![](media/image1.jpeg){width="7.720138888888889in" height="10.25in"}

##### 

##### 

##### This page left intentionally blank

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### Table of Contents

### **Item Page**

**Chapter 1 Purpose and Need** 1-1

1.1 Introduction 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need 1-2

1.3 Background 1-3

1.4 Fireworks Objectives 1-4

1.5 Scoping Issues and Impact Topics 1-4

1.5.1 Important Issues 1-5

1.5.2 Other Issues Considered but not Further Evaluated 1-8

1.5.3 Impact Topics Considered in this Environmental Assessment 1-9

1.5.4 Impact Topics Considered but dropped from Further Analysis 1-11

**Chapter 2 Issues and Alternatives** 2-1

2.1Alternatives Considered and Analyzed in this Environmental Assessment
2-1

2.1.1 Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) -- July 4^th^ Holiday
Celebration

at Mount Rushmore National Memorial without a Marquee Program 2-1

2.1.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration
to

Include a Fireworks Program.............. 2-1

2.1.3 Alternative 3 -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a Laser
Light 2-2

2.1.4 Environmentally Preferred Alternative 2-2

2.3 Impact Definitions 2-3

2.4 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring 2-5

2.4.1 Fire Management Activities 2-5

2.4.2 Soils and Water Resources (Including Wetlands) 2-5

2.4.3 Cultural Resources 2-6

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives 2-6

**Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis** 3-1

3.1 Soils 3-1

3.1.1 Affected Environment 3-1

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 3-1

3.1.2.1 Alternative 1 -- No Action 3-1

3.1.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 3-2

3.1.2.3 Alternative 3 -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a
Laser Light 3-3 3.2.4.7 Reputation/Trust in the FS/BLM 3-8

3.2 Water Resources (Including Wetlands) 3-3

3.2.1 Affected Environment 3-3

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3-3

3.2.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-3

3.2.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 3-3

3.2.2.3 Alternative 3 - July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a
Laser Light 3-4 3.3.1 Affected Environment 3-6

3.3 Vegetation 3-4

3.3.1 Affected Environment 3-4

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 3-4

3.3.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-4

3.3.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 3-4

3.3.2.3 Alternative 3 - July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a
Laser Light 3-6

3.4 Wildlife 3-6

3.4.1 Affected Environment 3-6

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 3-7

3.4.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-7

3.4.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 3-7

3.4.2.3 Alternative 3 - July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a
Laser Light 3-7

3.5 Air Quality 3-8

3.5.1 Affected Environment 3-8

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences 3-8

3.5.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-8

3.5.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 3-8

3.5.2.3 Alternative 3 - July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a
Laser Light 3-9

3.6 Noise 3-9

3.6.1 Affected Environment 3-11

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 3-11

3.6.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-11

3.6.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 3-11

3.6.2.3 Alternative 3 - July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a
Laser Light 3-12

3.7 Visitor Use and Experience (Including Park Operations) 3-12

3.7.1 Affected Environment 3-12

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 3-13

3.7.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-13

3.7.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 3-13

3.7.2.3 Alternative 3 - July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a
Laser Light 3-14

3.8 Socioeconomics 3-14

3.8.1 Affected Environment 3-14

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 3-19

3.8.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-19

3.8.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 3-22

3.8.2.3 Alternative 3 - July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a
Laser Light 3-25

3.9 Human Health and Safety 3-27

3.9.1 Affected Environment 3-27

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences 3-28

3.9.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-28

3.9.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 3-28

3.9.2.3 Alternative 3 - July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a
Laser Light 3-30

3.10 Cultural Resources 3-30

3.10.1 Affected Environment 3-30

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences 3-31

3.10.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-31

3.10.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 3-31

3.10.2.3 Alternative 3 - July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a
Laser Light 3-32

3.11 Transportation 3-32

3.11.1 Affected Environment 3-32

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 3-32

3.11.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-32

3.11.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 3-33

3.11.2.3 Alternative 3 - July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a
Laser Light 3-33

3.12 Wilderness 3-33

3.12.1 Affected Environment 3-33

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences 3-34

3.12.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3-34

3.12.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 3-34

3.12.2.3 Alternative 3 - July 4^th^ Holiday Celebration to Include a
Laser Light 3-34

3.13 Cumulative Effects 3-34

**Chapter 4 References** 4-1

**List of Tables**

**Table Page**

1-1 Impact Topics for Mount Rushmore National Memorial July 4^th^
Holiday Fireworks Program Environmental
Assessment\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\........\........................1-13

2-1 Impact
Definitions..............................................................................\.....2-3

2-2 Comparison of Potential Impact of the
Alternatives...................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.........2-7

3-1 Common Noise Levels and Their Effects on the Human Ear
\..................\..............3-10

3-2 Recommended Land Use Noise
Levels........................................................3-10

3.  Population Characteristics by
    State..............................\..................\..............3-15

4.  Population Characteristics by
    County..............................\............................3-16

5.  Income Characteristics by
    County..............................\.................................3-16

6.  Employment Characteristics by
    County..............................\..........................3-18

7.  Visitor Statistics for the Mount Rushmore National
    Memorial..............................\....................................\..........................3-20

8.  Xanterra Parks and Resorts July 3^rd^ and 4^th^
    Sales............................................3-24

9.  Positive and negative impacts resulting from activities at

Mount Rushmore National
Memorial...........................................................3-35

3-10 Cumulative Effects by Resource
Area...\.......................................................3-36

**List of Figures**

**Figure Page**

1.  Mount Rushmore National Memorial Vicinity
    Map................\...\...\...\....................1-15

A-1 Fire Protection
Measures................\...\...\...\....................\...\...\...\....................\...\.....A-3

# 

**Appendices**

**Appendix Page**

A Fire Protection Efforts
................\...\...\...\..................\...\...\...\...................\...\...........A-1

# Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

1.  **[Introduction]{.smallcaps}**

This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the results of a study of
the potential environmental impacts of an action proposed by the
National Park Service to continue a fireworks display at Mount Rushmore
National Memorial as part of its July 4^th^ Holiday celebrations.

This EA has been prepared in compliance with:

-   The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United
    States Code (USC) 4321 et seq.), which requires an environmental
    analysis for major Federal Actions having the potential to impact
    the quality of the environment;

-   Council of Environmental Quality Regulations at 40 Code of Federal
    Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, which implement the requirements of
    NEPA;

-   National Park Service Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact
    Analysis, and Decision Making; Director's Order (DO) #12 and
    Handbook.

Key goals of NEPA are to help Federal agency officials make
well-informed decisions about agency actions and to provide a role for
the general public in the decision-making process. The study and
documentation mechanisms associated with NEPA seek to provide
decision-makers with sound knowledge of the comparative environmental
consequences of the several courses of action available to them. NEPA
studies, and the documents recording their results, such as this EA,
focus on providing input to the particular decisions faced by the
relevant officials. In this case, the Superintendent of Mount Rushmore
National Memorial is faced with a decision to continue a fireworks
display at Mount Rushmore National Memorial as part of its July 4^th^
Holiday celebrations.

In making decisions about National Park Service administered resources,
the Park Service is guided by the requirements of the 1916 Organic Act
and other laws, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and
Endangered Species Act. The authority for the conservation and
management of the National Park Service is clearly stated in the Organic
Act, which states the agency's purpose: "\...to conserve the scenery and
the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide
for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." This
authority was further clarified in the National Parks and Recreation Act
of 1978: "Congress declares that\...these areas, though distinct in
character, are united\...into one national park system\....The
authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection,
management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in
light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System
and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for
which these various areas have been established, except as may have been
or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress."

The busts of four American Presidents -- George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt -- were sculpted on
the southeastern granite face of Mount Rushmore as "...a memorial...
commemorative of our national history and progress..." (Act of March 3,
1925). This basic legislation authorized the carving and established the
purpose of what was to become Mount Rushmore National Memorial.
Subsequent legislation included charges to "administer, protect, and
develop" the memorial. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt placed Mount
Rushmore under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service by
executive order on June 10, 1933. The purpose for which the park was
established is to preserve and protect the memorial sculpture and the
natural setting, and to provide for the access of the public and for the
inspirational and educational appreciation of the cultural and natural
resources of the memorial.

The requirements placed on the National Park Service by these laws,
especially the Organic Act mandate that resources are passed on to
future generations "unimpaired" (DOI, 2001a). This EA addresses whether
the actions of the various alternatives proposed by Mount Rushmore
National Memorial impair resources or values that are (1) necessary to
fulfill specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the
memorial, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the memorial
or opportunities for enjoyment of the memorial, and (3) identified as a
goal in the memorial's general management plan or other Park Service
planning documents (see *Chapter 3 -- Environmental Consequences*).

1.  **[Purpose and Need]{.smallcaps}**

The mission statement for Mount Rushmore National Memorial is "to
preserve and protect \[the Memorial\] while providing for the education
and enjoyment of the public." The purpose statement for the Memorial is
to "commemorate our national history and progress through the visages of
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore
Roosevelt" and "provide the opportunity for a contemplative visitor
experience as related to the sculpture and its setting." It further
states that the purpose for the Memorial is to provide for recreational
opportunities.

The purpose for conducting a marquee event, such as fireworks, at Mount
Rushmore National Memorial during the July 4^th^ holiday is to celebrate
the national history and spirit of democracy, and to provide for the
education and enjoyment of the public. There is a need for the Memorial
to host a fun, inspirational, traditional, and educational program
celebrating our nation's birthday that reaches a diverse local,
national, and international audience.

2.  **[Background]{.smallcaps}**

Mount Rushmore National Memorial consists of 1,238 acres and is located
on the central slope of the Black Hills of western South Dakota, in
Pennington County (see Figure 1-1). The Black Hills are a forested
mountain range in southwest South Dakota and northern Wyoming covering
approximately 2 million acres. Granite knobs, peaks, ridges and valleys
covered with ponderosa pine and dotted with meadows characterize Mount
Rushmore. Nearby communities include Rapid City, Hill City, and
Keystone. Federal, state, and private lands surround the memorial. It is
adjacent to the Black Elk Wilderness Area, the Peter Norbeck Wildlife
Preserve, and the Hell Canyon and Mystic Districts of the Black Hills
National Forest. The northeast corner of the memorial is bordered by the
town of Keystone with a year round population of 300 and a significant
increase of seasonal population from April through September.

Throughout its history, Mount Rushmore National Memorial has celebrated
the national history and spirit of democracy during the July 4^th^
Holiday. More recently, the Memorial has sponsored a variety of programs
and activities during the Holiday celebration as part of its on-going
effort to reach out to a diverse local, national, and international
audience. Beginning in 1998, the Memorial included a fireworks program
during the July 4^th^ Holiday to celebrate the completion of the new
visitor facilities. The popularity of that first fireworks program led
to subsequent fireworks displays over the next three years. The
fireworks program was cancelled in 2002 because of the severe drought in
the Black Hills and the resulting fire danger. During 4 of the past 5
years, the fireworks program held during the July 4^th^ Holiday has
become widely popular on a local, national, and international scale. In
2001, over 30,000 people visited the Memorial to watch the fireworks
display, and approximately 10 million people viewed news coverage about
it on local, national, and international television.

Eighteen wildfires have started on the Memorial as a result of the
fireworks programs; however, all of the fires were quickly suppressed
and, in total, burned no more than 2 acres. Nevertheless, one hundred
years of wildland fire suppression in the region has resulted in an
increased density of pine stands and abundant ladder fuels (e.g. dead
and dry lower limbs, small trees), which create ideal conditions for
severe crown fires. Fire suppression activities have also reduced the
complex mosaic of forests and grasslands and increased the risk of
catastrophic fire. The historic pre-European settlement pattern of
frequent, low-severity ground fire, which removed ground fuels, has
shifted to a pattern of potential high severity wildfires that may
threaten life, property, and memorial resources.

The Memorial recently approved its revised and updated Fire Management
Plan (December 2002). This plan calls for the suppression of all
naturally-ignited and man-made wildfires, and allows for proactive
efforts to help reduce the current high fire risk to the Memorial and
surrounding communities. The Memorial intends to reduce the hazardous
fuel levels in its ponderosa pine forests over the next several years by
expanding its thinning and prescribed fire program. A majority of past
and on-going thinning activities have been conducted along the road
corridor and adjacent to visitor use areas. Under the expanded fire
management program, additional thinning treatments will first be
conducted in forest stands near the Memorial boundaries, especially near
Keystone, and within approximately 1,500 feet of the sculptures. The
Memorial will also employ prescribed fire in previously thinned areas to
reduce hazardous fuels and to restore the natural fire regime to the
ponderosa pine forests.

The Memorial follows the 2001 National Park Service Management policies
associated with fireworks as guidance for the fireworks program. The
policy states that fireworks displays will not be permitted if they pose
an unacceptable risk to park resources or values. In all instances, the
decision to approve or deny a request is made by the superintendent,
following consultation with the regional safety office. Fireworks
displays are conducted in compliance with the National Fire Protection
Association Code for the Display of Fireworks (NFPA 1123).

3.  **[Fireworks Objectives]{.smallcaps}**

The overall objectives of the Mount Rushmore July 4^th^ Holiday
Celebration Fireworks Program are the following:

-   Provide a quality educational program for visitors;

-   Provide an emotional experience that will build a constituency for
    the Memorial;

-   Provide a nationally recognized event that promotes visitation to
    South Dakota;

-   Promote partnerships and sprit of cooperation between the tourism
    organizations locally and statewide;

-   Provide for visitor, employee, and partner safety and resource
    protection;

-   Provide management and support for wildland and structural fire
    protection, law enforcement and emergency medical services;

-   Effectively manage parking and traffic flow expected for the event;

-   Effectively manage and support the logistics for the event.

    1.  **[Scoping Issues and Impact Topics]{.smallcaps}**

On November 15, 2002, a scoping letter describing the Proposed Action
and requesting public comments was sent to a mailing list of 163
individuals and organizations (see Coordination and Consultation Section
in this document for a complete listing of those individuals,
organizations, and agencies who received the scoping notice). On
November 28, the Memorial issued a press release to multiple news
outlets (newspaper, radio, television) about the proposed action and the
open-house public scoping meeting to be held on December 6, 2002. On
December 4, 2002 and December 6, 2002 the Memorial distributed a press
release in the Rapid City Journal that invited the public to an open
house to discuss the Proposed Action and offer their thoughts and
concerns about the advantages, disadvantages, and impacts that might
occur. The open house was held on December 6, 2002 in Rapid City, South
Dakota and 20 people signed the attendance list. Local television news
aired coverage of the public open house meeting and the Rapid City
Journal published an article about the meeting on the following day,
December 7, 2002.

The Memorial also conducted 2 internal scoping meetings with National
Park Service employees on December 3, 2002 and December 5, 2002. The
former meeting was held in Omaha, Nebraska at the National Park Service
Midwest Regional Office, where 18 people signed the attendance list. The
latter meeting was held in Keystone, South Dakota at Mount Rushmore
National Memorial, where 32 people signed the attendance list.

The major issues and concerns that came from the open house, internal
scoping meetings, and other public input (e.g. email, written and
telephonic correspondence) were evaluated and sorted. The park received
133 comments from interested parties during the scoping process. Issues
determined to be important were those related to the effects of the
proposed action, and those not already adequately addressed by laws,
regulations, and policies. Important issues were considered in
developing and evaluating the alternatives to the Proposed Action
discussed in this EA. The following issues were developed and
paraphrased from the comments received during the scoping period and are
not actions or issues developed by the Memorial management.

**1.5.1 *Important Issues***

**General Issues**

-   [Issue]{.underline}: It is appropriate that the Memorial have some
    type of fun, inspirational July 4^th^ celebration; it is
    inappropriate for that event to be a fireworks program because of
    the fire danger and because National Park Service policy prohibits
    fireworks from being ignited over forested areas;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The Memorial should consider Laser Light Shows
    or other displays (music, historians, historic portrayals) as a
    safer alternative for a great patriotic entertainment event;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The Memorial should have a combination of
    events, such as fireworks and a laser show, and the fireworks should
    be phased out over time;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The Environmental Assessment should include the
    "Go/No-Go" decision-making criteria for the fireworks program, and
    that criteria should be publicized prior to the program;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: We should focus our efforts on a patriotic
    program that is guaranteed to occur every year;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: It is unlawful for any person or agency to
    light fireworks in the Black Hills Fire Protection District.

**Vegetation Issues**

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The ponderosa pine stands on the Memorial and
    in the adjacent Black Hills National Forest, Black Elk Wilderness
    Area, and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve are at risk to catastrophic fire
    from accidental fire ignitions resulting from the Mount Rushmore
    fireworks program;

**Wildlife Issues**

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The fireworks program may impact wildlife in
    and around the Memorial;

**Park Operations**

-   [Issue]{.underline}: Past fireworks have damaged electrical cables
    in the vicinity;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Issue]{.underline}: The National Park Service should not continue
    to pay the expenses for this program; the money spent by the
    Memorial to fund this program would be better spent on other more
    pressing park operations and needs.

