NCKRI REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 EVALUATION OF CAVE AND KARST PROGRAMS AND ISSUES AT US NATIONAL PARKSwww.nckri.org
This page is blank.
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 EVALUATION OF CAVE AND KARST PROGRAMS AND ISSUES AT US NATIONAL PARKSLewis Land George Veni Dianne Joop December 2013
2NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4Published and distributed byNational Cave and Karst Research InstituteDr. George Veni, Executive Director400-1 Cascades Avenue Carlsbad, NM 88220 USA www.nckri.org The citation information: Land, Lewis, George Veni, and Dianne Joop. 2013. Evaluation of Cave and Karst Programs and Issues at US National Parks. National Cave and Karst Research Institute Report of Investigation 4, Carlsbad, New Mexico. Cover photo: Skylight entr ance of Skylight Cave, El Malp ais National Monument, New Mexico National Park Service photo by Dale Pate. ISBN: 978-0-9910009-0-6NCKRI Organization and MissionNCKRI was created by the US Congress in 1998 in partnership with the State of New Mexi co and the City of Carlsbad. Initially an institute within the National Pa rk Service, NCKRI is now a non-profit 501(c)(3) co rporation that retains its federal, state, an d city partnerships. Federal and state funding for NCKRI is administered by the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (aka New Mexico Tech or NMT). Funds not produced by agre ements through NMT are accepted directly by NCKRI. NCKRIs enabling legislation, the National Ca ve and Karst Research Institute Act of 1998, 16 USC. identifies NCKRIs mission as to: 1)further the science of speleology; 2)centralize and standardize speleological information; 3)foster interdisciplinary cooperation in cave and karst research programs; 4)promote public education; 5)promote national and international coopera tion in protecting the environment for th e benefit of cave and karst landforms; and 6)promote and develop environmentally sound a nd sustainable resource management practices.NCKRI Report of Investigation SeriesNCKRI uses this report series to publish th e findings of its research projects. The reports are produced on a schedule whose frequency is determined by the timing of the investigations. This series is not limite d to any topic or fi eld of research, exce pt that they involve caves and/or karst. To minimi ze environmental impact, few or no copies ar e printed. Electronic copies of this and previous reports are available for download at no cost from th e NCKRI website at www.nckri.org .
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 3 TABLE OF CONTENTSList of Figures . . . .4 Introduction . . . . .5 Methodology . . . . 6 Survey Development . . . .6 Identification of Relevant NPS Units . . .6 Data Collection . . . .7 Data Analysis . . . .7 Survey Results . . . . 8 General . . . .9 Research . . . .11 Management . . . .13 Education . . . .17 Concluding Recommendations . . .19 Acknowledgments . . . .19 References . . . . .19Appendix A: Cave and Karst Survey Qu estions and Summary Results: General. .21Appendix B: Cave and Karst Survey Questions and Summary Results: Research .25Appendix C: Cave and Karst Survey Questions and Summary Results: Management. .33Appendix D: Cave and Karst Survey Qu estions and Summary Results: Education/ Interpretation . . . .43Appendix E: Cave and Karst Survey Questions: Instructions/Cover Letter. .53Appendix F: List of Park Units Known to Co ntain or Potentially Contain Caves, Karst, and/or Pseudokarst. . . . .55
4 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1Smoke-blackened shelter cave, Carlsb ad Caverns National Park, New Mexico .5Figure 2Locations of the 191 NPS park units identified by this study as containing or potentially containing caves, karst, and/or pseudoka rst . . .8Figure 3Mount Rainier, former home of the Paradise Ice Caves, Mount Rainier National Park, Washington . . . . .9Figure 4Entrance to Crystal Cave, Sequoia Nation al Park, California. . .10Figure 5Sandstone shelter caves of Pictured Ro cks National Lakeshore, Michigan . .12Figure 6Entrance of Church Cave, Kings Canyon National Park, California . .14Figure 7Replacement of leaking underground gasoli ne storage tank . .15Figure 8Cedar Sink exhibit at Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky . .17Figure 9Anemone Cave, Acadia National Park, Maine . . .19
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 5IntroductionApproximately 20 to 25% of the United States is karst, a terrain that is widely recognized for diverse natural and cultural resources and exceptional vulnerability to environmental degradation ( Veni and DuChene, 2001 ). Seven US National Park Service (NPS) units were established primarily to protect caves: Carlsbad Caverns, Jewel Cave, Mammoth Cave, Oregon Caves, Russell Cave, Timpanogos Cave, and Wind Cave. In 2001 Ek determined that 100 of the then 384 NPS units contained caves and karst. Not all contained significant cave or karst resources, but many did. Since 2001 there has been no further NPS-wide study of caves and karst resources. The NPS is actively developing cave and karst inventory and monitoring protocols (e.g., Baker et. al., 2013 ; Horrocks, 2013 ), but no comprehensive evaluation of cave and karst programs, activities, needs, and issues exists for NPS sites containing cave and karst resources. This study was designed to meet that need by conducting a survey from which the NPS may readily identify and prioritize research, remediation, interpretation, and other programs and activities to best understand, manage, and interpret these valuable resources. Exploration of and general attention to NPS caves is often focused on Mammoth Cave, Jewel Cave, Wind Cave, and Lechuguilla Cave (in Carlsbad Caverns National Park), which rank respectively as the first, third, sixth and seventh longest in the world ( Gulden, 2013 ). However, cave and karst significance is not solely determined by size (Figure 1). Many parks which are not generally recognized for caves or karst contain important caves and karst resources ( Veni and Pate, in press. ). Reliable understanding of caves and karst for effective management requires knowledge of their geologic settings. Karst is a landscape formed mostly by the dissolution of usually carbonate or evaporite bedrock. The longest, deepest, and largest caves in the world are formed in carbonates, us ually limestone, and are products of surrounding ka rst drainage patterns. Exceptionally long caves also form in gypsum. However, a crucial aspect to understanding and properly managing karst terrains is that they are often rich in natural and cultural resources, and highly vulnerable to environmental degradation, ev en in the absence of any caves. This study examines caves and karst because not all caves and related features are karstic. Pseudokarst collectively describes cavernous landscapes and features formed by non-karstic processes. Pseudokarst caves formed by wind, stream, and sea and lake erosion of cliffs, fracturing of rock and soil, and out-washing of sediment from under a cap of harder material are typically small compared to karst caves. Volcanic caves, notably lava tubes formed by the draining of molten rock beneath a cooled, solidified roof, can be long and complex (see cover photo).Figure 1. The smoke-blackened ceiling of this small shelter cave at Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico, suggests use by Native Americans and cultural significance. NCKRI photo by George Veni.In their most basic conceptual form, caves are space. Their value to society stems from what occupies that space. Water, habitat, geolog ical and cultural materials are a few of the many res ources offered by caves and karst areas, which contain many of the worlds most important aquifers, rare ecosystems, and significant archeological and paleontolog ical sites. This study identifies the general cave and karst resources of each NPS park that responded to the survey, research EVALUATION OF CAVE AND KARST PROGRAMS AND ISSUES AT US NATIONAL PARKSLEWIS LAND, GEORGE VENI, DIANNE JOOPNATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
6 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4conducted on those resources, actual or potential management issues for those resources, and how those resources are interpreted to educate the public. The purpose of the study is to do the following: provide the NPS with an updated list of all NPS units with karstic and/or pseudokarstic caves and terrains develop a comprehensive database with basic cave and karst information about the parks and their related resources evaluate the database for general trends in cave and karst research, management, and education/ interpretation identify the most critical needs in cave and karst research, management, and education/interpretation and provide recommendations on a general parkwide level and for specific parks provide the database in a format where it can be queried and filtered by the NPS to create custom menus of needs by topic, region, or park National park units that are specifically identified in the following discussion are used as both general and specific examples. Where those examples indicate inadequacies, mistakes, or fl aws, they are not meant to negatively portray the parks. We understand the limits in funding, time, resources, expertise, and staffing throughout many park units, and applaud the dedicated staff of the NPS for their excel lent efforts to understand, manage, and interpret all of their resources.MethodologyThe National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) conducted this study in four phases: survey development, identification of relevant NPS units, data collection, and data analysis Each phase is described below. NCKRI suggested that a questionnaire forwarded to all NPS units with potential for cave and karst resources would be the basis for collecting most data concerning these resources within the NPS. Survey Development NCKRI personnel met extensively with Dale Pate, then Acting and now fulltime NP S Cave and Karst Program Coordinator (Geologic Resources Division [GRD], Denver Office), and created a list of questions that would hopefully fulfill the purposes of this study. The questions were sent to selected park units (see next section below) and divided into four groups: General questions focused on basic information about each park unit, its purposes, caves, karst and pseudokarst areas, cave/karst related projects, and staff working on caves and karst. Research questions determined if cave or karst research had been or was currently conducted in the park and its results in the following categories: general, geology and hydrology, biology, archeology, and paleontology. Management questions related to known or potential impacts to cave and karst resources from within and outside of the parks, and were subdivided into the following categories: general, geology and hydrology/water quality, groundwater quantity, mineral resources, biology, archeology, paleontology, and recreation. Education questions were provided in two groups: karst education resources and karst interpretation resources; they were designed to collect information on wh at karst educational and interpretive resources were provided at each park and the degree of public participation. The number of questions and their specific content were designed to elicit key info rmation needed for GRD to effectively evaluate and support cave and karst programs at the park units. Subdividing the survey into four groups was aimed to reduce the workload on any particular staff member, to increase participation in the survey, and to allow specialists at each park to complete the sections of their expertis e to increase accuracy in the answers. The questions we re reviewed by and, following minor revision, approved by an independent NPS team for distribution. The complete sets of questions with summary replies are provided in Appendices A (general), B (research), C (management), and D (education). Identification of Relevant NPS Units In order to determine which parks to send the survey questions, NCKRI contacted the US Geological Survey (USGS) for geographic information system (GIS) digital files with the current version of the draft National Karst Map. While the map that was provided was not complete and had not gone through review for public release, it was far more complete, detailed, and accurate than previous maps of US karst distribution, and included areas of potential karst and potential volcanic pseudokarst. NCKRI also contacted the NPS for GIS files that contained the boundaries of all NPS sites. Because the USGS could not release its draft maps, it provided NCKRI a GIS file that showed park units intersected by mapped karst and pseudokarst areas. Using this GIS file, the intent was to determine the following factors, in the order listed: 1.the current number and names of NPS sites potentially containing caves, karst, and volcanic pseudokarst
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 72.the area of potential karst and volcanic pseudokarst at each NPS site 3.the percentage of each NPS site which is potentially karst or volcanic pseudokarst However, NCKRI discovered that some park units were not included in the GIS file and there was a difference between the sizes of some of the areas in the file and an NPS report ( National Park Service, 2011 ). Following additional research the NPS report was considered the more authoritative reference and was used primarily to determine the sizes of the park units. Analysis of the GIS data in comparison with the NPS report suggests a roughly 5% error in the areas reported in GIS, which indicates the sizes and percentage of karst and pseudokarst areas of each park are accurate at best to within about 5%. During NCKRIs final stages of completing this report (November 2013), the USGS provided NCKRI GIS information from the final version of the National Karst Map, which had gone through review and was awaiting publication. The information from that version is presented in the calculations of the parks karst and pseudokarst areas, although some interpolation was occasionally required. For example, large swaths of Everglades National Park extend below sea level; but since the sea floor is carbonate rock that was once above sea level and exposed to karst-forming processes, it is included as part of the parks karst areas. With other parks, especially with deeply buried carbonate rocks or volcanic terrain, the degree of geologic mapping is not always sufficiently detailed to identify which areas may contain karst or volcanic pseudokarst, so those areas were estimated based on the best data available. Several parks were included in the survey, not because of any exposed karst or pseudokarstic rock, but because Ek ( 2001 ) determined that cave and/or karst features were present or the parks had buried karst. In a number of cases in Florida and Georgia, the buried karst was the Floridan Aquifer, which is relevant to the parks as an important drinking water supply. Following the results from the initial GIS data, NCKRI staff reviewed with NPS personnel the list of NPS parks identified as containing caves, karst, or pseudokarst to identify additional such parks that may have been missed by the GIS exercise. Several were added, mostly sites with pseudokarst features, such as sea caves, shelter caves, and suffosion sinkholes. Data Collection On 18 April 2013, the letter in Appendix E was sent by email or conventional postal delivery to 196 park units identified as containing or potentially containing caves, karst, or pseudokarst. The letter described the survey and provided instructions for its completion, which was conducted online via the polling service Survey Monkey. Prior to sending th e letter, GRD contacted all NPS Regional Resource Chiefs to notify them of the study and encourage participation of the parks under their supervision. Shortly after the letters we re sent, NCKRI contacted GRD and received permission to send a new letter to all of the remaining 205 parks. Similar to the 18 April letter, this letter also included the following paragraph: Your park has not been included in that survey because we are not aware of any known or suspected cave and karst resources there. However, for verificati on and as the first nationwide survey of NPS cave and karst resources, we are sending you this letter and the enclosed self-addressed and pre-paid postcard. Please simply fill in your park s name and then check and return the postcard to indicate if you have any caves or karst resources at your park. If you do have such resources, then please read below and complete the on-line survey. If you are unsure or need clarification, please contact Dr. Lewis Land. Data Analysis At the end of the survey period, the data were downloaded from Survey Mo nkey and placed into an Excel file, as requested by GRD. The data were unfortunately not organized by Survey Monkey in a fashion that tied the answers to the parks that provided them, and they had to be reorganized for correlation. Most of the answers provided time stamps and other information that clearly identified which parks provided which responses. A few required phone calls and emails to the parks for verification. The Excel file was then examined for trends, commonalities, and notable replies for discussion in this report. Some general observations are made below, followed by only significant or potentially significant observations and recommendations. The menu structure of the Excel file allows the NPS to analyze the data in greater detail as needed. Give n the nature of this survey, quantifying the potential error in most the results is not generally feasible. However, some discussion is provided where it is appare nt that some answers are inconsistent or the respondents did not appear to understand the questions. Until roughly the past 10 to 15 years, karst science was rarely taught at US universities.
