BLM Controlled "Wilderness" Areas?

[+Billionj]

For years here in southern Utah and NW Arizona, if we planted a geocache in a "wilderness" area we would just ask permission from the BLM and have never had a problem with them granting permission to place it.

 

Just recently, I, and some of my fellow geocachers, have received an email from the AZ BLM that states "my supervisor has just become aware or geocaching in wilderness area here and requires that you immediately remove all geocaches".

 

The national BLM handbook of regulations does state that "no geocaches will be allowed in wilderness areas", but since we are working with several BLM Field Offices here, and AZ is the only one who abides by this regulation, my question is: Does anyone else here have experience with placing caches in wilderness areas?

 

Thank you.

[+StarBrand]

As a general rule designated wilderness areas controlled by BLM, National Forests or other federal agencies in any US state have been off limits without rather explicit federal permissions for a long time now. True here in Nebraska, South Dakota & Wyoming in areas I cache and have placed caches.

[AZcachemeister]

Sorry, no JEEKS allowed.

[+geodarts]

For years here in southern Utah and NW Arizona, if we planted a geocache in a "wilderness" area we would just ask permission from the BLM and have never had a problem with them granting permission to place it.

 

Just recently, I, and some of my fellow geocachers, have received an email from the AZ BLM that states "my supervisor has just become aware or geocaching in wilderness area here and requires that you immediately remove all geocaches".

 

The national BLM handbook of regulations does state that "no geocaches will be allowed in wilderness areas", but since we are working with several BLM Field Offices here, and AZ is the only one who abides by this regulation, my question is: Does anyone else here have experience with placing caches in wilderness areas?

 

Thank you.

 

I had understood that the BLM left it to local discretion, but perhaps that is no longer the case. Some like the BLM in New Mexico do not permit it, but other agencies have allowed it. The Oregon BLM states that wilderness areas may raise special concerns that could be addressed in a letter of agreement, but does not ban it altogether.

 

A 2005 national BLM Memorandum stated that concerns about placing caches in wilderness areas may be addressed through such letters. Several regional BLM offices continue to cite that memo. On the other hand, this 2012 Manual on Wilderness Management defines physical caches as "installations" that are not generally permitted -- or as something "made by humans that is not intended for human occupation and is left behind when the installer leaves the wilderness." I have seen BLM documents for wilderness areas in my state that follow this rationale and allow only virtual caches, so perhaps this reflects current BLM policy better than the previous memos.

 

But what do I know? The only wilderness in my area is on NPS land and the manager there has told me that he associates traditional caching with litter and believes it has a negative impact, so they will never be approved on his watch regardless of where they might be placed in the park.

Edited March 21, 2013 by geodarts

[+NeverSummer]

Wilderness is wilderness is wilderness in the US. If it is designated Wilderness, it is off limits to geocaching.

 

We've encountered this brand of clarity loss with other federal agencies. One field station might not have gotten the memo. One region may not have heard the specifics. However, Wilderness areas are supposed to be off limits to geocaches.

 

This has more to do with the definitions of use for Wilderness than it does with geocaching specifically. Simply stated, one is not supposed to leave anything behind within a wilderness area. Think Leave No Trace, but to the letter.

 

To be clear here, I have a friend whose job it is to survey and inventory Wilderness lands. She and I had a discussion of what is allowed in Wilderness areas, as it seems many folks have no idea. One of the things that we discussed was geocaching. She said, quite plainly, that leaving anything behind on a Wilderness land is illegal.

 

You can visit wilderness.org to learn more about the Wilderness Act and related Wilderness information.

[+cerberus1]

That's odd, in another thread just a week or two ago, a reviewer said, "There are a handful here in Utah in Wilderness areas. Some cachers sought and got permission from the managing agencies".

 

So what's the difference between your wilderness and their wilderness?

[+NeverSummer]

And for reference, this is a site we use when discussing geocaching with the public in regards to agency policy. This site is a catch-all for BLM, USFWS, NPS, and USFS input on policy.

 

The policy which, as I mentioned above, is sometimes unknown to specific station managers and staff due to their unfamiliarity with the game of geocaching. The problem is, we geocachers love the game so much that we go right to the people we think we should: station managers. Problem being, they might not know that there is a policy for the agency. So, it becomes quite easy to convince a land-loving person that our land-loving game belongs.

 

That approach is all wrong, however. We need to educate our game players about where caches are and aren't allowed. Because it is a federal agency, the issue should be addressed to the top of that agency. And, as someone employed within the federal government, I can tell you how difficult it is to get someone to talk to you about geocaching. The policies are in place, and are generally difficult to change. Unfortunately, many government agencies have bigger fish to fry than coming up with a new policy for a generally small number of users. The laws are in place that discuss abandonment of property, etc, and the agencies seem to lean on those laws over development of new policies.

 

One area of growth for we geocachers has been with the NPS. Their policy is slowly relaxing. However, one thing that is not likely to change is the "no geocaches in designated Wilderness areas" rule.

