Citation
Southern Caver

Material Information

Title:
Southern Caver
Series Title:
Southern Caver
Creator:
Gregory Middleton ozspeleo@iinet.net.au ( suggested by )
Southern Caving Society
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Applied Speleology ( local )
Regional Speleology ( local )
Resource Management ( local )
Genre:
serial ( sobekcm )
Location:
Australia

Notes

General Note:
The Southern Caving Society was formed in April 1965 and in July 1967 commenced publication of "Southern Caver" as its quarterly newsletter. At the time of the 1996 amalgamation of SCS with the Tasmanian Caverneering Club, it was agreed that Southern Tasmanian Caverneers would continue to publish "Southern Caver" in the form of an occasional paper as and when suitable material was available. The publication has in fact appeared approximately annually in recent years and has generally carried reprints of otherwise difficult to obtain reports relating to caves in Tasmania.
Restriction:
Open Access - Permission by Publisher
Original Version:
No. 64 (December 2008)
General Note:
See Extended description for more information.

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:
K26-03785 ( USFLDC DOI )
k26.3785 ( USFLDC Handle )
21413 ( karstportal - original NodeID )
0157-8464 ( ISSN )

USFLDC Membership

Aggregations:
Karst Information Portal

Postcard Information

Format:
Serial

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
Description
The Southern Caving Society was formed in April 1965 and
in July 1967 commenced publication of "Southern Caver" as its
quarterly newsletter. At the time of the 1996 amalgamation of
SCS with the Tasmanian Caverneering Club, it was agreed that
Southern Tasmanian Caverneers would continue to publish
"Southern Caver" in the form of an occasional paper as and
when suitable material was available. The publication has in
fact appeared approximately annually in recent years and has
generally carried reprints of otherwise difficult to obtain
reports relating to caves in Tasmania.



PAGE 1

SOUTHERN CAVER No. 64 December 200 8 Occasional Journal of Southern Tasmanian Caverneers Inc. PO Box 416 Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7006, Australia ISSN 0157 8464 In this issue: Hydro Electric Commission Lower Gordon Region Cave Survey 1979

PAGE 2

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 2 Editorial This issue features a reproduction of a report prepared in 1979 for the Tasmanian Hydro Electric Commission (now known as Hydro Tasmania) when it was gathering back ground environmental data for its proposed Gordon River Power Development Stage 2. Fortunately this scheme was never built, as a result of a celebrated conservation campaign and the intervention of the F ederal Government following World Heritage listing of the area in 1982. The report summarised cave information reported by cavers (mainly Kevin Kiernan, the Editor and members of the Sydney Speleological Society) and added some information gathered by HEC field staff. Th is is not a facsimile; the text follows the original but has been reset and some pages omitted which duplicated information or contained little; some additional information has been inserted in Arial font and/or [within square brackets] Some editorial comments are made by way of footnotes. The fact that a part icular statement has not been challenged should not be taken to indicate its acceptance by the Editor or STC. Graphics follow the original, except as indicated. Cave maps copied fr om published reports (in the Journal of the Sydney Speleological Society ) h ave not been reproduced multiple times, as is sometimes the case in the original, to save space. Suggested form of citation: Naevi I.H. 1979 Cave Survey [in] Hale, G.E.A. Lower Gordon Region: Land Use, Resources and Special Features Hydro Electric Commission Hobart 113 pp. Reprinted in Southern Caver, 64 (200 8 ). A contemporary (1980) critique of this report appeared in Southern Caver, 12(2): 24 33. Greg Middleton, Editor ozspeleo@bigpond.net.au The views expressed herein are not necessarily the views of the Editor or of Southern Tasmanian Caverneers Inc. This work is copyright STC 2008 except for original material to which Hydro Tasmania retains copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publishers and the inclusion of acknowledgement of the source. Southern Caver Occasional journal of the Southern Tasmanian Caverneers Inc. PO Box 416, Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7006 Australia www.lmrs.com.au/stc ISSN 0157 8464 Issue No. 64, December 200 8 Contents Lower Gordon Region Cave Study I.H. Naqvi Introduction 5 Geology 5 The Caves 7 Cave Deposits 7 Speleogenesis 8 Conclusions 12 References 12 Plates 13 App. A. Cave Index 21 App. B. Systematic Description of Caves 31 Cover photo: Angel Cliffs large limestone cliffs on the Gordon River, just downstream of the Sprent River junc tion. P hoto: Barry Blain, Dec. 1974. [Not part of original report.] STC was formed from the Tasmanian Caverneering Club, Southern Caving Society and Tasmanian Cave and Karst Research Group in 1999. STC is the modern variant of the oldest caving club in Australia.

