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA GREAT BEDDING STRUCTURES AT A3 OCALA CAVERNS EAST OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA NA OCALA CAVERNS WEST OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA NICE FISSURE FEATURE WITH SCALLOPS, BUT HEAVILY DISTURBED PEACE SIGN SUWANNEE LIMESTONE (OLIGOCENE) NA NA QUARTER OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA CAVE CONSISTS ENTIRELY OF BREAKDOWN RATTLESNAKE OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA CAVE CONSISTS ENTIRELY OF BREAKDOWN REUFF'S OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA NA SICK BAT SUWANNEE LIMESTONE (OLIGOCENE) NA NA SNEAK OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA GREAT PLUS-SIGN FISSURE PASSAGE, INTERSECTING FISSURES THORNTON'S OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA MINERALIZED FLAKES(ORGANIC DRAPERY):B14; GREAT FISSURE AND BEDDING PLANE FEATURES; DIAMOND PATTERN PASSAGES TRAIL 10 BAT OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA A1-GREAT BEDDING PLANE FEATURE TURPENTINE TAMPA MEMBER (ARCADIA FORMATION)(UPPER OLIGOCENELOWER MIOCENE) SUWANNEE LIMESTONE (OLIGOCENE) NA VANDAL SUWANNEE LIMESTONE (OLIGOCENE) NA NA WERNER OCALA LIMESTONE (EOCENE) NA GOOD CROSSBEDDING:C9

PAGE 266

252 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Biological_Vertebrates Invertebrates Mold_Bacteria JACKPOT NA CAVE CRAYFISH, SPIDERS, CAVE CRICKETS, FROGS NA JEEP NA NA NA JENNING'S EASTERN PIPISTRELLE; SOUTHEASTERN BAT SPIDERS, FROGS, BLACK SNAKE NA LEGEND NA ROACHES, FROGS, CRICKETS NA MAYNARD'S NA SPIDERS, CRICKETS NA OCALA CAVERNS EAST NA SPIDERS, CAVE CRICKETS, CAVE CRAYFISH (2) A4: MOLD ON HUMAN WASTE OCALA CAVERNS WEST NA NA NA PEACE SIGN NA NA NA QUARTER NA CAVE CRICKETS; FROGS; SPIDERS NA RATTLESNAKE NA NA NA REUFF'S NA SMALL FROGS:A3 NA SICK BAT NA SPIDERS, CAVE CRICKETS, FROGS NA SNEAK BLIND MINNOW FISH, BROWN CRAYFISH, ALBINO CRAYFISH NA NA THORNTON'S SOUTHEASTERN BAT:E9-10, A19,E12 LEOPARD FROG:E8; LARGE CAT FISH:B9 MOLD ON GUANO:E9-10, A19,E12 TRAIL 10 BAT A2-SOUTHEASTERN BAT A0-SPIDERS, BROWN CRICKETS A2-MOLD ON GUANO TURPENTINE MICE CAVE SHRIMP; CAVE CRAYFISH; FROGS, CRICKETS, SPIDERS NA VANDAL NA SPIDERS, CRICKETS, FROGS MOLD ON HUMAN WASTE WERNER BLACK BUZZARD, SOUTHEASTERN BAT CAVE CRICKETS, SOUTHEASTERN BAT TICK, BLIND CRAYFISH MOLD ON GUANO