8 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4As a result, many scientists, technicians, and land resource managers are unaware or poorly informed about the unique character and fragility of karst landscapes. The results of the survey are contained in two Excel spreadsheets that accompany this report. Karst survey results.xlsx contains the survey responses from parks which replied. Some responses that are too extensive are linked to separate worksheets with the information. All parks that were identified by this study as containing or potentially containing caves, karst, or pseudokarst are listed in Karst and pseudokarst park areas.xlsx which lists the sizes of the parks, and the sizes and percentages of karst and pseudokarst within each.Survey ResultsOf the 205 park units that were contacted by post card, two completed at least part of the survey. In total, 56 park units responded to all or part of the karst resources survey, giving a response rate of 28.3% of the 198 park units that received a solicita tion to participate, including the two post card responses. After reviewing GIS karst and pseudokarst data, survey responses, and other sources, the following park units Figure 2. Locations of the 191 NPS park units iden tified by this study as containing or potentially containing caves, karst, and/or pseudokarst.
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 9that responded to portions of this projects survey were determined to contain no known or potential caves, karst, or pseudokarst: Fire Island National Seashore Homestead National Monument Jean Lafitte National Historic Park Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts Their survey responses are included in Karst survey results.xlsx but they are not listed in Karst and pseudokarst park areas.xlsx Additionally, the following parks were among the 196 initially contacted for this study as potentially having caves, karst, or pseudokarst. That was later determined not to be the case, though they did not reply to the survey, so they are also not included in either Excel file: Assateague Island National Seashore Rock Creek National Park Saratoga National Historical Park Upper Delaware Scenic Recreational River This study finally determined that 191 NPS park units contain or potentially contain caves, karst, or pseudokarst; the parks geographic details are provided in Karst and pseudokarst park areas.xlsx and summarized in Appendix F; their distribution is illustrated in Figure 2. Most of the park units with significant cave or karst resources responded to the survey, although there were some notable absences. We received no response from Craters of the Moon, Oregon Caves, or Timpanogos Cave National Monuments, or from Great Smoky Mountains, Guadalupe Mountains, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Parks. By contrast, we did receive responses from several small and probably understaffed park units, including Capulin Volcano National Monument, Hopewell Furnaces National Historic Site, and National Park of American Samoa. Valley Forge National Historic Park, along with several of the Civil War battlefield parks, provided surprisingly detailed responses. The general information section of the survey received 50 responses, more than any of the other sections. The management section received 45 responses, research received 40, and education/interpretation received 32. Three park units provided two or more responses to the management section of the survey, probably due to more than one staff member unknowingly responding; where their specific answers differ all responses are provided in the spreadsheet of data. General Fifty park units responded to the General Information survey (see Appendix A for summary replies to this part of the survey). Of these, 26 park units stated that their primary purpose or outs tanding resources were geological features within the park. Eleven parks listed biological features as their outstanding resource, 15 listed cultural or aesthetic features, and one park (Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area) listed recreation as its primary purpose. This question permitted multiple answers; biological resources were frequently listed as second in importance after geological ones. Of the 50 parks that responded to the General Information survey, 23 report ed known solutional caves within the park unit; 22 parks reported notable noncavernous karst features, including four park units that did not report caves. Sixteen parks reported either cavernous or non-cavernous pseu dokarst features within their park unit. Twelve parks reported the presence of pseudokarst caves, which were in most cases lava tubes; however, Denali National Park in Alaska reported that probably thousands of ice cav es are present within its boundaries (Figure 3). Several parks included rock shelters in their listing of non-cavernous pseudokarst. Twelve park units reported the presence of paleokarst features. Overall, 35 of th e respondents to the general information survey (70%) reported the presence of either cavernous or non-caver nous karst or pseudokarst within their boundaries. Figure 3. The glaciers of Mount Rainer, Mount Rainer National Park, Washington, formerly held the Paradise Ice Caves, once the most exten sive ice caves in the United States. Although glaciers still exist on the mountain, the caves have melted away due to global climate change. NCKRI photo by George Veni.
10 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4Eleven of the parks surveyed reported operating show caves (Figure 4), in most cases only one or two, although Lava Beds National Monument reported 22 show caves, far more than any other respondent. Seven parks also reported operating wild tour caves. Figure 4. The major management challenge for show caves, such as Crystal Cave, Sequoia National Park, California, is finding the balance between presenting caves in attractive, safe, and interesting ways, while maintaining the integrity of the natural environment. NCKRI photo by George Veni.Fourteen parks have caves open for recreational use, with Lava Beds again the lead er, with over 700 of their reported 780 pseudokars t caves available for recreational purposes. However, Dale Pate (personal communication, 2013) has noted that only one cave at Lava Beds meets the traditional definition of a show cave. The other 21 have some trail development, but for what is generally consider ed recreational caving. He also pointed out that while several parks have not officially closed access to a ll of their caves, that does not mean they are all open for recreation, but further explains that the Superint endents Compendium for Lava Beds National Monument indicates that unless a cave is posted as closed it is open to potential recreational use at that park unit. Eighteen parks, or 32% of the respondents, reported some type of active research project within the park unit. Most of these projects focus on exploration, survey or inventory. Twenty-six of the respondents reported having at least one staff me mber dedicated to cave and karst-related management issues at least part time, with Mammoth Cave reporting by far the most20 fulltime employees, either park staff or contractors and partners. On the other hand, 25 parks reported having no staff dedicated to cave and karst resources. General Observation 1 Seventy percent of respondents to the general information section of the su rvey report the presence of solutional caves, no n-cavernous karstic features, or pseudokarst within their park unit. Yet 50% of the respondents also report having no staff dedicated to management of cave or karst resources, either full or part-time. Meanwhile, some parks with cave management staff report an insufficient number of employees to adequately meet the parks needs. For example, Carlsbad Caverns National Park reported losing 50% of their cave resource management staff in the past few years, and it is unclear if those vacant positions will be filled. General Recommendation 1 Staffing for the management of cave and karst resources is lacking or insufficient in many park units. While it is clear with current funding le vels that all parks with caves and karst resources can not have staff dedicated to their management, the data collected from this study should be used by the NPS to prioritize which parks have the greatest need for staff dedicated to cave and karst management. Prioritization should not be based solely on the number or size of caves or the percentage of karst and pseudokarst, but also on the most urgent management needs. General Observation 2 A significant number of the responding parks indicate that they simply do not know the answers to some of the survey questions. In several cases, questions about the number of cave and karst resources within a park unit received responses such as unknown, none currently identified, or there was no reply. We suspect that in some cases a response of zero actually means that the respondent did not have the information available to provide an accurate answer. Examples of this basic lack of information include the following: Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, which reported unknown but numerous non-cavernous karst and pseudokarst features. Death Valley National Park, which reported the presence of 76 solutional caves within the park. Having provided that precise number, the respondent went on to state that the number of caves open for recreational use is simply unknown. Cape Krusenstern National Monument, which reported that caves in th e park need inventory; none have been currently identified, but karst terrain is present. White Sands National Monument, a park unit whose gypsum sand dunes are unique, world-class geological phenomena, reported that its outstanding
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 11resource is biological. White Sands also reported the presence of three solutional caves within the Monument. However, a follow-up phone conversation suggests that the respondent may have been referring to small sinkholes, not caves. In response to a question on paleontological resources at the end of the survey, National Park of American Samoa replied, We really know next to nothing about our caves, including not being sure any true caves exist under the thick tropical vegetation. This lack of knowledge of their karst resources often appears to be due to a park units lack of staff or funding. General Recommendation 2 Related to the previous recommendation, additional staffing remains a critical need for park units. While more employees are needed to manage these resources, park staff in general need to be aware of their existence. For parks with staff knowl edgeable about caves and karst, those employees should train or at least inform other staff about those resour ces on at least an annual basis. Many parks also occur relatively close to groups of organized cavers, who should be contacted to determine what assistance they may be able to voluntarily provide to find and inventory park caves and karst resources, consistent with their abilities and knowledge and with consideration of any sensitive park resources. General Observation 3 It appears from some of the ambiguous responses described above that the survey was not always sent to the most appropriate staff member. This pattern is repeated in the education, management, and research sections of the survey. Additionally, four surveys were not completed with Survey Monkey. As this report was being written, NCKRI hoste d a conference where staff from four parks that had not completed the on-line survey were present. They completed the survey on paper during the conference w ith the reference materials and knowledge they had readily available and reported never hearing that this survey was sent to their parks. General Recommendation 3 The NPS should directly cont act at least some of the non-responding parks to determine why the survey was not completed. Potential responses could include insufficient time/staffing, the survey was never received, and/or the topic wa s considered a low priority or not relevant to the park. Such responses could help the NPS gauge additional needs related to park staff understanding the importance of caves and karst, and improve participation and ef fectiveness of future NPS surveys. General Recommendation 4 Four other likely reasons exist for some of the ambiguous responses mentioned in General Observation 3: insufficient understanding of the terminology of the survey insufficient expl anation of the terminology in the survey insufficient NPS policy or documentation on the status of caves lack of knowledge or implementation of current NPS policies If the NPS follows up this study with more specific surveys, a glossary or parenthetical explanation of potentially unfamiliar terms should be included, such as show cave. The apparent diff ering view of caves open for recreational purposes also suggests that parks with caves of potential recreational interest should develop formal policies that define which caves are open to recreation and under what conditions. Research The research portion of th e karst resources survey received 40 responses (see Appendix B for summary replies to this part of the survey). Of those 40 parks, 33 reported caves of some sort within their park unit. One park (Effigy Mounds National Monument) reported no true caves, only rock shelters. Sixteen parks reported that they have a scientist on their resource management staff who works at least part-time on karst research. Most of those parks have just one or two working scientists on their staff, although Mammoth Cave reported nine staff scientists, with expertise in biology, geology, meteorology, history, and cultural resources. Of those 16 parks with working scientists, nine reported that biology was their primary area of expertise, six had a geological background, and one was an archaeologist. Twenty-one respondents reported they had surveyed the caves within their park units. However, the responses varied because, How many caves have been surveyed? was intended to refer to surveys of the physical geometries of the caves, but was not always interpreted as such. For example, Golden Gate National Recreation Area reported that 500 possible sea caves had been identified from aerial photos. Of the 21 respondents, 17 stated that cave inventories had been conducted in at least some of their caves, the majority for geological, biological and/or cultural resources.
