Geocaching On Federal Lands Faq

[+Team Tierra Buena]

While googling for new links to add to our Geocaching Policy Web site, I came across this recently-created (26 October) Web page. I personally find it difficult to read, but that may be a matter of preference, and is the least of my concerns.

 

What concerns me most is that the page resurrects the myth of buried caches. I also find it interesting that their link to the BLM policy is from 2002. It has been superseded by this 2003 document. And why the lone link to the Central Oregon policy?

 

I've already sent them my two cents, but I wonder if something from Galactic HQ might not carry a little more weight?

 

Steve

[+Renegade Knight]

Your two cents is as good as any. It really appears to be more of an information page rather than the actual rules pages your site is listing.

 

As a side note I like the BLM view that it's a casual use.

Edited November 22, 2003 by Renegade Knight

[+The Frantic Cachers]

I agree with RK...to me it seems that basically you can place a cache on BLM areas because it is deemed "casual use". I dont see a problem. A permit is said to be needed for mainly event caches, which makes sense.

[jimmy689]

After reading the BLM stand on geocaching it put my mind at ease. After reading about the negative attitudes towards this hobby in the forums, it's nice to know the gov't is basically treating this as a non-issue.

Thanks for the info.

[+Team Tierra Buena]

I think perhaps I didn't properly emphasize the link to the 'Recreation.gov' Web Page in my original post. I don't have any problem with the BLM policy either. My objections are really with this page's reference to buried caches, and outdated and incomplete information.

 

Steve

[dsandbro]

I agree with RK...to me it seems that basically you can place a cache on BLM areas because it is deemed "casual use".  I dont see a problem.  A permit is said to be needed for mainly event caches, which makes sense.

I like it too. This policy lets local managers manage based on local situations. I think its interesting that the policy letter specifically DOES NOT prohibit caches in Congressionally designated Wilderness, but does allow a manager to issue stipulations if a cache is so placed.

 

The permit for group events is standard for any large gathering. This just ensures trash and waste is properly disposed, ground disturbance is mitigated, liability issues are addressed, etc.

 

BLM public lands and the National Forests are both mandated by law to be managed for multiple uses, and both agencies recognize geocaching as a legitimate form of recreation. The USFWS Wildlife Refuges are not multiple use lands and are mandated to be managed for wildlife populations even if that means compromising other public uses. The NPS Organic Act states National Parks are to be managed for two uses -- protection of the park resources AND public recreation. The USFWS policy makes sense from an agency mission viewpoint. The blanket NPS ban is on shakier philosophical grounds (the NPS policy is legal. They have the authority to issue the policy. IMHO they are deviating from the original purpose of the National Park System).

[+elmo-fried]

I think perhaps I didn't properly emphasize the link to the 'Recreation.gov' Web Page in my original post. I don't have any problem with the BLM policy either. My objections are really with this page's reference to buried caches, and outdated and incomplete information.

 

Steve

I used their contact form to submit:

 

http://www.recreation.gov/faqgeocaching.cfm

On the above link, "burying caches" is mentioned.  GeoCaches are never to be buried and this practice is specifically prohibited.  In an effort to keep half-truths or misinformation about Geocaching from spreading, I ask that you remove the word "burying" in reference to caches.  The rest of the sentence works great without the word: "The Forest Service does allow geocaching activities on some of their lands; it is best to call ahead to the public lands you plan to visit to see what the local policy may be towards hiding caches."

Thank you for your time,

Jason Roysdon.

[+Navdog]

What's really funny, is that the recreation.gov page on geocaching has a USFW picture of a national wildlife refuge.

[+Team Tierra Buena]

Sometimes the government listens!

 

I just received an email from someone at the Department of the Interior who works on the recreation.gov web site. They have already removed the reference to burying caches!

 

I've responded with my thanks, and also mentioned the unintended irony, pointed out by Navdog, of their photo.

 

Steve

[+Patuxent Pirates]

The scary thing is.......... I work as an environmental program analyst and deal with this stuff every day. The June 3rd memo from BLM refers to the National Environmental Protection Act. Its titled the National Environmental Policy act of 1969. Sheeesh!! Secondly, I hope they don't want environmental assessments, those usually cost tens of thousands of dollars, require public comment, and take several months to complete. That's TOTAL overkill and a waste of taxpayer money. I doubt a cache with a log book, and small odds and ends constitutes a environmental issue and since NEPA only applies to Federal Actions, to reference it here is totally bogus. I dont think they understand the federal regulations or geocaching for that matter.

 

You would think a letter from that high up would get at least the name of the act right!!!!

 

Edited November 25, 2003 by SoMDCacherz

[+elmo-fried]

Sometimes the government listens!

 

I just received an email from someone at the Department of the Interior who works on the recreation.gov web site. They have already removed the reference to burying caches! 

 

I've responded with my thanks, and also mentioned the unintended irony, pointed out by Navdog, of their photo.

 

Steve

I received an email confirming that they were removing 'burying':

 

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:05:23 -0500

From: Angela_Mathews

To: jason

Subject: Your Comments to Recreation.Gov  All headers

 

Jason,We have reviewed your request as well as the available policies to us on geocaching and I will be removing the word "burying" from that description. By the time you get this email, the changes will have been made. Thanks for your comments, we are always trying to improve the data in the Recreation.gov database. Thanks again, Angela Mathews Web Manager

[+TundraChief SilverHare]

The scary thing is.......... I work as an environmental program analyst and deal with this stuff every day. The June 3rd memo from BLM refers to the National Environmental Protection Act. Its titled the National Environmental Policy act of 1969. Sheeesh!! Secondly, I hope they don't want environmental assessments, those usually cost tens of thousands of dollars, require public comment, and take several months to complete. That's TOTAL overkill and a waste of taxpayer money. I doubt a cache with a log book, and small odds and ends constitutes a environmental issue and since NEPA only applies to Federal Actions, to reference it here is totally bogus. I dont think they understand the federal regulations or geocaching for that matter.

 

If a Federal Agency initiated a policy restricting geocaching in its entirity on their managed lands, wouldn't this constitute a "Federal Action?" I agree with the overkill thing but, if an agency such as BLM or USFS were ever to do such a policy, NEPA is there to protect users such as geocachers to assure that all appropriate study and analysis has been considered.

[+Patuxent Pirates]

If a Federal Agency initiated a policy restricting geocaching in its entirity on their managed lands, wouldn't this constitute a "Federal Action?"  I agree with the overkill thing but, if an agency such as BLM or USFS were ever to do such a policy, NEPA is there to protect users such as geocachers to assure that all appropriate study and analysis has been considered.

NEPA says this....

 

(B.) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may...

 

So yes, in the big picture BLM policy is subject to NEPA, but through my experience, if it is not truly an "action" and just a "policy", there is usually only one environmental assessment done for the said policy or plan. The act was not meant to require an environmental assessment for each "cache" put out in a park, etc. but to govern Federal actions and policies to ensure that impacts are evaluated. The way the BLM policy memo is written does not follow NEPA. BLM will never, I hope, spend $60,000 to $100,000 a pop to determine the impacts on one tuperware container being placed in the woods. More likely, a Environmental Assessment (EA) has already been done for all BLM policy as it would pertain to or invoke NEPA. Under the Sikes Act there is a requirement to develop an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan or INRMP. I have seen EAs done for those to meet NEPA requirements.

 

Edited November 26, 2003 by SoMDCacherz

[+Team Tierra Buena]

I notice that Recreation.gov has replaced the photo from the National Wildlife Refuge on their Geocaching page with one from the Parashant National Monument in Arizona, which is BLM land. Good on them!