Concrete Barriers, Private Security Forces, and More Plug n' Plays - A Possible Future for Burning Man

TL;DR: The Bureau of Land Management is proposing that Burning Man must contract independent, third party security forces to screen vehicles and participants coming into Burning Man for contraband, and install concrete barriers and steel fences around at least some of Burning Man and/or gate road. 

They also want to mandate that Burning Man increase the number of people who take buses in or fly in (most of whom can't bring sufficient supplies for themselves that way) and go onto say that this may necessitate the need for more plug n' plays to accommodate those people.

​Is this what we want? 

We have an opportunity to be heard. Let's take it. Details below.

 Background

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a draft proposal yesterday in response to the Burning Man Project's ("the Org") request for a 10 year Special Recreation Permit (SRP) for Burning Man. For those unaware, the Burning Man event is held on federal land that is managed by the BLM. Every year,  the Org has to get an SRP to hold the event, which comes with a maximum population for the event, but they have now requested a 10 year permit that would allow the population to grow to 100,000 people by 2022. 

The draft proposal is technically called an "environmental impact statement" (EIS), which the environment in this case referring to everything that surrounds Burning Man, from the actual environment to the impact on local communities to the roads to protecting burners themselves. It's really long! 372 pages across two documents, which makes sense considering that Burning Man is the largest event in the country that receives an SRP.

I've read the interesting parts and skimmed the rest so you don't have to! Much of this is pretty dry but a couple parts really stand out.

The Scenarios Considered

The EIS considers five scenarios:

1. What the Org wants: A 10 year SRP that sees the population cap (including staff but not including gov representatives and vendors) go to 85,000 for 2019 and then steps up by 5,000 each year until it hits 100,000 in 2022. At 100,000 population, 2000 theme camps would be permitted.
   
   
2. Reducing the population cap to 50,000, and limiting the number of theme camps to 1000.
   
   
3. The location of BRC would be shifted north, but otherwise no change from scenario #1. Primary access would still be via Eight Mile Road, but now it'd be about 8 miles to the event site.
   
   
4. The SRP would be issued at the same population cap (80,000) as in 2018, with no other changes.
   ​
5. No SRP at all would be issued, and Burning Man would not be permitted to be held there.

Should We Be Concerned?

I think so, yes. I'll explain, but you also don't have to take my word for it. Jim Graham, spokesmen for the Burning Man Project, told the Reno Gazette, "Our staff is reviewing the document and accompanying 11 special studies, and our initial review revealed serious concerns with parts of the proposed stipulations. At this time it is premature to provide an assessment until we have completed a thorough review. We will then provide a more detailed response."

I don't know which parts he's speaking of, but there are four areas of concern that stuck out to me when going through the documents. I've read through the stipulations for Burning Man in previous BLM EIS/SRP reports, and there is nothing like these requirements in there as far as I can tell. These are new provisions.

1. They want to require the Org to contract with third-party, independent private security forces to screen vehicles and participants for contraband. I wish this was a joke, because it ought to be. Here's the quote from the document: 
   
   "At all portals of entry into the Event, beginning 14 days before Labor Day, BRC will be required to contract a BLM-approved, independent, third-party, private security to screen vehicles and participants, vendors and contractors, and staff and volunteers entering the Event. Third party, private security will report Closure Order violations, to include weapons and illegal drugs, directly to law enforcement as violations are observed so that law enforcement can respond."
   
   What the ever-loving fuck? I don't know what specifically "screening" would entail, but for everyone who has ever complained about Gate can we at least acknowledge that we'd much rather have them running entrance "security" than some private contracted security force? ​I think we can also depend on the fact that this would make entry even more of a wait than it already is.
   
   I think it's likely that the motivation here is that law enforcement doesn't like the fact that gate only checks for stowaways, and wants to bust people coming in with contraband. They know law enforcement can't demand to screen every vehicle, but private security at a private event can, and in this case said private security is required to turn over offenders to law enforcement.
   
   This is an awful idea that needs squashing.
   
   
2. ​​The option to issue a permit with a cap of 50,000 people. The option to issue no permit doesn't really concern me, because other parts of the document make clear that the BLM is well-aware that thousands of us would show up anyway, necessitating increased law enforcement presence and increasing the possibility of civil disobedience or unrest and confrontation with law enforcement. I don't think Mark Hall, the BLM officer responsible for issuing (or not) the SRP, is looking to throw a match onto several thousand metaphorical burn barrels full of highly flammable community resentment and anger.
   
   The reason I find it concerning is that I think it would seem, to many outside observers, like a good compromise between the event and the many legitimate concerns the event raises in the surrounding local communities. It'd be a bit of a nightmare of a compromise for the event this year though, as with 32,000 DGS tickets already sold, there'd only be room for another 18,000 tickets (of all kinds....low income, artist tickets, main sale, FOMO, etc). In future years, I think reducing the population to 50k is worth considering, insofar as bigger doesn't mean better.
   
   
3. It mandates that the Org increase the % of people taking the bus and planes to get in and goes onto say that this might mean more plug n' plays. "With increased Event size, there may be increased potential for changes to the values and setting of the Event. Increasing the number of participants arriving via bus or plane due to limitations on vehicle passes may result in the need for additional turnkey camps to support burners who cannot transport supplies​."
   