PAGE 3

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 3 LOWER GORDON REGION CAVE SURVEY I. H. NAQVI Hydro-Electric Commission, Hobart 1979 CONTENTS [original page nos.] INTRODUCTION 1 GEOLOGY 1 Stratigraphy 1 Structure [heading in contents, but no text] THE CAVES Lower Franklin Valley 2 Lower Gordon Valley 3 CAVE DEPOSITS Stalactites and Stalagmites 3 Gravels 4 Plant Debris 4 Animal Remains 4 SPELEOGENESIS Structural Control 4 Solution 5 The Physiographic Factors Affecting Cave Formation 5 Hydrogeologic System 6 Comparison of the Cave Systems with examples elsewhere in the State 6 CONCLUSIONS 7 REFERENCES 9 PLATES APPENDIX A Cave Index 17 pp. APPENDIX B Systematic Description of Caves 71 pp. EDITORIAL NOTE: CAVE LOCATIONS This report contains location details for many caves While it is contrary to normal practice among Australian speleologists to publish this information, the circumstances in this case the caves faced inundation under hydro dams and any report on them had to establish their locations if it was to ha ve any chance of being seriously considered was deemed to require disclosure of the locations if the caves were to be accepted as significant resources directly threatened by the dams. Thus locations were included in reports published between 1974 and 1 980. Most of the locations have therefore been published before; grid references for the few new caves found by the HEC have been omitted from this reprint

PAGE 4

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 4 FIGURES [Figures have been incorporated in the text for easier reference.] 1. Index & Geological Map 2. Strike of joints 3. Typical cross section B B of Lower Franklin Valley 4. Free flow aquifer with capping. Section A A 5. Major tourist caves in Tasmania. PLATES [ In this reprint the Plates follow the reference s .] 1. Gordon Limestone overlying Butler Island Formation 2. Gravels 3. Flat valley with Gordon Limestone 4. Angel Cliff 5. Folding in Gordon Limestone 6. Jointing 7. Solution along joints 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Rectangular and horizonta l cave 14. Joint controlled cave 15. Cave decorations in CF3. 16. Cave decorations in NR1. TABLES 1. Cave Summary Lower Franklin Valley 2 2. Cav e Summary Lower Gordon Valley 3 DISCLAIMER Hydro Tasmania, in agreeing to the reproduction of this report (20 August 2007) required the inclusion of the following disclaimer: This report was not created as a reference for exploration or caving purposes and the information in it has not been verified as accurate since original publication. Any use of in formation in the report is entirely at the risk of the reader. NB Hydro Tasmania has not endorsed the editorial comments or any modifications made by the Editor in this reprint version.

PAGE 5

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 5 INTRODUCTION This report records the results of a survey of caves likely to be affected by the Gordon below Franklin and the Gordon above Olga power schemes, as part of an overall survey of the environmental effects of such schemes. The areas surveyed are shown in Figure 1. The caves are developed in Gordon Limestone wh ich lies in a N S trending, strike oriented, straight valley 5 9 km wide, 100 km long between mountain ranges about 400 m high. This valley contains all the Olga River course and part of the Gordon and Franklin River courses. No cave search was carried ou t in the Olga valley because the lack of relief has reduced the chances of finding the caves in this area. In addition to the field survey carried out in February March 1979, information has been obtained from internal H.E.C. sources and from publications by caving or conservation organizations, notably the Sydney Speleological Society (Goede, 1968), (Morley, 1971), (Middleton et al. 1974) [sic Hawkins et al. 1974], (Kiernan, 1974), (Middleton and Sefton, 1975), (Kiernan, 1977), (Middleton, 1977) and (Mi ddleton, 1979). The Sydney Speleological Society commenced numbering and listing caves within the area in 1974. GEOLOGY The regional geology of the area has been recently reviewed by Roberts and Naqvi (1979) and is summarised below. Stratigraphy The relevant stratigraphic units of the area in ascending order are: Ordovician Butler Island Formation 400 m sandstones and carbonates (Plate 1) Gordon Limestone 1500 m limestone and siltstones Silurian Devonian 1100 m quartzites, siltstones, argillites and minor calcareous siltstones Tertiary Recent Gravels, clays and sands. [2]1 Of these units the Gordon Limestone is the most important because it contains all the known caves. This is a major unit, includi ng high and low grade limestones and calcareous and non calcareous siltstones. The limestone is dense, displays stylolites and contains extensive veining of secondary calcite. It has a major topographic expression in broad, flat valleys (Plate 3). The vall ey floor is covered by a veneer of alluvial and colluvial material, with occasional, narrow ridges of strata with a low calcareous content that have more resistance to solutional degradation and erosion. Calcareous strata are only exposed in the river vall eys, notably as cliffs up to 20 m high along the Gordon and Franklin Rivers (Plate 4) and as intermittent narrow bars of impure limestone in the river bed, exposed during periods of low flow. Sporadic gravel deposits up to 6 m thick occur along the Gordon and the Franklin Rivers (Plate 2). The imbricate structures suggest similar direction of river flow to the present. In the Olga area the Gordon Limestone is blanketed by up to 19 m of clays, sands and gravels (Roberts and Andric, 1974). These superficial d eposits are thought to be fluvioglacial in origin, but may be eithe r Pleistocene or Recent in age. 1 Centred numbers in square brackets represent original page numbers (top of page). These were included only as far as page 10; beyond that pages were not numbered.