[+NeverSummer]

That's odd, in another thread just a week or two ago, a reviewer said, "There are a handful here in Utah in Wilderness areas. Some cachers sought and got permission from the managing agencies".

 

So what's the difference between your wilderness and their wilderness?

No, this is an example of "some stations are not aware of the overarching federal policies regarding the game of geocaching" .

 

Edit to add: They didn't get permission from the agency. They got permission from an unknowing station manager.

Edited March 21, 2013 by NeverSummer

[+geodarts]

That's odd, in another thread just a week or two ago, a reviewer said, "There are a handful here in Utah in Wilderness areas. Some cachers sought and got permission from the managing agencies".

 

So what's the difference between your wilderness and their wilderness?

No, this is an example of "some stations are not aware of the overarching federal policies regarding the game of geocaching" .

 

And as I wrote above, it also appears that the policy has been subject to change. The 2005 memorancum on geocaching on BLM lands made allowances for Wilderness caches. A 2012 Manual on Wilderness Management does not.

[+NeverSummer]

That's odd, in another thread just a week or two ago, a reviewer said, "There are a handful here in Utah in Wilderness areas. Some cachers sought and got permission from the managing agencies".

 

So what's the difference between your wilderness and their wilderness?

No, this is an example of "some stations are not aware of the overarching federal policies regarding the game of geocaching" .

 

And as I wrote above, it also appears that the policy has been subject to change. The 2005 memorancum on geocaching on BLM lands made allowances for Wilderness caches. A 2012 Manual on Wilderness Management does not.

Therein you might see why a station manager might be confused.

 

Again, the station manager does not manage the land--they are stewards. The federal agency manages the land. Some field managers might not be familiar with a law/rule/guideline that does not allow geocaching on their lands. The federal agencies are not active enough (imo) in passing this information on to Geocaching.com. Also, the agencies do not view geocaching as a high priority where it comes to assuring the thousands of station managers for the BLM, USFWS, NPS, and USFS know the specifics about a game that isn't directly related to their operating mission.

Edited March 21, 2013 by NeverSummer

[+IslandsAndOcean]

Hello, everyone.

 

We at the USFWS have been instructed by our agency that geocaches are not allowed on US National Wildlife Refuge Lands. We have also been trained that geocaches are not allowed on designated Wilderness Areas. This training on Wilderness was for all Wilderness areas including BLM, USFWS, NPS, USFS.

 

What we have encountered is that some managers are not aware of the game of geocaching, and are therefore unfamiliar with the guidelines of the game and/or restrictions in place with their agencies. In addition, some agencies do, in fact, place the decision making ability with their managers (BLM, USFS comes to mind). However, this means that when you ask for permission you also should ask if the manager is 1) familiar with the game, and 2) familiar with any possible restrictions, bans, or forms required for placement of geocaches on their land.

 

Don't assume that a manager knows the answer definitively. Permission for geocaching with federal agencies takes time to uncover rules and restrictions sometimes--be patient!

 

The USFWS has worked successfully with geocachers in Friends of National Wildlife Refuges organizations, local geocaching clubs/organizations and single geocachers to place Earthcaches on Refuge lands--with explicit permission. Also, these clubs and groups (and sometimes the field station--Refuge office--itself) have worked to have a physical container and logbook at the administrative site (office). This can include containerless/non-physical multicaches and puzzles that bring you to actual Refuge lands. The key here is that physical containers or "clues" must not be on Refuge land.

 

So, if you are interested in fostering partnerships with these agencies, I encourage you to join their "Friends of" group and get involved with their programming and partnerships. Geocaching is certainly an activity that can meet the usage opportunities of our federal lands when existing laws, rules and guidelines are followed. But, Wilderness Areas are still off limits--even if the manager knows it or not. Being a responsible geocacher involves knowing the existing guidelines and helping other geocachers learn them as well.

 

The BLM policy may have changed, but it has changed to exclude geocaches from Wilderness land.

[+StarBrand]

Hello, everyone.

 

We at the USFWS have been instructed by our agency that geocaches are not allowed on US National Wildlife Refuge Lands. We have also been trained that geocaches are not allowed on designated Wilderness Areas. This training on Wilderness was for all Wilderness areas including BLM, USFWS, NPS, USFS.

 

What we have encountered is that some managers are not aware of the game of geocaching, and are therefore unfamiliar with the guidelines of the game and/or restrictions in place with their agencies. In addition, some agencies do, in fact, place the decision making ability with their managers (BLM, USFS comes to mind). However, this means that when you ask for permission you also should ask if the manager is 1) familiar with the game, and 2) familiar with any possible restrictions, bans, or forms required for placement of geocaches on their land.

 

Don't assume that a manager knows the answer definitively. Permission for geocaching with federal agencies takes time to uncover rules and restrictions sometimes--be patient!