**Wilderness Issues**

-   [Issue]{.underline}: Noise from the fireworks program may degrade
    the wilderness experience of recreationists in the adjacent Black
    Elk Wilderness Area;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The Black Elk Wilderness Area is at risk to
    catastrophic fire from accidental fire ignitions resulting from the
    Mount Rushmore fireworks program;

**Economic Issues**

-   [Issue]{.underline}: Fireworks at Mount Rushmore have had a very
    positive effect on the image of South Dakota and have gone a long
    way in promoting tourism in the state;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Issue]{.underline}: The program is very expensive and may not
    really result in a large increase in revenue for the local and state
    economies;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The fireworks program benefits the local and
    regional economies and indirectly promotes visitation to South
    Dakota and the Black Hills during other parts of the year, not just
    the July 4^th^ Holiday;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The State of South Dakota and the Black Hills
    gets free and valuable advertising from local, national, and
    international news coverage of the fireworks event;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: There would be a large impact to the natural
    resources and uses of the surrounding Forest Service lands (timber
    and grazing) if a wildfire escaped suppression efforts during the
    fireworks display;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: Volunteer and non-profit groups are financially
    benefited as a result of their participation with Memorial
    concessions during the fireworks celebration;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: Providing law enforcement personnel to help
    with the fireworks program can be expensive for the South Dakota
    Highway Patrol, Rapid City Police Department, and Pennington County
    Sheriff's Department;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The costs incurred by the NPS to prepare for
    this event are high, and the expenses will be real costs even if the
    fireworks program is cancelled in any given year;

**Socio-economic Issues**

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The fireworks program is a patriotic display
    that celebrates the best of America and provides an emotional
    experience for all those who attend or view it through the media;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Issue]{.underline}: Fireworks at Rushmore instill a great sense of
    patriotism;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The Fireworks program is getting so popular
    that there are too many people attending, or trying to attend, the
    event;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: There is no better place than Mount Rushmore
    for citizens located in the West to celebrate the July 4^th^ Holiday
    with fireworks; citizens on the East Coast have the National Mall
    and Statue of Liberty to celebrate July 4^th^;

-   [Issue:]{.underline} Because of the controversial nature of the
    fireworks program, I believe the event has now created a rift
    between the National Park Service and some Rushmore Society members,
    and we should not continue with a program that threatens that
    special relationship;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Issue:]{.underline} The program helps cultivate partnerships
    between the NPS, the Mount Rushmore Society and numerous independent
    tourism organizations and attractions in the Black Hills;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The fireworks event promotes esprit de corps
    among the local population;

**Human Health and Safety Issues**

-   [Issue]{.underline}: Fireworks at Mount Rushmore are proven to cause
    wildfires;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Issue]{.underline}: If the fireworks program is to proceed, the NPS
    should strongly consider drought conditions, the state of hazardous
    fuels in surrounding forests, and the terrain that firefighters
    would have to traverse to suppress any ignitions;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The continuation of this planned ignition of
    wildfire without secure fire perimeters, adequate firefighting
    forces, or a written plan runs counter to professional fire
    management;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Issue]{.underline}: Fireworks at Rushmore would be unsafe because
    there is a concentration of the general public, very limited access,
    and congested traffic conditions. The opportunity to compromise
    public safety is real;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Issue]{.underline}: With the high fire risk associated with the
    forest in the area, I would suggest that, at the very least, the
    ponderosa pine should be thinned and prescribed fire applied to the
    area prior to restoring the fireworks event;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The Memorial should have an evacuation plan in
    place in case a catastrophic wildfire occurs during the event;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Issue]{.underline}: It is unsafe to expose firefighters to the
    suppression of wildfires at night in extremely steep and rocky
    terrain; suppression efforts have already caused 2 injuries to
    firefighters during the fireworks programs, one of them a serious
    knee injury;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: Fireworks at the Memorial will commit dozens of
    firefighters to manage the event when they would be better served
    elsewhere during the peak of the fire season;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The wildfire risk to nearby towns, such as
    Keystone, and private property is high;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: Because there is a finite number of fire
    management and law enforcement personnel in the Black Hills region,
    and since most, if not all of these personnel are required at the
    Mount Rushmore fireworks program, other parts of the region are
    temporarily at greater risk should an emergency occurs that requires
    the attention of these same personnel;

**Cultural Resource Issues**

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The talus slope and surrounding area is
    littered with remnants of past firework shells;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Issue]{.underline}: The concussion from the fireworks explosions
    may create structural failure on the visages;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: A section 106 Consultation must be completed 1)
    since the Hall of Records canyon lies within the Historic District
    and the potential impacts to the Historic District from the
    preparation and lighting of the fireworks, and 2) since there would
    be a fire risk to the historic structures on the Memorial;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: Tribal concerns should be addressed in the
    Environmental Assessment;

-   [Issue]{.underline}: The cultural landscape will be impacted if the
    forested areas of the Memorial are burned up in a wildfire.

**1.5.2 *Other Issues Considered but not Further Analyzed***

-   [Issue: An Environmental Impact Statement should be conducted on
    this program because it is too political and the manager cannot say
    "No Significant Impact".]{.underline} At this time, it is unclear
    whether or not there would be a significant impact to the human
    environment as a result of conducting a fireworks program to
    celebrate the July 4^th^ Holiday. This Environmental Assessment is
    being prepared to identify and determine the environmental
    consequences resulting from a fireworks event, or other alternative
    program, such as a laser show, and a determination of significance
    will be made as a result of the analysis. If the analysis determines
    that a significant impact would occur, then the Superintendent would
    prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The fact that an
    individual believes the program is too political is not a "trigger",
    as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act, that
    automatically requires the National Park Service to prepare an
    Environmental Impact Statement.

-   [Issue: This EA process is dishonest because it is being conducted
    to justify past and future fireworks event.]{.underline} The
    Superintendent is preparing this environmental assessment to help
    identify and determine the environmental consequences resulting from
    a fireworks events, or other alternative program, such as a laser
    show, to celebrate the July 4^th^ Holiday. Armed with the
    environmental assessment, the Superintendent can make a more
    informed decision about whether or not he/she should continue the
    fireworks program or replace it with another fun and inspirational
    event. The fact that an individual(s) perceives this process as
    dishonest in that it seeks to justify past and future fireworks
    programs is outside the scope of this environmental assessment.

-   [Issue: Mount Rushmore should get legislative approval and funding
    for conducting fireworks so that it will not continue to contradict
    National Park Service policy on fireworks over forested
    areas.]{.underline} In all past fireworks displays at Mount Rushmore
    National Memorial, the Superintendent requested and obtained a
    waiver from the Director of the National Park Service, which
    permitted the fireworks celebration. Seeking legislative approval
    from the United States Congress to conduct and fund fireworks at
    Mount Rushmore every July 4^th^ Holiday is an option available to
    the Superintendent. Seeking a waiver each year from the Director of
    the National Park Service is another option. Regardless of which
    path the Superintendent takes, the issue of whether or not the
    Superintendent should seek legislative approval is outside the scope
    of this environmental assessment.

-   [Issue: The National Park Service no longer observe the traditions
    of the sculpture maintenance crew preparing for the work or use of
    the traditional equipment (bosun's chair, winches, cables,
    etc.).]{.underline} The fact that the National Park Service no
    longer observes the traditions of the sculpture maintenance crew's
    preparing for the work or use of traditional equipment is outside
    the scope of this environmental assessment. The decision by the
    Superintendent of Mount Rushmore National Memorial to continue or
    discontinue the fireworks program during the July 4^th^ Holiday has
    no cause and effect relationship with his/her decision to observe
    the traditions of the sculpture maintenance crew.

-   [Issue: Security "improvements" in the Hall of Records valley will
    forever detract from the feeling one derives from entering the
    valley. These improvements have eclipsed the historic fabric and
    replaced it with the coldness of technology and the surrounding
    hardened barriers.]{.underline} Security improvements in the Hall of
    Records Valley, and any potential environmental consequences
    resulting from those improvements are outside the scope of this
    environmental assessment. The decision by the Superintendent of
    Mount Rushmore National Memorial to continue or discontinue the
    fireworks program during the July 4^th^ Holiday has no cause and
    effect relationship with past and any on-going security
    improvements.

-   [Issue: The fireworks explosions are a violent means of celebration
    and simulates bombing.]{.underline} The use of fireworks to
    celebrate the nation's birthday is widely considered as a
    "traditional" way to celebrate the July 4^th^ Holiday. While some
    individuals may perceive fireworks as violent and disapprove of
    their use in any celebration, that perception reflects their
    personal beliefs. Therefore, the issue is outside the scope of this
    Environmental Assessment.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Issue: The Superintendent of Mount Rushmore should not be the only
    person responsible for making a "go" decision for the fireworks
    event in any given year.]{.underline} While the Superintendent may
    look to others for their opinion on whether to conduct or not
    conduct the fireworks event in any given year, the final decision
    and ultimate responsibility for the event rests solely with the
    Superintendent at Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Therefore, this
    issue is not considered for further analysis in this Environmental
    Assessment.

**1.5.3 *Impact Topics Considered in this EA***

Impact topics are derived from issues raised during internal and
external scoping. Not every conceivable impact of a proposed action is
substantive enough to warrant analysis. The following topics, however,
do merit consideration in this EA:

**Soils**: Wildfires that may result from a fireworks program and fire
suppression activities can adversely impact soils, therefore, impacts to
soils are analyzed in this EA.

**Water Resources (including Wetlands)**: NPS policies require
protection of water resources consistent with the Federal Clean Water
Act. Mount Rushmore National Memorial contains several intermittent
streams and wetlands. Fire suppression efforts and wildfires that may
result from a fireworks program can adversely impact stream channels and
wetlands, therefore, impacts to water resources are analyzed in this EA.

**Vegetation**: Ponderosa pine of varying age is the dominant vegetation
type in the memorial. An area of the memorial contains one of the
largest stand of old growth ponderosa pine in the Black Hills. Starling
Basin, located in the southern part of the memorial, has been described
as a "type habitat" that is rare in the Black Hills. Since fire
suppression efforts and wildfires that may result from a fireworks
program can impact vegetation and the ponderosa pine forest stands on
and off the Memorial, vegetation impacts are analyzed in this EA.

**Wildlife**: There are resident populations of various species of
reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, fish, and invertebrates that can
be impacted by the concussion blasts and by wildfires that may result
from a fireworks program. Therefore, impacts to wildlife are evaluated
in this EA.

**Air Quality**: The Federal 1970 Clean Air Act stipulates that Federal
agencies have an affirmative responsibility to protect a park's air
quality from adverse air pollution impacts. Moreover, Mount Rushmore is
located in a Class II area. While the park generally enjoys excellent
air quality, it is not pristine air quality. Air pollution from
industrial and electric utility facilities in the region, which includes
nitrate and sulfate emissions, impact air quality at the memorial. All
types of fires generate smoke and particulate matter, which can impact
air quality within the Memorial and surrounding region. In addition,
cars and buses that transport people to and nearby the Memorial also
produce emissions that may impact local air quality. Therefore, air
quality impacts are analyzed in this EA.

**Noise**: Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Fire suppression efforts
can involve the use of noise-generating mechanical tools and devices
with engines, such as chain saws, trucks, helicopters, and airplanes.
Each of these devices, in particular helicopters and chain saws at close
range, are quite loud (in excess of 100 decibels). In addition,
fireworks can have loud concussion blasts. While there are few
"sensitive receptors" (schools, churches, elderly homes) in the areas
surrounding the Memorial, a designated wilderness area lies on the
western border of the Memorial and would be exposed to elevated noise
levels from a fireworks program. Therefore, this impact topic is
analyzed further in this EA.

**Visitor Use and Experience**: The 1916 NPS Organic Act directs the
Service to provide for public enjoyment of the scenery, wildlife and
natural and historic resources of national parks "in such a manner and
by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations." A fireworks program can affect the visitor use and
experience of the Memorial. Therefore, impacts on visitor use and
experience are addressed in this EA.

**Socio-economics**: NEPA requires an analysis of impacts to the "human
environment" which includes economic, social and demographic elements in
the affected area. A fireworks program can benefit the local and
regional economies, and can positively affect the "quality of life" of
residents and visitors alike. Therefore, this impact topic is included
for further analysis in this EA.

**Human Health and Safety**: Wildfires can be extremely hazardous, even
life-threatening, to humans, and a fireworks program at the Memorial may
result in the ignition of wildfires during the course of the program. In
addition, firefighters that must suppress any wildfires resulting from
the fireworks program must initially do so in step terrain and at night.
Injuries to the wildland firefighters have been documented during
suppression of wildfires that were started by fireworks at the Memorial.
Therefore, impacts to human health and safety are addressed in this EA.

**Cultural Resources:** Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 provides the framework for Federal review and
protection of cultural resources, and ensures that they are considered
during Federal project planning and execution. Mount Rushmore National
Memorial is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In
addition, numerous designations for historic protection of the memorial
have been made such as the Hall of Records, the Sculptor's Studio, the
residence, the Borglum View Terrace and other affiliated facilities from
the time of the creation of the sculpture. These cultural resources may
be affected both by wildfire, fire suppression activities, fireworks,
and fireworks debris, thus potential impacts to cultural resources are
addressed in this EA.

**Park Operations**: Severe wildfires can potentially affect operations
at national parks, especially in more developed sites like visitor
centers, campgrounds, administrative and maintenance facilities. These
impacts can occur directly from the threat to facilities of an
approaching fire, and more indirectly from smoke and the diversion of
personnel to firefighting. In addition, an annual fireworks program at
the Memorial requires months of planning and personnel to oversee the
event. Thus, the potential effects of the FMP alternatives on park
operations will be considered in this EA under Visitor Use and
Experience.

**Transportation**: Past fireworks on the July 4^th^ Holiday have
created traffic congestion as thousands of people flock to the Memorial
and surrounding areas to view the program. Following a fireworks event,
it can take up to 2-2 ½ hours for traffic to disperse. Therefore, this
topic will be addressed in this analysis.

[]{.mark}

**Wilderness**: According to National Park Service Management Policies
(2001), proposals having the potential to impact wilderness resources
must be evaluated in accordance with National Park Service procedures
for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Because Mount
Rushmore is bordered by the Black Elk Wilderness Area, wilderness
impacts are evaluated further in this EA.

**1.5.4 *Impact Topics Considered but dropped from Further Analysis***

NEPA and the CEQ Regulations direct agencies to "avoid useless
bulk...and concentrate effort and attention on important issues" (40 CFR
1502.15). Certain impact topics that are sometimes addressed in NEPA
documents on other kinds of proposed actions or projects have been
judged to not be substantively affected by any of the FMP alternatives
considered in this EA. These topics are listed and briefly described
below, and the rationale provided for considering them, but dropping
them from further analysis.

**Threatened and Endangered Species**: The Federal Endangered Species
Act prohibits harm to any species of fauna or flora listed by the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as being either threatened or
endangered. Such harm includes not only direct injury or mortality, but
also disrupting the habitat on which these species depend. There are no
known threatened or endangered species that reside within Mount Rushmore
National Memorial, nor is there any critical habitat. Therefore, this
impact topic is not included for further analysis in this EA.

**Floodplains**: Presidential Executive Orders mandate floodplain
management and protection of wetlands. The Memorial does not contain any
floodplains, and therefore impacts are not analyzed further in this EA.

**Utilities**: Generally speaking, some kinds of projects, especially
those involving construction, may temporarily impact above and
below-ground telephone, electrical, natural gas, water, and sewer lines
and cables, potentially disrupting service to customers. Other proposed
actions may exert a substantial, long-term demand on telephone,
electrical, natural gas, water, and sewage infrastructure, sources, and
service, thereby compromising existing service levels or causing a need
for new facilities to be constructed. None of the alternatives will
cause any of these effects to any extent, and therefore utilities are
eliminated from any additional analysis.

**Waste Management**: During any fireworks program, the Memorial would
install several port-o-lets and additional trash receptacles to help
supplement its existing waste management infrastructure. Therefore this
impact topic is not further addressed in this EA.

**Land Use**: Land use of the Memorial and surrounding area would not be
directly impacted by the fireworks program. It is not reasonably
foreseeable that the city of Keystone or other areas within the vicinity
of the Memorial would be impacted by catastrophic wildfire as a result
of fireworks, therefore land use is not further addressed in this EA.

**Environmental Justice / Protection of Children**: Presidential
Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies to identify and address
disproportionate impacts of their programs, policies and activities on
minority and low-income populations. Executive Order 13045 requires
Federal actions and policies to identify and address disproportionately
adverse risks to the health and safety of children. None of the
alternatives would have disproportionate health or environmental effects
on minorities or low-income populations as defined in the Environmental
Protection Agency's Environmental Justice Guidance, therefore, these
topics are not further addressed in this EA.

**Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands**: Prime farmland has the best
combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food,
fed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Unique land is land other than
prime farmland that is used for production of specific high-value food
and fiber crops. Both categories require that the land is available for
farming uses. Lands within Mount Rushmore National Memorial are not
available for farming and, therefore, do not meet these definitions.
This impact topic is not evaluated further in this EA.

**Indian Trust Resources**: Indian trust assets are owned by Native
Americans but held in trust by the United States. Indian trust assets do
not occur within Mount Rushmore National Memorial and, therefore, are
not evaluated further in this EA.

**Resource Conservation, Including Energy, and Pollution Prevention**:
The National Park Service's *Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design*
provides a basis for achieving sustainability in facility planning and
design, emphasizes the importance of biodiversity, and encourages
responsible decisions. The guidebook articulates principles to be used
such as resource conservation and recycling. The alternatives would not
minimize or add to resource conservation or pollution prevention on the
Memorial and, therefore, this impact topic is not evaluated further in
this EA.