PAGE 6

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 6

PAGE 7

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 7 TABLE 1 Cave Summary Lower Franklin Valley Range of dimensions (m) Min. Max. Median Range Length 2 (F5) 502 (CF8)[F28]3 10 20 Height 1 (CF7) [F32] 15 (CF9)[F26] 2 3 Width 0.4 (CF1) 10 (CF9) [F26] 2 10 Portal Height 0.4 (CF1) 15 (CF9) [F26] 1 2 Width 0.2 (CF1) 6 (CF3) [F1] 2 3 Decorations are present in only 4 caves (CF2 [F57], CF3 [F1], CF9 [F26] and CFTI2). The best decorations consisting of stalactites and stalagmites are found in CF3 [F1] (Plate 15) where they extend throughout the cave. They are also well developed in CF2 [F57] but are confined to an area of about one square metre. Most caves tend to be horizontal and rectangular in shap e reflecting the importance of joint control in development (Plates 13 & 14). [ 3 ] Most well developed caves occur in the higher cliffs along the main river courses. Very few caves occur on the western side probably due to the easterly dip of the beds and the relatively thin limestone on the western side of the Franklin River (Fig. 3). Lower Gordon Valley Two caves (NR1, NR2) were found in the Nicholls Range valley during investigations by the H.E.C. in 1971 73 and were subseque ntly described by Middleton (19 76). Another three caves (GS1, GS2 and GS4) have been reported from the Gordon Sprent area (Kiernan, 1974). Of these three (GS1 and GS2) have been examined by the writer. Seven new caves in the CG and CGT series have been described by the w riter. TABLE 2 Cave Summary Lower Gordon Valley Range of dimensions (m) Min. Max. Median Range Length 2 (GS3) 520 (NR1) 10 Height 0.25 (CGT10) 20 (CG6) 1 5 Width 0.25 (CGT10) 10 (NR1) 4 Decorations are present in only two caves (NR1 and CGT7). They are best developed in NR1. Most caves occur in cliffs over 10 m high as the result of solution along the joints roughly at right angles to the river. CAVE DEPOSITS Stalactites and Stalagmite s These are present in six caves only (CF2 [F57] CF3 [F1] CFT 12, CGT 7, CG 7, CC10 & NR1) and are best developed in CF3 [F1] and NR1 (Plates 15 & 16). The decorations are derived by internal processes (i.e. those operating within the cave) dominantly by the precipitation of calcite brought about by diffusion of CO2 from water to cave air (Jennings, 1971). [ 4 ] The general lack of stalactites and stalagmites in the study area may be due to thin top soil over the limestone resulting in a diminution of organ ic CO2 in the percolating ground waters. Relatively recent cave development with insufficient time for the formation of deposits could be a contributing factor. 2 This is incorrect e.g. App. A shows F36 to be 60+ m, F34 to be 170 m and F3 and F9 to be 150 m in length GJM 3 Cave numbers shown in square brackets are ASF numbers generally assigned by the author and have been added in this reprint. Source: plans in App. B GJM