 

The USFWS has worked successfully with geocachers in Friends of National Wildlife Refuges organizations, local geocaching clubs/organizations and single geocachers to place Earthcaches on Refuge lands--with explicit permission. Also, these clubs and groups (and sometimes the field station--Refuge office--itself) have worked to have a physical container and logbook at the administrative site (office). This can include containerless/non-physical multicaches and puzzles that bring you to actual Refuge lands. The key here is that physical containers or "clues" must not be on Refuge land.

 

So, if you are interested in fostering partnerships with these agencies, I encourage you to join their "Friends of" group and get involved with their programming and partnerships. Geocaching is certainly an activity that can meet the usage opportunities of our federal lands when existing laws, rules and guidelines are followed. But, Wilderness Areas are still off limits--even if the manager knows it or not. Being a responsible geocacher involves knowing the existing guidelines and helping other geocachers learn them as well.

 

The BLM policy may have changed, but it has changed to exclude geocaches from Wilderness land.

 

Excellent post!! - should be incorporated into the Help Center somehow.

[+NeverSummer]

This can include containerless/non-physical multicaches and puzzles that bring you to actual Refuge lands. The key here is that physical containers or "clues" must not be on Refuge land.

 

Thanks for posting. But what do you mean about "clues"? Does this mean a sign or kiosk can't be used? Or, does this only mean the "physical" part, meaning a physical clue such as a stamped dogtag or the like?

 

It's my understanding that using existing signs or kiosks on Refuge lands are ok to be used for multis or puzzle/unknowns. Can a container or sign/indicator of a "clue" or next coordinates be added to existing signs or kiosks?

[+IslandsAndOcean]

This can include containerless/non-physical multicaches and puzzles that bring you to actual Refuge lands. The key here is that physical containers or "clues" must not be on Refuge land.

 

Thanks for posting. But what do you mean about "clues"? Does this mean a sign or kiosk can't be used? Or, does this only mean the "physical" part, meaning a physical clue such as a stamped dogtag or the like?

 

It's my understanding that using existing signs or kiosks on Refuge lands are ok to be used for multis or puzzle/unknowns. Can a container or sign/indicator of a "clue" or next coordinates be added to existing signs or kiosks?

Good question to ask for clarification.

 

Physical containers are discouraged in these cases. Sometimes a laminated card or the like can be added--with explicit permission--to existing signs or kiosks. Physical containers, whether containing a clue or the actual geocache, are not allowed.

 

Again, working with the station manager and/or through the Friends organization is the best route. Physical caches, or physical container components of multis or puzzles, are not allowed. Additions to existing structures are discouraged, but are not completely out of the question if attached to existing "improved structures" when on Refuge land. It could be argued that there isn't much reason for a clue container (eg, a film container with a clue or next coordinates inside) on Refuge lands.

 

In most cases, it is easier to use existing words, numbers or phrases on signs or kiosks to give clues for the next stage of a multi or clues to a puzzle. Interpretive signs cost a lot of money, and stapling, gluing, taping or attaching anything in any way can compromise the sign. In these cases, one should work with staff within the existing guidelines, laws and rules for geocaches on federal lands. Also, a well-written cache description can label coordinates for stages, and provide clear instructions on what to look for/find to complete the puzzle or next stage.

 

Essentially, this means that the cache shouldn't be an "evil hide" or a "tough puzzle". To meet the missions for recreational land use, geocaches should be clear, relatively simple, and easy enough for a novice to complete. This also means that the description, hint and other ancillary information on a cache's description should aim to minimize any and all impact of biological, cultural, archaeological, historical, etc resources within these federal lands. Unintended establishment of "social trails", movement of stationary objects (rocks, downed trees, etc), and/or treading on habitat/historic resources are all reason enough to disallow geocaching on federal lands according to existing laws.

[+DragonsWest]

For years here in southern Utah and NW Arizona, if we planted a geocache in a "wilderness" area we would just ask permission from the BLM and have never had a problem with them granting permission to place it.

 

Just recently, I, and some of my fellow geocachers, have received an email from the AZ BLM that states "my supervisor has just become aware or geocaching in wilderness area here and requires that you immediately remove all geocaches".

 

The national BLM handbook of regulations does state that "no geocaches will be allowed in wilderness areas", but since we are working with several BLM Field Offices here, and AZ is the only one who abides by this regulation, my question is: Does anyone else here have experience with placing caches in wilderness areas?

 

Thank you.

 

BLM gave the boot to geocaches in Fort Ord (near Monterey California) After a couple years they developed some sort of policy where you could place them, with a permit, registration fee and annual renewal. Apparently Boy Scouts are exempt from this as they were able to place a few.

 

I think it's more up to the vassal of the fiefdom you are dealing with. Some people are enlightened enough to see benefit of caches, to ecourage the public to visit (responsibly), as this ultimately engenders good public support for BLM and land management. Others take a near fanatical stance of NOTHING shall be placed within their pristine wilderness (never mind cyclists, hikers, equestrians and sometimes ORVs able to go where they please.

 

In short, you're dealing with government. Lotsa luck.