12 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4Twenty-three respondents reported that geologic mapping had occurred within the park unit at some scale, ranging from 1:1000 up to 1:250,000. Twenty-two parks, or 55% of respondents to the research section, reported the presence of solutional caves within their boundaries, the vast majority formed in carbonate bedrock. Vol canic caves were a distant second, with six parks repor ting lava tubes, bubbles, rifts, etc. Four parks report ed the presence of sea caves, five reported tectonic caves, and eight reported talus caves. Two respondents reported the presence of glacial caves within their park units and two stated that they had no true caves, only rock shelters or bluff shelters formed by differential weat hering (Figure 5). Eleven respondents reported the presence of karst springs, although only six parks had delineated the drainage basins of some or all of those springs. Wind Cave and Carlsbad Caverns were the only parks to report any research on paleokarst features within their parks.Figure 5. The small sandstone shelter caves of Michigans Pictured Rocks National La keshore provide important evidence of modern and past lake levels in Lake Superior as well as refuges for aquat ic wildlife. NCKRI photo by George Veni.Thirteen parks reported that biological inventories had been conducted in at least some of their caves; four reported that microbiologi cal inventories had been conducted. Eight parks reported biological inventories of their karst springs. Sixteen park units stated that their caves had bats living in them, with species numbers ranging from one to twelve. Mammoth Cave and Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument were the only park units that had established ecosystem dynamics for the caves within their parks. However, the reports of 155 and 210 troglobites from two parks suggests the respondents did not understand the difference between troglobites and other less-a dapted cave species, even though the term was defined in the question, because such troglobite abundance would be highly unusual. Sixteen park units report ed that archeological inventories had been conducted in at least some of their caves; archeological data had been used to study paleocultures in the region in 10 of those parks. Nine park units reported that paleontological inventories had been conducted in at least so me of their caves; caves in six of those parks had been subject to paleoclimate investigations. Data from those investigations had been used to reconstruct the paleoenvironment in five of those parks. Research Observation 1 More than 82% of respondents to the research survey report caves of some sort within their park unit. However, 60% of the parks that responded have no scientists on their staff dedicated even part of their time to karst research. However, each sub-section of the research survey concluded wi th an open-ended question, Please describe any geological/biological/ archeological/paleontological topic unique or significant to the park unit not mentioned above. In most cases these questions received no reply, but a few parks provided remarkably detailed and intriguing narrative responses. In some cases these responses came from relatively small park units with little or no scientific staff. Wupatki National Monument, for example, reported on studies of how the earth cracks within the Monument breathe through various blowhole sites that are sacred to affiliat ed modern Native American tribes. Palynology of aeolian dust from one of the earth cracks is being analyzed to document long-term vegetation changes near the cave entrance. Valley Forge National Historic Park described an important discovery of Pleistocene fossils in on e of their caves during the late nineteenth century. Those fossils are now curated at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Research Recommendation 1 As noted in General Recommendation 1, the data collected from this study sh ould be used by the NPS to prioritize which parks have the greatest need for cave and karst research. Prioritization should not be based solely on the number or size of caves or the percentage of karst and pseudokarst, but also on research topics that may identify or answer the most urgent management needs. See Research Recommendation 2. Research Observation 2 Several of the park units report research conducted by outside investigators, including prestigious organizations such as the Smithsonian Institution, which
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 13performed paleontological surveys at Big South Fork National River in the 1990s. Research Recommendation 2 Given the limited or non-existent science staff in many of the park units, collaboration with outside investigators and institutions is critical to maintaining scientific research within the NPS. Universities, research institutes, caving organizations, and public research programs (e.g., Earth Watch) could provide excellent sources of volunteer research and pro bono analyses. Collaboration with lo cal, state, as well as other federal agencies, could lead to cost-sharing programs for research, especially where long-term monitoring is needed and may have results that extend beyond and/or into the park boundaries. For research that may have management implications and requires rapid analysis and results, the park should consider contracting with an organization that is knowle dgeable in caves and karst and the specific type of research needed. Research Observation 3 As previously mentioned in the discussion of general survey results, some cryptic, contradictory, and unlikely replies suggest that the research survey may not always have been sent to the most appropriate person on the park staff, and/or the terminology and concepts, even where defined in one case, in the survey were not familiar to or understood by some of the respondents (see General Recommendations 2 through 4). Management Fifty-six parks returned th e surveys (see Appendix C for summary replies), 45 completed or partially completed the management questions, several of which answered few questions. Eight of the 11 parks that did not reply (Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Fire Island National Seashore, Homestead National Monument, Manassas National Battlefield Park, Missouri National Recreational River, Natural Bridges National Monument, Point Reyes National Seashore, Wolftrap National Park for the Performing Arts) had few or no known caves, karst, or pseudokarst, or were focused on other issues; the exceptions were Russell Cave National Monument, Virgin Islands National Park, and White Sands National Monument. Following is a summary of the important observations in the answers and resulting recommendations. Management Observation 1 Some of the park staff are either unaware of karst in their parks and/or may not fully understand karst. For example, Katmai National Park commented, We have no known karst resources, so have trouble answering most of these questions, even though our use of USGS karst data to identify park units with karst or pseudokarst has identified that 50% of the park is karst and 2% pseudokarst. Effigy Mounds National Monument noted, There is no traditional karst in the park. Some limestone atop the bluffsbut no real karst. In contrast, karst geologists observe that it is exceedingly rare for limestone to be exposed without any notable degree of karstification. Management Recommendation 1 NPS staff who work at parks whose areas contain a significant percentage of karst and pseudokarst should receive training on the nature of karst and pseudokarst, the types likely to be observed in their parks, the types of management problems that are likely to occur in their parks, and at least general research tools and remediation methods to address those problems. An exact percentage of karst or pseudokarst is not suggested for identifying what is a significant percentage because other fact ors should be considered, such the significance of th e cave, karst, pseudokarst resources to the park and nationally. The training should be repeated every few years, with interim continuing education provided by remote training (e.g., webinars) and attendance by park personnel at relevant conferences and meetings. Management Observation 2 National Park of American Samoa and Stones River National Battlefield commented that because their caves are not advertised to the public and are difficult to find, that there is little need to protect them from trespassing or monitor them for impact. Stones River also commented, Our caveen trance is too small to access; it is not clear if they think the cave is too small for anyone to enter, in which case they cannot know that it is a cave, or if they th ink the small size of entrance will keep the public from entering. Remote locations and difficult entrances do re duce the potential for traffic into a cave but they cannot assu re it (Figure 6). Further, the impacts on a cav e cannot be determined if the cave is not visited. Many caves assumed safe for these reasons have been found damaged by unexpected visitors. Management Recommendation 2 A schedule should be developed for regularly inspecting all caves in a park with a priority listing for those most likely impacted by unexpected visitation. Factors such as importance of the caves re sources and the difficulty in finding and entering each cave should be considered in planning the frequency of the inspections.
