BLM Permit Renewal

Post by **Elderberry** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:15 pm

TomServo wrote:This is a little frustrating. BLM has raised other groups standards to those that Burning Man set for itself...what more do they want from us? Maybe theyd be a little nicer if we started bringing firearms again.

I don't understand your post.

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:38 pm

jkisha wrote:
TomServo wrote:This is a little frustrating. BLM has raised other groups standards to those that Burning Man set for itself...what more do they want from us? Maybe theyd be a little nicer if we started bringing firearms again.
I don't understand your post.

since Burning man has been on the playa, it hasnt been cleaner. And, because we clean up our shit, the BLM has raised the standards for other groups that use the playa. make sense?

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:42 pm

Lets put it this way...WE are the best thing thats happened to that chunk of dust....and we face political struggles at every turn.

Post by **Elderberry** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:30 pm

TomServo wrote:Lets put it this way...WE are the best thing thats happened to that chunk of dust....and we face political struggles at every turn.

Politics, it's all part of the game.

RE: your post. The reason I was having trouble understanding it was that it followed a post stating that the permit was approved; so your post seemed a non-sequitur.

But do you think BMORG would have sold tickets to the event had they not been assured that the permit would be issued? *wink*

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:53 pm

For those who might want to look at the official site for the permit, plan, and stipulations, here's the link:

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/wfo/blm_ ... g_man.html

The basic outline looks the same.

The cap of 50k could bring about an early end to ticket sales, which have been brisk this year (to say the least).

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:47 pm

jkisha wrote:
TomServo wrote:Lets put it this way...WE are the best thing thats happened to that chunk of dust....and we face political struggles at every turn.
Politics, it's all part of the game.

RE: your post. The reason I was having trouble understanding it was that it followed a post stating that the permit was approved; so your post seemed a non-sequitur.

But do you think BMORG would have sold tickets to the event had they not been assured that the permit would be issued? *wink*

Ive faith in BMORG...Im just frustrated that we set the standards and we get the shit. Politics aside I know they dont want us out their.

geospyder · Post by **geospyder** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:54 am

In this morning's paper...
http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl ... 1104010337

Mojojita · Post by **Mojojita** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:54 pm

Wow - 50,000. That's fewer than attended last year!!!!

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:15 pm

There was a cap of 50k in 2010, and it was exceeded, although not greatly. The permit decision for 2011 mentions a cap of 50k, but the 2011 stipulations are much harder to parse. General stipulation #1 includes:

Black Rock City, LLC (BRC) is required to manage its advance ticket sales and on-site ticket sales in such a manner that the safety infrastructural resources of the event, which are designed to handle an average of 50,000 participants per day for the eight-day event, are not overtaxed, and that NEPA concerns from the 2006 Environmental Assessment are not compromised. If during the event it appears that the peak population is likely to exceed BRCâ€™s ability to provide adequate infrastructural resources, then BRC will promptly notify BLM of the projected event population and provide detailed contingency plans for how to handle the additional participants.

The way I read it, there is some wiggle room, which is good because it gives BRC and BLM some flexibility. On the other hand, if 60k people show up it could do bad things to the 2012 permit process.

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:38 pm

Mojojita wrote:Wow - 50,000. That's fewer than attended last year!!!!

Depending on your source...I heard it was just 100 over 50,000.

Post by **mdmf007** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:58 pm

TomServo wrote:
jkisha wrote:
TomServo wrote:This is a little frustrating. BLM has raised other groups standards to those that Burning Man set for itself...what more do they want from us? Maybe theyd be a little nicer if we started bringing firearms again.
I don't understand your post.

since Burning man has been on the playa, it hasnt been cleaner. And, because we clean up our shit, the BLM has raised the standards for other groups that use the playa. make sense?

Go to the Northeast end of the playa - definitely not the same all sorts of little shit up in the brush and bushes. Thats the final garbage fence. Wrappers, paper, plastic tarp chunks...

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:20 pm

mdmf007 wrote:
TomServo wrote:
jkisha wrote: I don't understand your post.

since Burning man has been on the playa, it hasnt been cleaner. And, because we clean up our shit, the BLM has raised the standards for other groups that use the playa. make sense?
Go to the Northeast end of the playa - definitely not the same all sorts of little shit up in the brush and bushes. Thats the final garbage fence. Wrappers, paper, plastic tarp chunks...

I've been out there for cleanup,

Rice · Post by **Rice** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:32 am

The permit granted was only for a 1 year extension with a maximum of 50,000 people...

So the 2011 burn is a go. But the future is still in doubt.

Rice

Thecatman · Post by **Thecatman** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:38 am

According to March 31st Reno-Gazette Urinal, a permit has been granted
for 4,400 acres in Pershing county.

In yesterdays newspaper, an article mentioned that the temple is gonna be built in Reno. That was April 1st issue but I don't think it was joke.

bigbluedoggy · Post by **bigbluedoggy** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:05 am

Thanks for the updates everyone!! Good to know we're on for this year!!

bigbluedoggy · Post by **bigbluedoggy** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:21 am

I do find it most interesting that the permit was only issued for 2011 and not the five year period requested... hmm...

bigbluedoggy · Post by **bigbluedoggy** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:20 am

Quote from the BLM site:
Based on public comments and agency coordination, the BLM is authorizing a one-year extension of the Burning Man event (2011) while it further evaluates the 5-year permit renewal proposal through an Environmental Assessment (EA).

Fascinating...

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:27 am

bigbluedoggy wrote:Quote from the BLM site:
Based on public comments and agency coordination, the BLM is authorizing a one-year extension of the Burning Man event (2011) while it further evaluates the 5-year permit renewal proposal through an Environmental Assessment (EA).

Fascinating...

Fascinating is not exactly the word I would have chosen. With the economy as it is you'd think they would be bending over backwards to get our money. Environmental Assessment my ass, if there was oil on the playa that permit would have been given fast track approval without a thought.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:29 pm

jkisha wrote:
bigbluedoggy wrote:Quote from the BLM site:
Based on public comments and agency coordination, the BLM is authorizing a one-year extension of the Burning Man event (2011) while it further evaluates the 5-year permit renewal proposal through an Environmental Assessment (EA).

Fascinating...
Fascinating is not exactly the word I would have chosen. With the economy as it is you'd think they would be bending over backwards to get our money. Environmental Assessment my ass, if there was oil on the playa that permit would have been given fast track approval without a thought.

No. Not in a National Conservation Area (or whatever that designation is.)

bigbluedoggy · Post by **bigbluedoggy** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:04 pm

Anyone who has ever dealt with a government agency on some level understands that there is no such thing as a fast track, especially with regards to Environmental Impact reports. Presumably there was some pressure to make a decision for this year so that plans could be made more solid, but an extended commitment will await a more detailed report.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:08 pm

Actually, my office dealt with a number of fast tracked RE EISs that had to be completed in 2010 to get stimulus money. Even I have more grey hair, but a number (two digits, not so much as 20) did get approval in time. Then they extended the thing by a year, and there's still the DOE loan guarantee thing, so we're expecting to do something similar again.

But it's tricky politics.

What I don't get is why they didn't get started on it earlier. Unless some huge amount of additional research needed to be done after the DEA, having the final in a couple of months after the comment period closed wouldn't have been in the least odd.