[+NeverSummer]

 

I think it's more up to the vassal of the fiefdom you are dealing with. Some people are enlightened enough to see benefit of caches, to ecourage the public to visit (responsibly), as this ultimately engenders good public support for BLM and land management. Others take a near fanatical stance of NOTHING shall be placed within their pristine wilderness (never mind cyclists, hikers, equestrians and sometimes ORVs able to go where they please.

 

In short, you're dealing with government. Lotsa luck.

 

To a point, I think you're right. The part that is missing is the Wilderness part. There appears to be plenty of documentation stating that Wilderness is off limits, but some land managers may not be familiar enough with the game and existing guidelines of geocaching.com and/or their own agency. Convincing an unknowing land manager that geocaching is a positive outreach tool is not that difficult. The issue, as the above input mentions, is that there are guidelines and laws in place that prohibit and/or limit geocaching activities on federal lands. Some managers may not know that...but we geocachers should.

 

Now, as for permitted use of Wilderness areas, it is pretty cut and dry. I have yet to see personally, or find evidence of use of bicycles or ORVs within a Wilderness boundary.

 

A wilderness, in contrast to those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of

recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

 

The Wilderness Act, directly and by cross-reference in virtually all subsequent wilderness

statutes, generally prohibits commercial activities, motorized uses, and roads, structures, and

facilities in units of the National Wilderness Preservation System designated by acts of Congress.

Specifically, § 4© states:

Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for

the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

 

In addition, here is a relevant piece of information from the NPS:

6.4.3.1 Recreation Use Evaluation

Recreational uses—particularly new and emerging activities that compromise the stated purposes and definitions of wilderness or unduly impact the wilderness resource or the visitor experience within wilderness—will be evaluated to determine if these uses are appropriate or should be limited or disallowed through use of the superintendent’s compendium in 36 CFR 1.5. Evaluation or reevaluation should be accomplished within wilderness management plans or similar implementation plans. Recreational uses that do not meet the purposes and definitions of wilderness should be prohibited in NPS wilderness. Significant changes in patterns or increased levels of use will not be authorized by special permit, administrative discretion, or authorities under the superintendents’ compendia, except in cases where sufficient information exists to adequately determine there is no significant impact on wilderness resources and values, including visitor experiences. These increased levels of use and changes in patterns of existing use will normally not qualify for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act. Decisions regarding significant changes in patterns and new levels of use will require environmental analysis and review, including opportunity for public comment, in accordance with the NEPA requirements. (See Appropriate Use of the Parks 1.5; Visitor Carrying Capacity 8.2.1)

(Bolding mine)

 

The last part is the important part. When it comes to Wilderness within NPS jurisdiction, geocaching is currently not allowed, and would require some significant action on the agency's behalf to see the activity brought to evaluation, comment and change in policy.

 

For some BLM context, you can see how they work with "Wilderness Study Areas", or WSAs within designated Wilderness areas under their jurisdiction here. It is heavy reading, but the BLM follows overarching Department of Interior applications of the Wilderness Act. What is missing is the manager's individual knowledge about the game of geocaching, and the basis for review under the Wilderness Act:

The BLM’s management policy is, except in the cases stated below (see section 1.6.C.2), to continue resource uses on lands designated as WSAs in a manner that maintains the area’s suitability for preservation as wilderness. The BLM’s policy will protect the wilderness characteristics of all WSAs in the same or better condition than they were on October 21, 1976 (or for Section 202 WSAs not reported to Congress, the date the WSA was designated), until Congress determines whether or not they should be designated as wilderness. When managers are in doubt as to a course of action in a WSA, this should serve as a guiding principle.

And:

1. Defining the non-impairment standard.

The BLM will review all proposals for uses and/or facilities within WSAs to ascertain whether the proposal would impair the suitability of the WSA for

preservation as wilderness. Unless excepted under 1.6.C.2, all uses and/or facilitiesmust meet the non-impairment standard (i.e. must be both temporary and not create surface disturbance), as described in the following detailed criteria:

a. The use or facility is temporary. The use or facility is needed for a defined time period to respond to a temporary need, and would be terminated and removed prior to or upon wilderness designation. A chronic, repeated short-term use does not meet this definition of “temporary.” Uses, activities, or facilities that create a demand for uses that would be incompatible with wilderness

management also do not meet the definition of temporary.

b. The use or facility will not create new surface disturbance. There is no new disruption of the rock, soil, or vegetation, including vegetative trampling, that would necessitate reclamation, rehabilitation, or restoration in order for the site to appear and function as it did prior to the disturbance. Uses or facilities that would require only passive natural restoration may still be considered surface

disturbing. For example, cross-country vehicle use off boundary roads or existing primitive routes is surface disturbing because the tracks created by the vehicle leave depressions or ruts, compact the soils, and trample or compress vegetation. Landing fixed wing aircraft is considered surface disturbing unless it is on an existing airstrip or primitive route open to other motorized use (i.e. identified and documented to exist prior to passage of FLPMA). Certain activities allowed in wilderness areas, such as recreational hiking, use of pack stock, or domestic livestock grazing, are recognized as acceptable within a WSA, although, in the literal sense, they cause surface disturbance.