14 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 Figure 6. A steep climb and the nearly-hidden, narrow, and rubble-blocked entrance of Church Cave did not prevent its discovery in Kings Canyon National Park, California. NCKRI photo by George Veni.Protocols for the inspection should be developed. Volunteer cavers may often be available to conduct the inspections on behalf of park staff at little or no cost. Management Observation 3 Cave and karst management plans are mostly developed at parks with major caves. However, karst is often overlooked by parks assessing their need for a plan. For example, Everglades National Park is 100% karst, but has no cave or karst management plan even though its main feature, water, is closel y tied to a karst aquifer (a draft General Management is being prepared for Everglades, but was not availa ble for review during this study to see if karst is considered). Management R ecommendation 3 All parks with a significan t percentage of karst or pseudokarst, or significant cave, karst, or pseudokarst resources, should establish management plans for those resources. If the park does no t have the staff or expertise to develop such plans, it should contract with an organization with that expertise and experience for outside assistance. This also applies to several of the following management recommendations involving specialized technical issues such as drainage basin delineation, water quality and quantity determinations, defining critical habitat, etc. Management Observation 4 Seven of the responding parks drain potential contaminants from outside of the parks and have not delineated those surface drainage basins: Antietam National Battlefield Buffalo National River Carlsbad Caverns National Park Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Effigy Mounds National Monument Pea Ridge National Military Park Wilsons Creek National Battlefield Ten of the responding parks drain potential groundwater contaminants from outside of the parks and have not delineated those groundwater drainage basins: Amistad National Recreational Area Antietam National Battlefield Buffalo National River Carlsbad Caverns National Park Catoctin Mountain Park Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Effigy Mounds National Monument National Park of American Samoa Pea Ridge National Military Park Wilsons Creek National Battlefield Nine of the responding parks drain potential contaminants from inside of the parks and have not delineated those groundwater drainage basins: Antietam National Battlefield Buffalo National River Carlsbad Caverns National Park Catoctin Mountain Park Coronado National Monument Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Everglades National Park Grand Canyon National Park Wilsons Creek National Battlefield Management Recommendation 4 The relevant surface and groundwater drainage basins of the parks in Management Observation 4 need to be delineated to evaluate their potential for contamination and to facilitate remediation if necessary. Management Observation 5 Some parks have sewage treatment, gasoline, and hazardous materials facilities located on karst. Management Recommendation 5 Parks that are completely or have a high percentage of karst should seek off-park and preferably off-karst
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 15locations for those facilities. Parks that have notable non-karst areas should evaluate relocating those facilities to their non-karst areas or off the parks (Figure 7).Figure 7. Hazardous materials storage facilities should be located outside of karst areas whenever possible, which in some cases may involve locations outside of the park units, such as this non-karst location where a leaking gasoline storage tank is being replaced. NCKRI photo by George Veni.Management Observation 6 The following parks indicate having water quantity issues but do not monitor groundwater volume, recharge volume, or gather information on water use and aquifer response: Amistad National Recreation Area Apostle Island National Lakeshore Carlsbad Caverns National Park Catoctin Mountain Park Grand Canyon National Park Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Lava Beds National Monument Mammoth Cave National Park Management R ecommendation 6 Parks that have at least indications of potential water quantity problems at a minimum should: measure the volume of karst groundwater used at the park; identify and quantify non-park groundwater uses that might affect groundwater within the park; quantify the volume of recharge into the aquifer both within the park and regionally; and monitor karst aquifer water levels. Management Observation 7 Most of the parks responding to the survey reported at least one type of past and/ or current extractive industry potentially impacting the park from within or outside of its boundaries. The variety of extractive industries and other geologically-related management issues for the parks is highly diverse. Management Recommendation 7 No specific recommendations can be made within the scope of this report on extractive and other geologicallyrelated management issues. However, all parks that report potential problems of this type need to develop karst management plans that can effectively address their specific issues. Management Observation 8 Bering Land Bridge National Park, Glacier National Park, Noatak National Park, and Valley Forge National Historical Park answered no to all biology questions but noted they actually did not have any information on this subject. Kenai Fjords National Park did not answer these questions also for lack of information, but plans to inventory its sea caves in 2015. The negative responses from some of the other parks may also indicate similar absences of information ra ther than absences of potential biological concerns. Management Recommendation 8 Many karst areas and caves ha ve proven to contain rare and endemic ecosystems, even from small and seemingly insignificant caves and aquifers. Biological surveys of all caves and karst and volcanic pseudokarst aquifers should be conducted to establish if any rare, endemic, threatened, or endangered species are present. Management Observation 9 The following eight parks report having threatened and/ or endangered species but state that the critical habitats have not been defined for their species: Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area Buffalo National River Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument National Park of American Samoa
16 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4Ozark National Scenic River Wind Cave National Park Management R ecommendation 9 The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) should be asked to establish critical ha bitat for the th reatened and endangered species found w ithin the eight parks noted in Management Observation 9. Management Observation 10 Seven parks reported having rare and/or endemic species and are not monitoring them: Amistad National Recreation Area Antietam National Battlefield Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area Grand Canyon National Park Lava Beds National Monument National Park of American Samoa Wind Cave National Park. Seven parks reported having threatened and/or endangered species a nd not monitoring them: Antietam National Battlefield Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area Grand Canyon National Park Lava Beds National Monument National Park of American Samoa Wind Cave National Park Wupatki National Monument. Three parks reported having rare and/or endemic species and exotic species are not monitoring for exotics: Antietam National Battlefield Buffalo National River Wupatki National Monument Two parks reported having threatened and/or endangered species and exotic species are not monitoring the exotics: Antietam National Battlefield Buffalo National River Management Recommendation 10 The parks in Management Observation 10 that are not monitoring their rare and/or endemic species should establish a monitoring plan to determine if those populations are stable or at risk; this includes monitoring the exotic species that might predate upon, compete with, or unfavorably alter the habitat. The parks that are not monitoring their threatened and/or endangered species should coordinate with the USFWS on monitoring as appropriate to the species recovery plans (if such have been written for each species) or other consultation, including monitoring for potentially deleterious exotic species. Management Observation 11 Several parks provided contradictory information on their biological status. Ca pitol Reef National Park, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, Catoctin Mountain Park, Death Valley National Park, Great Basin National Park, and Yosemite National Park answered that they had critical habitat defined, even though they also replied that they do not have threatened or endangered species for which critical habitat is designated. Capitol Reef National Park, Catoc tin Mountain Park, Effigy Mounds National Monument, and Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, stated they do not have endemic, rare, threatened, or enda ngered species, yet also answered that they are monitoring for them. Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and Natchez Trace Parkway also state they do not have exotic species but also answer that they are monitoring their impacts. Management Re commendation 11 The parks in Management Observation 11 should be contacted to clear up their status relative to cave and karst fauna and the database associated with this survey should be updated. Management Observation 12 Evaluation of the answers to the archeology and paleontology questions in this survey was limited by sensitivity of the subjects and not asking questions like, how many sites are known and, what types of monitoring and gates are in place. Also, at least two parks (Bering Straits National Park and National Park of American Samoa) noted that they answered no to the survey questions only because they have not inventoried their caves for these materials. Lastly, several of the parks in combination identified a diverse list of potential adverse impacts. Management Re commendation 12 Information on archeology and paleontology of caves in the national parks should be gathered separately through more secure means in order to obtain more detailed and meaningful results. Management Observation 13 Grand Canyon National Park has not determined the carrying capacity of its caves but believes it is being exceeded. Death Valley National Park answered that its carrying capacity was not ex ceeded but in a comment says a cave has been closed due to recreational impacts. The answers of six other pa rks with recreational usage of caves that are reported to not exceed the caves carrying capacities are invalid because they also report they have not established car rying capacities. Similarly,
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 17nine parks have recreational usage of their springs and none believe they are exceed ing the carrying capacity, but none have established the springs carrying capacity. Management Recommendation 13 Carrying capacities should be established for any cave or spring that is open to recreational caving or other usage and then managed to that limit, followed by monitoring to confirm the carrying capacity is not exceeded. Management Observation 14 It is not clear from the desi gn of the survey if all caves with recreational access have safety and rescue plans. Buffalo National River has safety and rescue plans for certain caves, but not a general plan for other caves in the park. Death Valley National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Natchez Trace Parkway, Ozark National Scenic River, and Wupatki National Monument have recreational use of caves but possess neither general nor cave-specific safety and rescue plans. Natchez Parkway adds a note that its one open cave for recreation is very shallow suggesting minimal risk. Management Recommendation 14 A general safety and rescue plan should be established for each park with recreationa l caving. Afterward, plans that are specific to certain caves should be written as needed. No cave, no matter how small, should be excluded from consideration and should be addressed at least in general in the general safety and rescue plan. Education Educating the general public about the environment is increasingly important with todays global society and its environmental issues. Increasing scientific knowledge allows individuals to engage in the greater conversation about climate or environmental issues. Sustainability of stewardship programs depends on an educated populace, because people will not value and protect things that they do not understand. Two documents were utilized as guides to analyze the education/interpretation portion of this survey as a basis for recommendations: the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (FCRPA) and National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis s strategic plan, A Call to Action: Preparing for a Second Century of Stewardship and Engagement, implemented on August 25, 2011 The survey data collected for cave and karst education and interpretive programming gives an overview of NPS programs, audience po tential, as well as identifying an area of need. Of the 56 NPS units that returned surveys, 32 units survey responses were completed for the education and interpretive section, with a 16% margin of error (see Appendix D for summary replies to this part of the survey). Twenty-nine surveys were completed el ectronically and two were completed manually. Two parks, or roughly 6% of the survey information, were cr oss referenced for validity by telephone interviews with park education and interpretive staff. In general, the telephone interviews clarified and offered greater de tail to the surveys. Since NPS educational and interpretive programming is framed around the natural resources and mission of the unit (Figure 8), it was important to cross-reference other parts of the survey for clarit y on the current status of cave and karst educational and interpretive programs. Following is a summary of the important observations and resulting recommendations. Education Observation 1 94% of the 32 responding units have a total of 4258 known cave or other non-cavernous karst features; this total differs from th e accompanying Excel file where the survey says Grand Canyon National Park has 2,500 caves and karst features but Dale Pate (personal communication, 2013) corrected this to 511 when he reviewed th e draft version of this report. 72% of the 32 units collectively provide educational programming for 153,050 visitors. 7.5% is cave/karst related or focused. 75% of the 32 units collectively provide interpretive programming for more than 16,200,000 visitors annually. 3.2% is cave/karst related or focused. 22% of the 32 units offer interpretive staff cave/ karst related training. 37.5% of the 32 units have collectively 797 caves open for public use through guided tours or recreational use. Of these park units: 100% provide education and interpretive programs. 75% of educational programming is cave related or focused. 83% of interpretive programming is cave related or focused. 92% have cave resource staff. 42% offer cave interpretive training. Education Recommendation 1 NPS educational and interpretive programming is a viable communication avenue for cave and karst resource management to utilize for public outreach and should continue to be supported and enhanced where possible. This recommendation is supported by the purposes of the FCRPA, whic h is to foster increased
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 18cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities and those who utilize caves located on federal lands for scientific, educational, or recreational purposes (16 USC sec 2), as well as a management action that calls for fostering communication, cooperation, and exchange of information between land managers, those who utilize caves, and the public (16 USC sec 4). Education Observation 2 The data from this survey indicate 72 to 75% of the responding park units provide interpretive programming; this number went up to 100% through telephone interviews and by examining park websites. Of those park units, 92% have cave resource staff while only 42% offer interpretive training on cave and karst resources. This low number may be at least partly attributed to communication between departments. For example, the initial response from Lava Beds National Monument indicated resource specific training was not offered, while during the follow-up interview the interviewee indicated such training is offered but conducted by interpretive staf f. Similarly at Carlsbad Caverns National Park, the survey completed stated there were no paleokarst features in the park while a telephone interview with an interpretive supervisor, who was not the person that completed the survey, stated such features are presen t and included in some interpretive programs. While th is could be a function of different staff interpreting the term paleokarst differently, as discussed previously in this report for other terms, increased or improved communication within the park could re duce or eliminate such confusion. Education Recommendation 2 Parks with at least notable cave, karst, and/or pseudokarst resources (not limited to parks featuring caves) should develop or support an education/ interpretation division position or shared position as a Figure 8. This exhibit at Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky, effectively conveys the conc ept of a karst window at Cedar Sink and how it is an integral part of an importan t groundwater drainage systems that extends far off the park. NCKRI photo by George Veni.