PAGE 8

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 8 Gravels These are best exposed in CF3 [F1] at two levels, possibly representing two phases of stream aggradation under cold climate conditions during the Pleistocene. They have not been studied in detail. Gravels have also been noted in creek bed in CFT14. The bulk of this material appears to h ave been carried under flood conditions. Plant Debris Extensive driftwood is present in CF2 [F57] 10 m above the present river level suggesting water flow through the cave during high flows. Animal Remains Middleton (1979) has reported a large bone depos it in F34. SPELEOGENESIS The most important factors influencing the formation of caves in the study area are believed to be as follows: The structure of the limestone, particularly the dip, and the joint density. The mode and volume of water flow through the passages i.e. whether the flow is under pressure or free (phreatic or vadose). The regional physiography of the area. Structural Control The importance of joint directions in controlling cave development ca n be seen in Plates 13 & 14.4 The most preferred direction is at right angles to the river. Caves formed along single joints tend to he high, narrow, winding and sometimes just vertical slits (Plate 14). Joint controlled passages are generally triangular passages formed by the con [5] junction of several joints with the base wide and the passages narrowing upwards (Plate 14). This is due to solution working laterally along the bedding plane at the base of the joints (Ford, 1976). The easterly dip of th e limestone beds has influenced the major cave development on the eastern side (Fig. 3). Solution Solution in the phreatic zone (flow under hydrostatic pressure) has been the major factor in the early stages of formation of the caves described in this repo rt. The degree of structural control and the ample morphological evidence support this assertion. Smooth walls and rounded ceiling pockets indicate solution in three dimensions (Armstrong &[sic] Osborne, 1978). 4 Fig. 2 (not referred to in the original text) shows the frequency of strike directions along the rivers.

PAGE 9

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 9 Almost all the most important caves of the study area are related to the present rivers and the relief. This does not mean that these caves did not have an early phreatic stage, but as they have been inundated or traversed by streams many of the phreatic traces have been obliterated. The original c ircular or elliptical passages have been deepened by normal stream erosion as well as by corrosion the shapes becoming much more rectangular (Plate 13). The type, of non karstic terrain adjacent to the limestones is also important. Gams (1965) has shown in a study of the Slovenian caves that the largest occur where streams entering the caves come from terrain yielding pebbles and coarse debris compared with smaller caves whose streams come from areas which only yield clay. This is because river abrasion is important in addition to karstic solution in the formation of any river cave. The Physiographic Factors Affecting Cave Formation The relative height and available relief (Fig. 3) of the land is an important factor which affects cavern development (Sweetin g, 1973). The development of chiefly horizontally developed caves of the study area reflects the low available relief of the limestones (Jennings, 1971). Not only horizontal caves, but also vertical features, can be shown to be partly dependent upon physi cal factors. This is particular1y so of vert ical features formed by vadose streams since vadose water will tend to form vertical caves when there is considerable available relief (Sweeting, 1973). In the study area dome pits (vertical features) are scarce This is typical of areas of low avail able relief (Sweeting, 1973). The type of non karstic terrain adjacent to the limestones is also important. Gams (1965) has shown in a study of the Slovenian caves tha t the large s t occur where streams entering the c aves come from terr ain yielding pebbles an d coarse debris co m pa red with smaller caves whose s treams come f rom ar eas w hich only yield clay. This is beca u se river abrasion is important in addition to karstic sol ution in the formation of any r iver cave [6] The lack of big caves in the study area could therefore be partly due to lack of abrasive material in the streams entering the caves. Furthermore, the small size of the collecting basin for the drainage entering the cave will also be of significance, since more water and debris are likely to come from a larger basin (Sweeting, 1973). Thus there are many connections between

PAGE 10

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 10 cave development and the physiography of the karst area. Once the initial cave network is established, the physiographic situation is of utmost importance and will often indicate why one cave has developed (e.g. CF9) and another has remained small (e.g. CF5). Hydrogeologic System White (1969) has postulated seven types of hydrogeologic systems for karsts of low or moderate relief such as the study area. One of his systems (IIB2), a free flow aquifer with capping, may apply here (Fig. 4). In this model karst reaches below the river valleys to base level. The water intake is from the edge of an impervious cap down a shaft. The resulting caves are nearly horizontal and the water table gradient remains low in spite of irregularities in the surface topography. In the Nicholls Range area drilling has shown no evidence of large, interconnected underground solution systems, and static water l evels in the drill holes indicated relatively steep gradients towards the Gordon River (Roberts & Andric, 1974). All the major solution activity so far found occurs above the base level provided by the Gordon River, supporting the view that the karst is re latively recent in age. Evidence of closed systems of caverns is provided by high static water levels in drill hole 7063, suggesting that the present water movement through it is slow. Roberts & Andric have suggested that originally a more open system exis ted which has subsequently become clogged with debris carried in from the surface and finally sealed by insoluble clayey products of solution process. In the Nicholls Range valley the steep overall gradient shows that (a) the primary permeability on a regi onal scale remains low, and (b) a widespread, anastomosing pattern of sma ll, secondary openings has not b een developed.