PAGE 267

253 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Roots Roost_Stains Guano_Piles Biological_Notes JACKPOT A0-1 NA NA NA JEEP A0 NA NA NA JENNING'S A10 A9,10 NA KNOWN SOUTHEASTERN BAT AND PIPISTRELLE HABITAT, BUT VACANT LAST FEW YEARS LEGEND A0 NA NA NA MAYNARD'S A1 A3 NA ROOST STAI NS FOUND AT A3, BUT NO BATS OCALA CAVERNS EAST NA NA NA 2 DIFFERENT CAVE CRAYFISH FOUND OCALA CAVERNS WEST NA NA NA NA PEACE SIGN NA NA NA NA QUARTER A1,3 NA NA NA RATTLESNAKE A0,1,5 NA NA NA REUFF'S A4-6 NA NA NA SICK BAT A1 NA NA NA SNEAK A0,1 NA NA NA THORNTON'S EVERYWHERE LG & SMALL E9-10, A19,E12 E9-10, A19,E12 NA TRAIL 10 BAT A0,0A A1,2 A2 CAVE IS HABITAT FOR SOUTHEASTERN BAT TURPENTINE A1-5 NA NA NA VANDAL A3 NA NA NA WERNER A4-A15 B15, C1, B17, C5, B11 B15, C1, B17, C5 ESTIMATED SE BAT POPULATION OF 10,000 DURING PATERNITY SEASON

PAGE 268

254 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Artifacts_Historical Ar tifacts_Modern Cultural_Notes JACKPOT NA NA NA JEEP NA NA NA JENNING'S NA NA LEGEND SAYS CAVE WAS ONCE USED TO HIDE SLAVES DURING CIVIL WAR, BUT NO EVIDENCE FOUND TO SUPPORT THIS LEGEND NA NA NA MAYNARD'S NA NA EXCAVATED IN 1960'S FOR HUMA N REMAINS WHEN SKULL WAS FOUND OCALA CAVERNS EAST NA LIGHT FIXTURES FOUND THROUGHOUT CAVE FROM 1960'S NA OCALA CAVERNS WEST NA LIGHT FIXTURES FOUND THROUGHOUT CAVE FROM 1960'S NA PEACE SIGN NA NA ARCH SITE LISTED IN FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE QUARTER NA NA NA RATTLESNAKE NA NA NA REUFF'S NA NA NA SICK BAT NA NA ARCH SITE LISTED IN FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE SNEAK NA NA NA THORNTON'S NA NA NA TRAIL 10 BAT NA NA NA TURPENTINE NA TURPENTINE POTS FOUND WIDESPREAD THROUGHOUT CAVE TURPENTINE POTS WASH IN FROM SURFACE. REMNANTS FROM WHEN TURPENTINE WAS MINED IN FOREST ABOVE CAVE, NEEDS ANALYSIS FROM SPECIALIST VANDAL NA NA ARCH SITE LISTED IN FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE WERNER NA NA NA

PAGE 269

255 Appendix E: (Continued) Name Scientific_Potential_Areas_ Notes Special_Interest_Areas_Notes JACKPOT NA NA JEEP NA NA JENNING'S SEDIMENT CORE COLLEC TIONS SITE, WATER COLLECTION SITE DRIPPING FROM PENDANT NA LEGEND SPELEOTHEM WATER COLLECTION SITE, SEDIMENT CORE COLLECTION SITE NA MAYNARD'S SEDIMENT CORES, SPELEOTHEM COLLECTION UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL BEDDING STRUCTURES OCALA CAVERNS EAST AQUIFER, BIOTA, HISTORIC CAVE STUDY NA OCALA CAVERNS WEST HISTORIC CAVE STUDY NA PEACE SIGN NA NA QUARTER NA NA RATTLESNAKE NA NA REUFF'S NA NA SICK BAT NA NA SNEAK BIOTA, AQUIFER WATER NA THORNTON'S MINERALIZED "CORN FLAKES" BEING ANALYZED IN NEW MEXICO, BIOTA, AQUIFER STUDY FLOOR-ROOF FISSURE:A24A; CAVE ACTS AS ESTEVELLE BETWEEN WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER AND GUM SLOUGH TRAIL 10 BAT BIOTA STUDY NA TURPENTINE AQUIFER, BIOTA, SEDIMENT STUDIES NA VANDAL NA NA WERNER BIOTA STUDY NA