  ------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------
  **Table 1-1 Impact Topics                      
  for Mount Rushmore                             
  National Memorial July                         
  4^th^ Holiday Fireworks                        
  Program Environmental                          
  Assessment**                                   

  **Impact Topic**          **Retained or        **Relevant Regulations or
                            Dismissed from       Policies**
                            Further Evaluation** 

                                                 

  Soils                     Retained             NPS *Management Policies
                                                 2001*

  Water Resources           Retained             Clean Water Act;
                                                 Executive Order 12088;
                                                 NPS *Management Policies*

  Wetlands                  Retained             Executive Order 11988;
                                                 Executive Order 11990;
                                                 Rivers and Harbors Act;
                                                 Clean Water Act; NPS
                                                 *Management Policies*

  Vegetation                Retained             NPS *Management Policies*

  Wildlife                  Retained             NPS *Management Policies*

  Air Quality               Retained             Federal Clean Air Act
                                                 (CAA); CAA Amendments of
                                                 1990; NPS *Management
                                                 Policies*

  Noise                     Retained             NPS *Management Policies*

  Visitor Use and           Retained             NPS *Management Policies*
  Experience                                     

  Human Health & Safety     Retained             NPS *Management Policies*

  Cultural Resources        Retained             Section 106; National
                                                 Historic Preservation
                                                 Act; 36 CFR 800; NEPA;
                                                 Executive Order 13007;
                                                 Director's Order #28; NPS
                                                 *Management Policies*

  Socio-economics           Retained             40 CFR Regulations for
                                                 Implementing NEPA; NPS
                                                 *Management Policies*

  Park Operations           Retained             NPS *Management Policies*

  Transportation            Retained             NPS *Management Policies*

  Wilderness                Retained             The Wilderness Act;
                                                 Director's Order #41; NPS
                                                 *Management Policies*

  Threatened and Endangered Dismissed            Endangered Species Act;
  Species and their                              NPS *Management Policies*
  Habitats                                       

  Utilities                 Dismissed            NPS *Management Policies*

  Waste Management          Dismissed            NPS *Management Policies*

  Land Use                  Dismissed            NPS *Management Policies*

  Environmental Justice     Dismissed            Executive Order 12898

  Prime and Unique          Dismissed            Council on Environmental
  Agricultural Lands                             Quality 1980 memorandum
                                                 on prime and unique
                                                 farmlands

  Indian Trust Resources    Dismissed            Department of the
                                                 Interior Secretarial
                                                 Orders No. 3206 and No.
                                                 3175

  Resource Conservation,    Dismissed            NEPA; NPS *Guiding
  Including Energy, and                          Principles of Sustainable
  Pollution Prevention                           Design*; NPS *Management
                                                 Policies*
  ------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------

**Figure 1-1 Mount Rushmore National Memorial Vicinity**

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.826388888888889in"
height="8.838888888888889in"}

**Chapter 2 - Issues and Alternatives**

This Chapter describes the range of alternatives, including the Proposed
Action and No Action Alternatives, formulated to address the purpose of
and need for the proposed project. These alternatives were developed
through evaluation of the comments provided by individuals,
organizations, governmental agencies, and the Interdisciplinary Team
(IDT).

**[2.1 Alternatives Considered and Analyzed in This EA]{.smallcaps}**

**2.1.1 *Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative)* -- *July 4^th^ Holiday
Celebrations at Mount Rushmore National Memorial without a Marquee
Program***

Under the No Action Alternative, the Memorial would continue its regular
July 4^th^ Holiday celebrations, which typically include educational and
entertainment programs (e.g. musical performances, lighting ceremony)
between July 3^rd^ and July 5^th^; however, these celebrations would not
include a marquee event such as fireworks.

**2.1.2 *Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)* -- *July 4^th^ Holiday
Celebrations to include a Fireworks Program***

Under the Proposed Action, the Memorial would continue its fireworks
program as a part of the July 4^th^ Holiday celebrations. The fireworks
program would be conducted on July 3^rd^ and would include approximately
2,500 fireworks and would last 24-27 minutes.

Several days prior to the event, the fireworks and launch equipment
would be transported by helicopter to the Hall of Records valley behind
the sculptures. Preparation of the staging area and launch site would
not involve any excavation in the valley. During the actual fireworks
program, memorial staff and visitors would not be allowed within 1,000
feet of the launch site as a majority of the fallout from the display
would land in this buffer. This temporary restriction would result in
the closure of the Presidential Trail on the Memorial. In the morning of
the following day, all the fireworks equipment from the staging and
launch site would be transported from the valley by helicopter, and the
1,000-foot restricted area would be re-opened to the public. Shortly
after the July 4^th^ Holiday, Memorial staff and, if possible, volunteer
groups would then traverse the fallout area to pick up the litter
generated from the exploding firework shells.

In the months leading up to the fireworks program, Memorial staff would
prepare management plans for traffic, visitor services, security, fire
protection, and visitor and employee safety. Each of these topics is
included in the "Incident Plan" prepared by the Memorial for the
fireworks program. In order to safely manage traffic and protect human
health and safety during the event, the Memorial would work
cooperatively with local, state, and other federal law enforcement and
fire management personnel, and would temporarily supplement its own
staff with National Park Service personnel from nearby park units. In
2001, over 100 local, state, and federal law enforcement and fire
management personnel were on site to manage traffic and fire protection.
Fire protection measures that will be in place during the celebration
are described in detail in Appendix A of this EA. Figure A-1 (see
Appendix A) shows the location of these fire protection measures in
relation to the launch site.

**2.1.3 *Alternative 3* -- *July 4^th^ Holiday Celebrations to Include a
Laser Light Show***

In response to public comment about potential human health and safety
issues surrounding a fireworks program, this alternative would include a
laser light show to replace the fireworks program during the July 4^th^
Celebrations. The laser light show would be choreographed to patriotic
music with either taped or live entertainment and would complement
readings about the presidents. The laser show would last approximately
24-30 minutes.

The majority of the laser show equipment would be located in the
grandview terrace and the theatre complex. A reflector unit would likely
be placed on the top of the sculptures, however, it would not be
permanently mounted into the granite, and it would not require any
construction into the rock. A large generator would be placed nearby the
grandview terrace to help power the laser show.

**2.1.4 *Environmentally Preferred Alternative***

The National Park Service is required to identify the environmentally
preferred alternative(s) for any of its proposed projects. That
alternative is the alternative that will promote the national
environmental policy expressed in NEPA (Section 101 (b)). This includes
alternatives that:

> 1\) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
> environment for succeeding generations;
>
> 2\) ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and
> esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
>
> 3\) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
> without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable
> and unintended consequences;
>
> 4\) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our
> national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that
> supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
>
> 5\) achieve a balance between population and resource use that will
> permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
> amenities; and
>
> 6\) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the
> maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

In essence, the environmentally preferred alternative would be the
one(s) that "causes the least damage to the biological and physical
environment; it also means the alternative which best protects,
preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources" (DOI,
2001a).

In this case, Alternative 1 is the environmentally preferred alternative
for Mount Rushmore National Memorial since it best meets goals 1, 2, 3,
and 4 described above. This alternative best protects and helps preserve
the historic, cultural, and natural resources in the Memorial for
current and future generations because it would constitute a more
typical day at the memorial and would not require the preparation or
witness the visitation experienced with a fireworks or laser show.

**[2.3 Impact Definitions]{.smallcaps}**

Table 2-1 depicts the impact definitions used in this Environmental
Assessment. Significant impact thresholds for the various key resources
were determined in light of compliance with existing state and federal
laws, compliance with existing Mount Rushmore National Memorial planning
documents.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Table 2-1 Impact                              
  Definitions**                                   

                          **"Minor" Impact**      **"Major" or
                                                  "Significant" Impact**

  **Key Resources**                               

  Soils                   Minor damage to or loss Damage to or loss of
                          of the litter/humus     the litter/ humus
                          layers that causes      layers that would
                          minor localized         increase soil loss from
                          increases in soil loss  erosion; fire severe
                          from erosion; fire      enough to damage soil
                          severe enough to cause  community; substantial
                          minor harm to soil      surface sterilization
                          community; minor,       of soils that may cause
                          temporary surface       long term loss of soil
                          sterilization of soils  productivity and that
                          that does not cause     may alter or destroy a
                          long term loss of soil  portion of the
                          productivity that would vegetation community;
                          alter or destroy        long-term and
                          vegetation community;   widespread soil
                          short-term and          compaction that affects
                          localized compaction of a large number of acres
                          soils that does not     and prohibits
                          prohibit re-vegetation  re-vegetation

  Water Resources         Minor damage to or loss Damage to or loss of
  (Including Wetlands)    of the litter/humus     the litter/ humus
                          layers that increases   layers that increases
                          sedimentation on no     sedimentation on
                          more than 0.1% of a     greater than 0.1% of a
                          subwatershed; localized subwatershed; localized
                          and indirect riparian   and indirect riparian
                          impact that does not    impact that may
                          substantively increase  substantively increase
                          stream temperatures or  stream temperatures or
                          affect stream habitats; affect stream habitats;
                          no alteration of        alteration of natural
                          natural hydrology of    hydrology of wetlands
                          wetlands                

  Vegetation              Short-term changes in   Violation of the
                          plant species           Endangered Species Act
                          composition and/or      of 1973; loss of
                          structure, consistent   numerous old growth
                          with expected           trees in Starling Basin
                          successional pathways   
                          of a given plant        
                          community from a        
                          natural disturbance     
                          event                   

  Wildlife                Temporary displacement  Violation of the
                          of a few localized      Endangered Species Act
                          individuals or groups   of 1973; mortality of
                          of animals; mortality   species that jeopardize
                          of individuals of       the resident population
                          species not afforded    
                          special protection by   
                          state and/or federal    
                          law; mortality of       
                          individuals that would  
                          not impact population   
                          trends                  

  Air Quality             Minimal to negligible   Violation of state and
                          air emissions and       federal air quality
                          temporary smoke         standards; violation of
                          accumulation; temporary Class II air quality
                          and limited smoke       standards; prolonged
                          exposure to sensitive   smoke exposure to
                          resources               sensitive receptors

  Noise                   \<65 dBA at sensitive   \>65 dBA noise level at
                          receptors; temporary    sensitive receptors
                          noise levels \<90 dBA   (schools, nursing
                                                  homes, etc.); continued
                                                  exposure to noise
                                                  levels \> 90 dBA for
                                                  workers and/or the
                                                  general public

  Visitor Use &           Temporary displacement  Permanent closure of
  Experience              of recreationists or    trails and recreation
                          closure of trails, and  areas; long-term change
                          recreation areas;       in scenic integrity of
                          temporary or short-term the vista; substantive
                          alteration of the       smoke accumulation
                          vista, or temporary     during peak recreation
                          presence of             use
                          equipment/structures in 
                          localized area;         
                          temporary smoke         
                          accumulation            

  Human Health & Safety   Minor injuries to any   Serious injury to any
                          worker (e.g. minor cuts worker or member of the
                          or bruises); limited    public
                          exposure to hazardous   (life-threatening
                          compounds or smoke      injury or major
                          particulates at         disability); exposure
                          concentrations below    to hazardous compounds
                          health-based levels     or smoke particulates
                                                  at concentrations above
                                                  health-based levels.

  Cultural Resources      Temporary, non-adverse  Temporary or long-term
                          effects to registered   adverse impacts to
                          cultural resource       registered cultural
                          sites, eligible         resource sites,
                          cultural resource       eligible cultural
                          sites, sites with an    resource sites, sites
                          undetermined            with an undetermined
                          eligibility, and        eligibility, and
                          traditional cultural    traditional cultural
                          properties              properties

  Park Operations         Temporary suspension of Prolonged suspension of
                          non-critical memorial   all memorial
                          operations; negligible  operations; adverse
                          impact to memorial      impacts to memorial
                          buildings and           buildings and
                          structures              structures

  Socioeconomics          Potential to alter the  Longer term or
                          social setting, limit   permanent, alteration
                          access to necessary     of the social setting
                          services; disrupt       and character that is
                          resident or user        extensive and readily
                          populations or change   observable and extended
                          economic                over a larger community
                          characteristics that is or socioeconomic
                          localized, infrequent,  region; or a change in
                          of relatively short     the levels of
                          duration, and narrow in employment or business
                          scope.                  activity sufficient to
                                                  substantially affect
                                                  the income of local
                                                  residents.

  Transportation          Temporary traffic       Extended increase in
                          increase that exceeds   traffic that exceeds
                          the level of service    the level of service of
                          for a particular road   a particular road
                          network                 network

  Wilderness              Any impact that does    Temporary or long-term,
                          not conflict with       local or regional
                          wilderness values       adverse impact to
                                                  wilderness values --
                                                  violation of the
                                                  Wilderness Act
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**[2.4 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring]{.smallcaps}**

Mitigation measures are prescribed to prevent and/or mitigate adverse
environmental impacts that may occur from fire management activities.
Mitigation measures are common to all alternatives.

**2.4.1 *Fire Management Activities***

-   All suppression guidelines will follow Minimum Impact Suppression
    Tactics (MIST) guidelines. These include:

    -   Keep fire engines or slip-on units on existing roads;

    -   Restrict the use of heavy equipment such as bulldozers or plows
        for constructing fire lines. A tractor with box blade or disc
        will be used for fire line construction only in extreme
        situations when high value resources are at risk, and then only
        with the authorization of the superintendent or designee;

    -   Prohibit the use of fire line explosives;

    -   Use existing natural fuel breaks and human-made barriers, wet
        line, or cold trailing the fire edge in lieu of handline
        construction whenever possible;

    -   Keep fire line widths as narrow as possible when they must be
        constructed;

    -   Avoid ground disturbance within known natural (e.g. cedar glade
        habitat, T&E species) and archeological/cultural/historic
        resource locations. When fire line construction is necessary in
        proximity to these resource locations, it will involve as little
        ground disturbance as possible and be located as far outside of
        resource boundaries as possible;

    -   Use water instead of fire retardant. If retardant must be used,
        use a non-fugitive type, and avoid surface water resources;

    -   Use soaker hose, sprinklers or foggers in mop-up; avoid boring
        and hydraulic action;

    -   Minimize the cutting of trees;

    -   Scatter or remove debris as prescribed by the incident
        commander;

    -   Protect air and water quality by complying with the Clean Air
        Act, the Clean Water Act, and all other applicable federal,
        state, and local laws and requirements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Erosion control methods will be used on slopes exceeding 10% where
    handline construction took place;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   All sites where improvements are made or obstructions removed will
    be rehabilitated to pre-fire conditions, to the extent practicable.

**2.4.2 *Soil and* *Water Resources (Including Wetlands)***

-   Stream crossings would be limited to set and existing locations;

-   Fire line construction and fire retardant and foam suppression use
    would not be permitted in wetlands;

-   Fire lines would be located outside of highly erosive areas, steep
    slopes, and other sensitive areas. Following fire suppression
    activities, fire lines would be re-contoured, water barred, and
    possibly seeded (with native plant species)

**2.4.3 *Cultural Resources***

-   Prior to all firework program activities, cultural resources would
    be identified and avoided. Fire suppression units would be
    positioned at Sculptor's Studio and Residence II for fire
    protection.

-   No excavation would be permitted in the Hall of Records valley.

**[2.5 Comparison of Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**

Table 2-2 briefly summarizes the environmental effects of the various
alternatives. It provides a quick comparison of how well the
alternatives respond to the project need, objectives, important issues
and key resources. Chapter 3 discusses the environmental consequences of
the proposed alternatives in detail.