PAGE 11

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 11 Comparison of the Cave Systems with examples elsewhere in the State Size and decorations of the caves in the Lower Gordon and Lower Fr anklin compare very poorly with the caves in other parts of Tasmania (Fig. 5). In the study area most caves are 10 to 20 m long with the exception of NR1 which is 520 m long. The width of these caves is mostly 1 2 m. Cave [7] decorations are either mis sing or very limited. The cave (CF3) with the best d ecorat ions (stalactites and stalagmites) o ccurs near Flat Island. It does not compare favourably with other well known tourist caves in Tasmania, as shown below: King Solomon: 230 m long, 1 large cavern plus spacious passageway; easy grade; formation 90 95% of the tourist section (Fig. 5). Marakoopa: 455 m long, including one large cavern stepped passageway; formation 60 75%. Newdegate (Hastings): 460 m long; formation 90% Gordon River, Nicholls Range area (Fig. A6). 520 m long; two downstream entrances on the banks of Gordon River flowing water; massive formation in roof are likely to be flooded during periods of high river flow; a permanent entrance for tourists would have to be via one of the seven daylight holes; h owever, the presence of flowing water and the relative lack of format ion make t he tourist potential very low. FIG. 5

PAGE 12

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 12 CONCLUSIONS Speleogenesis in the study ar ea has been constrained b y the following factors: a. The monoclinal regional structure in the Gordon Limestone. b. The lack of adequate topographic relief. c. The low persistence o f open discontinuities such as j oints and bedding p anes. d. The absence of suitable abrasive materials. e. The relatively sma ll catchment areas of tributary streams to Gordon and Franklin Rivers. As a result, relatively small caves with a low incidence of decorations have been produced. [8] By comparison with the rest of the state the tourist potential of the caves is very low Nothing of archaeological significance has yet been found in any of the caves. The potential for future discovery of large cave systems is very poor. [9] REFERENCES Ford, T.D (19 7 6) The Geo l ogy o f Ca v es. [i n ] Ford, T.D. and Cull ingford, C.H.D., 1976. The Science of Speleology. Academic Press, London. Gams, I (1965) Types of accelerated corrosion. [i n ] Problems of the Speleological Research, ed. O. Steld. Prague. pp. 133 139 Goede, A. (1968) Caves of Tasmania. [i n ] Matthews, P. (Ed.) Speleo Handbook, Sydney, A .S.F. p. 272. H awkins, Robert; Kiernan, Kevin & Middleton, Greg (1974) Reconnaissance trip to limestone areas on the Gordon and Franklin Rivers in South West Tasmania. J. Syd. Speleol. Soc., 18(7):177 190* Jennings, J. N (1971) Karst. A.N. U. Press, Canberra Kiernan, K. (1974) Revised Cave List for Franklin and Gordon Sprent Limestone Areas. J. Syd. Speleol. Soc., 18(7): 194 195 Kiernan, K. (1977) Caves of the Wild Western Rivers. J. Tas. Wilderness Soc., 4:14 17 Middleton, G. and Sefton, A. (1975) S.S.S. Gordon Franklin Expe dition 1974 75 J. Syd. Speleol. Soc., 19(11): 271 291 Middleton, G. (1977) S.S.S. Gordon River Expedition 1976. J. Syd. Speleol. Soc., 21(12): 289 307 [10] Middleton, G. (1979) S.S.S. Fra nklin River Expedition 1977. J. Syd. Speleol. Soc., 23(3): 51 94 Morley, John (1971) Limestone at Franklin River. Southern Caver, 3(1): 10* Osborne, R. Armstrong L. (1978) Structure, Sediment s an d Speleogenesis at Cliefden Caves, New South Wales. Helictite, 16 (1): 3132 Roberts, G.T., and Andric, M. (1974) Investigations into the watertightness of the proposed Gordon above Olga hydro electric storage south west Tasmania. Quart. Jour. Eng. Geol. 7 : 121 136. Roberts, G.T., and Naqvi, I.H. (1979) Geology, Geomorphology & Land Systems. [in] Lower Gordon River Scientific Survey. Hydro Electric Commission, Tasmania. Sweeting, M.M. (1973) Karst Landforms. Columbia University Press. White, W. B., (1969) Conceptual models for carbonate aquifers. Grou nd Water, 7:15 21 These references wer e omitted from original. [Pages were not numbered beyond p. 10 in original report.]