 

Even with limited visitation to a geocache site that might be in a wilderness, it would be hard to meet both of the above criteria, all while following laws regarding abandonment of property on DOI lands.

 

For example, if I place a cache with a 1-2 year "temporary" permission window, it is visited seldomly, and I have to pick it up after said 1-2 year window. Does one actually go out and remove the cache container? Does the onus fall on the agency to check any and every set of coordinates on the permit to see that the owner of the container has picked it up? Does the agency have the resources to commit to checking all current and former cache sites for disturbances as listed in the above quote? I think the agencies are so tight on budget that the answer to the last 3 questions is "No." I also believe that any federal review of environmental impact of geocaching would be more trouble than they would be able or willing to put on their reduced staff and time resources. Therefore, I don't see a relaxation of the Wilderness Act to include "geocaching" as an inclusive use that meets all criteria for usage and impact on Wilderness character.

[+NeverSummer]

Sorry to inundate this thread with more reading, but it is all context that we need to know as Geocachers to better understand why we don't, shouldn't, and can't use wilderness areas for geocaching:

 

As set forth in Section 2© (“Definition of Wilderness”) of the Wilderness Act, wilderness character is composed of four mandatory qualities and a fifth, optional, quality. These are:

i. Untrammeled. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.” A “trammel”

is literally a net, snare, hobble, or other device that impedes the free movement of an animal. Here, used metaphorically, “untrammeled” refers

to wilderness as essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. This quality is impaired by human activities or actions that control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems

inside wilderness.

ii. Natural. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” In short, wilderness

ecological systems should be as free as possible from the effects of modern civilization. Management must foster a natural distribution of native

wildlife, fish, and plants by ensuring that ecosystems and ecological processes continue to function naturally. Watersheds, water bodies, water

quality, and soils are maintained in a natural condition; associated ecological processes previously altered by human influences will be allowed to return to their natural condition. Fire, insects, and diseases are allowed to play their natural role in the wilderness ecosystem except where these activities threaten human life, property, or high value resources on adjacent nonwilderness lands. Additional guidance on this is provided in section 1.6.C of this manual, which addresses the management of specific activities in wilderness. This quality may be affected by intended or unintended effects of human activities on the ecological systems inside the wilderness.

iii. Undeveloped. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is an area “of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence,

without permanent improvements or human habitation,” “where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,” and “with the imprint of man’s

work substantially unnoticeable.” Wilderness has minimal evidence of modern human occupation or modification. This quality is impaired by the

presence of structures or installations, and by the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport that increases people’s ability BLM Manual 6340—Management of BLM Wilderness 1-6 to occupy or modify the environment. More detail on the activities that

impair this quality is found in Section 1.6.B of this policy.

iv. Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness has “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a

primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” Wilderness provides opportunities for people to experience: natural sights and sounds; remote,

isolated, unfrequented, or secluded places; and freedom, risk, and the physical and emotional challenges of self-discovery and self-reliance. Any

one wilderness does not have to provide all these opportunities, nor is it necessary that they be present on every acre of a given wilderness. Where

present, however, the preservation of these opportunities is important to the preservation of wilderness character as a whole. This quality is impaired by settings that reduce these opportunities, such as visitor encounters, signs of modern civilization, recreation facilities, and management restrictions on visitor behavior.

v. Unique, Supplemental, or Other Features. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness areas “may also contain ecological, geological, or other features

of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” Though these values are not required of any wilderness, where they are present they are part of that area’s wilderness character, and must be protected as rigorously as any of the four required qualities. They may include historical, cultural,

paleontological, or other resources not necessarily considered a part of any of the other qualities. These values are identified in a number of ways: in the area’s designating legislation, through its legislative history, by the original wilderness inventory, in a wilderness management plan, or at some other time after designation.

 

Most managers know these allowances pretty thoroughly. However, geocaching is, as I'm sure we all agree, pretty easy to present as low-impact on the land. However, I'm sure we can all agree as well that geocaching does, in fact, have many an example of how it can affect land and other resources to the point it no longer meets the description and designations under the Wilderness Act.

 

Meaning, we should all, as geocachers, be aware that not all areas in the world are suited for our use in this game. As geocachers, we really should embrace these areas in the same way as they were intended. No matter how badly we want to use these areas as sites we bring our fellow cachers to, we must remember that these areas are not intended to have uses that impact the land in any way. We should be protectors and respectful of these lands, not try to find ways to sneak our geocaches into them.

 

And, this isn't just for BLM Wilderness. This next quote applies to all wilderness, and should be brought to the attention of any and all DOI land managers who have geocaches on Wilderness lands under their jurisdiction:

j. installations. Anything made by humans that is not intended for human occupation and is left behind when the installer leaves the wilderness.