+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| **Table   |                 |                     |                 |
| 2-2       |                 |                     |                 |
| C         |                 |                     |                 |
| omparison |                 |                     |                 |
| of        |                 |                     |                 |
| Potential |                 |                     |                 |
| Impacts   |                 |                     |                 |
| of the    |                 |                     |                 |
| Alter     |                 |                     |                 |
| natives** |                 |                     |                 |
+===========+=================+=====================+=================+
| ## Key    | **Alternative   | **Alternative 2 -   | **Alternative 3 |
| Resources | 1 - No Action** | Proposed Action**   | -- Laser Light  |
|           |                 |                     | Show**          |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Soils     | No soil impacts | Potential minor     | No soil impacts |
|           |                 | short-term soil     |                 |
|           |                 | erosion and         |                 |
|           |                 | compaction impacts  |                 |
|           |                 | resulting from fire |                 |
|           |                 | suppression         |                 |
|           |                 | activities. Some    |                 |
|           |                 | localized minor     |                 |
|           |                 | benefits may also   |                 |
|           |                 | be observed at      |                 |
|           |                 | these sites.        |                 |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Water     | No water        | Potential short-    | No water        |
| Resources | resources       | and long-term       | resources       |
| (         | impacts         | impacts to water    | impacts         |
| including |                 | resources from the  |                 |
| wetlands) |                 | mishandling or      |                 |
|           |                 | misapplication of   |                 |
|           |                 | fire retardants or  |                 |
|           |                 | foams               |                 |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| V         | No impacts to   | Potential minor and | Plant habitat   |
| egetation | vegetation      | temporary impacts   | and diversity   |
|           |                 | to vegetation       | degraded in the |
|           |                 | resulting from      | absence of      |
|           |                 | wildfire and fire   | prescribed      |
|           |                 | suppression         | fire; continued |
|           |                 | activities. Some    | spread of       |
|           |                 | localized minor     | noxious weeds   |
|           |                 | benefits may also   | at the expense  |
|           |                 | be observed at      | of native       |
|           |                 | these sites.        | grasses and     |
|           |                 |                     | forbs           |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Wildlife  | Minor and       | Temporary           | Minor and       |
|           | temporary       | displacement of     | temporary       |
|           | disturbance to  | some wildlife       | disturbance to  |
|           | wildlife;       | species; potential  | wildlife;       |
|           | potential       | risk of individual  | potential       |
|           | increase in     | mortality as a      | increase in     |
|           | road kill       | result of wildfire; | road kill       |
|           | resulting from  | no impact on T&E or | resulting from  |
|           | increased       | Sensitive species;  | increased       |
|           | traffic volumes | potential increase  | traffic volumes |
|           |                 | in road kill        |                 |
|           |                 | resulting from      |                 |
|           |                 | increased traffic   |                 |
|           |                 | volumes             |                 |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Air       | Negligible      | Potential temporary | Negligible      |
| Quality   | impacts from    | impacts from        | impacts from    |
|           | increased       | firework smoke,     | increased       |
|           | traffic volumes | small wildfire      | traffic volumes |
|           |                 | smoke, increased    |                 |
|           |                 | traffic volumes.    |                 |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Noise     | No significant  | Temporary increases | No significant  |
|           | noise impacts   | in noise above the  | noise impacts   |
|           | on sensitive    | normally acceptable | on sensitive    |
|           | receptors       | level will be       | receptors       |
|           | (wilderness     | anticipated as a    | (wilderness     |
|           | area, state and | result of the       | area, state and |
|           | federal listed  | fireworks display.  | federal listed  |
|           | species)        | Some temporary      | species)        |
|           |                 | impacts             |                 |
|           |                 | (disruption,        |                 |
|           |                 | dispersion) to      |                 |
|           |                 | wildlife will       |                 |
|           |                 | likely occur. No    |                 |
|           |                 | significant noise   |                 |
|           |                 | impacts are         |                 |
|           |                 | anticipated on      |                 |
|           |                 | sensitive           |                 |
|           |                 | receptors, however  |                 |
|           |                 | (wilderness area,   |                 |
|           |                 | state and federal   |                 |
|           |                 | listed species)     |                 |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Visitor   | Minor and       | Beneficial          | Short-term      |
| Use and   | short-term      | long-term impacts   | beneficial      |
| E         | beneficial      | on local and        | impacts on      |
| xperience | impact on       | regional visitor    | visitor use and |
| (         | visitor use and | use and experience; | experience;     |
| including | experience;     | minor impact on     |                 |
| Park      | park operations | park operation      | park operations |
| Op        | would benefit   |                     | would benefit   |
| erations) | from a decrease |                     | from a decrease |
|           | in costs and    |                     | in costs and    |
|           | labor           |                     | labor           |
|           | associated with |                     | associated with |
|           | preparing and   |                     | preparing and   |
|           | organizing for  |                     | organizing for  |
|           | the event       |                     | the event       |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Socio-    | Community       | Minor benefit to    | Effects         |
| economics | experiences     | the local community | essentially     |
|           | minor impact    | associated with     | similar to      |
|           | resulting from  | enhanced sense of   | those for       |
|           | the loss of a   | community and       | Alternative 2,  |
|           | valued          | patriotism, and     | but potentially |
|           | recreational    | increased           | diminished by   |
|           | experience and  | visibility of local | the smaller     |
|           | the beneficial  | region. Local       | number of       |
|           | economic effect | economy benefits    | visitors        |
|           | of direct       | from direct and     | anticipated.    |
|           | spending by     | induced impact of   | Minor effect    |
|           | additional      | spending by         | associated with |
|           | visitors to the | visitors. Potential | absence of      |
|           | memorial.       | to alter community  | traditional     |
|           | Temporary       | setting or          | "Fireworks on   |
|           | inconvenience   | inconvenience local | the Fourth"     |
|           | and potential   | residents is        | celebration.    |
|           | damage          | temporary and       | Potential for   |
|           | associated with | minor.              | controversy     |
|           | additional      |                     | associated with |
|           | visitors        |                     | fireworks       |
|           | eliminated.     |                     | display         |
|           |                 |                     | minimized.      |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Human     | Very minor and  | Minor short-term    | Very minor and  |
| Health &  | temporary       | impacts during      | temporary       |
| Safety    | impact on human | preparation, and    | impact on human |
|           | health and      | launching of        | health and      |
|           | safety          | fireworks;          | safety          |
|           |                 | potential for       |                 |
|           |                 | injury from fire    |                 |
|           |                 | suppression         |                 |
|           |                 | activities in case  |                 |
|           |                 | of wildland fire    |                 |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Cultural  | No impact to    | No impact to known  | No impact to    |
| Resources | known cultural  | cultural resources  | known cultural  |
|           | resources       |                     | resources       |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Trans     | Minor and       | Minor and           | Minor and       |
| portation | short-term      | short-term impact   | short-term      |
|           | impact          | resulting from      | impact          |
|           | resulting from  | increased traffic   | resulting from  |
|           | increased       | volume              | increased       |
|           | traffic volume  |                     | traffic volume  |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| W         | No wilderness   | Temporary noise     | No wilderness   |
| ilderness | impacts         | disturbance to      | impacts         |
|           |                 | wilderness users;   |                 |
|           |                 | potential impacts   |                 |
|           |                 | from catastrophic   |                 |
|           |                 | fire                |                 |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+

**Chapter 3 -- Environmental Analysis**

This chapter summarizes the existing environmental conditions and the
probable environmental consequences (effects) of implementing the action
and No-Action alternatives. This chapter also provides the scientific
and analytical basis for comparing the alternatives. The probable
environmental effects are quantified where possible; where not possible,
qualitative descriptions are provided.

**[3.1 Soils]{.smallcaps}**

**3.1.1 *Affected Environment***

Soils in the memorial generally consist of a 1-2 foot layer of mixed
organic matter and decomposed granite resting on bedrock. In the lower
elevations, soils are deeper and of a finer texture, allowing for the
growth of hardwoods and grasses. Development of visitor use facilities
and social trail development from backcountry activities such as
recreational rock climbing plus the steep slopes have resulted in soil
erosion, compaction, and loss of vegetative cover.

**3.1.2 *Environmental Consequences***

3.1.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Under the No Action alternative, the July 4^th^ celebration event at the
Memorial would continue in a manner similar to celebrations prior to
initiation of the fireworks program in 1998, without a marquee event
such as fireworks or laser light show. The celebration would include
educational and entertainment programs that would not impact soil
resources at the Memorial.

3.1.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action]{.underline}

No impacts to soils are anticipated as a result of preparation for
fireworks activities for the 4^th^ of July celebration. Launch equipment
and the fireworks will be airlifted into and out of position, and no
excavation activities will be required for launch preparation. Shortly
after the July 4^th^ Holiday, memorial staff and, if possible, volunteer
groups would traverse the fallout area to pick up litter from exploding
firework shells. These activities are not anticipated to have any
effects on soil resources.

Firework induced wildfires and activities associated with their control
are the primary source of potential impacts to soils under this
alternative. Since 1988, the 4^th^ of July holiday fireworks program has
resulted in 18 small wildfires. All of these wildfires were actively
suppressed and, in sum, have burned less than 2 acres of the National
Monument lands. One major reason for fire suppression success from these
activities has been that ignition sites occurred within a limited
distance of the firework launch site providing for efficient deployment
of suppression equipment and personnel. For example, of the 17 firework
related ignitions that occurred in 2000 and 2001, 16 occurred within
1000 feet of the launch site (the 17^th^ occurred within approximately
1100 feet). Weather constraints under the "Go/No go" policy of the
firework program are designed to ensure that any potential ignitions are
generally within this range of the launch area.

Ignition frequency and suppression efforts are further aided by
characteristics of the site itself, as greater than 1/3^rd^ of the area
within 1000 feet of the fireworks launch site consists of granite rock
outcrops with little to no organic soil and no burnable fuel for
wildfire ignition. This characteristic, in combination with fire
prevention measures (See Appendix A), allows for the high probability of
containing the small wildfires caused by the fireworks program, and
reduces the potential for wildfire related impacts to soils.

Nationally, the initial attack success rate for all wildfire suppression
operations is 97 - 98% (Bahr 2002), and in the Black Hills this rate
increases to 99%. Arguably, most of the fires that have escaped
suppression occur during high risk conditions such as drought. For this
reason, fireworks would only be launched under low risk environmental
conditions, and fire suppression equipment and personnel would be in
place prior to firework launch.

Very minor and localized soil compaction would occur from wildfire
suppression activities, and vehicle use would be restricted to existing
roads. Fire line construction during wildfire suppression and prescribed
fire would result in soil disturbance and could lead to increased
erosion, especially in steeply sloped areas within the memorial. To
avoid these potential impacts, fire lines would be located outside of
highly erosive areas, steep slopes, and other sensitive areas. Following
fire suppression activities, fire lines would be re-contoured, water
barred, and possibly seeded (with native plant species).

Based on the small amount of total burned acreage that has occurred over
the last 14 years, strategic placement of fire suppression equipment and
personnel prior to firework launch (Appendix A), and climate and
environmental restrictions outlined in the "Go/No-go" implementation of
the fireworks program, it is not reasonably foreseeable that significant
adverse effects to soil resources from wildfire would occur under this
alternative.

Although unintentional, some potential benefits from small to soil
resources may occur in those sites where small spot fires occur from
fallout ignition. Under restricted climatic conditions, spot fires that
occur from fallout would not be anticipated to result in high intensity
or "hot" fires. Instead, spot fires would more likely resemble that of
the low intensity burns that occur under prescribed burning operations.
As a result, in these small spots, fire would release nutrients into the
soil and the fertilization effects of ash would provide some nutrients
for vegetation in the area. In addition to increasing nitrification of
the soils and increasing minerals and salt concentrations in the soil,
the ash and charcoal residue resulting from incomplete combustion aids
in soil buildup and soil enrichment by being added as organic matter to
the soil profile. The added material works in combination with dead and
dying root systems to make the soil more porous, better able to retain
water, and less compact while increasing needed sites and surface areas
for essential microorganisms, mycorrhizae, and roots (Vogl, 1979; Wright
and Bailey, 1980).

3.1.2.3 [Alternative 3 -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebrations to Include a
Laser Light Show]{.underline}

Under Alternative 3, a laser light show would replace the fireworks
display for the July 4^th^ celebration and would not be anticipated to
have any impact on soil resources at the Memorial.

**[3.2 Water Resources (including Wetlands)]{.smallcaps}**

**3.2.1 *Affected Environment***

The Memorial contains several intermittent streams that flow after
storms, heavy snowmelt, and/or high precipitation seasons, as well as a
series of springs. Approximately 34 acres of wetlands occur in the
southwest part of the Memorial within Starling Basin. No floodplains
exist within the Memorial.

**3.2.2 *Environmental Consequences***

3.2.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Under the No Action alternative, the July 4^th^ celebration event at the
Memorial would continue in a manner similar to celebrations prior to
initiation of the fireworks program in 1998, without a marquee event
such as fireworks or laser light show. The celebration would include
educational and entertainment programs that would not impact water
resources at the Memorial.

3.2.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action]{.underline}

Under Alternative 2, activities with the potential to impact water
resources include fire suppression (i.e., fire line construction and
fire retardant and foam suppression) that may result from the fireworks
program. However, in light of the mitigation measures employed during
fire suppression activities and the location of past ignitions, there
would not be any direct impacts on surface water resources on the
Memorial as a result of fireworks. Stream crossings would be limited to
set and existing locations; fire line construction and fire retardant
and foam use would not be permitted in wetlands; and fire lines would be
located outside highly erosive areas, steep slopes, and other sensitive
areas. In addition, fire lines would be re-contoured, water barred, and
seeded following fire suppression activities to minimize potential
erosion and protect water quality.

The use of fire retardants or foams could potentially cause short and
long-term impacts to water resources if misapplied or mishandled.
Retardants contain ammonia and phosphate or sulfate ions, which can
change the chemistry of a water body, thus making it lethal to fish and
other aquatic organisms. Foams contain detergents that can interfere
with the ability of fish gills to absorb oxygen. The degree of impact
would depend on the volume of retardant/foam dropped into the water
body, the size of the water body, and the volume of flow in the stream
or river. For example, if a 800-gallon drop is made into a fast flowing
river, it is likely that the lethal effects to aquatic resources will be
short-lived as dilution below the toxic level is quickly achieved. On
the other hand, a 3,000-gallon drop in a stagnant pond would likely
cause toxic levels to persist for some time (USDA, 2001).

3.2.2.3 [Alternative 3 -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebrations to Include a
Laser Light Show]{.underline}

Under Alternative 3, a laser light show would replace the fireworks
display for the July 4^th^ celebration and would not impact water
resources at the Memorial.

**[3.3 Vegetation]{.smallcaps}**

**3.3.1 *Affected Environment***

Ponderosa pine (*Pinus ponderosa*) of varying age is the dominant
vegetation type in the memorial. Starling Basin in the southwest corner
of the memorial contains one of the largest stands of old growth
ponderosa pine in the Black Hills. The stands in this basin are
considered an example of a habitat that is rare in the Black Hills, and
worth protecting. Additional intermingled trees include Black Hills
spruce (*Picea glauca*), quaking aspen (*Populus tremuloides*), paper
birch (*Betula papyrifera*), burr oak (*Quercus macrocarpa*), and Rocky
Mountain Juniper (*Juniperus scopulorum*). Shrubs and groundcover on the
memorial consist primarily of chokecherry (*Prunus virginiana*), pin
cherry (*Prunus pensylvanica*), kinnikinnick (*Arctostaphylos
uva-ursi*), grasses and sedges.

Many of the ponderosa pine stands in the memorial and surrounding areas
contain high densities of trees. These stands are currently a fire
hazard for the National Park (USDA, 2002), and a fire management
program, including activities such as thinning and prescribed burning,
is being implemented (USDA, 2002)

Noxious weeds in the memorial are found in several areas, especially
former construction zones, and the memorial has a program in place to
control their spread. Some of the more prevalent plant species include
Canada thistle (*Cirsium arvense*), field bindweed (*Convolvulus
arvensis*), common mullein (*Verbascum thapsus*), and hound's tongue
(*Cynoglossum officinale*).

Mount Rushmore National Memorial does not contain any plant species that
are protected under the Endangered Species Act.

**3.3.2 *Environmental Consequences***

3.3.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Under the No Action alternative, the July 4^th^ celebration event at the
Memorial would continue in a manner similar to celebrations prior to
initiation of the fireworks program in 1998, without a marquee event
such as fireworks or laser light show. The celebration would include
educational and entertainment programs that would not be anticipated to
effect vegetation at the Memorial.

3.3.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action]{.underline}

No impacts to vegetation are anticipated as a result of preparation for
fireworks activities for the 4^th^ of July celebration. Launch equipment
and the fireworks will be airlifted into and out of position, and no
vegetation clearing activities will be required for launch preparation.

Firework induced wildfires and activities associated with their control
are the primary source of potential impacts to vegetation under this
alternative. As described above, hazardous fuels loading in the areas
surrounding Mount Rushmore are a current concern for the planning and
implementation of operations during the 4^th^ of July celebration. As
with any fire adapted forest community, small low intensity fires do not
adversely affect vegetation health and viability. Indeed, the effects of
these small-scale, low intensity fires are most often beneficial, and
can improve the growth and health of a naturally fire-adapted forest
community. The exception to this would be in the event that a wildfire
burns the crowns of the trees in a stand. Under these conditions,
significant damage and mortality of a forest stand may occur. For this
reason, the planning and implementation proposal for the 4^th^ of July
celebration has been developed to take into account the effects of 4^th^
of July activities of the past, and implement mitigation measures and
procedures that respond to and prevent the possibility of large scale
crown fires.

As described in Section 3.1.1.2 (Soils, Alternative 2), the 4^th^ of
July events have lead to several small spot fires at Mount Rushmore
since 1988. All of these fires have been successfully extinguished, and
in total, have not burned more than 2 acres of forest. This high success
rate can be attributed to: the predictable and localized nature of the
ignition sites, presence of low fire risk areas within the zone that
most spent fireworks fall (bedrock outcrops with little or no vegetative
fuel), pre-firework placement of fire suppression equipment and
personnel, and close adherence to the "Go/No-Go" criteria for fireworks
show implementation. Based on these factors, the possibility of large
scale crown fires from the Fireworks display is not reasonably
foreseeable.

In the event that small spot fires do occur, some limited mortality to
shrubs, seedlings, and small trees is possible. Larger trees will not
likely be adversely effected, and grasses and forbs will re-sprout from
roots and rhizomes soon after the fire, since the majority of these
species are fire adapted at the memorial.

Starling Basin in the southwest corner of the memorial is of specific
concern for fire protection since it contains one of the largest stands
of old growth ponderosa pine in the Black Hills. This stand is
approximately 2,600 feet to the south-southwest of the fireworks launch
site. At this distance, it is not anticipated that spot ignitions from
fireworks fallout will occur since wind speed restrictions in the
"Go/No-Go" fireworks implementation plan would be designed to keep
fallout within 900 feet of the launch site. The possibility that this
site may burn as a result of wildfire spreading from an ignition near
the launch site is not reasonably foreseeable due to the presence of a
fire lookout post (Riordan's Rock), two fire engines, and fire crew in
the immediate vicinity (less than ¾ of a mile) of the basin which allows
for the rapid location and suppression of any spot ignitions. In
addition, the majority of the area over which ignition fallout is most
likely (within 900 feet) is on the opposite side of a major highway
which would used as a control line for preventing the spread of any
wildfire into the south and southwestern portions of the monument.
However, as described above and in Section 3.1.1.2 (Soils, Alternative
2), the potential for a spreading wildfire is not reasonably
foreseeable.

Suppression activities that resulted in soil disturbance (fire lines)
would make those disturbed areas more susceptible to noxious weed
infestation. Disturbed areas would be seeded with native grasses to
reduce the possibility of invasive species development or further
encroachment at the sites.

3.3.2.3 [Alternative 3 -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebrations to Include a
Laser Light Show]{.underline}

Under Alternative 3, a laser light show would replace the fireworks
display for the July 4^th^ celebration and would not be anticipated to
have any impact on vegetation resources at the Memorial.

**[3.4 Wildlife]{.smallcaps}**

**3.4.1 *Affected Environment***

A variety of wildlife resources inhabit the forests and grasslands of
Mount Rushmore National Memorial including ungulates, small mammals,
birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. Some common species
include mountain lion (*Felis concolor*), mule deer (*Odocoileus
hemionus*), elk (*Cervus elaphus*), porcupine (*Erethizon dorsatum*),
white-tailed jackrabbit (*Lepus townsendii*), mountain goat (*Oreamnos
americanus*) and yellow-bellied marmot (*Marmota flaviventrus*). The
memorial is currently conducting an inventory of all wildlife species on
the memorial. There are no known federally listed wildlife species that
reside within the memorial. No critical habitat is known to exist within
the memorial.