PAGE 270

256 Appendix E: (Continued) Name SI_Biota SI_Hydrology SI_Speleothems SI_M ineralogy SI_Paleontology SI_Cultural SI_Score JACKPOT 3 3 0 1 3 0 0.56 JEEP 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.05 JENNING'S 3 3 0 1 2 0 0.50 LEGEND 2 3 3 1 2 0 0.61 MAYNARD'S 1 3 2 1 1 0 0.44 OCALA CAVERNS EAST 3 3 0 0 1 0 0.33 OCALA CAVERNS WEST 0 3 0 0 1 0 0.16 PEACE SIGN 0 1 0 0 0 3 0.22 QUARTER 0 2 0 0 1 0 0.11 RATTLESNAKE 0 3 0 0 1 0 0.16 REUFF'S 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.06 SICK BAT 1 1 0 0 1 3 0.28 SNEAK 3 3 0 0 2 0 0.44 THORNTON'S 3 3 1 2 2 0 0.61 TRAIL 10 BAT 3 1 1 1 1 0 0.33 TURPENTINE 3 3 1 2 3 1 0.72 VANDAL 1 1 0 0 1 3 0.28 WERNER 3 3 0 2 3 0 0.61

PAGE 271

257 Appendix E: (Continued) Name DI_Speleothems DI_Graffiti DI_T rash DI_Floor_Dist DI_Cultural DI_CC JACKPOT NA 0 0 1 NA 0 JEEP NA 2 1 3 NA 0 JENNING'S NA 3 2 3 NA 0 LEGEND 1 2 2 2 NA 0 MAYNARD'S 1 1 1 2 NA 0 OCALA CAVERNS EAST NA 1 3 3 NA 1 OCALA CAVERNS WEST NA 3 3 3 NA 1 PEACE SIGN 3 3 3 3 NA 0 QUARTER NA 0 0 3 NA 0 RATTLESNAKE NA 1 2 3 NA 0 REUFF'S NA 0 0 1 NA 0 SICK BAT 3 3 3 3 NA 0 SNEAK NA 0 0 1 NA 0 THORNTON'S NA 0 1 1 NA 1 TRAIL 10 BAT 2 0 1 2 NA 0 TURPENTINE 0 0 0 1 1 0 VANDAL 3 3 3 3 NA 0 WERNER NA 0 1 2 NA 0

PAGE 272

258 Appendix E: (Continued) Name DI_Desiccation DI_Sedimentation DI_Biot a_Pop_Den DI_Biota_Spec_Rich DI_Fossils JACKPOT NA NA LD LD 0 JEEP NA 2 LD LD 3 JENNING'S NA 3 LD LD 2 LEGEND 0 2 LD LD 2 MAYNARD'S 0 3 LD LD 2 OCALA CAVERNS EAST NA 3 LD LD 3 OCALA CAVERNS WEST NA 3 LD LD 3 PEACE SIGN 0 3 LD LD 3 QUARTER NA 1 LD LD 3 RATTLESNAKE NA 3 LD LD 3 REUFF'S NA 1 LD LD 0 SICK BAT 0 3 LD LD 3 SNEAK NA 1 LD LD 0 THORNTON'S NA NA LD LD 0 TRAIL 10 BAT 0 3 LD LD 2 TURPENTINE 0 NA LD LD 0 VANDAL 0 3 LD LD 3 WERNER NA 3 LD LD 1

PAGE 273

259 Appendix E: (Continued) Name DI_Deforestation DI_Urbaniz ation DI_Agriculture DI_Score JACKPOT 0 1 1 0.11 JEEP 0 1 0 0.39 JENNING'S 0 2 1 0.53 LEGEND 0 1 3 0.44 MAYNARD'S 0 1 3 0.42 OCALA CAVERNS EAST 0 3 1 0.63 OCALA CAVERNS WEST 0 3 1 0.70 PEACE SIGN 0 1 1 0.56 QUARTER 0 1 2 0.37 RATTLESNAKE 1 1 0 0.53 REUFF'S 3 1 2 0.37 SICK BAT 0 1 1 0.56 SNEAK 1 1 2 0.30 THORNTON'S 0 1 3 0.26 TRAIL 10 BAT 0 1 0 0.31 TURPENTINE 0 1 3 0.17 VANDAL 0 1 1 0.56 WERNER 1 1 0 0.37