PAGE 13

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 13

PAGE 14

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 14

PAGE 15

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 15

PAGE 16

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 16

PAGE 17

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 17

PAGE 18

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 18

PAGE 19

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 19 [Photos repositioned]

PAGE 20

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 20

PAGE 21

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 21 APPENDIX A The cave index has been arranged roughly in a north to south direction. Knowledge of the caves has been obtained from internal H.E.C. sources and from publications of the Sydney Speleological Society (S.S.S.). See Figs. A-1 to A-6 for location. Only H.E.C. photographs used

PAGE 22

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 22 APPENDIX A CAVE INDEX LOWER GORDON & LOWER FRANKLIN (See Figs. A 1 & A 2 for location) Sheet 1 of 11 HE C CAV E No. SSS No. GRID No. APPROXIMATE CAVE DIMENSIONS (m) CLIFF HEIGHT (m) ( approx .) HEC PHOTO No. SSS MAP No. HEC GS No. REMARKS L ength Height W idth ENTRANCE H eight W idth FRANKLIN RIVER CF 1 F49 986014 15 3 0.4 0.4 0.2 10 K728 8, 9 GS 774 Cave formation due to solution along major joint. 90/V F56 989989 60 + 1 5 2 4 2 601 GS 775 Entrance on prominent cliff on bend above Jane River junction; leads to complex of straight passages. CF 2 F57 12 2 2 2 2 15 K731 10, 11 K726 1 605 GS 776 10 m above river level. 3 entrances. Stalactites confined to 1 m. CF3 [F1] 980971 35 10 15 10 6 15 20 K726 S,8 GS 777 100 m west of H.E.C. hut near Flat Island, possibly 3 levels; creek flowing through present level 1. Abundant decorations. CF 4 F42 985961 25 3 1 2 2 3 4 K726 9 600 GS 778 Cave formation due to solution along major joint 21 5 /38W. Entrance just above river level 3 m wide at entrance, reduces to 60 cm 10 m wide. Sheet 2 of 11 F41 987956 30 1 2 1 1 1 629 GS 779 One entrance to a complex low, muddy breakdown caves largely filled with rubble and mud. F40 994947 15 1.5 2 1.5 1.5 604 GS 780 Small cave with A shaped entrance at river level; 6 m dry stream passage to righ t and 4 m up at left; po ssible shaft to surface. F39 995921 10 4 1 3 4 3 628 GS 781 Fern lined grotto; small stream; mud c hoke at back F38 995920 10 2 1 2 3 10 K727 1, 2 631 615 GS 782 'S' shaped passage 2 m in diameter, leading to sump 10 m in F37 991909 614 GS 783 Small cave just upstream of valley c ontaining F34. F34 990908 170 3 10 2 10 3 5 593 GS 784 170 m long cave with s tream passage, dry formation section and large bone deposit; also has lower (stream outflow) entrance into same valley (neither tagged). F34 is some 32 m back from Franklin River; invert e brates. Sheet 3 of 11 F35 990908 599 GS 785 Hole, 3 m down t o c h amber, mainly straws; 2 00 m be yond F34 along same d ry valley. Second entrance. F36 GS 786 No detail recorded; near F35. CF6 F33 987908 25 4 2 2 2 10 K727 3 613 GS 787 Cave formation due to solution along the major joint. Flowing wat e r. CF7 F32 984873 30 1 2 1 2 20 K727 5 598 GS 788 C ave is 1 m above river level; tufa deposit below e n trance CF8 F28 984869 50 4 1 5 3 K727 6 612 GS 789 Consists of 2 branches, could be in 2 levels. Cave due to solution along a major join t 2 15/ 90. F30 986869 GS 790 Small cave on right bank of stream flowing through F26, about 600 m upstream from back of Arch. F31 3 1 GS 791 Slot leading up to daylight on left bank of stream flowing into F26. c. 100 m upstream of back of F 2 6. F29 984869 10 2 4 1 3 4.5 3 603 GS 792 Large hole at river level below F27 but apparently not connected to F26 27. Sheet 4 of 11 F27 984869 20 1 5 2 4 602 GS 793 Entrance 2 m high, 4 m wide in .bluff 40 m upstream of F26; c. 15 m above river at normal low flow; connects with F26. CF9 F26 984869 30 15 10 15 5 20 602 GS 794 Creek flows through to join Franklin River; high level passage system leads to F2 7.