   I'm not hearing that noise. Down with plug n' plays, full-stop. If growing the population means accepting more plug n' plays, then let's not grow it, because they're right: putting more and more people on bus and plane transportation where they're unable to be self-reliant is going to lead to more turnkey/plug n' play camps. Yes, in theory those people can all find campmates who are driving in to carry their gear, or they can join container coops (if they live in one of the places that has one going, which many burners, particularly international ones, do not), but while some will go that route, it just increases the pressure to join a camp because of amenities, like it's a goddam hotel or something.
   
   
4. The Org would be required to construct a physical security barrier around the playa. We're not talking the trash fence here. The document specifically mentions Jersey barriers and K-rail fencing.
   
   Why? To protect against....what? The handful of people that try to sneak in over via the trash fence? Jersey barriers are to protect against vehicles. What vehicles need protecting against? Has there been a rash of Mad Max-style maniacs just saying fuck it and driving in from deep playa? I don't think so.
   
   This is just absurd and a complete waste of money, not to mention aesthetically awful. Here's what those look like:

Jersey barriers

K-rail fencing

What Can We Do?

I doubt any of you reading this like the idea of concrete barriers and k-rail fencing, and private security forces screening cars on the way in unless you're just trolling. I can see some people liking a 50k population cap scenario, and in future years I might even agree, but it'd be a terrible thing to implement this year with ticket sales already well under way. And if you think Burning Man needs more plug n ' plays, you're probably reading the wrong blog.

Mark Hall is the BLM officer who issues the SRP, and the EIS specifically asks that feedback be sent to him. ​

We like to say that Burning Man is a do-ocracy. That's true, but I believe that's the case for life generally. If you want something to happen, or oppose something from happening, do something about it, don't just complain. You may not be able to dictate the reality you want, but you can do your best to nudge it in the direction you wish. 

 His contact info is:

Dr. Mark Hall, PhD
EIS Project Manager
Black Rock Field Office
5100 East Winnemucca Blvd.
Winnemucca, Nevada 86445
(775) 623-1500


Mr. Hall's boss appears to be Ester McCullough, the district manager of the Winnemucca District Office. She can be reached at:
​
Ester McCullough
775-623-1500
wfoweb@blm.gov

The public comment period goes until April 29th, so make yourself heard! Mr. Hall told the Reno Gazette that, "Right now I have an open mind and I'm very curious to see what the public has to offer in terms of our analysis."

I urge you to contact Mr. Hall and potentially Ms. McCullough if you share my concerns, but to do so in a calm and informed manner. Let's paint a positive picture of Burners for Mark and Ester and not deluge them with the equivalent of all-caps emails. 

There are also going to be public hearings for comment on the EIS in Reno on April 8 and in Lovelock on April 9th. Details on them are still forthcoming as of this writing (I'll update this when I have them.)

I'm tentatively planning on being at the Reno meeting to see if I can give the reality I want to see a boost. I hope you'll consider joining me.

If you're coming, please get in touch at yes@burn.life and I'll put together a mailing list to coordinate as many Burners that will be at the Reno meeting as possible. I think it's important we have a tight and organized response to the items in here that need to go. 

---

Other Areas of Interest

There are some other interesting tidbits in here that I thought some of you might be interested in.

• ​The Org would be required to place trash dumpsters in the city and on gate road leading to route 34 by Friday of burn week. Presumably this is to counter the fact that as a group Burners leave a large amount of trash alongside the highway.
  
  I know some people will get worked up about this, but ultimately as a group Burners leave a load of trash by the side of the road leading out of BM and in local communities. Yes, most of us don't do that (I encourage you to get rid of your trash at $5/bag with the locals that run trash services that week for Burners) but enough people that go to Burning Man do, and it's supremely unfair to the locals.
  
  If the culture of Burning Man has to bend a bit in order to mitigate some of the shit we collectively rain down on the locals, then it should. Their lives and lifestyle are more important than the event.
  
  
• The Org has explored alternate locations both with the BLM and with private landowners, but has failed to locate a suitable one, and so a different location isn't even considered as an alternative scenario.
  
  I don't think that's surprising. The event has been shaped by the playa and at there are just so many strands now that tie it to that location that it's hard to move.
  
  
• They recommend that gate road be moved to the north of the city in order to reduce the dust, since the prevailing winds out there are from the SSW-ish and the vehicles on gate kick up a ton of dust. I don't know what the practical implications are other than the dust, but I think that'd be potentially great.
  
  
• The Org has to post a large reclamation bond to pay for any large-scale art installations or theme camps that aren't removed from the playa by participants. Direct response to the 747 team's failure to remove their art promptly? 
  
  
• A sexual assault response team would be established in Gerlach to make it easier to comfort victims on the way to/from examination (which has to take place for purposes of rape in certain facilities which aren't, as I understand them, very easy to establish on-playa) and do it with the option of ground transport vs helicopter (the latter being enormously more expensive). It says this will also increase the rate of successful prosecutions against sexual assault offenders out there. This seems like a great thing all-around to me.