 

“Installations” can be stationary (including, but not limited to: weather stations, physical geocaches, and trail signs) or mobile (including, but not limited to, radio collars or other remote tracking devices when they are installed in the wilderness). Installations include things that remain on the landscape such as trails and bridges. They do not include non-motorized devices that are carried by people in the wilderness and leave with them (including, but not limited to:

GPS units, emergency location transmitters, cell phones, watches, and computers). It may be appropriate to regulate the length of time an installation may be unattended without requiring a special permit (e.g., water caches in desert areas or food caches on long trails) in an individual wilderness area.(Also see C.13.c.i and C.21.c.ix.A.II) Installations may only be allowed in wilderness areas if they are associated with a valid existing right (as noted in 1.6.B.3.B ), if necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of the Wilderness Act (as noted in 1.6.B.3.c), including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area, allowed under a special provision of Section 4(d) of the Act, or explicitly identified in the legislation designating a particular wilderness.

Edited March 21, 2013 by NeverSummer

[+DragonsWest]

The largest consideration I've seen by BLM approved caches in Wilderness areas is Responsibility for the cache.

 

The notion of a power trail of plastic film cans would meet with a firm NO.

 

But placement of a durable container, clearly marked and accompanied by documentation regarding the person(s) hiding the cache and their commitment to look after the cache is all important. If a cache is placed in Fort Ord with BLM approval and one year later they are unsuccessful contacting the person(s) responsible for the cache they will remove it.

 

This does seem quite a reasonable approach, avoiding geo-litter and assuring the cache container and placement will be respectful of the environment.

[AZcachemeister]

The largest consideration I've seen by BLM approved caches in Wilderness areas is Responsibility for the cache.

 

The notion of a power trail of plastic film cans would meet with a firm NO.

 

But placement of a durable container, clearly marked and accompanied by documentation regarding the person(s) hiding the cache and their commitment to look after the cache is all important. If a cache is placed in Fort Ord with BLM approval and one year later they are unsuccessful contacting the person(s) responsible for the cache they will remove it.

 

This does seem quite a reasonable approach, avoiding geo-litter and assuring the cache container and placement will be respectful of the environment.

 

And this is how it should be.

Amen.

[+NeverSummer]

The largest consideration I've seen by BLM approved caches in Wilderness areas is Responsibility for the cache.

 

The notion of a power trail of plastic film cans would meet with a firm NO.

 

But placement of a durable container, clearly marked and accompanied by documentation regarding the person(s) hiding the cache and their commitment to look after the cache is all important. If a cache is placed in Fort Ord with BLM approval and one year later they are unsuccessful contacting the person(s) responsible for the cache they will remove it.

 

This does seem quite a reasonable approach, avoiding geo-litter and assuring the cache container and placement will be respectful of the environment.

 

And this is how it should be.

Amen.

I think that's a goal we geocachers might hope for, but it is not the case. Simply put, "this is how it could be, but that isn't how it is."

 

The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is an area “of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation,” “where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,” and “with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” Wilderness has minimal evidence of modern human occupation or modification. This quality is impaired by the presence of structures or installations, and by the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport that increases people’s ability to occupy or modify the environment.

 

Installations. Anything made by humans that is not intended for human occupation and is left behind when the installer leaves the wilderness. “Installations” can be stationary (including, but not limited to: weather stations, physical geocaches, and trail signs) or mobile (including, but not limited to, radio collars or other remote tracking devices when they are installed in the wilderness). Installations include things that remain on the landscape such as trails and bridges. They do not include non-motorized devices that are carried by people in the wilderness and leave with them (including, but not limited to:

GPS units, emergency location transmitters, cell phones, watches, and computers). It may be appropriate to regulate the length of time an installation may be unattended without requiring a special permit (e.g., water caches in desert areas or food caches on long trails) in an individual wilderness area.(Also see C.13.c.i and C.21.c.ix.A.II) Installations may only be allowed in wilderness areas if they are associated with a valid existing right (as noted in 1.6.B.3.B ), if necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of the Wilderness Act (as noted in 1.6.B.3.c), including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area, allowed under a special provision of Section 4(d) of the Act, or explicitly identified in the legislation designating a particular wilderness.

 

To allow a geocache, there would have to be proper channels of permission. This isn't granted by the station manager. Rather, it is granted by a special/temporary use permitting process whereby the agency considers each use, its impact, and the process for use, placement, and removal. This process of approval is guided by the instruction and directive given during training to the staff who handle each situation. Meaning, there is someone whose job it is to deal with Wilderness Character Assessments and Special Use considerations under the Wilderness Act. That person, or those persons, responsible will consult existing laws, and make decisions based on the station's mission and the outlined process in the Special Use Permit application. My experience is that those who have been trained most recently on Wilderness Character Assessment were told that geocaching is not an allowable use under a number of existing laws that apply not only to Wilderness, but also all federal lands.

 

So, if a geocacher were to act properly under the process as proscribed by the federal government regarding Special Use Permits, each and every geocache would have to be submitted under the TUP/SUP application process, and the related staff would review the application.