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 19science liaison to communicate cave and karst related resource, research, and management issues to the interpretive staff, develop cave and karst interpretive training, and assist the resource staff with public outreach. This recommendatio n is also supported by FCRPAs second management action, to foster communication between land managers, those who utilize caves, and the public (16 USC sec 4). This recommendation is also supported by A Call to Action which encourages all NPS employees and partners to commit to actions that will advance the mission of the NPS toward a shared vision for 2016. Director Jarvis envisions the second century of the NPS to connect people to the parks by helping communities protect what is special to them, to advance the NPS educational mission by strengthening the NPS as an educational force based on scientific scholarship, and to advancing the NPS Education Mission to strengthen the NPS as an education institution and parks as places of learning that develop American values, civic engagement, and citizen stewardship ( Jarvis, 2011 ).Concluding RecommendationsMany specific recommendations in the previous sections of this report can be broadly summarized by stating that most park units are underfunded and in some cases severely understaffed. As discussed above, in a number of cases the survey may not have been completed by the most appropriate person, such as a staff scientist, resource manager, education coordinator, or interpretive ranger, resulting in incomplete, inaccurate, or ambiguous respon ses. More than half of the park units that responded to this survey have no staff dedicated to management or research of cave or karst resources; thus we suspect that in many cases there may simply have been no appropriate staff person available. In such cases the survey may have been completed by an overcommitted superintende nt or office staff member with little time or resources to find the correct or complete responses to surv ey questions. Unfortunately funding and staffing decisions are ultimately dependent on legislative action at the national level. A lack of basic knowledge or understanding of the cave and karst resources within a park unit is a striking and recurring feature of all sections of this survey. This lack of information may reflect insufficient training for park staff, which again may result from limited staff and funding. This lack of knowledge may also result from poor communication among different departments within park units, a communications phenomenon referred to as stovepiping. Development of a liaison position to facilitate communication among the research, management, and education divisions could significantly improve knowledge of karst resources within park units. The NPS should consider additional and more focused surveys to enhance and follow on the results of this study. However, such studies should review this report to avoid limitations, definition issues, and other issues that may have also contributed to some of the ambiguous, contradictory, and absent replies to this survey. Several parks indicated that they were collaborating with external investigators, contractors, or volunteers to conduct research, education, or resource management within the parks. In ma ny cases, solid science and education is being done because of these collaborative efforts. Such external support and collaboration may be critical to maintaining cave and karst management, research and education program s in the near future and should be supported whenever possible (Figure 9). Figure 9. A field trip of biologis ts and geologists visit Anemone Cave, Acadia National Park, Maine, to both learn and share knowledge of the parks natural resources. NCKRI photo by George Veni.AcknowledgmentsWe wish to acknowledge the assistance of Dale Pate, National Park Service Cave and Karst Program Coordinator, and Dr. Dan Doctor, US Geological Survey, in preparing this report. Important project support was provided by Dave Steensen, National Park Service. GIS support was also provided by Dan Doctor, Mark Mansell, New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, and Tim Connors, National Park Service. We also appreciate all of the parks that took the time to complete this survey to help us better understand their cave and karst needs, but also those of national park units across the country.
20 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4ReferencesBaker G, Taylor SJ, Thomas S, Olson R, Lavoie K, Denn M, Thomas SC, Barton H, Helf KL, Ohms R, Despain J, Kennedy J, Larson D. 2013. National Park Service cave ecology inventory and monitoring framework. In: Land L, Joop M, editors. NCKRI Symposium 3, Proceedings of the 20th National Cave and Karst Management Symposium, p. 117125.Baker et. al.2013Ek DA. 2001. Caves and karst of the National Park Service. In: Proceedings of the 2001 National Cave and Karst Management Symposium, pp. 1632.Ek2001Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. 16 USC 43019.Federal Cave Resources Protection ActGulden B. 2013. Worlds longest caves. http:// www.caverbob.com/wlong.htm version date 14 October 2013.Gulden2013Horrocks R. 2013. The NPS cave visitor impact vital signs monitoring protocols. In: Land L, Joop M, editors. NCKRI Symposium 3, Proceedings of the 20th National Cave and Karst Management Symposium, p. 1270.Horrocks2013Jarvis, J. 2011. A Call to Action: Preparing for a Second Century of Stewardship and Engagement. National Park Service, 24 p.Jarvis2011National Park Service. 2011. The National Parks: Index 2009011. Washington (DC): US Government Printing OfficeNational Park Service2011Veni G, DuChene H, editors. 2001. Living with karst: a fragile foundation. Environm ental Awareness Series no. 4, American Geological Institute, 64 p.Veni and DuChene2001Veni G, Pate D. In press. National Parks: a refuge for hidden cave and karst resources. Dynamiques Environnementales.Veni and Patein press. Diverse textures, colors, and environments are clues to the many mysteries hidden in the beckoning darkness of caves. While many of the worlds greatest caves are on NPS lands most knowledge about them, their management, and values to humanity has yet to be discovered. NPS photo by Dale Pa te of the entrance to Braide d Cave, El Malpais National Monument, New Mexico.
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 21Appendix A: Cave and Karst Survey Ques tions and Summary Results: General1.Park unit name Replies 56 parks replied at least partly to the survey. 2.Park unit code: Replies 51 of 56 parks provided their code (NCKRI provided the missing five codes to the survey). 3.Primary purpose(s) or outstanding resources: geological biological cultural educational aesthetic recreational other (please specify) Replies 24 geological 30 biological 36cultural 11 educational 14 aesthetic 21 recreational 4other: 1cave, out of five responding parks with cave or caver n in their name 1historical event 1marine 1performing arts 3no reply 2.State: Replies 56 of 56 parks provided their states 3.Estimated size of the area of karst inventoried for karst features: Replies 20 parks with inventoried karst areas, ranging from 0.4 to 4,047 km2 per park 21 parks with no inventoried karst areas 4not applicable (NA) 2 unknown 8no reply 4.Number of karstic caves (please give specific number or closest approximation): Replies 24parks with estimated or known numbers of karstic caves, ranging from 1 to 2,500 per park 19 parks with no known karstic caves 3 NA 3 unknown 7 no reply 5.Number of notable non-cavernous karst features (e.g., sinkholes): Replies 22parks with estimated or known numbers of noncavernous features, ranging from 1 to 1,000 per park 20parks with no known non-cavernous karst features
22 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 43NA 4unknown 7no reply 6.Estimated size of the area of pseudokarst inventoried for pseudokarst features. (Pseudokarst refers to terrain with landforms that resemble karst but are not formed by dissolution of soluble rock.): Replies 22parks with estimated inventoried pseudoka rst areas, ranging from 0.12 to 80,000 km2 per park 20parks with no inventoried pseudokarst areas 3NA 4unknown 7no reply 7.Number of pseudokarst caves (e.g., sea caves, tectonic caves, lava tubes, etc.): Replies 12parks with estimated or known numbers of pseudokarstic caves, ranging from 1 to thousands per park 29parks with no known pseudokarstic caves 1NA 5unknown 9no reply 8.Number of notable noncavernous pseudokarst feat ures (e.g., shelters, earth fissures, lava pits): Replies 13parks with estimated or known numbers of noncavernous features, ranging from 1 to 432 per park 26parks with no known non-cavernous karst features 2NA 5unknown 10no reply 9.Are any paleokarst features known? (Paleokarst refers to ancient karst features unrelated to current geological processes.) yes no Replies 11yes 37no 8no reply 10.Number of currently active show caves: Replies 11parks with show caves, ranging from 1 to 22 per park 37parks without show caves 1NA 7no reply 11.Number of guided wild tour caves: Replies 7parks with guided wild cave tours, ranging from 1 to 3 tours per park 43parks with no guided wild cave tours 1NA 5no reply 12.Number of caves open to recreational use: Replies 13parks with caves open to recreational use, 1 to 700 per park 31parks with no caves op en to recreational use 1NA 2unknown 9no reply
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 2313.Do you have active cave research projects? yes no Replies 18yes 35no 3no reply 14.If so, what are the main purposes of the projects? exploration survey inventory science management interpretation NA (not applicable) other (please specify) Replies 6exploration 15survey 16inventory 11science 9management 3interpretation 10NA 0other 26no reply 15.How many park staff members (permanent, term, seasonal, or contractors/partners) spend at least part of their time working on cave and karst resource related management issues? Replies 26parks with staff working on caves/karst, ranging from 1 to 120 per park 25parks with no staff working on caves/karst 1NA 4no reply
24 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 25Appendix B: Cave and Karst Survey Ques tions and Summary Results: ResearchGeneral Section 1.How many scientists are on the resource management staf f who spend at least part of their time conducting research on caves and karst within the park? Replies 240 71 62 19 1unclear 17no reply 2.If any, what is their area of ex pertise (e.g., biology, geology, etc.)? Replies 4archeology, cultural resources, history 11biology/ecology, marine biology 1cave management 11geology, hydrology, paleontology 1meteorology 2none 5NA 32no reply 3.How many caves have been surveyed? Replies 170 41 420 711100 31010 2>300 1NA 19no reply 4.How many caves have been inventoried? Replies 170 51 420 911100 01010 2>300 1NA 18no reply 5.What do the cave inventories include? geology biology paleontology cultural resources other (please specify)
26 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4Replies 16geology 15biology 10paleontology 15cultural resources 6other: 2hydrology 1location 1mineralogy 1photo monitoring 1vandalism 30no reply 6.Do you have a cave inventory form or procedure? yes no Replies 11yes 29no 16no reply 7.If space permits, please copy and past e your inventory form or procedure into th e box below. Otherwise, please send a digital version to firstname.lastname@example.org, or mail hardcopy to Dr. Lewis Land National Cave and Karst Research Institute 400-1 Cascades Ave. Carlsbad, NM 88220-6215 Replies 5forms or procedures 1none 2NA 48no reply Geology and Hydrology Section 8.At what scale has geologic mapping been completed in the park unit? Replies 11:1,000 11:12,000 11:15,000 81:24,000 21:100,000 11:125,000 31:250,000 1various 3large/course 1none 1NA 4unknown 29no reply 9.How many karst springs are known in the park unit? Replies 210 610 24160 061380 2>380
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 274unknown 19no reply 10.How many of the springs' groundwater dr ainage basins have been delineated? Replies 220 32 15 1<12 131 2NA 2unknown 24no reply 11.What are the rock types that contain kars t and pseudokarst caves and related features? limestone or dolomite gypsum volcanic rock talus glacial ice other (please specify) Replies 21limestone or dolomite 4gypsum 5volcanic rock 2talus 1glacial ice 6other: 2sandstone 1various 1none 2unknown 26no reply 12.Has there been any research of paleokarst features in the park? yes no Replies 2yes 33no 21no reply 13.What types of caves occur in the park? solutional caves, formed by groundwater circulating through soluble rock (e.g., limestone or gypsum) volcanic caves, formed as lava tubes, bubbles, rifts, fissures, pits, etc. sea caves, formed by coastal erosion tectonic caves, formed by some type of ground movement, such as a landslide in jointed rock talus caves, formed in rock debris at th e base of a cliff or along a mountainside glacier caves, formed in a glacial ice mass other (please specify) Replies 24solutional caves, formed by groundwater circulating through soluble rock (e.g., limestone or gypsum) 5volcanic caves, formed as lava tubes, bubbles, rifts, fissures, pits, etc. 4sea caves, formed by coastal erosion 6tectonic caves, formed by some type of ground movement, such as a landslide in jointed rock 6talus caves, formed in rock debris at th e base of a cliff or along a mountainside 2glacier caves, formed in a glacial ice mass
28 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 42other: 2shelter caves 22no reply 14.Please describe any geological research topic unique or significant to the park unit not mentioned above. Replies 1cave meteorology/climatology 1cultural resources 1epikarst 2geomicrobiology 1hydrology 1microtopography 1paleontology 1rockfall 1sea caves 1speleothems as earthquake indicators 1stromatolites 1survey of caves is funded to start in 2015 1none 1NA 33no reply Biology Section 15.How many caves have been biologically inventoried? Replies 240 710 61140 19no reply 16.How many karst springs have been biologically inventoried? Replies 250 31 12 14 15 210 2NA 21no reply 17.How many caves have been microbiologically inventoried? Replies 330 11 22 17 19no reply 18.How many caves have bats? Replies 160 1010 21150 1140 1>250 1>350 1NA