PAGE 274

260 Appendix F: Cave Inventory Form

PAGE 275

261 Appendix F: Cave Inventory Form

PAGE 276

262 Appendix F: (Continued)

PAGE 277

263 Appendix F: (Continued)

PAGE 278

264 Appendix F: (Continued)

PAGE 279

265 Appendix F: (Continued)

PAGE 280

266 Appendix F: (Continued)

PAGE 281

267 Appendix G: Photographs of Vandalism within BRC

PAGE 282

268 Appendix G: Photographs of Vandalism within BRC All before photos in this Appendix are c ourtesy of Tom Turner. All after pictures were taken by an anonymous, concerned caver. The Claw helictite formation on night of cave discovery The Claw helictite formation after vandalism.

PAGE 283

269 Appendix G: (Continued) Medusa helictite formation on night of cave discove ry. Medusa helictite formation after vandalism.

PAGE 284

270 Appendix H: Cave Inventory Photographs

PAGE 285

271 Appendix H: Cave Inventory Photographs Belleview Formation Cave, Marion County, Florida 1 2 3 4 1. Jason Polk and formations: A3 2. Desiccated stalagmite: A10 3. Jason Polk just inside entrance #2: A9 4. Dripping drapery: A5

PAGE 286

272 Appendix H: (Continued) Big Mouth Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1 2 3 1. Robert Brooks at entrance: A1 2. Lee Florea just inside entrance: A1 3. Sonja Wescomb and Jason Polk: A2

PAGE 287

273 Appendix H: (Continued) Blowing Hole Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1 2 3 4 1. Grant Harley and Jason Polk, Railroad Tunnel Passage: A2B1 2. Popcorn: D2B 3. Graffiti on flowstone: D5 4. Greenhouse frogs below entrance pit: E1

PAGE 288

274 Appendix H: (Continued) Bottle Cap Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1 2 3 4 1. ~ 2m entrance pit to Bottle Cap Cave: A0 2. Stalagmites, stalacti tes, and soda straws: A17 3. Soda straws and helictites: A17A 4. Tom Turner underneath the bat roost stain: A2

PAGE 289

275 Appendix H: (Continued) BRC Cave, Hernando County, Florida 1 2 3 4 1. Indescribable formations: He lictites growing out of a stalactite: E6 (photo: Tom Turner 2. Translucent, carrot-like stalac tites, helictites, soda straws, drapery, and stalagmites: BU 8 (photo: Tom Turner) 3. Helictimus II in the Brew ery Room (photo: Bruce Brewer) 4. Heart-shaped geode in ceiling: B16

PAGE 290

276 Appendix H: (Continued) Briar Cave, Marion County, Florida 1 2 3 4 1. Fissure passage, aquifer, near Lake Room, lower level: A4 2. Countless soda straws, Endless Room, upper level: A11 3. Robert Brooks kneels beside the clear waters of the Florida Aquifer System; nearly 13 m deep: A4 (photo: Tom Turner) 4. Jason Polk stands in from of flagging tape used to protect speleothems:A14

PAGE 291

277 Appendix H: (Continued) Dog Drop Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Jason Polk descends into entrance pit: A0 2. Passage near B1 (Jason Polk) 3. Jason Polk surveying near A1 4. Jason Polk standing: A2 1 4 3 2

PAGE 292

278 Appendix H: (Continued) Fallen Oak Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Jason Polk looking up from the sinkhole near A1 2. Jason Polk stands beside the tight, horizontal entrance near A1 3. Unidentified bone found near A2 4. Dipping bedding structures near A0 1 2 3 4

PAGE 293

279 Appendix H: (Continued) Finchs Cave, Marion County, Florida 1 2 3 4 1. Jason Polk at the entrance sink 2. Deep crevasse ~ 7m: A11 3. Calcite rafts in pool: A17Y 4. Spongework with unident ified mineralization

PAGE 294

280 Appendix H: (Continued) Football Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Formations: A10 2. Jason Polk watches as Robert Brooks descends into entrance 3. Tom Turner in tall breakdown chamber: A13 4. Tom Turner and graffiti: A11 1 2 34