 

Pray tell, what percentage of existing geocaches have actually gone through this federal T/SUP process? My guess is none. I would be interested in hearing from Reviewers that have actually seen a federally approved geocache T/SUP for any cache on Wilderness lands.

Edited March 23, 2013 by NeverSummer

[+NeverSummer]

The BLM has memos about geocaching on BLM Wilderness Land. The most recent memo states that geocaches are NOT allowed on BLM Wilderness lands.

 

The NPS does not, in my research, yet have a Wilderness-specific memo about geocaching. In those cases, it is best to defer to the Wilderness Act itself, which states that geocaching would not be an acceptable use.

 

(At least with the NPS, we have some options for non-Wilderness areas. If you are interested in placing a geocache on NPS land, you should 1) get involved with their "Friends" organization and 2) work with staff to determine how to assist the park with their education and outreach goals by using geocaching as an outlet. Contact:

Evaluating new activities and requests to conduct them on park lands can be very complex. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact one of the following people:

Law enforcement: Lane Baker, Division of Law Enforcement, Security and Emergency Services, lane_baker@nps.gov, 202-513-7128.

Permitting: Lee Dickinson, Special Park Uses Coordinator, lee_dickinson@nps.gov, 202-513-7092.

Policy questions: Marcia Keener, Program Analyst, Office of Policy, marcia_keener@nps.gov, 202-208-4298.

Technical questions: Tim Smith, NPS GPS Program Coordinator, GISD, tim_smith@nps.gov, 303-969-2086

 

The USFWS does NOT allow geocaches on Refuge lands, but has been partnering with Friends members and geocachers to create caches like what IslandsandOcean talks about. Caches can, apparently, be on administrative land. The most successful geocache partnerships have been exactly that: a partnership. In addition, the USFWS does not allow geocaches on their Wilderness land. This instruction has been given to Law Enforcement personnel and those who deal with T/SUPs.

 

Placing geocaches with federal agencies is not a simple "I want to place a cache here, so I will" process. It takes effort. Finesse. Knowledge. If you want to work with these agencies, it is best we are educated on the existing regulations that might impact geocaching as an approved activity. In addition, we need to recognize that geocaching might not be an allowable use in some cases. By taking the time to work with agency representatives, we can see geocaching work with federal agencies outside of Wilderness Areas.

 

The people to talk to are the Outreach/Education/Visitor Services Managers. They shouldn't be used to simply "approve" or "give permission" for a cache. These are the people that need to be sold on how the specific geocache will meet their station's specific outreach goals. (Read this NPS memo, especially the third paragraph of section E):

A superintendent may find that a GPS activity is an appropriate use but needs to be managed under the terms and conditions of a permit. Requiring a permit can sometimes help to manage the use and also raise awareness in a way that fosters the cooperation of recreational GPS users. For guidance on permit procedures, refer to Director’s Order #53: Special Park Uses, and its companion reference manual. Superintendents are reminded that cost recovery regulations may apply to permits issued for GPS activities.

 

To properly partner with NPS (Anyone have non-wilderness BLM relevant policies anywhere? BLM Wilderness geocache reference can be found in the posts above), we must also present the Superintendent of that park with their need to refer to DO-12 Handbook and assess the impact on park resources and values and on other visitor uses.

 

To partner with the USFWS, contact their station Outreach/Education/Visitor Services Manager. I can attest that they might not know the specifics of the game, or the laws and regulations that might impact their decision. Bottom line, we need to go into the partnership and proposal phase knowing that geocaches are not allowed on Refuge lands or USFWS Wilderness land. If we go in knowing that caches are allowed on admin land, or that "virtual" Earthcaches are a possibility for Refuge lands, it will make it an easier process with more positive outcomes for the game.

 

So, there are possibilities, just not on Wilderness lands.

[+DragonsWest]

There is a MultiCache on the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, managed by Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) with the final in the office. Geocachers go from station to station on trails to obtain the combination to the lock on the cache. Very nicely done.

[+NeverSummer]

After inquiring of Groundspeak staff to clarify what they have for permissions about geocaching on federal lands, I heard nothing but silence. In some news it does appear that the Department of the Interior Agency is moving along on an establishment of policy for each individual bureau. This might mean some changes, but at minimum means an updated, official policy for each. (www.doi.gov/notices/upload/DOI-Social-Media-Guidebook.pdf)

 

From there, the individual bureau policies (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, National Park Service, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey) will determine how they will handle geocaching activities on the land they administer.

 

This could mean we see no change to what is outlined above, or it could mean that a bureau could allow each station manager to make the call about geocaching activities on each individual site. Regardless, there will likely be some sort of use permitting process, as well as an inventory of all containers, etc placed. (Read the linked pdf above for the DOI recommendations/requirements for policy)

 

However, we shouldn't get our hopes up that this is going to be announced anytime soon. (Plenty of other things going on in the federal goevrnment right now...) So, the above regulations for BLM, NPS and USFWS should be followed until we hear more from Groundspeak or the agencies themselves.