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 294unknown 20no reply 19.How many species of cave bats are known? Replies 130 71 1162 1NA 4unknown 20no reply 20.How many different species of troglobites (cave-dwelling creatures that spend their entire lives underground) are known? Replies 180 610 31316 140 1155 1210 1NA 5unknown 20no reply 21.How many different species of stygobites (aquatic troglobite s who spend their entire life cycles in caves or karst systems) are known from cave streams? Replies 230 21 25 17 115 1NA 6unknown 20no reply 22.How many different species of stygobites are known from karst springs? Replies 250 11 12 115 3NA 4unknown 21no reply 23.How many different species of stygobites are known from springs in lava fields? Replies 280 3NA 1unknown 24no reply 24.Have the ecosystem dynamics been esta blished for caves within the park unit? yes no
30 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4Replies 2yes 34no 20no reply 25.Please describe any biological research topic unique or significant to the park unit not mentioned above. Replies 1microbiological inventory 1needs inventory 2sampling of aquifer fauna 1sampling of spring fauna 1study of carbon dioxide, methane, and environmental DNA to track rare species 1study of cave fish in solution holes 1study the effects of lampenflora 1White-nose Syndrome 1NA 49no reply Archeology Section 26.How many caves have been archeologically inventoried? Replies 170 1010 31735 36080 1NA 1unknown 21no reply 27.How many caves contain historical cultural materials? Replies 180 41 22 14 16 150 1100 1NA 4unknown 23no reply 28.How many caves contain prehistoric cultural materials? Replies 170 815 146 171 1500 1NA 4unknown 23no reply 29.Have data from the caves been used to study the paleocultures of the park unit? yes no
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 31Replies 10yes 21no 25no reply 30.Please describe any archeological re search topic unique or significant to the park unit not mentioned above. Replies 1develop archeological protocols 1DNA analysis of organic materials 1document agricultural materials 1document cave ceremonial practices 1investigation of air flow in sacred earth cracks 1excavation 1shelter caves used for habitat and burial 1stabilization of cultural materials 1NA 50no reply Paleontology Section 31.How many caves have been paleontologically inventoried? Replies 250 61 210 116 2unknown 20no reply 32.How many caves contain recent paleontological materials? Replies 210 21 112 130 24245 1360 1NA 4unknown 23no reply 33.How many caves contain Pleistocene or older paleontol ogical materials (not including fossils in bedrock)? Replies 200 31 12 14 110 112 1NA 5unknown 23no reply 34.How many of the caves have been subject to paleoclimate investigations? Replies 280 41 12 110
32 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 41unknown 21no reply 35.Have data from the caves been used to study the paleoenvironment of the park unit? yes no Replies 6yes 27no 23no reply 36.Please describe any paleontological research topic unique or significant to the park unit not mentioned above. Replies 1excavations prior to inundation by a dam 1palynology study of earth cracks to evaluate changes in vegetation 1relocation effort of lost paleontology cave
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 33Appendix C: Cave and Karst Survey Ques tions and Summary Results: ManagementGeneral Section 1.Are any caves within the park unit monitored for trespassing or other impacts? yes no Replies 20yes 24no including Wind Cave National Park 12no reply 2.If so, for what types of impacts? recreational archeological paleontological biological geological general vandalism White-nose Syndrome NA (not applicable) other (please specify) Replies 14recreational 11archeological 6paleontological 8biological 9geological 18general vandalism 12White-nose Syndrome 12NA 1other: 1tours 24no reply 3.If so, by what means are the caves monitored? regular visitation cameras alarms NA other (please specify) Replies 17regular visitation 7cameras 2alarms 16NA 5other: 2irregular visitation 1only monitoring archeological sites in rock shelters 1infrared counters 1cave registers 20 no reply
34 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 44.Are the impacts mapped? yes no Replies 10yes 29no 17no reply 5.Are there management plans specific to the park unit's cave and karst resources? yes no Replies 15yes 30no 11no reply 6.Are park visitors provided with any formal or informal information on methods to decrease the chances of contaminating cave or karst resources? yes no Replies 14yes, mostly on White-nose Syndrome 29no 13no reply Geology and Hydrology/Water Quality Section 7.Have the surface water drainage basins flowing from ou tside the park unit onto kars t within the park been delineated? yes no Replies 10yes, mostly where hydrology is important, although Buffalo River replied no 31no 15no reply 8.Do urban, industrial, sewage, landfill, or other poten tial sources of surface water co ntamination occur in those non-park areas? yes no Replies 16yes 26no 14no reply 9.Have the groundwater drainage basins flowing from outside the park unit into karst aquifers in the park been delineated? yes no Replies 9yes 34no 13no reply 10.Do urban, industrial, sewage, landfill, or other poten tial sources of karst groundwater contamination occur in those non-park areas? yes no
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 35Replies 17yes 23no 16no reply 11.Are the groundwater drainage basins for karst springs within the park unit delineated? yes no Replies 12yes 32no 12no reply 12.Do sewage facilities, buildings, roads, and other poten tial sources of karst groundwater contamination occur in those park areas? yes no Replies 16yes 26no 14no reply 13.Do facilities exist to treat parking lot runoff in or upstream of karst areas? yes no Replies 7yes 35no 14no reply 14.Are sewage treatment f acilities located on karst? yes no Replies 11yes 31no 42no reply 15.Are gasoline stations or othe r facilities that store hazardous materials located on karst? yes no Replies 14yes 27no 15no reply 16.How many caves and sinkholes are unrestored old trash dumps? Replies Five parks contain such dumps, with generally one or two caves each. Some parks are not certain if such dumps occur or not; Mammoth Cave National Park notes there are no cave dumps in the park but several nearby outside of the park. 17.Is groundwater quality monitored at the park? yes no Replies 28yes 16no 12no reply 18.If so, where? wells
36 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 springs streams cave streams other (please spsecify) Replies 24wells 16springs 16streams 7cave streams 2other: 1 cave pool 1marsh 19.Are any water quality issues currently known with respect to the park's karst groundwater? yes no Replies 11yes 32no 13no reply Groundwater Quantity Section Please indicate unit of measurement. 20.What is the volume of park use of groundwater? 3parks using karst groundwater in quantified vo lumes: 1 mgd, 2 mgd, and million gallons 20parks using karst groundwateer but in unknown and unquantified volumes 11parks not using karst groundwater 22no reply 21.Is there non-park use of karst groun dwater outside of the park which is or might significantly affect karst groundwater resources within the park unit? yes no Replies 9yes 19no 14unknown 14no reply 22.What is the volume of karst groundwater recharge? Replies 3known quantified volumes 80 recharge, all non-karstic or pseudokarstic except for Everglades National Park 16unknown 29no reply 23.Is groundwater quantity monitored at the park? yes no Replies 15yes 26no 15no reply 24.If so, please indicate the types of sites monitored and the number of monitoring stations per site type. wells springs streams cave streams
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 37 other (please specify) Replies 8wells 7springs 8streams 2cave streams 2other: 1 cave pool 1other 25.Are any water quantity issues currently known with respect to the park's karst groundwater? yes no Replies 11yes 30no 15no reply Mineral Resources Section 26.What current or past extractive miner al industries operate within the park unit's karst areas, or in areas where they may impact karst (e.g., oil and gas dr illing, surface or underg round mining, other)? Replies Some of the following were not provided for this question but question #28. Some parks replied with more than one industry. 13none known 7stone/gravel quarries 6oil and gas 13minerals 27.Please indicate the distance from the park of extractive industries located outside the park's boundaries. Replies 20within 10 miles (most within two miles) 4>10 miles 28.Please describe any geological management topic unique or significant to the park unit not mentioned above. Replies Agricultural runoff Cave microclimate Climate change Dam leakage Hypogene caves Nuclear testing and storage Permafrost Rockfall in cave Subsidence Surface water and groundwater control structures Volcanic hazards Some replies duplicated previous information or did not relate to the question. Biology Section 29.Are rare or endemic species known in the park unit's caves, karst sp rings, and/or lava field springs? yes no Replies 21yes 19no 16no reply
38 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 430.Are threatened and/or endangered species known in the pa rk units caves, karst springs, and/or lava field springs? yes no Replies 12yes 28no; Grand Canyon answered no but indicated the us e of caves by an endangered species in reply to question #35. This is accounted for in the above count. 16no reply 31.Has critical habitat been defined for the threatened and/or endangered species? yes no Replies 10yes 11no 18NA 17no reply 32.Is the ecological status of rare, endemic, or threatened/endangered species monitored? yes no Replies 17yes 7no 15NA 17no reply 33.Are exotic species or other advers e impacts known at the park units cav es, karst springs, and/or lava field springs? yes no Replies 11yes 27no 1NA 17no reply 34.Are those adverse impacts monitored? yes no Replies 10yes 27no 1NA 18no reply 35.Please describe any biological management topic unique or significant to the park unit not mentioned above. Replies Flooding from dammed lake Green techniques used to rebuild turf Invasive species management not related to karst species Possible candidate species at Death Valley National Parl following further study Species extirpation Threatened and endangered species in Everglades National Parl th at are not related to the karst White-nose Syndrome
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 39Archeology Section 36.Does access to any caves require co ordination with cultural groups? yes no Replies 6yes 34no 16no reply 37.Are adverse impacts to cultural materials known at caves within the park unit? yes no Replies 7yes 32no 17no reply 38.Are there any trespass issues with caves containing cultural materials? yes no Replies 10yes 30no 16no reply 39.Please describe any archeological management topic unique or significant to the park unit not mentioned above. Replies Cultural sites known but not in caves or karst features Deterioration of historic structures in caves Insufficient staff and funding to work on cultural resources Many caves already looted Need for protection/management of exposed cultural materials Some materials known but inadequately inventoried Threats by water levels in dammed lake Paleontology Section 40.Are adverse impacts to paleon tological materials known at caves within the park unit? yes no Replies 3yes 38no 15no reply 41.Are there any trespass issues with cav es containing paleontological materials? yes no Replies 5yes 35no 16no reply 42.Please describe any paleontological management topic unique or significant to the park unit not mentioned above. Replies Burning of ground sloth den Cave gated to protect paleontological site Inadvertent damage by cave visitation Insufficient funding to suppor t monitoring of cave resources
40 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4Monitoring needed for bedrock fossils Quarrying exposed sinkhole with Pleist ocene materials at Valley Forge National Historical Park, later filled with asbestos waste and lost; should be re located, cleaned up, and then studied. Recreation Section 43.Is there any recreational use of caves within the park unit? yes no Replies 11yes 29no 16no reply 44.Have carrying capacity limits been defined for those caves? yes no Replies 3yes 35no or NA 38no reply 45.Are the carrying capacity lim its for these caves being exceeded or nearly exceeded? yes no Replies 1yes, Grand Canyon National Park 36no 19no reply 46.Is there any recreational use of karst and/ or lava field springs within the park unit? yes no Replies 9yes 29no 18no reply 47.Have carrying capacity limits been defined for those karst and/or lava field springs? yes no Replies 0yes 38no 18no reply 48.Are the carrying capaci ty limits for these springs being exceeded or n early exceeded? yes no Replies 0yes 36no 20no reply 49.Is there a general safety and rescue plan for caves within the park unit? yes no Replies 8yes 29no 19no reply
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 4150.Is there a safety and rescue plan for specific caves? yes no Replies 9yes 29no 18no reply 51.Please describe any recreational management topic uniqu e or significant to the park unit not mentioned above. Replies American Samoa has few visitors and believes no one coul d find their caves. Glacier NP also cites low visitation and difficult location, but concludes it results in low visitation. Amistad is developing a cave management plan before allowing access. Gran d Canyon emphasizes it needs one. Capulin has insufficient staff and funding to handle recreational cave use. Cave trail conditions. Stones River NB allows visitors to walk through historic stone labyrinth. Wupatki NM has a deep vertical entrance close to popular trails. They do not think it is causing problems, but recognize they should be monitored to be certain.