PAGE 295

281 Appendix H: (Continued) Girl Scout Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Graffiti: A3 2. Trash and organic debris: A2 3. Snake in wall: A3 4. Jason Polk stands at the entrance to Girl Scout Cave: A0 12 34

PAGE 296

282 Appendix H: (Continued) Goat Mummy Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Speleothem; photo looking SW: A5 2. Condensation corrosion: A6 (Jason Polk) 3. SE bat roost: A4 4. Monica Exner and Jason Polk exit the cave: A1 1 2 3 4

PAGE 297

283 Appendix H: (Continued) Heroine Cave, Marion County, Florida 1. Monica Exner descends into entrance: A0 2. Jason Polk by trash: A1-A3 3. Grant Harley and Monica Exner in the entrance sink; note the entrance symbol: A0 (Jason Polk) 4. Jason Polk by trash: A3 1 2 3 4

PAGE 298

284 Appendix H: (Continued) Indigo Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Jason Polk at entrance: A0 2. Close-up of entrance: A0

PAGE 299

285 Appendix H: (Continued) Jackpot Cave, Citrus County, Florida Jackpot entrance: A0

PAGE 300

286 Appendix H: (Continued) Jeep Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Jason Polk at the entrance: A0A 2. Jason Polk near graffiti: A0-A1. Historic graffiti was recently (2007) found underneath modern graffiti on this wall. 3. Close-up of graffiti: A0-A1 1 2 3

PAGE 301

287 Appendix H: (Continued) Jennings Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Grant Harley in fissurepassage: near A10 (Jason Polk) 2. Fossiliferous Ocala Limestone: A6 3. Spongework: A4 4. Grant Harley at broken gate: near A2 (Jason Polk) 1 2 3 4

PAGE 302

288 Appendix H: (Continued) Crumbling Rock Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Lance Elder entrance gate: A1 2. shrimp-like invertebrate found near A5. Crogonyx Hobbsi ? (Tom Turner) 3. Robert Brooks in Lake Room: A5 (Tom Turner) 4. Caver near Lake Room: A5 (tom Turner 1 3 2 4

PAGE 303

289 Appendix H: (Continued) Legend Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Curtain: A9 2. Articulated vertebrate: A3 3. Soda straw drip: A9 4. Grant Harley exits entrance: A0 (Jason Polk) 1 4 3 2

PAGE 304

290 Appendix H: (Continued) Maynards Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Dan Straley at window entrance:A2 2. Lindsey Hodges in Grand Chamber: A3 3. Tom Turner on rope: A2 4. Panoramic of Grand Chamber: A4 looking towards A1 1 4 3 2

PAGE 305

291 Appendix H: (Continued) Ocala Caverns East, Marion County, Florida 1. Large troglobitic crayfish ~ 4 in. long: A3 2. Bob Brinkmann and Grant Harley: A3 (Jason Polk) 3. Jason Polk at aquifer connection: A2 4. Smaller troglobitic crayfish ~2 in. long: A1 1 4 3 2

PAGE 306

292 Appendix H: (Continued) Ocala Caverns West, Marion County, Florida 1. Jason Polk descends into artificial entrance opened when cave was commercial: A1 2. Monica Exner and Jason Polk in graffiti-filled, fissure controlled passage: A3 3. Original light-bulb from mid-21st century 4. Monica Exner and Jason Polk exiting cave; notice stairs: A1-A2 1 23 4

PAGE 307

293 Appendix H: (Continued) Peace Sign Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Broken speleothems and graffiti: A3 2. Modern fire pit: A2 3. Jason Polk near graffiti: A5 1 3 2

PAGE 308

294 Appendix H: (Continued) Quarter Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Jason Polk at entrance: A0 2. Bob Brinkmann supervises as Grant Harley places a Do Not Enter sign from the landowner at the cave entrance: A0 (Jason Polk) 3. Example of sign near A2 1 3 2