 

Edit: First link wouldn't take

Edited March 25, 2013 by NeverSummer

[4wheelin_fool]

After inquiring of Groundspeak staff to clarify what they have for permissions about geocaching on federal lands, I heard nothing but silence.

 

Really?

 

 

In some news it does appear that the Department of the Interior Agency is moving along on an establishment of policy for each individual bureau. This might mean some changes, but at minimum means an updated, official policy for each. (www.doi.gov/notices/upload/DOI-Social-Media-Guidebook.pdf)

 

From there, the individual bureau policies (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, National Park Service, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey) will determine how they will handle geocaching activities on the land they administer.

 

This could mean we see no change to what is outlined above, or it could mean that a bureau could allow each station manager to make the call about geocaching activities on each individual site. Regardless, there will likely be some sort of use permitting process, as well as an inventory of all containers, etc placed. (Read the linked pdf above for the DOI recommendations/requirements for policy)

 

That's good to know.

 

However, if they have permission of the station managers, there should not be any issues.

[+NeverSummer]

After inquiring of Groundspeak staff to clarify what they have for permissions about geocaching on federal lands, I heard nothing but silence.

 

Really?

 

 

In some news it does appear that the Department of the Interior Agency is moving along on an establishment of policy for each individual bureau. This might mean some changes, but at minimum means an updated, official policy for each. (www.doi.gov/notices/upload/DOI-Social-Media-Guidebook.pdf)

 

From there, the individual bureau policies (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, National Park Service, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey) will determine how they will handle geocaching activities on the land they administer.

 

This could mean we see no change to what is outlined above, or it could mean that a bureau could allow each station manager to make the call about geocaching activities on each individual site. Regardless, there will likely be some sort of use permitting process, as well as an inventory of all containers, etc placed. (Read the linked pdf above for the DOI recommendations/requirements for policy)

 

That's good to know.

 

However, if they have permission of the station managers, there should not be any issues.

NOT TRUE. A blanket statement like this is precisely the problem with the systems each bureau has to deal with. Please tell me you read and comprehended my post from 22 March 2013 - 05:35 PM

 

Read the above for BLM, USFWS and NPS rules regarding geocaching on their respective lands. Station managers must follow agency protocols for geocaches at present. This means filing a special use permit for each and every geocache. Station managers can not, and should not be approached with the assumption that "ok" means "ok, place a cache right now." There are processes in place, and approvals that need to be made. Again, some station managers might not be familiar with how their individual bureau handles Geocaching on their lands. In addition, current advisement from the DOI (mentioned in the pdf above) says that current geocaches will not be grandfathered with the bureau's written Geocaching policies.

 

And, back on topic, geocaches are not allowed in Wilderness areas, even with "permission". See above information.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Station managers can not, and should not be approached with the assumption that "ok" means "ok, place a cache right now." There are processes in place, and approvals that need to be made. Again, some station managers might not be familiar with how their individual bureau handles Geocaching on their lands. In addition, current advisement from the DOI (mentioned in the pdf above) says that current geocaches will not be grandfathered with the bureau's written Geocaching policies.

 

And, back on topic, geocaches are not allowed in Wilderness areas, even with "permission". See above information.

 

Why not? If a cacher asks for permission from a station manager and its granted, why would the cacher think they need to seek approval further up the chain? The station manager is wrong to grant permission in this case, but that's not the cachers fault. If I didn't know any better (and most cachers don't/won't), I'd walk away thinking I could now place a cache on that land.

[+NeverSummer]

Station managers can not, and should not be approached with the assumption that "ok" means "ok, place a cache right now." There are processes in place, and approvals that need to be made. Again, some station managers might not be familiar with how their individual bureau handles Geocaching on their lands. In addition, current advisement from the DOI (mentioned in the pdf above) says that current geocaches will not be grandfathered with the bureau's written Geocaching policies.

 

And, back on topic, geocaches are not allowed in Wilderness areas, even with "permission". See above information.

 

Why not? If a cacher asks for permission from a station manager and its granted, why would the cacher think they need to seek approval further up the chain? The station manager is wrong to grant permission in this case, but that's not the cachers fault. If I didn't know any better (and most cachers don't/won't), I'd walk away thinking I could now place a cache on that land.

Right, but that doesn't make it any more wrong. The cacher shouldn't seek the permission further up the chain, but they should let the manager know the process so that it is handled properly.

 

We need to be aware of the rules so that we can help the station managers learn what they need to do. Reviewers need to be clear with cache owners what the law and regulations state. In addition, we geocachers are the ones that would have to fill out any special/temporary use permits and submit them to the station's chain of command for review.

 

There is too much confusion, and the attitude described in your bolding doesn't help the process. We need to know the laws, regulations, etc in these cases. Geocachers being prepared and knowledgeable about processes and limitations will help the overall bureau decision making process about their policies. And for now, we all need to become more aware of the current restrictions. (Outlined above)

 

(Plus, I'm speaking from a perspective of inside knowledge...)

Edited March 28, 2013 by NeverSummer