NPS Management Policies state, "*the National Park Service will
inventory, monitor, and manage state and locally listed species in a
manner similar to its treatment of federally listed species, to the
greatest extent possible*." There are 13 species of animals that are
listed by the State of South Dakota as endangered. They are peregrine
falcon (*Falco peregrinus*), whooping crane, eskimo curlew (*Numenius
borealis*), bald eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), interior least tern
(*Sterna antillarum*), black-footed ferret (*Mustela nigripes*), lined
snake (*Tropidoclonion lineatum*), Blanding's turtle (*Emydoidea
blandingii*), pallid sturgeon (*Scaphirhynchus albus*), finescale dace
(*Phoxinus eos*), central mudminnow (*Umbra limi*), blacknose shiner
(*Notropis heterolepis*), and banded killifish (*Fundulus diaphanus*).
Of these species, the peregrine falcon is the most likely to be sighted
within the memorial during migration (Ode, 2002).

At the present time, there are 15 species of animals that are listed by
the State of South Dakota as threatened. They are: American dipper
(*Cinclus mexicanus*), osprey (*Pandion haliaetus*), piping plover
(*Charadrius melodus*), black bear (*Ursus americanus*), mountain lion
(*Felis concolor*), swift fox (*Vulpes velox*), river otter (*Lutra
canadensis*), false map turtle (*Graptemys pseeudogeographica*), Eastern
hognose snake (*Heterodon platirhinos*), trout-perch (*Percopsis
omiscomaycus*), sturgeon chub (*Machrhybopsis gelida*), sicklefin chub
(*Machrhybopsis* *meeki*), northern redbelly dace (*Phoxinus eos*),
pearl dace (*Semotilus margarita*), and longnose sucker (*Catostomus
catostomus*). Of these species, only the mountain lion is known to
frequent the memorial, however, a sighting of black bear was recently
reported in the Black Hills region (Ode, 2002).

**3.4.2 *Environmental Consequences***

3.4.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Under the No Action alternative, the July 4^th^ celebration event at the
Memorial would continue in a manner similar to celebrations prior to
initiation of the fireworks program in 1998, without a marquee event
such as fireworks or laser light show. The celebration would include
educational and entertainment programs that would have negligible
impacts to wildlife at the Memorial. The noise associated with the
celebration would cause a temporary disturbance to wildlife at the
Memorial. Road kill incidents may increase due to increased traffic
volumes associated with the celebration.

3.4.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action]{.underline}

Under Alternative 2, proposed activities with the potential to impact
wildlife include fireworks and fire suppression. Indirectly, wildfire
resulting from fireworks ignition would also have the potential to
impact wildlife.

Concussion blasts from the fireworks could temporarily displace wildlife
within hearing range over a 24 to 27 minute period. Other noises
associated with the celebration would also disturb wildlife. Fire
suppression activities could also result in the temporary displacement
of wildlife.

The impacts to wildlife from both fire and smoke as a result of a
wildfire would depend on fire severity. The small wildfires that have
occurred in the past as a result of fireworks would have minimal affects
on wildlife species in the vicinity of the Memorial. Large animals would
not be expected to suffer mortality since they would avoid fires. Some
small animals such as field mice may be caught by fire but mortality is
not expected to be substantial. The exception would be during a
catastrophic fire where large and small mammals are generally more
affected by fire and could suffer individual mortality. However the risk
of a catastrophic fire is minimal based on the fire suppression measures
in place during the fireworks program (Appendix A), initial attack
success rates, and other factors influencing fire as described under
Section 3.1.2.2 Soils. The loss of individuals of a non-threatened or
endangered species, would not jeopardize the viability of the
populations on and adjacent to the memorial.

There would be no impacts to federally or state listed species from
fireworks or fire suppression activities under this alternative.

3.4.2.3 [Alternative 3 -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebrations to Include a
Laser Light Show]{.underline}

General wildlife impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to those
described under the No Action alternative.

**[3.5 Air Quality]{.smallcaps}**

**3.5.1 *Affected Environment***

Under the terms of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, the memorial is
designated as a Class II quality area. By definition, Class II areas of
the country are set aside under the Clean Air Act, but identified for
somewhat less stringent protection from air pollution damage than Class
I areas. The primary means by which the protection and enhancement of
air quality is accomplished is through implementation of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These standards address six
pollutants known to harm human health including ozone, carbon monoxide,
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxides (USDA,
2000a).

Historically, the memorial's air quality has been considered excellent.
Several major sources of air pollution (sources that emit more than 100
tons/year of one or more regulated pollutants) are nearby the memorial.
These include coal-fired power plants in Rapid City and Lead, South
Dakota, and Osage, Wyoming; three cement plants in Rapid City; and a
refinery and a natural gas pipeline compressor station in Newcastle,
Wyoming. A number of minor sources are also located in the vicinity of
the memorial, including sawmills in the areas of Pringle and Custer,
South Dakota, and Newcastle, Wyoming and a feldspar mill in Custer.

Air quality and visibility monitoring have been conducted in the Black
Hills for many years. There are several monitors in Rapid City,
approximately 40 air miles northeast of the memorial, which measure
total suspended particulates (TSP), fine particles, sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen dioxide. Air quality monitoring stations for particulate matter
2.5 and 10 microns (PM2.5 and PM10) are located at Badlands National
Park and Wind Cave National Park. Monitoring of particulate matter at
Wind Cave National Park reveals that air quality is excellent, with
PM2.5 and PM10 registering at background levels (Schultz, 2002).

**3.5.2 *Environmental Consequences***

3.5.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Under the No Action alternative, the July 4^th^ celebration event at the
Memorial would continue in a manner similar to celebrations prior to
initiation of the fireworks program in 1998, without a marquee event
such as fireworks or laser light show. The celebration would include
educational and entertainment programs that would not impact air quality
concerns beyond that produced by the increase in traffic to and from the
Memorial. Based on current excellent air quality conditions in the
memorial's airshed, and the anticipated traffic increase, it is not
likely that any air quality standards would be exceeded as a result of
activities under this alternative.

3.5.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action]{.underline}

No impacts to air quality are anticipated as a result of preparation for
fireworks activities for the 4^th^ of July celebration, or as a result
of the temporary increase in traffic as a result of the program
activities. Although firework displays can increase particulate matter
quantity in the air, these impacts are normally considered minor and
temporary, and are generally not considered a significant contributor to
this type of air pollution (USEPA, 1997).

The potential for firework induced wildfires (See Section 3.1.1.2
Alternative 2), and more specifically, the smoke generated from these
wildfires would be the primary source of potential impacts to air
quality under this alternative. Smoke consists of dispersed airborne
solids and liquid particles, called particulates, which could remain
suspended in the atmosphere for a few days to several months in the
event of a fire. Particulates can reduce visibility and contribute to
respiratory problems. Very small particulates can travel great distances
and add to regional haze problems. Regional haze can sometimes result
from larger wildfires.

As described previously, all fires associated with the 4^th^ of July
fireworks program have been successfully extinguished, and in total,
have not burned more than 2 acres of forest.

In the event that small spot fires at this scale occur, some temporary
localized increases in particulate concentrations would likely be
observed. However, it is not reasonably foreseeable that wildfires at
this scale would have adverse effects on overall air quality within the
monument's airshed. In the unlikely event that these fires escape
suppression and become large-scale wildfires, air quality impacts such
as increases in regional haze, increased particulate matter, and
associated health risks would be observed.

3.5.2.3 [Alternative 3 -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebrations to Include a
Laser Light Show]{.underline}

Under Alternative 3, a laser light show would replace the fireworks
display for the July 4^th^ celebration and would not be anticipated to
have any additional impacts above and beyond that describe under the No
Action alternative.

**[3.6 Noise]{.smallcaps}**

The loudest sounds that can be detected comfortably by the human ear
have intensities that are 1 trillion (1,000,000,000,000) times larger
than those of sounds that can just be detected. Because of this vast
range, any attempt to represent the intensity of sound using a linear
scale becomes very unwieldy. As a result, a logarithmic unit known as
the decibel (dB) is used to represent the intensity of a sound. Such a
representation is called a sound level.

Although the dB scale accurately reflects the sound pressure level of a
given sound, it does not accurately reflect the sound exposure levels
heard by a human observer. The human ear is progressively reduced in
sensitivity to sounds in the lower and upper ranges of our audible
frequency spectrum. To more accurately assess the loudness of sounds as
heard by the human ear, sound levels are measured on the A-weighted
decibel (dBA) scale. This sound level scale is progressively reduced in
sensitivity to very low and very high-pitched sounds. This method of
sound measurement mimics our own sense of hearing, and therefore more
accurately assesses the effects of different sound levels on a human
observer.

Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dBA. Sound levels
above about 120 dBA begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort
and eventually pain at still higher levels (DOD, 1978). Sound level
examples can be found in Table 3-1.

  ------------------- ---------------- -----------------------------------
  **Table 3-1 Common                   
  Noise Levels and                     
  Their Effects on                     
  the Human Ear**                      

  **Source**          **Decibel Level  **Exposure Concern**
                      (dBA)**          

  Soft Whisper        30               Normal safe levels.

  Quiet Office        40               

  Average Home        50               

  Conversational      60               
  Speech                               

  Busy Traffic        75               May affect hearing in some
                                       individuals depending on
                                       sensitivity, exposure length, etc.

  Noisy Restaurant    80               

  Average Factory     80-90            

  Pneumatic Drill     100              Continued exposure to noise over 90
                                       dBA may eventually cause hearing
                                       impairment

  Automobile Horn     120              
  ------------------- ---------------- -----------------------------------

(DOD, 1978)

To accurately assess the impacts of noise exposure on an entire
community, dBA sound levels are commonly expressed with a measure that
describes the cumulative effects of noise levels over time. The most
commonly employed cumulative noise measure for environmental analysis is
the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). This measure (expressed in dBA)
describes the cumulative noise exposure expected from all major noise
sources over a 24-hour period. Using the Ldn system, 10 dB is added to
the assessment of sound produced by activities occurring between 10 PM
and 7 AM. This addition places greater weight on the noise produced by
nighttime activities due to the higher sensitivity of communities to
noise during these hours.

Certain facilities, communities, and land uses are more sensitive to a
given level of noise than others. Such "sensitive receptors" include
schools, churches, hospitals, retirement homes, campgrounds, wilderness
areas, hiking trails, and species of threatened or endangered wildlife.
Impacts from noise production are generally assessed with respect to
changes in noise levels experienced at sensitive receptors. Different
types of sensitive receptors vary in their acceptance of noise
disturbance. As a result, noise impacts for different receptors are
often assessed using different noise level standards. Recommended land
use and associated noise levels are illustrated in Table 3-2.

  ------------------------ -------------- -------------- ---------------- ----------------
  **Table 3-2 Recommended                                                 
  Land Use Noise Levels**                                                 

  **Land Use Category**    **Noise Levels                                 
                           (Ldn)**                                        

                           **Clearly      **Normally     **Normally       **Clearly
                           Acceptable**   Acceptable**   Unacceptable**   Unacceptable**

  Residential              \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Commercial, Retail       \< 65          65-75          75-80            \> 85

  Commercial, Wholesale    \< 70          70-80          80-85            \> 85

  Manufacturing            \< 55          55-70          70-80            \> 80

  Agricultural, Animal     \< 60          60-75          75-80            \> 80
  Breeding                                                                

  Natural Recreation Areas \< 60          60-75          65-75            \> 75

  Hospitals                \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Schools                  \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Libraries                \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Churches                 \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Nursing Homes            \< 60          60-65          65-75            \> 75

  Playgrounds              \< 55          55-65          65-75            \> 75
  ------------------------ -------------- -------------- ---------------- ----------------

(HUD, 1991)

**3.6.1 *Affected Environment***

In general, noise levels at Mount Rushmore National Memorial are typical
for a natural recreation area (50-60 dB), with normal noise production
occurring as a result of visitor use and vehicle traffic along
transecting highways.

While Mount Rushmore National Memorial does not contain proposed or
designated wilderness, the Black Elk Wilderness Area, a sensitive
receptor, lies on the western border of the memorial. The Norbeck
Wildlife Preserve is also an area of special concern.

**3.6.2 *Environmental Consequences***

Noise levels were quantitatively determined using the Inverse-Square
Law, the law by which the mean-square sound pressure level varies
inversely as the square of the distance from the source (Traux, 1999).
All noise level calculations were performed assuming that obstructions
that may impede the propagation of sound (buildings, vegetation, etc.)
were not present, and that the land between the source of the sound and
the receiver was flat. Thus the noise level calculations should be
considered a "worst case" measure. Noise impacts were then assessed with
respect to the location of sensitive receptors.

3.6.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Under the No Action alternative, the July 4^th^ celebration event at the
Memorial would continue in a manner similar to celebrations prior to
initiation of the fireworks program in 1998, without a marquee event
such as fireworks or laser light show. The celebration would include
educational and entertainment programs that would result in an increase
in noise levels and noise produced by increased visitor use. However,
these effects would be temporary, lasting only as long as the 4^th^ of
July celebration activities. Based on the types of activities normally
planned, it is not anticipated that noise levels would exceed that
considered normally acceptable in a natural recreation area.

3.6.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action]{.underline}

Potential noise sources associated with the fireworks program are
related to the fireworks launch, high volume of visitors, and noise
generated by the fire crews during fire suppression activities of
potential spot fires.

Noise levels experienced at the memorial during the fireworks program
will most certainly exceed the normally accepted levels for natural
recreation areas. However, unlike nuisance noise, this noise source is
anticipated as part of the 4^th^ of July celebration itself. To ensure
the protection of human health and prevent damage to visitor hearing,
fireworks planners follow the National Fire Protection Agency's guidance
on the construction, handling, and use of fireworks intended for outdoor
fireworks displays and the general conduct and operation of the display
(*NFPA Guidance 1123*). Following these guidelines, it is not likely
that any adverse effects to the public would occur as a result of the
fireworks program itself. Moreover, if disturbance were to occur to some
members of the public in the nearby area, this disturbance would be
transient, lasting no more than the anticipated 25 to 27 minutes of the
fireworks program. Noise from the fireworks may degrade the wilderness
experience of people recreating in the Black Elk Wilderness Area.
However, the disturbance would be temporary.

Noise generated from fireworks would temporarily disturb and/or startle
wildlife within and adjacent to the memorial, and could cause the
temporary displacement of these species. However, since the fireworks
display would only last for a short duration, any displaced wildlife
would be expected to return to the area upon completion of the program.

The potential for firework induced wildfires (See Section 3.1.1.2
Alternative 2), and more specifically, the noise generated from their
suppression, may result in additional noise in and around the fireworks
launch site. As described previously, these spot fires would be highly
localized, and thus noise sources as a result of fire suppression would
largely be confined to the immediate vicinity of the launch site
(primarily within 900 feet) and along the roads approaching the launch
site. Noise generated from the use of heavy equipment would temporarily
disturb and/or startle wildlife within and adjacent to the area where
ignition from fallout would likely occur. The Black Elk Wilderness Area
and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve are outside of the range at which fire
suppression operations would have a noticeable effect.

3.6.2.3 [Alternative 3 -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebrations to Include a
Laser Light Show]{.underline}

General noise impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to those
described under the No Action Alternative.

**[3.7 Visitor Use and Experience (including Park
Operations)]{.smallcaps}**

**3.7.1 *Affected Environment***

Most visitors spend short-day periods at Mount Rushmore. Visitor use is
highest during the months of May through September, with July as the
most popular month. The July 4^th^ holiday fireworks show has become
widely popular. This nationally televised event attracts an attendance
of over 30,000 people on site and reaches millions of people throughout
the nation.

The Memorial offers a variety of interpretive programs, musical
performance, guided walks, afternoon children's activities, studio
talks, and lighting ceremony held nightly from May to September in the
park's amphitheater.

Visitor use and experience is overwhelmingly dominated by the sculpture
of the busts of four U.S. Presidents: George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. In addition,
visitors have access to a visitor's center and dining hall, as well as
several other attractions such as the Sculptor's Studio. The memorial
contains a viewing platform and nature trail that offer views of the
sculpture and scenery of the Memorial.

**3.7.2 *Environmental Consequences***

3.7.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Under the No Action alternative, the July 4^th^ celebration event at the
Memorial would continue in a manner similar to celebrations prior to
initiation of the fireworks program in 1998, without a marquee event
such as fireworks or laser light show. Although visitors would continue
to experience educational and entertainment programs, their experience
would be diminished by the lack of a fireworks display or laser light
show. Fireworks provide a powerful emotional experience for visitors
that symbolize American patriotism and independence.

Visitor use would most likely decrease to levels similar to those
experienced in 1997 or prior years before the inception of the fireworks
program as discussed in Section 3.8.1.1 Socioeconomics. It is also
reasonable to assume that long-term visitor use throughout the year may
decrease due to the absence of free advertisement on a local, national,
and international scale provided by media coverage of the fireworks
program.

Park operations would benefit from a decrease in costs and labor
associated with preparing and organizing for the event.

3.7.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action]{.underline}

Throughout its history, Mount Rushmore National Memorial has celebrated
the national history and spirit of democracy during the July 4^th^
Holiday. The addition of the fireworks program in 1998 resulted in a
substantial increase in the number of visitors to the Memorial and
surrounding area. The fireworks program is a patriotic event that
celebrates the best of America and provides an emotional experience for
all those who attend or view it through the media. The program has a
beneficial effect not only on the Memorial, but also on the image of
South Dakota and the Black Hills. The fireworks program attracts out of
state visitors who might not otherwise consider the Black Hills area for
celebrating July 4th. Visitation to the Black Hills region benefits from
valuable free advertising from local, national, and international news
coverage of the fireworks event.