PAGE 309

295 Appendix H: (Continued) Reuffs Cave, Hernando County, Florida 1. Carl Reich climbs up quarry wall to entrance: A0 (Jason Polk) 2. Treehouse frog: A3 3. Breakdown passage; note orange flagging tape of station A3 1 2 3

PAGE 310

296 Appendix H: (Continued) Sneak Cave, Marion County, Florida 1 2 3 4 1. Entrance squeeze: A0 2. Blind minnow and crayfish (inside circle): A4 3. Jason Polk in plus-sign passage: A8 4. Large crayfish: A4

PAGE 311

297 Appendix H: (Continued) Thorntons Cave, Sumter County, Florida 1. Dan Doctor at Tangerine entrance: A0 (Jason Polk) 2. Don King fungus growing on animal dung: A15 (Dan Doctor) 3. Deep Pool near A2 (Tom Turner) 1 2 3

PAGE 312

298 Appendix H: (Continued) Trail 10 Cave, Citrus County, Florida 3 2 1 1. Jason Polk in entrance: A0 2. Cave cricket: A2 3. Soda straw with active dr ip; not finger for scale: A3

PAGE 313

299 Appendix H: (Continued) Turpentine Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Tom Turner in chim ney-down entrance: A0 2. Justin Marks in climb-dow n passage: A4 (Tom Turner) 3. Grant Harley in water-table passage: A11 (Jason Polk) 2 3 1

PAGE 314

300 Appendix H: (Continued) Hitchhiker Cave, Marion County, Florida 1. Jason Polk at large entrance: A0 2. Graffiti: A2 3. Jason Polk looking at graffiti on flowstone: A3 4. Mattress near A1 1 3 4 2

PAGE 315

301 Appendix H: (Continued) Werner Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Tom Turner underneath bat roost stain: B15 2. Lee Florea collects an aquifer sample: B20 (Tom Turner) 3. Troglobitic crayfish: BA1 (Tom Turner) 4. Robert Brooks in water-table passage: view west from station BA1 (Tom Turner) 2 3 4 1

PAGE 316

302 Appendix H: (Continued) Holy Oak Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Monica Exner just inside entrance: A0-A1 2. Colleen Werner descends into entrance: A0 3. Graffiti: A1 3 2 1

PAGE 317

303 Appendix H: (Continued) Morris Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Robert Brooks stands at a pool before cave was filled in by sediment from su rface erosion: near A4 (Tom Turner) 2. Tom Turner stands in virtually the same location after hurricanes caused sediment to wash into cave: near A4 ( Tom Turner ) 1 2

PAGE 318

304 Appendix H: (Continued) Vandal Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Grant Harley looks up window feature out of collapsed portion of cave: near A1 2. Grant Harley at entrance #1: A0 3. Jason Polk squeezes through tight passage: A8 1 2 3

PAGE 319

305 Appendix H: (Continued) Sick Bat Cave, Citrus County, Florida 1. Water droplets collect on the ceiling: A5 2. Eastern pipistrelle bat: A3 3. Trash buried in sediment: A1

PAGE 320

About the Author Grant Harley was raised in Lakeland, Fl orida. He received his bachelors in environmental geography at University of South Florida Tampa in December of 2005. In January of 2006, he started working on his Masters degree at University of South Florida (USF) in the Departm ent of Geography. Since starting graduate work at USF, Grant has been actively involved in the USF Karst Research Group. This group is a student-run organizati on that involves graduate students and faculty from four depar tments focused on karst research. To learn more about this active group, please visit their website at www.karst.usf.edu This thesis represents the end to Grants Masters program. Grant has been a caver for over 5 years and has explored the underground in Belize, New Mexico, Florida, Texas, Indiana, Mi ssouri, and Tennessee. Following graduation with a Masters degree in Environmental G eography from the University of South Florida December of 2006, Grant plans on pursuing his Ph.D. degree and using the field of human-environm ental impact assessment in caves as a means of continuing his love of venturing u nderground. When he isnt hard at work on projects at the University, or explori ng caves, Grant can be found involved with his other passion as a photographer for Be yond the Mist Photography. To learn more about the business, visit www.beyondthemistphotography.com