42 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 43Appendix D: Cave and Karst Survey Ques tions and Summary Results: Education/InterpretationKarst Education Resources Section 1.Does the park unit have an education specialist? yes no Replies 24yes 9no 24no reply 2.Is your education program associat ed with an NPS education center? yes no Replies 7yes 23no 26no reply 3.If so, please describe the type of education center. Replies 1Civil War 1Crown of the Continent Research Learning Center 1 in development 1Howland Hill Outdoor School and Wolf Creek Education Center 1Learning Center of the Southwest 1Mammoth Cave Science and Learning Center 1Murie Science and Learning Center 1NA 48no reply 4.Is your education program associat ed with a non-NPS education center? yes no Replies 4yes 26no 26no reply 5.If so, please describe the type of education center. Replies 1unnamed community environmental education center 1Glacier Institute and Crown of the Continent Consortium 1 SHUMLA and local public schools 1American Samoa Department of Education 2NA 50no reply 6.How many education programs does the park unit offer? 0 10 1120 2130 >30 NA (not applicable) U (unknown)
44 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4Replies 00 910 51120 12130 12>30 2NA 2unknown 25no reply 7.How many of those education programs mention caves? 0 10 1120 2130 >30 NA U Replies 120 910 11120 12130 2>30 4NA 1U 26no reply 8.How many of those education programs mention karst? 0 10 1120 2130 >30 NA (not applicable) U (unknown) Replies 150 910 01120 02130 1>30 4NA 1U 26no reply 9.How many of those education programs are specifically focused on caves? 0 10 1120 2130 >30 NA (not applicable) U (unknown) Replies 190 510
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 4501120 12130 1>30 4NA 0U 26no reply 10.How many of those education programs are specifically focused on karst? 0 10 1120 2130 >30 NA (not applicable) U (unknown) Replies 180 510 11120 12130 0>30 5NA 1U 25no reply 11.Please list which topics are addressed by the education programs on caves. Replies 1bats, White-nose Syndrome, migration/hibe rnation patterns, importance of hibernation 1biological resources and cave ethics 1cultural and natural history 1endangered species in cave 1hydrology/connection with the surface 2lava tube geology 1Stories in Rocks program includes karst and sinkholes. 1To protect caves at park, they are deli berately not mentioned to the public. 4none 3NA 40no reply 12.Please list which topics are addresse d by the education programs on karst. Replies 1hydrology/connection with the surface 1water quality and riparian protection 1hydrology, water conservation, importance of karst to desert water supply 1cave origin and biological and cultural use 1geology, management, and karst areas around the world 1geology 5 none 3NA 42no reply 13.What is the average annual number of students who attend total park education programs? 0 10 1120 2150 51100 1010
46 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 2010 50100 10010,000 >10,000 NA U Replies 00 010 01120 22150 051100 11010 02010 350100 1510010,000 2>10,000 2NA 7U 24no reply 14.What is the average annual number of students who attend cave education programs? 0 10 1120 2150 51100 1010 2010 50100 10010,000 >10,000 NA U Replies 130 010 01120 02150 151100 01010 22010 250100 210010,000 1>10,000 7NA 4U 24no reply 15.What is the average annual number of students who attend karst education programs? 0 10 1120 2150 51100 1010
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 47 2010 50100 10010,000 >10,000 NA U Replies 130 010 01120 02150 051100 11010 12010 350100 110010,000 0>10,000 6NA 7U 24no reply 16.What year did education programs begin on caves in your park? Replies 11975 11980 11986 11988 21998 12004 12006 12007 12011 13NA 33no reply 17.What year did education programs begin on karst in your park? 11980 11986 11988 11998 12002 12004 12006 12008 12011 14NA 1U 32no reply 18.Please describe any education topic unique or significant to the park unit not mentioned above. Replies 1cave simulation exhibit 1cultural resources, geology, biological and land use management 1exploration history 1GIS project with local high school 1use of mines by bats 1Samoan culture
48 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 41too many to list, but none on caves/karst because caves/kar st not yet identified in park 1underground waterways, impacts of caves /karst on native people and vice versa 2none 2NA 44no reply Karst Interpretive Resources Section 19.What is the park unit's primary interpretive focus? Replies 21archeological and cultural resources, cultural history 1bats 20biology, ecology, marine/terrestrial resources, natural history, wildlife 4caves 10geology, glaciology, volcanism 1karst 3land management and stewardship 1outreach 1recreation 25no reply 20.Does the park unit offer training on caves and karst for its interpretive staff? yes no Replies 8yes 23no 1NA 24no reply 21.How many of the park's interpretive programs mention caves? 0 10 1120 2130 >30 NA U Replies 130 910 01120 12130 3>30 5NA 1U 24no reply 22.How many of the park's interpretive programs mention karst? 0 10 1120 2130 >30 NA U Replies 150
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 49710 01120 12130 2>30 5NA 2U 24no reply 23.How many of those programs are specifically focused on caves? 0 10 1120 2130 >30 NA U Replies 180 710 01120 02130 2>30 4NA 2U 23no reply 24.How many of those programs are specifically focused on karst? 0 10 1120 2130 >30 NA U Replies 200 510 01120 02130 1>30 5NA 0U 25no reply 25.What methods are used to interpret caves? signage tours lectures website printed materials audiovisual materials social media (e.g., Facebook) other (please specify) Replies 9signage 7tours 4lectures
50 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 47website 10printed materials 7audiovisual materials 6social media (e.g., Facebook) 12other: 2artificial cave 3displays, exhibits, models/replicas 2none 5NA 38no reply 26.What methods are used to interpret karst? signage tours lectures website printed materials audiovisual materials social media (e.g., Facebook) other (please specify) Replies 4signage 5tours 4lectures 4website 6printed materials 5audiovisual materials 4social media (e.g., Facebook) 10other: 1exhibits 1indirect mention from historical program 4none 4NA 37no reply 27.Do any of the park's interpretive programs discuss paleokarst in the park? yes no Replies 3yes 27no 1U 25no reply 28.What is the average annual numbe r of people who attend interpretiv e programs offered by the park unit? 0 100 10100 10010,000 10,00100,000 >100,000 NA U Replies 10 0100 110100
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 51610010,000 1110,00100,000 6>100,000 2NA 4U 25no reply 29.What is the average annual number of people who attend inte rpretive programs focused on caves? 0 100 10100 10010,000 10,00100,000 >100,000 NA U Replies 130 1100 310100 210010,000 110,00100,000 2>100,000 6NA 3U 25no reply 30.What is the average annual number of people who attend inte rpretive programs focused on karst? 0 100 10100 10010,000 10,00100,000 >100,000 NA U Replies 150 0100 210100 210010,000 110,00100,000 1>100,000 6NA 3U 26no reply 31.If the park unit has interpretive programs that mention caves, please list wh ich topics are addressed. Replies 4bats, White-nose Syndrome 6cave biology, habitat, importance 8cave exploration, safety, conservation, ethics, caving trips 6cave resources, minerals, pale ontology, importance to humans 3cave types, origins 1chemistry 2conservation 7cultural resources, pre-history, history, nitre mining
52 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 44geology 2water 5NA 38no reply 32.If the park unit has interpretive programs that mention karst, please list which topics are addressed. Replies 1biology 2geology 3history 6hydrology 6karst origin, distribution, types 3management 9NA 38no reply 33.What year did interpretive programs begin on caves in your park? Replies 11903 11923 11941 1decades ago 11975 11990s 11998 12011 10NA 36no reply 34.What year did interpretive progra ms begin on karst in your park? Replies 1decades ago 11960s or 1970s (but before 1979) 11986 11998 12002 12008 12011 10NA 1U 38no reply 35.Please describe any interpretation topic unique or significant to the park unit not mentioned above. Replies 2bats, regional ecology 4cultural resources and history 2hydrology 2none (one program just ended with recent budget cuts) 5NA 45no reply
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 53Appendix E: Cave and Karst Survey Questions: Instructions/Cover LetterApril 18, 2013 Dear Park Manager, The National Cave and Karst Resear ch Institute, under co ntract with the Nation al Park Service, is conducting a survey to assess the status and extent of knowledge of cave and karst resources within National Park Service units. This survey is be ing sent to all park units identified as having at least the potential for cave and karst resources, based on the location of the park unit on limestone, gypsum, or volcanic bedrock, or do cumented or anecdotal evidence of caves and/ or karst within that park unit. This survey and subsequent report will help th e Geologic Resources Divisi on/NPS understand more fully the extent of cave and karst resources within NPS units, identify critical resource issues and missing data-gaps, learn more about educational and interpretive opportunities parks provide, and determine long-term support needs for parks an d regions with cave an d karst resources. We have thus divided the survey into four categor ies: general information, research, management, and education and interpretation. We are using the online service Survey Monkey to collect this information. You may access the individual questionnaires through the following links: General information: https:// www.surveymonkey.com/s/KVSVY8X Management: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KV2KVG8 Education and interpretation: http s://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FZNHWZL Research: https://www.su rveymonkey.com/s/KVNT2B5 Note that some of the surveys appear on-s creen on more than one page, and subsequent pages can be accessed by clicking the next ic on at the bottom of the page. In some cases, your response to the survey may be that there are no known cave or karst resources within your park unit, which in itself is useful information. Please double-check your answers before clicking done, after which you will not be able to revise your survey. We encourage you to assign the most appropriate pe rson or persons on your staff to answer the different sections of the survey. If your answers require a more detail ed response that will not fit in the text boxes provided, you may send that information to Dr. Lewis Land at email@example.com, or contact him at 575-887-5508. For questions or other information needs on the NPS Cave and Karst Program, contact Dale Pate by phone at 303-969-2635 or by email at: firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you very much for participating in this survey. Please complete it by June 24, 2013. We will send receipts acknowledging receipt of your surv ey after that date. We look forward to your response. George Veni, Ph.D. Executive Director