The fireworks program requires intensive labor effort of park personnel,
long-term planning, and considerable financial resources that could be
invested in other, more pressing park operations. However, the fireworks
program meets the Mount Rushmore National Memorial's mission to "
preserve and protect \[the Memorial\] while providing for the education
and enjoyment of the public." Park operations could also be impacted by
damage to facilities including utilities. In the past, fireworks caused
damage to electrical cables that hampered park operations.

In the unlikely event of a severe wildfire as a result of the fireworks,
park operations could be impacted by damage or destruction of facilities
followed by short or long-term park closure. However, as described in
Section 3.1.2.2 Soils this scenario is not reasonably foreseeable.

3.7.2.3 [Alternative 3 -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebrations to include a
Laser Light Show]{.underline}

Under Alternative 3, a laser light show would replace the fireworks
display for the July 4^th^ celebration. This alternative would also be
used as a fallback event under Alternative 2 if the fire conditions
would prevent a fireworks display. Although the laser light show,
choreographed to music would approach the same entertainment value as a
fireworks display, it would not provide the same traditional patriotic
experience associated with fireworks on the 4^th^ of July.

As evidenced by attendance estimates for the year 2002, when the laser
show was substituted for fireworks, the program would attract
substantially larger numbers of visitors to the memorial and surrounding
area than if no marquee event was staged. However, the number of
visitors would be slightly less than are drawn by the fireworks display.

It is expected that the laser light show would require similar labor
efforts and would incur similar costs as the fireworks program for
planning and implementation. However, fire prevention measures and
personnel would not be necessary resulting in a savings of labor and
financial resources.

**[3.8 Socioeconomics]{.smallcaps}**

The analysis of socioeconomic impacts identifies those elements of the
affected social community that are susceptible to changes that may
result from the proposed program or any of its alternatives.
Specifically, the assessment considers how these alternatives might
affect individuals, institutions, neighborhoods, and the larger social
and economic systems of the potentially affected community.

The intent of the analysis is to develop a meaningful characterization
of the neighborhood, or communities within, adjacent, or immediately
surrounding the site of the proposed program in order to identify those
aspects that are sensitive to the actions under consideration and that
may be altered as a consequence of the proposed action. This
characterization provides the basis for the description of the affected
environment against which, any changes resulting from the proposed
action may be evaluated. The magnitude and extent of any potential
consequences to the social environment resulting from the project can
then be described.

***3.8.1 Affected Environment***

The description of the affected environment for socioeconomic resources
incorporates statistical and other descriptive data to provide an
overview of the relevant conditions of the study area. The study area
for this assessment is defined geographically by the residential
settlements, smaller communities and urbanized areas located within a
fifty mile radius of the site of the proposed Mount Rushmore July 4^th^
Holiday Celebration.

For purposes of this assessment, this geographic area will be
represented by entire counties that are contained, either in whole or in
part, within the artificial boundary created by the 50 mile radius.
Included is the South Dakota County of Pennington, where the Mount
Rushmore National Memorial is located, as well as the counties of
Custer, Lawrence, Meade, and Fall River, in South Dakota and Weston
County in the State of Wyoming. These six counties constitute the
affected environment for the assessment of socioeconomic resources.

In order to more completely identify any effects that may be experienced
in the immediate area of the proposed program site, a sub-level of
analysis has been defined to include those populated areas that border
the actual program site or lie along the access roads that would be used
by program attendees and participants to gain access to the site. These
would be the most likely areas to experience any direct physical effects
associated with the program. This sublevel of analysis is represented
geographically by 37 census tracts within the six county affected
environment that contain a resident population.

[Demographic and Community Characteristics]{.underline}

The site of the proposed July 4^th^ program is located in southwestern
South Dakota, in Pennington County. This hilly region lies in the Black
Hills, a heavily forested area covering approximately 2 million acres of
southwestern South Dakota and northern Wyoming. The area is sparsely
populated, with an approximate density of 9.9 people per square mile
(South Dakota), and is essentially rural in character. More than 40
percent of its population are living outside urbanized communities
(Census, 2000). Major communities in the defined study area include
Rapid City, located 23 miles to northeast of the Mount Rushmore National
Memorial, Keystone, bordering the northeast corner of the memorial, Hill
City, Rockerville, Custer, Hermosa, and Hot Springs.

The affected environment includes portions of two States, South Dakota
and Wyoming. For both states, minority populations constitute a
substantially smaller percentage of total population than the 24.9
percent that is characteristic of the nation as a whole. Similarly, both
states show a level of poverty is below the national level of 12.4
percent in 1999 (Census, 2000). Total Gross State Product (GSP) for
South Dakota was \$23,192 million in 2000. By comparison with the year
1998 this is an increase of \$2,622 million. The Wyoming GSP for 2000
was \$19,294 million in 2000, an increase of 2,874 million dollars since
over the 1998 figure (BEA, 2002). Table 3-3 presents states selected
population characteristics for South Dakota and Wyoming.

+-------------+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-------------+
| **Table 3-3 |        |       |          |           |             |
| Population  |        |       |          |           |             |
| Char        |        |       |          |           |             |
| acteristics |        |       |          |           |             |
| by State**  |        |       |          |           |             |
+-------------+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-------------+
|             | Popu   |       |          | Poverty   | GSP         |
|             | lation |       |          | of        |             |
|             |        |       |          | in        | (Millions   |
|             |        |       |          | dividuals | of \$)      |
|             |        |       |          | %         |             |
+-------------+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-------------+
|             | Total  | Rural | Minority |           |             |
|             |        | %     | %        |           |             |
+-------------+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-------------+
| # S         | 754,   | 48.14 | 11.3     | 9.4       | 23,192      |
| outh Dakota | 844    |       |          |           |             |
+-------------+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-------------+
| Wyoming     | 4      | 34.92 | 7.92     | 11.4      | 19,294      |
|             | 93,782 |       |          |           |             |
+-------------+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-------------+

Source: Census, 2000; BEA, 2002

The potentially affected environment includes six counties with a
combined total population of 155,992. For the regional population as a
whole, an estimated 11.36 percent were living at or below poverty level.
This is slightly lower than the poverty average rate for the State of
South Dakota, which has an estimated 11.4 percent of its population
living at or below the poverty level. Within the region, Pennington
County represents the largest county by population with a total of
88,565 residents, of which 13.3 percent are represented as minority.
This is slightly higher than State minority population percentage of
11.3.

In 2000, the population of the study area was living in a total of
61,048 households, with an average household size of 2.41 persons. More
than half of all households in the six county affected environment are
located in Pennington County. For the year 2000 Meade County had the
highest median household income in the region, \$39,992. Per capita
income is highest in Pennington County, \$18,938; followed by Custer
County, \$17,945 and Meade County \$7,680 dollars (Census, 2000). Thee
socioeconomic characteristics of the region are summarized in Tables 3-4
and 3-5.

  ----------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
  **Table 3-4                                                       
  Population                                                        
  Characteristics                                                   
  by County**                                                       

                    Population   Percent    Percent    Total        Household-
                    Total        Minority   Poverty    Household    Avg. Size

  Custer County, SD 7,275        5.8        9.4        2,970        2.35

  Fall River        7,453        9.5        13.16      3,127        2.23
  County, SD                                                        

  Lawrence County,  21,802       4.2        14.8       8,881        2.33
  SD                                                                

  Meade County, SD  24,253       7.3        9.4        8,805        2.66

  Pennington        88,565       13.3       11.5       34,641       2.49
  County, SD                                                        

  Weston County, WY 6,644        4.1        9.9        2,624        2.42

  Total Counties    155,992      7.4        11.36      61,048       2.41
  ----------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

Source: Census, 2000

  ----------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------
  **Table 3-5 Income                                   
  Characteristics by County**                          

                                Median Household       Per capita income
                                Income (dollars)       (dollars)

  Custer County, SD             39,303                 17,945

  Fall River County, SD         29,631                 17,048

  Lawrence County, SD           31,755                 17,048

  Meade County, SD              39,992                 17,680

  Pennington County, SD         37,485                 18,938

  Weston County, WY             32,348                 17,366
  ----------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------

> Source: Census, 2000

The portion of the affected environment that would experience the most
direct effect of the program is represented by an aggregate of 37 census
tracts that represent the immediate site level. This area contains a
total population of 155,992. The actual site of the proposed program is
located within the boundaries of census tract 011003, which contains a
total population 7,107 people. These residents would be expected to be
the most susceptible to any changes in the physical environment
resulting from the temporary increase in the number of visitors to the
memorial, or from traffic, noise, congestion, or alterations of the
visual landscape resulting from the proposed program.

The estimated minority population within the area immediately affected
by the program is 19,500, which represents approximately 12.5 percent of
the total population of the immediate site level. For census tract
011003, minority populations account for 5.43 percent of the population.
In 1999, the total number of individuals living at or below the poverty
level in the area bordered by the 37 census tracts was 11.57 percent; a
figure slightly lower than national average of 12.4 percent. For census
tract 011003, where the proposed action is taking place, poverty
populations account for approximately 4.2 percent of the population
(Census, 2000).

In 2000 there were total of 61,048 households with an average 2.41
persons per household. Within the boundaries of census tract 011003
there were 2,569 households with an average household size of 2.74
persons.

[Economic Characteristics]{.underline}

The primary industries within the affected environment include retail
trade, which contributes \$125,286,000 to personal income in the six
counties, and accommodation and food service, which contributes
\$21,357,000 (Census, 1997). Education, health, and social services are
the leading industries in terms of total employment, accounting for
approximately 13.94 percent of the employed civilian population 16 years
and over in 2002. The art, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and
food service sectors of the economy employed approximately 7.21 percent
of the total workforce during the same period.

Aggregate income for all six counties in the affected environment for
the population 15 years of age and over was \$2,853,898,700 in 1999
(Census, 2000). Pennington County leads the region with an aggregate
income of \$1,677,226,300, approximately 14 times greater than that for
Weston County in Wyoming, which has the lowest aggregate income of the
six counties in the region, approximately \$115,377,700.

Visitor spending for lodging, food and beverages, attractions, and
miscellaneous retail items accounted for a substantial portion of gross
sales in the Black Hills region of south Dakota and in the six counties
that comprise the affected environment for this analysis. In 2001,
visitor spending in the Black Hills Badlands & Lakes region of the State
accounted for \$326,512,090 or 54.3 percent of the total visitor
spending in the State of South Dakota (Madden, 2002). This represents a
7.2 percent decline from the prior year's total of \$351,672,278.

For the five South Dakota counties included as part of the affected
environment, visitor expenditures in 2001 declined 8.8 percent, dropping
from \$325,645,781 in 2000 to 300,401,226 in 2001. Only Fall River
County experienced an increase (2.7 percent) over this period. For
Pennington County, the actual site location of the monument, visitor
expenditures declined 9.1 percent from \$166,883,452 in 2000 to
\$151,685,199 in 2001.

The six counties that make up the affected environment had a total
workforce of 120,622 in 2000. The highest rates of unemployment, 6.0
percent, occurred in Lawrence County. This is almost twice as much as
the national rate of 3.7 percent and the state rate of 3.0 percent for
the same period (see Table 3-6).

  ---------------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------------
  **Table 3-6 Employment                                     
  Characteristics by                                         
  County**                                                   

                         Workforce size    Employed %        Unemployed %

  Custer County, SD      5,929             57.5              2.0

  Fall River County, SD  5,988             52.9              3.9

  Lawrence County, SD    17,551            59.8              6.0

  Meade County, SD       18,138            61.6              2.5

  Pennington County, SD  67,712            65.5              3.1

  Weston County, WY      5,304             56.6              3.3

                         120,622                             
  ---------------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------------

Source: Census, 2000

Estimates for the year 2000 indicate that for South Dakota approximately
30,860 jobs were directly or indirectly generated by the State's travel
and tourism industries. (Madden, 2002). About 75 percent of these jobs
are created in employment sectors directly affected by visitor spending,
such as retail trade, food and beverage service, and lodging and
amusements. Estimates for 2001 employment reflect a loss of
approximately 2000 jobs, a 2 percent decline.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="1.6041666666666667in"
height="2.157638888888889in"}[The Mount Rushmore National
Memorial]{.underline}

The Mount Rushmore National Monument includes an area of approximately
1,238 acres in Pennington County. The memorial is located on land owned
by the Federal government and managed by the U.S. National Park Service.
The site of the memorial is bordered to the northeast by the town of
Keystone (population 311), in Pennington County. Other major
landholdings in the area of the memorial are primarily Federal lands
managed by the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service. State lands include Custer State Park.
Interspersed between these Federal holdings are small pockets of private
land ownership. Major concentrations of population in the nearby area
include Custer -population 1,860, Rapid City - population 59, 607, Hot
Springs - population 4,129, Hermosa - population 315, and Hill City -
population 780 (Census, 2002). All are within the State of South Dakota.

The memorial offers a variety of interpretive programs, exhibits guided
walks, afternoon children\'s activities, studio talks and an evening
lighting ceremony, held nightly from May through September in the
park\'s amphitheater. Throughout 1998, Mount Rushmore National Memorial
celebrated the completion of improved visitor facilities at the
memorial. As part of this celebration, a Fireworks program was added to
the July 4^th^ celebration. Subsequent displays were presented over the
next three years, but were cancelled in 2002 due to dry weather
conditions. A laser light show was substituted during that year.

In addition to providing an educational, patriotic and recreational
experience for visitors, the memorial also contributes directly to the
economies of the county, region and the State of South Dakota. Estimates
prepared for an economic impact study of the Mount Rushmore Memorial
prepared by the National Park Service (DOI, No Date) indicate that the
memorial contributes as much as \$219,890,000 in direct income to the
state economy through sales by local vendors of such items as lodging,
food, gifts, film, gasoline, car services, etc. In addition,
approximately \$329,830,000 in secondary income is generated through
vendor sales to the local businesses that provide products or services
to visitors. Mount Rushmore visitors also contribute as much as
\$19,789,862 to the overall tax base and account for approximately
10,520 jobs in the state economy (DOI, No Date).

**3.8.2 *Environmental Consequences ***

The socioeconomic characteristics and resources of a community can be
impacted through a variety of activities that may temporarily alter the
structure and patterns of social life in the community or change the
income, revenue, or business base of the local or the larger regional
and State economies. The purpose of this section is to identify
potential sources of any impact resulting from the proposed
alternatives, isolate those elements of the social environment that may
be affected, and describe the magnitude and extent of any potential
changes

Socioeconomic effects are evaluated through the use of a comparative
method (Burdge, 1995; ICGPSA, 1995). The potential for impact is based
on the comparison of existing social conditions with those that are
reasonably expected to occur following implementation of each
alternative. That is, the likely changes that may be caused by the
proposed action, or alternatives, are compared with the social setting
as it currently exists, prior to the onset of any project-related
activity. An impact is defined as a change (either quantitative or
qualitative) in some aspect or characteristic of the socioeconomic
environment. Any resulting impacts identified are then evaluated as to
whether they may have a significant adverse or beneficial consequence
for the local community.

The primary sources of impact associated with the proposed July 4^th^
Holiday celebration at the Mount Rushmore National Memorial include
changes in:

-   Enhanced recreational experience for both outside visitors and local
    residents of the area;

-   Temporary increases in visitor populations to the memorial and
    surrounding region;

-   Increased spending in the local community and corresponding
    increases in employment, business income and tax revenue; and

-   Potential for alteration of the physical character and setting of
    natural and community resources.

The public perception of the beneficial and adverse qualities of the
proposed program with respect to lifestyle factors is addressed on the
basis of public comments during the scoping process.

3.8.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Under the No Action alternative, the July 4^th^ holiday event at the
Mount Rushmore National Monument would continue in a manner similar to
celebrations that occurred prior to 1998, without the additional
attraction of a highlight such as a fireworks or other special evening
display. Visitors to the memorial during the holiday period would
continue to experience educational and other entertainment programs, as
well as the regularly performed lighting ceremony. Fireworks displays
would be available in communities surrounding the Memorial, specifically
in the communities of Rapid City (three separate events), Custer and
Lead (Popovich, 2002).

[Community Impacts]{.underline}

In general, the overall impact to the affected communities from
discontinuation of the program would be generally mixed. The program has
been very popular, as evidenced by participation in past years and
comments received during the public scoping period (see scoping report).
However, the program has also been controversial (Daly, 2002),
especially with respect to the potential fire hazard and the local
residents perception that the program and its associated temporary
influx of visitors to the memorial have the potential to alter or damage
the memorial or its natural setting.

In the absence of the program enhancement feature represented by either
a fireworks display or a laser light show, the holiday experience for
both outside visitors to the memorial and for local residents would be
substantially diminished. Statistics for visitation to the memorial
indicate that since 1998 when the first fireworks display was presented,
attendance at the event has fluctuated somewhat, but continued a general
and substantial increase, from 34,462 in 1998 to 37,772 in 2001
(Popovich, 2002a). This represents an increase in visitors that is
almost double the 1997 figure for the July 3^rd^ date and an 80 percent
increase over the day immediately prior to presentation of the program.
(See Table 3-7 below for more detailed information on visitor attendance
during the Fourth of July celebration).

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Table 3-7                                                 
  Visitor                                                     
  Statistics for                                              
  the Mount                                                   
  Rushmore                                                    
  National                                                    
  Memorial (July                                              
  2-5)**                                                      

                 July 2         July 3         July 4         July 5

  1997           20,303         18,824         25,078         24,362

  1998           19,125         34,462         29842          33,012

  1999           19,408         32,050         30,554         33,925

  2000           31,129         37,992         29,437         22,920

  2001           30,415         37,722         28,653         25,914

  2002           30,011         31,482         27,271         30,627
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Source: Popovich, 2002a

Increased visitation figures for the years in which the program has been
presented indicate the popularity of the program as well as the ability
of the program to influence memorial visitation on the days immediately
preceding and following the July 4^th^ celebration.