PAGE 23

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 23 FRANKLIN RIVER (cont.) F43 974863 12 2.5 2 5 2.5 2 612 GS 795 Upstream entrance to cave below arch (F44) on 'Verandah Creek'. F44 4 2 3 6 2 6 616 GS 796 Cl assic arch at centre on left bank of 'Veran dah Creek'. F45 974861 GS 797 Long, narrow meandering slot; carries small flow of water; c. 100 m from right bank of 'Verandah Creek', downstream of F44. F23 977860 GS 798 Impenetrable hole discharging w aterfall to river; 3 m above normal low flow level; on east bank, upstream side of bend above Verandah Cliff. F24 5 596 GS 799 Cave 5 m long just downstream of F23. Sheet 5 of 11 F25 973859 596 GS 800 Cave at downstream end of Verandah Cliff. F17 417 GS 801 Locate d d ownstream of Verandah Cliff. F18 596 GS 802 Small cave near F17. F19 GS 803 N arr ow cra ck in cliff be tw een F 17 and F18. F20 5 5 1 1 4 597 GS 804 Small 'double' cave in Verandah Cliff. F21 596 GS 805 Small, steeply inclin ed slot in dry valley be hind Verandah Cliff. F16 974852 591 GS 806 Steep but easily climbed entrance to F8 13 16 system; dolin e filled with horizontal scrub and fallen trees. F13 " GS 807 Steep sided hole connecting with F8 and F16. F8 " GS 808 Hole at bottom of doline connecting with F13 and F16. F10 590 GS 809 Hole; very steep sided doline; drops to water Sheet 6 of 11 F14 974852 590 GS 810 6 m long cleft dropping steeply 7 m to water; inland from F6. F7 4 GS 811 D rop of 4 m to choked crawl; inland from F6. F6 3 GS 812 Small hole with 3 m dr op to water; sumps; we tas. F5 2 GS 813 Impenetrable rising 4 m east of F4. F4 10 GS 814 Outflow stream cave c. 5 m long; ends in sump 30 m up a valley on rising of stream entering F9, etc. F12 974852 GS 815 Cleft with slope to pool, near F8. F15 975851 150 1 8 2 592 GS 816 Steep narrow slit dropping to downstream end of F3. F11 " " GS 817 Large steep sided doline giving access to main chamber of F3. Sheet 7 of 11 F9 975851 150 1 8 2 592 GS 818 Stream entrance to F3 9 11 15, c 4 m high, at end of steep sided valley. F3 " " GS 819 Side entr a nc e to major stream cave (F3 9 11 1 5 ) ; 150 m long FRANKLIN TRANSECTS CFT15 [**] 20 3 7 7 3 15 GS 820 At end of t ransect 3B; archway with creek flow ing o ut. CFT13 [**] 24 4 0.5 4 0.5 GS 821 60 m up transect 3A, cave parallel to the major joint 180 /V which caused it. CFT14 [**] 20 + 0.5 1 0.5 1 K810 2 GS 822 End of transect 3A, creek comes out of a tunnel. Another sinkhole 200 m u p the hill is dry, r un ning water. [?] CFT10 [**] 10 2 2 2 2 GS 823 350 m up transect 2; creek goes through a tunnel. CFT11 [**] 20 10 5 10 5 GS 824 Cave system, 800 m up Transect 2. Creek flows through m ain tunnel. 2 main branches exist. Cave formation due to solutio n along the major joint 270/90. Sheet 8 of 11 CFT12 [**] 20 3 1 3 1 GS 825 850 m up transect 2; creek disappears into a tunnel. Stalactites confined to 3 m.