54 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 55Appendix F: List of Park Units Known to Contain or Potentially Contain Caves, Karst, and/or Pseudokarst (see Karst and Pseudokarst Park Areas.xlsx for complete information)Park (Parks shaded in olive replied to survey.) States and territories Percent karst Percent pseudokarst Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic SiteKentucky 36 0 Acadia National Park Maine 0 0 Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Hawaii NA NA Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument Texas 100 0 Allegheny Portage Railroad National Historic Site Pennsylvania 3 0 Amistad National Recreation Area Texas 100 0 Aniakchak National Monument and PreserveAlaska 0 4 Antietam National Battlefield Maryland 100 0 Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Wisconsin 0 0 Arches National Park Utah 46 0 Badlands National Park South Dakota 0 79 Bandelier National Monument New Mexico 0 0 Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Alaska 7 57 Big Bend National Park Texas 23 0 Big Cypress National Preserve Florida 100 0 Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area Tennessee 4 0 Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Montana 50 0 Biscayne National Park Florida 100 0 Blue Ridge Parkway North Carolina 5 0 Bluestone National Scenic River West Virginia 0 0 Brown vs. Board of Education National Historic SiteKansas 0 0 Bryce Canyon National Park Utah 0.4 0 Buck Island Reef National Monument Virgin Islands100.0 0 Buffalo National River Arkansas 83.09 0 California National Historic Trail multiple NA NA Canaveral National Seashore Florida 10.2 0 Canyon de Chelly National Monument Arizona 33.2 0
56 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4Canyonlands National Park Utah 27.1 0 Cape Krusenstern National Monument Alaska 6 36 Capitol Reef National Park Utah 63 0 Capulin Volcano National Monument New Mexico 0 100 Carlsbad Caverns National Park New Mexico 87 0 Castillo De San Marcos Na tional MonumentFlorida 0 0 Catoctin Mountain Park Maryland 0 0 Cedar Breaks National Monument Utah 0 0 Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park Virginia 41.9 0 Channel Islands National Park California 0.2 0Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical ParkMaryland 22.5 0 Chickamauga & Chattanooga Nati onal Military ParkGeorgia 76.6 0 Chickasaw National Recreation Area Oklahoma 9 0 Chiricahua National Monument Arizona 0 0 Colonial National Historical Park Virginia 8.0 0 Congaree National Park South Carolina 5 0 Coronado National Memorial Arizona 0 0 Crater Lake National Park Oregon 0 42 Craters of the Moon National Monument Idaho 0 99 Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Kentucky 25 0 Cumberland Island National Seashore Georgia 0 0 Cuyahoga Valley National Park Ohio 0 0 Dayton Aviation Heritage Nati onal Historical ParkOhio 100.0 0 De Soto National Memorial Florida 100.0 0 Death Valley National Park California 18 0.08 Delaware Water Gap National Recreation AreaPennsylvania 24.9 0 Denali National Park Alaska 3 27 Devils Tower National Monument Wyoming 75.2 0 Dinosaur National Monument Colorado 39.2 0 Dry Tortugas National Park Florida 100.0 0 Park (Parks shaded in olive replied to survey.) States and territories Percent karst Percent pseudokarst
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 57 Effigy Mounds National Monument Iowa 41 0 El Malpais National Monument New Mexico 4 93 Everglades National Park Florida 100 0 First State National Monument Delaware 0 0 Fort Caroline National Memorial Florida 95 0 Fort Circle Park National Recreation Trail District of Columbia NA NA Fort Donelson National Battlefield Tennessee 91 0 Fort Dupont Park District of Columbia NA NA Fort Frederica National Monument Georgia 0 0 Fort Matanzas National Monument Florida 28 0 Fort Pulaski National Monument Georgia 0 0 Fort Stanton Park District of Columbia NA NA Fort Sumter National Monument South Carolina 0 0 Fossil Butte National Monument Wyoming 0.66 0 Fredericksburg and Spotsyl vania National Military Park Virginia 8.26 0 Gates of the Arctic National Park and PreserveAlaska 9.92 0.17 George Washington Carver Na tional MonumentMissouri 100.00 0 Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument New Mexico 0 0 Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Alaska 4.13 0 Glacier National Park Montana 18 0 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Utah 23.11 0 Golden Gate National Recreation Area California 0 0 Golden Spike National Historic Site Utah 40.65 0 Grand Canyon National Park Arizona 97 3 Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Utah NA NA Grand Teton National Park Wyoming 8.34 0 Great Basin National Park Nevada 36 0 Great Smoky Mountains National Park Tennessee 2.39 0 Park (Parks shaded in olive replied to survey.) States and territories Percent karst Percent pseudokarst
58 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4Guadalupe Mountains Nati onal Park Texas 68.57 0 Haleakala National Park Hawaii 0 81.79 Hampton National Historic Site Maryland 95.65 0 Harpers Ferry National Histori cal Park West Virginia31.58 0 Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Hawaii 0 99.10 Herbert Hoover National Historic Site Iowa 100.00 0 Hopewell Culture National Historical Park Ohio 19.64 0 Hot Springs National Park Arkansas 0 0 Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Illinois NA NA Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Indiana 28.32 0 Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Illinois NA NA Jewel Cave National Monument South Dakota 100 0 Joshua Tree National Park California 0 0.51 Kalaupapa National Histo rical Park Hawaii 0 70.61 Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park Hawaii 0 59.60 Katmai National Park and Preserve Alaska 0.3 2.15 Kenai Fjords National Park Alaska 0 0 Kings Canyon National Park California 0.58 0.25 Kobuk Valley National Park Alaska 5.90 29.12 Lake Clark National Park and Preserve Alaska 0.03 0.33 Lake Mead National Recreation Area Nevada 20.75 0.22 Lake Meredith National Recreation Area Texas 100 0 Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area Washington 0.2 0 Lassen Volcanic National Park California 0 66.51 Lava Beds National Monument California 0 99.18 Little River Canyon National Preserve Alabama 0.73 0 Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park Texas 97.57 0 Mammoth Cave National Park Kentucky 84.0 0 Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical ParkVermont 84.53 0 Mesa Verde National Park Colorado 0 0 Park (Parks shaded in olive replied to survey.) States and territories Percent karst Percent pseudokarst
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 59Mississippi National River and Recreation AreaMinnesota 50.09 0 Missouri National Recreation River South Dakota 57.1 0 Mojave National Preserve California 3.45 2.66 Monocacy National Battlefield Maryland 92.3 0 Montezuma Castle National Monument Arizona 0 0 Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail multiple NA NA Mount Rainier National Park Washington 0 28.94 Natchez Trace Parkway Mississippi 19.7 0 National Capitol Parks District of Columbia 4.47 0 National Park of American Samoa American Samoa NA NA Natural Bridges National Monument Utah 0.2 0 Navajo National Monument Arizona 0 0 New River Gorge National River West Virginia 0 0 Niagara Falls National Heritage Area New York NA NA Nicodemus National Historic Site Kansas 0 100.00 Niobrara National Scenic River Nebraska 61.08 0 Noatak National Preserve Alaska 10.2 8.41 Obed Wild and Scenic River Tennessee 0 0 Olympic National Park Washington 0 0 Oregon Caves National Monument Oregon 100.00 0 Oregon National Historic Trail multiple NA NA Ozark National Scenic Riverways Missouri 99.0 0 Pea Ridge National Military Park Arkansas 73.5 0 Pecos National Historical Park New Mexico 98.55 0 Petersburg National Battlefield Park Virginia 9.92 0 Petroglyph National Monument New Mexico 0 56.72 Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Michigan 49.94 0 Pinnacles National Monument California 0 0 Piscataway Park Maryland 5.26 0 Point Reyes National Seashore California 0 0 Park (Parks shaded in olive replied to survey.) States and territories Percent karst Percent pseudokarst
60 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4Pony Express National Historic Trail multiple NA NA Puuhonua o Honaunau National Historic ParkHawaii 0 100.00 Redwood National Park California 0 0 Richmond National Battlefield Park Virginia 5.07 0 Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River Texas NA NA Rocky Mountain National Park Colorado 0 0 Ross Lake National Recreation Area Washington 0 0 Russell Cave National Monument Alabama 63 0 Saguaro National Park Arizona 1.24 0 Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway Wisconsin 8.34 0 Salinas National Monument New Mexico 92.71 0 Salt River Bay Historic Park & Ec ological PreserveVirgin Islands 0 0 San Antonio Missions National Historic ParkTexas 1.80 0 San Juan Island National Historic Site Washington 0 0 San Juan National Historic Site Puerto Rico 92.13 0 Sand Creek Massacre National Historic SiteColorado 41.04 28.08 Sequoia National Park California 4.73 0 Shenandoah National Park Virginia 1.42 0 Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Michigan 84 0 Stones River National Battlefield Tennessee 100 0 Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Arizona 0 100.00 Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Kansas 97 0 Tennessee Civil War National Heritage AreaTennessee NA NA Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic SiteNew York 100 0 Theodore Roosevelt National Park North Dakota 0 69.98 Thomas Stone National Historic Site Maryland 3 0 Timpanogos Cave National Monument Utah 83 0 Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve Florida 3 0 Tonto National Monument Arizona 57 0 Tuzigoot National Monument Arizona 0 0 Valley Forge National Historical Park Pennsylvania 28 0 Park (Parks shaded in olive replied to survey.) States and territories Percent karst Percent pseudokarst
NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4 61 Virgin Islands National Park Virgin Islands 3 0 Walnut Canyon National Monument Arizona 100 0 War in the Pacific Nationa l Historical Park Guam NA NA Washita Battlefield Natio nal Historic Site Oklahoma 15 0 White Sands National Monument New Mexico 0 0 Wilson's Creek National Battlefield Missouri 100 0 Wind Cave National Park South Dakota 46 14.74 Women's Rights National His torical Park New York 100 0 World War II Valor in the Pacifi c National MonumentHawaii 0.07 0 Wrangell-St. Elias National Pa rk and PreserveAlaska 2.20 8.04 Wupatki National Monument Arizona 82 17.75 Yellowstone National Park Wyoming 3.63 1.72 Yosemite National Park California 0.07 0 Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve Alaska 6.02 0 Zion National Park Utah 16.06 8.46 Park (Parks shaded in olive replied to survey.) States and territories Percent karst Percent pseudokarst
62 NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4
This page is blank.
National Cave and Karst Research Institute 400-1 Cascades Avenue Carlsbad, New Mexico 88220 USA