In addition to the immediate loss of a valued recreational experience,
the community would also be expected to experience a minor and indirect
impact from the loss of an organizing event around which various
community groups participate as volunteers. Participation in the Fourth
of July Celebration contributes to a sense of cohesion among the members
of these groups and also, through contributions of portions of the
proceeds from the event, helps to fund other group activities. As noted
in the scoping comments received, the program also helps to promote
partnerships between the NPS, the Mount Rushmore Society and numerous
independent tourism groups in the area. The absence of the program could
be considered to have a potentially adverse impact on these
relationships.

If the fireworks or laser light show were discontinued, it could
reasonably be assumed that the number of visitors to the memorial would
return to levels similar to those experienced in 1997 or prior years
before the inception of the Fireworks program. The corresponding
reduction of the impact resulting from increased traffic and visitation
to the memorial would potentially be reduced. Although this effect is
normally temporary and confined to the evening of the program, some
traffic congestion and disruption to local resident's routine activity
could be expected. Also reduced would be the potential for damage to
areas along access roads to the memorial where overflow attendees
normally park.

Because the program is somewhat controversial, elimination of the
program would reduce local resident's concerns for the potential fire
hazard or other objections to the program. The program has also been
cited as a source of rift or cleavage in the community between
individuals and groups that support or oppose its continuation.

However, during the five years in which the program has been presented,
the local community has benefited from an enhanced visibility as the
result of increased publicity and higher levels of visitation to the
memorial and the surrounding area. Additionally, a number of residents
have indicated the positive and beneficial "patriotic nature" of the
program. If the program were now to be discontinued, it is questionable
whether the current level of controversy would diminish.

[Economic Impacts]{.underline}

Direct spending by vacation travelers or other visitors to the Mount
Rushmore National Memorial not only benefits the local community through
increases in the demand for goods and services in most sectors of the
economy, but also has the potential to increase local employment, income
and tax revenue. Although the increases in memorial attendance and
associated visitor spending are temporary, the potential beneficial
effects of the increase would be expected to ripple through the local
economy as income, wages, and profits earned during the holiday
celebration are spent and respent in the local economy. Repeated cycles
of spending and respending produce a "multiplier effect" in which the
potential effect of the initial tourist dollar spent is magnified
through multiple, successive rounds of spending.

The discontinuation of the fireworks or other special program associated
with the July 4^th^ celebration could potentially be expected to have an
impact on both the local economy, and to a lesser extent, the regional
and State economy. As noted in Table 3-NN above visitation levels for
the memorial almost doubled during the July 4^th^ holiday celebration
when the Fireworks show was presented.

Diminished levels of visitor spending could be expected to directly
affect income and employment in the food and beverage service, lodging
and accommodation and other recreation based sectors of the economy, as
well as in certain retail trade outlets. Also lost would be the
potential increase in revenues acquired from sales and other taxes. To
the extent that local tourism and associated business enterprises
benefit from enhanced awareness and image of the region through
advertising associated with the event, these benefits would also be lost
if the fireworks or other special program were discontinued.

The potential for lost income and revenue could be partially compensated
by decreases in costs associated with presentation of the program;
although to some these expenses may be funded from federal rather than
local sources. Discontinuation of the program would also be expected to
have some relatively minor economic benefit associated with the
reduction in risk to economic or other resources that may result from a
catastrophic fire.

3.8.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action]{.underline}

Since 1998, the presentation of a fireworks program, or other light
show, as a part of the Mount Rushmore July 4^th^ holiday celebration has
resulted in a substantial increase in the number of visitors to the
memorial, and subsequently to other locations in the Black Hills region
of South Dakota. In addition to media reports and letters of support
from public officials, a number of public comments received during the
scoping period cited both the value of the program as an emotional,
patriotic event for visitors and local residents, as well as its
beneficial role in enhancing the region's image, economy, and local
tourism. Because the proposed action would continue the current
fireworks program these perceived benefits to the local community would
be expected to continue. However, continuation of the program has the
potential to increase the level of controversy in the community between
proponents of the event and its detractors. Some potential for a growing
rift or cleavage within the community has been cited, particularly with
respect to the potential for conflict between program participating
agencies such as the NPS, the Mount Rushmore Society and local civic and
other groups.

[Community Impacts]{.underline}

The Mount Rushmore National Monument has historically celebrated the
July 4^th^ holiday with a special program intended to provide an
enjoyable, inspirational and educational experience for memorial
visitors during the holiday period. Since 1998, this program has been
enhanced with the addition of an evening fireworks display. The
popularity of the display, initially a one-time event to celebrate the
opening of new visitor facilities, has led to the continuation of the
program in subsequent years.

The program has provided substantial benefit to the local community,
despite its relatively short life span. Both visitors and participants
cite the program as a beneficial contribution to the local community and
as an emotional experience that enhances the sense of community and
patriotism experienced by program attendees. In this sense, the program
represents a unifying event for the local community.

In general, the program has had a beneficial effect on the local
community. Along with providing a meaningful experience for local
residents, the program serves to attract visitors to the area who might
not otherwise consider the Black Hills region. The program is perceived
to have a beneficial effect through the enhancement of the overall image
and attractiveness of the region. Although other fireworks displays are
presented in the region on July 4^th^, attendance at the Memorial
display on July 3^rd^ would not be expected to influence participation
at these events.

Participation in the program also has had a beneficial and longer-term
effect in building a sense of community and participation for local
residents and volunteer community groups, as well. These groups organize
throughout the year to provide support and services to the program.
Several also use the July 4^th^ celebration as a venue for group
activities, such as annual picnics or other functions. As a result, the
program contributes to a general sense of cohesion among community
groups. Participating community groups also receive financial support by
volunteering to run food booths at the event, and receive donations of
up to 20 percent of the gross receipts in return. The memorial's
contract vendor also donates an additional \$10,000 to \$20,000 to the
memorial society each year (Jobman, 2002).

Because the fireworks program is essentially a one-day event, most of
the direct physical effects experienced by populations living near the
site or along access roads are temporary and relatively minor. On the
day of the program an estimated 15,000 vehicles will travel access roads
to the memorial site. Although visitor arrivals at the memorial will be
distributed throughout the day, departures will be concentrated in the
hours immediately following the conclusion of the program. Some degree
of traffic congestion and disruption of the normal activity of local
residents using these roads may be anticipated. The populations most
directly affected would be those located in the immediate vicinity of
the site of the fireworks display and along nearby access roads.

Based on the resident population of the Census tract 011003, the tract
which actually contains the site of the fireworks, an estimated 7.107
individuals living in 2,569 households would be susceptible to at least
some temporary disruption as a the result of traffic and increased
visitor populations (see Section 3.11). It should be noted, however that
only a small portion of this population actually live in the immediate
vicinity of the fireworks site or along the access roads. The potential
for impact would be substantially reduced for other residents of this
area.

Public safety and volunteer personnel are employed to assist with the
movement of traffic and vehicle parking at the site, thereby minimizing
any potential traffic disruptions. Parking for approximately 11,000
vehicles is available at the memorial grounds. An additional 4,000
vehicles will be expected to park along access roads near the memorial
entrance just prior on the evening for the event.

Although a potential for a minor adverse impact may be anticipated along
the access routes to the memorial, traffic is normally cleared from the
site within a few hours following the fireworks event and flows return
to normal. Some minor damage may occur to roadside areas where overflow
parking has occurred. Otherwise, any potential for adverse impacts to
the local community setting and character associated with increase
visitor populations and associated traffic would be considered minor and
temporary.

The potential for controversy and therefore potential conflict and
cleavage associated with the program is primarily concerned with the
risk of damage to the natural setting and environment of the memorial
from an escaped or catastrophic fire. Based on the current fire
management plan, the risk of an escaped fire causing sufficient damage
to alter the user experience is less than 1 percent (see Section 3.1.2.2
Soils). The potential for adverse impacts from a catastrophic fire are
minimal and substantially less than one percent. However, some
continuing effect on the local community as a result of differences over
the value and safety of the program may be anticipated. Such conflicts
are not expected to have more than a minor effect on the overall life of
the community and would not be expected to significantly alter the
patterns of community life in the region.

[Economic Effects]{.underline}

Presentation of the fireworks display as a part of the July 4^th^
celebration at the Mount Rushmore has had a generally beneficial impact
on the local and regional economies of the Black Hills region and has
indirectly contributed revenue to both local and State government
budgets. Average July 3^rd^ visitor attendance at the memorial for the
four year period (1998-2001) during which the display has been presented
indicate an increase of approximately 95 percent, or approximately
17,300 additional visitors each year. Attendance figures have been
rising steadily for each year in which the program has been presented.
Visitor attendance on the days immediately preceding and following the
July 3 fireworks display also show higher attendance at the memorial for
the 1998 to 2001 period (see Table 3-5).

For 2001 the last year the fireworks were presented, attendance
estimates reached 37,722 (Popovich, 2002a) or approximately 19,524
individuals more than attended in 1997, the year immediately prior to
the first fireworks display. Assuming that 97 percent of the additional
visitors to the memorial are non-local (DOI, No Date) and based on an
estimated average daily spending per party of \$220.72 and an average
visitor party size of 4.2 (Madden, 2002a), additional visitor attendance
at the memorial on July 3^rd^ made a direct contribution to the local
economy of \$996,153. Successive rounds of spending based on a
multiplier of 2.5 (Madden, 2002) indicate a total direct, indirect and
induced stimulus to the local economy of \$2,490,038.

Direct expenditures by visitors to the memorial include on-site
concessions, as well as off-site food and beverage, lodging and
accommodation, and retail spending during the course of an average stay.
Statistics provided by Xanterra Parks and Resorts, the memorial's
concession operator (Jobman, 2002), show sales figures for concessions
at the memorial have steadily increased over the 1997 base for each year
in which the fireworks display was presented (see Table 3-8 below). Only
the 2001 celebration showed a decline from the previous year and this
figure was still more than double the 1997 sales total for the same day.
On average, total sales for the memorial concessions increased \$
62,793, or approximately 96 percent per year for the four-year period
during which the fireworks were presented. Sales for the following day
also show substantial increases over the base year of 1997, the last
year before the fireworks presentation was added to the celebration.

  ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  **Table                                                              
  3-8                                                                  
  Xanterra                                                             
  Parks and                                                            
  Resorts                                                              
  July 3^rd^                                                           
  and 4^th^                                                            
  Sales**                                                              

             1997       1998       1999        2000        2001        2002

  July 3     \$65,417   \$96,436   \$111,734   \$159,235   \$145,433   \$134,430

  July 4     \$79,030   \$82,495   \$108,816   \$118,103   \$109,373   \$109,437
  ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Source: Jobman, 2002

In addition to direct sales at the memorial itself, the economies of the
surrounding region also benefit from spending by visitors to the July
4^th^ memorial celebration. Lodging occupancy surveys indicate that for
the years 1999 and 2000, hotels and motels in the region showed full
occupancy (3492 rooms) on July 3^rd^ (RCHA, No Date). Occupancy status
for the days immediately preceding or following the 3^rd^ also show
substantially higher occupancy rates.

The region also benefits indirectly from the attention and free
advertising provided by the fireworks display. In 1999, the State
Department of tourism established the first nationwide satellite feed of
the fireworks event. Subsequent tracking of the number of outlets across
the country accepting the program and the number of media outlets served
showed that in 2000, 115 outlets in 23 markets took the program. For
2001, a total of 180 outlets with an estimated audience of 10.2 million
was estimated. The estimated value of the associated free advertising
for the local region was \$47,790 (Gerpen, 2002).

Expenditures by visitors, especially those traveling from outside the
region also contribute to the State revenue base. Most spending by
visitors would be subject to state sales taxes; exceptions would be
spending for state licenses, user fees and gasoline purchases (Madden,
2002). Using the estimated total direct spending by the additional
visitors attracted to the memorial on July 3^rd^ as a high end estimate,
visitor spending associated with the fireworks display could potentially
generate as much as \$39,846 in sales tax revenue, based on the 4
percent rate for the Sate of South Dakota. However, this figure does not
consider the portion of the total direct expenditures that would go to
non-taxed sectors noted above. The final estimate of the beneficial
impact to State revenues from sales taxes would actually be somewhat
less than this high-end estimate.

By comparison with the income generated in the local economy by the
fireworks presentation, the total costs to stage the event each year
have also increased, from \$60,129 in 1999 to \$84,427 in 2001 (BHAG,
1999; BHAG, 2000;BHAG 2001). These costs included personal services,
travel and the purchase of supplies and other services such as a
helicopter and safety equipment, shuttle buses, public safety and
sanitation necessary to stage the event.

During the course of the four years in which the fireworks event was
presented (1998 thru 2001), eighteen wildfires have been started on the
Memorial grounds as a result of the fireworks program. Each of the fires
was quickly suppressed and the total acreage burned by all eighteen
fires was less than two acres. One example is presented by the 2000 "I"
campfire, which resulted in a total expense of \$21,064 (BHAG, 2000).
The costs of fire personnel to suppress these fires represent a minor,
but potentially adverse expense associated with the fireworks event.
With an average of 4.5 fires per year for each of the four years of the
fireworks event, these costs must be considered on balance when
evaluation the overall beneficial impact to the local economy associated
with the July 4^th^ fireworks event.

3.8.2.3 [Alternative 3 -- Laser Light Show]{.underline}

Under Alternative 3, a laser light show would replace the fireworks
display as a part of the annual Mount Rushmore Memorial July 4^th^
holiday celebration. This option would also be considered as a fall back
event under Alternative 2 in any year (such as was the case in

2002\) that fire conditions in the Black Hills region would prevent a
fireworks display. The entertainment value of the laser light show,
choreographed to music, has the potential to approach the drama normally
associated with a fireworks display. However, it lacks the traditional
values normally associated with 'Fireworks on the Fourth' celebrations.
Other fireworks displays normally staged in the region on July 4^th^,
the day after the memorial event would potentially substitute for this
missing element, however.

[Community Impacts]{.underline}

The potential benefits to the local community associated with this
alternative would be similar to those identified for the staging of a
fireworks event. Both local and non-local visitors to the memorial would
benefit from the presentation of an inspirational and educational
program. Preparation and organization of the event would also continue
to serve as a unifying and organizing event for local residents. As
evidenced by attendance estimates for the year 2002, when the laser show
was substituted for fireworks, the program would attract substantially
larger numbers of visitors to the memorial and surrounding area.
Although based on 2002 statistics, a slightly smaller number than are
drawn by the fireworks display, 2002 attendance figures remained almost
73 percent higher than for 1997 base year when no 'Marquee' event was
staged.

The direct physical effects of the presentation of the program would
also be similar to that indicated under Alternative 2. Based on 2002
statistics, however, the total number of visitors and the total vehicles
involved would be reduced by approximately 17 percent or about 6000
attendees. The potential changes in the overall effect are considered to
be minor and would in all likelihood not be perceptible to most
residents of the immediately surrounding area. As with Alternative 2,
any associated physical impacts would be temporary in nature and
therefore would not become significant for consideration in this
analysis.

However, this estimate is based on only a single year. As noted earlier,
attendance at the memorial during the July 4^th^ holiday has been
steadily increasing over the base year 1997, the year immediately
preceding the first fireworks display. Although attendance levels for
2002 were slightly lower that for the proceeding year, in which a
fireworks display was staged, this does not necessarily indicate that
the trend toward higher visitation levels of the past four years has
been reversed. As the laser light show becomes established as a
traditional part of the Mount Rushmore holiday celebration and visitors
come to expect the performance, attendance at the event could be
expected to continue at levels substantially higher than those
experienced in 1997 and prior years.

With the elimination of the fireworks display, the potential fire hazard
and correspondingly the local controversies surrounding the fireworks
display could be eliminated. Although this controversy is not considered
to have the potential for more than a minor impact on the local
community, its elimination could be considered as a beneficial effect of
the introduction of the laser light show. The potential for rifts
between local organizations and individuals and the creation of serious
cleavages within the community is essentially eliminated.

[Economic Effects]{.underline}

Because Alternative 3 would essentially contain the same elements as
Alternative 2, with the single exception that a laser light show is
substituted for the fireworks display as the 'Marquee' event for the
holiday celebration, economic effects associated with implementation of
alternative 3 would be essentially similar to those identified for
alternative 2. On the basis of attendance estimated for the 2002
celebration, some reduction in visitor attendance and therefore in
visitor spending levels could be anticipated. The overall impact of this
change is expected to be relatively minor.

As noted above, visitor attendance for 2002 was approximately 17 percent
lower than for 2001. In addition to the substitution of the laser light
show for the fireworks display in this year, several other factors may
have contributed to a reduced attendance in 2002. Among these is a
general reduction in travel by American tourists following the September
11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. Conversely, a number of
attendees in 2002 may have originally planned their trip to South Dakota
and the Mount Rushmore memorial anticipating a fireworks display and
simply did not alter those plans when the laser light display was
substituted. These individuals may in future years plan other activities
in the event that the laser light show becomes a permanent part of the
Mount Rushmore celebration.

As a result, it is difficult to calculate, based on figures from the
single year, 2002, what the potential change in attendance and
subsequent visitor spending would be if the laser light show were
continued. However, using 2002 as the only base year available for
comparison, visitor spending attributable to the event could be reduced
by as much as 17 percent or approximately \$170,000. Other contributions
to the local economy would be similarly reduced. No estimates of the
cost of a laser light show as compared with fireworks display were
available for this analysis. However, it can be assumed that costs
associated with fire safety and suppression would be substantially
reduced under this alternative.

**[3.9 Human Health and Safety]{.smallcaps}**

**3.9.1 *Affected Environment***

Mount Rushmore National Memorial is dedicated to ensuring the safety of
all visitors, residents and employees within the Memorial. There is an
added responsibility to protect property and people adjacent to the
Memorial boundary. Assuring this safety takes priority over all other
activities occurring within the Memorial.