PAGE 24

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 24 GORDON RIVER GS3 968836 2 416 GS 826 Small hole 2 m deep; blocked with mud and silt; eastern bank 200 m upstream of Franklin Junction. CG6 [**] 5+ 20 0.5 6 20 3 GS 827 A creek coming from a cavern flows through part of the cave leaving the remainder dry. Cave open at the surface. CG5 GS2 971805 5 1 4 1 4 20 K761 10 GS 828 Cave is mostly under water. CG4 GS1 973804 3 5 3 5 3 20 438 GS 829 300 m downstream of the Angel Cliffs. CG3 GS4 976798 30 4 5 2 7 3 4 K761 5 510 GS 830 At the junction of the Sprent River. Cave for the first 30 m then canyon for 60 m; 3 daylight holes in the cave floor inclined at about52 parallel to bedding. The canyon cuts across bedding at first, then me anders Sheet 9 of 11 CG2 [**] 15 + 8 1.7 2 1.7 15 K761 3 GS 831 A cavity 2 m high, 3 m wide exists towards the end; opening at the top; creek flowing through cave. Cave floor rises 0.5 about 5 m in from the portal. Flowing water. CG1 [**] 10 + 1 3 1 3 10 GS 832 Cave parallel to the major joint 165/18W. Also cavities 1 m/2 m parallel to beddin g. Flowing water. NR1 033713 520 5 5 5 1 509 GS 833 Flowing water; two down stream entrances on b anks of Gordon River; upstream ends in a tight day light hole; massive form ation in roof at one place; passages 5 10 m wide; 7 day light holes; wetas, harvest men, milli pedes, spiders, beetles present. NR2 15 6 20 6 10 15 20 511 GS 834 Entrance at high river level, large overhang with chambers. GORDON TRANSECTS Sheet 10 of 11 CGT7 [**] 5+ 1.5 3 1.5 3 K810 3 GS 835 2 branches; narrows inwards. Some stalactites near entrance. CGT8 [**] 5 4 2 GS 836 Sinkhole 450 m up Connelly's Creek. Contains a small cave on cliff face. CGT9 [**] 5 1 0.25 1 0.25 GS 837 650 m up Connelly's C reek. CGT10 [**] 30 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 GS 838 600 m up Connelly's Creek. Creek goes through a tunnel 30 m long parallel to bedding. MINOR FEATURES FRANKLIN & GORDON RIVERS Sheet 11 of 11 Joint Bedding HEC No. Grid Number Strike Dip Strike Dip CLIFF HEIGHT (m) (approx.) HEC Photo No. REMARKS M1 978027 0.2 0.5 K728 1 Flat valley with Gordon Limestone outcrops. Precambrian in the background. M2 984024 0.5 3 K728 2 Solution along joints roughly at right angles to the river resulting in cavities 0.7 m high 0.5 m wide. M3 988019 90 90 170 28NE 0.5 K728 3 S olution along joints roughly at right angles to the river causing cavities 0.25 m high, 0.4 m wide. M4 987015 0.5 K728 4 Flat dissected country. M5 985012 15 K728 10 Typical .solution act ivity. M6 983007 15 K731 4 Solution along intersecting joint & bedding planes resulting in torn off blocks. M7 984998 3.0 K731 6 0 .2 cavity parallel to a joint. M8 981992 38 V90 145 10NE 3 K731 8 Gordon Limestone overlie s the sand s tone of Butler Isla nd Formation. M9 985918 115 90 185 18N K726 10 Typical solution activity along the joints roughly at right angles to the river. ** Location omitted see note on p. 3.

PAGE 25

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 25

PAGE 26

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 26

PAGE 27

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 27

PAGE 28

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 28

PAGE 29

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 29

PAGE 30

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 30

PAGE 31

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 31 APPENDIX B Systematic Description of Caves [ NOTE: The cave record forms in this study were numbered GS 774 to GS 838. Those containing no graphical data (map or photo) and those sheets duplicating such data have b een omitted from this reprint. Remarks are also rec orded on these sheets; these are the same as shown in the 'Remarks' column in Appendix A. Omitted records are: GS No. Cave No. Note GS 786 F36 GS 790 F30 GS 791 F31 GS 793 F27 GS 796 F44 Same map as on GS 795 (F43) GS 797 F45 GS 798 F23 GS 801 F17 GS 803 F19 GS 807 F13 Same map as on GS806 (F16 also F 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 10, 12, 13, 14, 16) GS 808 F8 GS 809 F10 Same map as on GS806 with F8 1316 omitted GS 810 F14 GS 811 F7 GS 812 F6 GS 813 F5 GS 814 F4 GS 815 F12 GS 817 F11 Same map as on GS 816 GS 818 F9 GS 819 F3 GS 820 CFT15 GS 826 GS3

PAGE 32

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 32 [=F49]

PAGE 33

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 33

PAGE 34

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 34

PAGE 35

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 35

PAGE 36

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 36

PAGE 37

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 37

PAGE 38

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 38

PAGE 39

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 39

PAGE 40

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 40

PAGE 41

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 41

PAGE 42

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 42

PAGE 43

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 43

PAGE 44

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 44

PAGE 45

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 45

PAGE 46

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 46

PAGE 47

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 47

PAGE 48

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 48

PAGE 49

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 49

PAGE 50

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 50

PAGE 51

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 51

PAGE 52

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 52

PAGE 53

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 53

PAGE 54

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 54

PAGE 55

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 55

PAGE 56

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 56

PAGE 57

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 57

PAGE 58

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 58

PAGE 59

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 59

PAGE 60

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 60

PAGE 61

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 61

PAGE 62

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 62

PAGE 63

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 63

PAGE 64

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 64

PAGE 65

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 65

PAGE 66

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 66

PAGE 67

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 67

PAGE 68

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 68

PAGE 69

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 69

PAGE 70

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 70

PAGE 71

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 71

PAGE 72

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 72

PAGE 73

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 73

PAGE 74

Southern Caver, No. 64, December 2008 page 74