Limited access to and through the Memorial coupled with the heavy
visitation (25,000-30,000 visitors daily in the summer) creates a
potential safety problem in the event of an emergency. All the necessary
means will be used to evacuate and warn visitors and employees when
public safety is at risk. Adjacent landowners will also be warned and if
necessary provided assistance to evacuate the area.

**3.9.2 *Environmental Consequences***

3.9.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Under the No Action alternative, the July 4^th^ celebration event at the
Memorial would continue in a manner similar to celebrations prior to
initiation of the fireworks program in 1998, without a marquee event
such as fireworks or laser light show. Exclusion of the fireworks
program would eliminate the possibility of a potential wildfire ignition
as a result of the fireworks decreasing potential public safety
problems. The number of visitors would likely return to years prior to
the fireworks or laser light show programs alleviating traffic
congestion and concentrations of people at the Memorial. These factors
would decrease potential safety problems in the event of an emergency.

Potential impacts to human health and safety would most likely be
associated with traffic accidents and possible incidents along the
access road to the Memorial where visitors park.

3.9.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action]{.underline}

The potential impacts to human health and safety under the proposed
action are associated with the preparation, setting, and launching of
fireworks and potential wildfire. During the fireworks program, memorial
staff and visitors would not be allowed within 1,000 feet of the launch
site as a majority of the fallout from the display would land within
this buffer. Eighteen wildfires have started on the Memorial as a result
of the fireworks program, however all of the fires were quickly
suppressed and, in total, burned no more than 2 acres. Wildfires pose a
risk to human health and safety particularly in extreme cases where
wildfire escapes suppression and causes a catastrophic fire. In order to
reduce potential risk from catastrophic wildfire, the Memorial recently
approved its revised and updated Fire Management Plan (December 2002).
This plan calls for suppression of all naturally ignited and man-made
wildfires, and allows for proactive efforts to help reduce the fire risk
to the Memorial and surrounding communities.

As discussed in Appendix A, fire protection measures would be in place
during the fireworks program. Months prior to July 4^th^, Memorial staff
would prepare management plans for traffic, visitor services, security,
fire protection in case of fire danger, and visitor and employee safety
as part of the Memorial's "Incident Plan" prepared for the fireworks
program. On the scheduled day of the July 4^th^ celebration, the
Memorial superintendent will make the decision whether or not to proceed
with the fireworks program. The decision will depend on whether
fireworks launch criteria (Go -- No/Go criteria) are met and that all
variable fire-related criteria are acceptable for the event. In addition
to the above criteria, the Memorial would also consider fire management
criteria such as, fire prescription parameters and fire behavior.

Factors most likely to adversely impact firefighter health and safety
include activities associated with wildland fire suppression efforts
(accidental spills, injuries from the use of fire-fighting equipment,
smoke inhalation, and, in severe cases, injuries from wildland fires).
Impacts to the public could include smoke inhalation, in severe cases
injuries from wildland fires, and drain of law enforcement and
firefighters personnel from adjacent communities.

Accidental spills of fire retardants and foams are the most likely to
adversely impact human health and safety. Fire retardants used in
controlling or extinguishing fires contain about 85% water, 10%
fertilizer, and 5% minor ingredients such as corrosion inhibitors and
bactericides. Fire suppressant foams are more than 99% water. The
remaining 1% contains surfactants, foaming agents, corrosion inhibitors,
and dispersants. These qualified and approved wildland fire chemicals
have been tested and meet specific requirements with regard to mammalian
toxicity as determined by acute oral and dermal toxicity testing as well
as skin and eye irritation tests (USDA, 2001). However, they are strong
detergents, and can be extremely drying to skin. All currently approved
foam concentrates are irritating to the eyes as well. Application of a
topical cream or lotion can alleviate the effects of a retardant, and
protective goggles can prevent any injury to the eyes when using foams.

Fuel break construction can pose safety risks to firefighters. Injuries
can occur from the use of equipment as well as from traveling overland
to targeted areas for firefighting efforts during suppression efforts.
Potential for injuries is even higher because of the fact that the
suppression activities would take place at night in extremely steep and
rocky terrain. Two injuries to firefighters were reported during the
fireworks program as a result of fire suppression. While each of the
crew is trained in the use of firefighting equipment, accidental
injuries may occur from time to time. Strict adherence to guidelines
concerning firefighter accreditation, and equipment and procedure safety
guidelines would minimize accidents.

Smoke inhalation can also pose a threat to human health and safety.
Smoke from wildland fires is composed of hundreds of chemicals in
gaseous, liquid, and solid forms. The chief inhalation hazard appears to
be carbon monoxide (CO), aldehydes, respirable particulate matter with a
median diameter of 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and total suspended
particulate (TSP). Adverse health effects of smoke exposure begin with
acute, instantaneous eye and respiratory irritation and shortness of
breath, but can develop into headaches, dizziness, and nausea lasting up
to several hours. Based on a recent study of firefighter smoke exposure,
most smoke exposures were not considered hazardous, but a small
percentage routinely exceeded recommended exposure limits for carbon
monoxide and respiratory irritants (USDA, 2000b).

Statistics for visitation to the memorial indicate that on July 3^rd^
more than 30,000 visitors will be present to watch the fireworks.
Because of the high concentration of general public, very limited
access, and congested traffic condition there is an increase potential
impact to human health and safety. In order to safely manage traffic and
protect human health and safety during the event, the Memorial would
work cooperatively with local, state, and other federal law enforcement
and fire management personnel, and would temporarily supplement its own
staff with National Park Service personnel from nearby park units.
Management plans for traffic, visitor services, security, fire
protection, and visitor and employee safety will be addressed in the
"Incident Plan" prepared by the Memorial for the fireworks program.

There is a finite number of fire management and law enforcement
personnel in the Black Hills region. Since most, if not all of these
personnel are required at the Mount Rushmore fireworks program, other
parts of the region are temporarily at greater risk should an emergency
occur that requires the attention of these same personnel.

There is a very small potential of catastrophic fire as described in
Section 3.1.2.2 Soils. In case of catastrophic fire, nearby towns, such
as Keystone and private property are in jeopardy. However, firefighting
crews are on-site during the fireworks program and initiate suppression
actions as soon as fire ignitions are detected.

3.9.2.3 [Alternative 3 -- *July 4^th^ Holiday Celebrations to Include a
Laser Light Show*]{.underline}

The general impacts to human health and safety under Alternative 3 would
be similar to those described under the No Action alternative. Potential
impacts will depend on the number of visitors attending the laser light
show, which is expected to be 73 percent higher than under No Action
alternative (for detail analysis on visitation statistics refer to
Section 3.8.2 Socioeconomics). The higher number of visitors would
result in higher risk associated with traffic congestion and incidents
along the access road.

**[3.10 Cultural Resources]{.smallcaps}**

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires
federal agencies to consider the effects of their proposals on historic
properties, and to provide state historic preservation officers, tribal
historic preservation officers, and, as necessary, the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to review and comment
on these actions.

**3.10.1 *Affected Environment***

Mount Rushmore National Memorial is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. In 1966 it was registered on the basis of the carving
of the faces; recognizing that the carving itself was an event of
historical significance. The Memorial has engineering, historical and
architectural importance. The remainder of the land within Rushmore's
boundaries is used for scenic protection and administrative facilities.

Numerous designations for additional historic protection of individual
sights within the memorial have been made. These include the
establishment of the historic sub-zone for the Visitor Services Area for
management purposes, and creation of a historic district for an area
including the sculpture, the uncompleted Hall of Records, the Sculptors
Studio, the residence, the Borglum View Terrace, and other affiliated
facilities from the time of the creation of the sculpture, including the
lift platform, the compressor, the water reservoir, a stairway, and
remnants of railroad tracks, winches and pulleys. There are no known
archeological sites in the memorial.

Protection measures for sites are keyed to determinations of each site's
eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
In accordance with section 110 of NHP, NPS is conducting a thorough
inventory of historic properties in the Memorial. Several structures are
currently listed as classified structures. These include: the Historic
Residence, the Sculptor's Studio, the Hall of Records, the Water
Reservoir, the Historic Compressor, the Shrine of Democracy Sculpture,
the Historic Stairway, and the Lift Platform. Several other features
have been deemed ineligible for listing, but are managed as a resource
by the Memorial. These include: the Borglum Memorial View Terrace, the
Doane Mountain Commemorative Plaque, the Historic Culverts, and the
Historic Retaining Walls.

An important feature of the Memorial is the sculpture's historic natural
setting. While there has not been any individual cultural landscapes
officially identified outside of the sculpture itself, it is reasonable
to state that the natural characteristics of the landscape is integral
to the historical context of the Memorial.

Officially listed cultural resource sites and sites determined eligible
or with an undetermined eligibility are of concern. Ineligible sites are
dropped from management concerns unless otherwise noted, and
determinations of effect on these properties are not addressed in this
analysis.

**3.10.2 *Environmental Consequences***

Cultural resource impacts were qualitatively assessed through a
presence/absence determination of significant cultural resources and
mitigation measures to be employed.

3.10.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

Under the No Action alternative, the July 4^th^ celebration event at the
Memorial would continue in a manner similar to celebrations prior to
initiation of the fireworks program in 1998, without a marquee event
such as fireworks or laser light show. The celebration would include
educational and entertainment programs that would have no impacts to
cultural resources at the Memorial.

3.10.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action]{.underline}

Under Alternative 2, proposed activities with the potential to impact
cultural resources include fireworks and fire suppression. Indirectly,
wildfire resulting from fireworks ignition would also have the potential
to impact known cultural resources.

The fireworks staging area and launch site would be located behind the
sculptures in the Hall of Records valley. There would not be any
excavation in the valley in association with this activity. Shortly
after the event, litter from the used fireworks shells would be picked
up from the debris zone resulting in a minimal and temporary impact on
the cultural landscape.

The impacts to cultural resources and the cultural landscape from both
fire and smoke as a result of a wildfire would depend on fire severity.
Fire engines strategically located near structures, including the
Sculptor's Studio minimize fire risk. If a wildfire were to occur,
Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) guidelines would be followed.
Under these guidelines, cultural resources are avoided during fire line
construction when possible. If fire line construction is necessary in
the proximity of cultural/historic locations, a minimal amount of ground
disturbance is directed. MIST guidelines are discussed in detail in
Section 2.4 Mitigation Measures. The risk of a catastrophic fire is
minimal based on the fire suppression measures in place during the
fireworks program (Appendix A), initial attack success rates, and other
factors influencing fire as described under Section 3.1.2.2 Soils.

The sculpture itself has shown no indications of instabilities over the
last 33 months (RESPEC July 2002). NPS has monitored the sculpture for
any movement as part of its maintenance procedures. Data will continue
to be gathered and analyzed in order to measure and predict firework
impacts over time.

3.10.2.3 [Alternative 3 -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebrations to Include a
Laser Light Show]{.underline}

Similar to the No Action Alternative, no impacts to cultural resources
are anticipated as a result of Alternative 3.

*Conclusion*

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair cultural
resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the enabling legislation of the memorial, (2) key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the memorial or opportunities for
enjoyment of the memorial, and (3) identified as a goal in the
memorial's general management plan or other Park Service planning
documents.

**[3.11 Transportation]{.smallcaps}**

**3.11.1 *Affected Environment***

Mount Rushmore National Memorial is located 25 miles southwest of Rapid
City and 3 miles from Keystone. The primary access to the Memorial is
from Keystone via US Highway 16A and South Dakota Highway 244 and from
Highway 385 connecting to South Dakota Highway 244. Parking for
approximately 11,000 is available at the Memorial grounds. Highway 244
is the only road leading directly to the Memorial. During the July 4^th^
celebration, vehicles will be allowed to park along Highway 244, leaving
only one lane open for one-way traffic.

**3.11.2 *Environmental Consequences***

3.11.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

General transportation impacts under Alternative 1 would be similar to
those described under Alternative 2. Impacts would be reduced by a
decrease in the number of visitors expected to attend and total vehicles
involved.

3.11.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action]{.underline}

On the day of the fireworks program, an estimated 15,000 vehicles will
travel access roads to the Memorial site. Four thousand vehicles will be
expected to park along the access road near the Memorial entrance just
prior to the evening for the event. Although visitor arrivals at the
Memorial will be distributed throughout the day, departures will be
concentrated in the hours immediately following the conclusion of the
program. Some degree of traffic congestion and disruption of the normal
activity of local residents using these roads may be expected.

Public safety and volunteer personnel are employed to assist with the
movement of traffic and vehicle parking at the site, thereby minimizing
any potential traffic disruptions. Traffic is normally cleared from the
site within a few hours following the fireworks event and flows return
to normal. Because the fireworks program is a one-day event, most of the
traffic impacts are temporary and relatively minor.

3.11.2.3 [Alternative 3 -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebrations to include a
Laser Light Show]{.underline}

General transportation impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to
those described under Alternative 2. Impacts would be reduced by a
decrease in the number of visitors expected to attend and total vehicles
involved.

**[3.12 Wilderness]{.smallcaps}**

**3.12.1 *Affected Environment***

While Mount Rushmore National Memorial does not contain proposed or
designated wilderness, the Black Elk Wilderness Area, lies on the
western border of the memorial.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness
Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated
by Congress as \"wilderness areas\". By law, these wilderness areas
"shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people
in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and
enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of
these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the
gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and
enjoyment as wilderness" (16 USC 1131).

The Wilderness Act defined and described a wilderness area as area:

-   where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man,
    where man himself is a visitor who does not remain

-   of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and
    influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation

-   which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the
    forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially
    unnoticeable

-   which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural
    conditions

-   which has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
    unconfined type of recreation

-   which has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient
    size to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired
    condition

-   which may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of
    scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

These attributes serve both as standards for studying areas and
evaluating their suitability for inclusion in the national wilderness
preservation system and as objectives to guide National Park Service
actions pertaining to the preservation and use of wilderness areas (DOI,
1999; DOI, 2001b).

**3.12.2 *Environmental Consequences***

3.12.2.1 [Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.underline}

No impacts to wilderness are anticipated as a result of the No Action
alternative.

3.12.2.2 [Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action]{.underline}

Temporary impacts to the wilderness are anticipated as a result of the
Proposed Action. Noise from the concussion blasts of the fireworks may
degrade the wilderness experience of people recreating in the Black Elk
Wilderness Area. However, the noise would be temporary lasting 24 to 27
minutes during one day of the year.

The Black Elk Wilderness Area is potentially at risk from catastrophic
fire as a result of accidental fire ignitions resulting from the
fireworks program. A catastrophic fire that spread to the wilderness
area would cause significant tree mortality impairing the wilderness
over the short and long-term. However the risk of a catastrophic fire is
minimal based on the fire suppression measures in place during the
fireworks program (Appendix A), initial attack success rates, and other
factors influencing fire as described under Section 3.1.2.2 Soils.

3.12.2.3 [Alternative 3 -- July 4^th^ Holiday Celebrations to include a
Laser Light Show]{.underline}

No impacts to wilderness are anticipated as a result of Alternative 3.

**[3.13 Cumulative Effects]{.smallcaps}**

The cumulative effects analysis for the July 4^th^ Holiday Fireworks
Program environmental assessment considers the past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions on land uses that could add to
(intensify) or offset (compensate for) the effects on the resources and
that may be affected by the alternatives. Cumulative effects vary by
resource and the geographic areas considered here are generally the
memorial and areas adjacent to the memorial. In some instances,
activities may result in both negative and positive impacts when
considering the short and long-terms. As a result, some resource
categories in Table 3-9 show both positive and negative impacts
resulting from a particular activity. The information provided in Table
3-9 is the basis for the cumulative effects described in Table 3-10.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 3-9                                                                                                                                                                           
  Positive and                                                                                                                                                                          
  negative impacts                                                                                                                                                                      
  resulting from                                                                                                                                                                        
  activities at                                                                                                                                                                         
  Mount Rushmore                                                                                                                                                                        
  National                                                                                                                                                                              
  Memorial**                                                                                                                                                                            
  ---------------- ----------- ------------- ---------------- -------------- ----------- ----------- -------------- ---------- --------------------- ------------- -------------------- ----------------
                   **Soils**   **Water       **Vegetation**   **Wildlife**   **Air       **Noise**   **Visitor Use  **Human    **Socio-economics**   **Cultural    **Transportation**   **Wilderness**
                               Resources**                                   Quality**               & Experience** Health &                         Resources**                        
                                                                                                                    Safety**                                                            

  Past July 4^th^  **+ -**     **-**         **-**            **-**          **-**       **-**       **+**          **-**      **+**                 **-**         **-**                **-**
  Fireworks                                                                                                                                                                             
  Programs                                                                                                                                                                              

  Past prescribed  **+ -**     **-**         **+ -**          **+ -**        **-**       **-**       **+ -**        **+ -**                          **+ -**       **+ -**              **+ -**
  fires and                                                                                                                                                                             
  thinning on the                                                                                                                                                                       
  memorial                                                                                                                                                                              

  Future fire      **+ -**     **-**         **+ -**          **+ -**        **-**       **-**       **+ -**        **+ -**                          **+ -**       **+ -**              **+ -**
  management                                                                                                                                                                            
  operations                                                                                                                                                                            
  (prescribed                                                                                                                                                                           
  fires and                                                                                                                                                                             
  thinning on the                                                                                                                                                                       
  memorial)                                                                                                                                                                             

  Lightning &      **+ -**     **-**         **+ -**          **+ -**        **-**                   **+ -**        **+ -**                          **-**         **+**                **+ -**
  human-caused                                                                                                                                                                          
  wildfires                                                                                                                                                                             

  Wildfire         **-**                     **-**            **+ -**        **+**       **-**       **+ -**        **+**                            **+**         **+ -**              **+ -**
  suppression                                                                                                                                                                           
  past, present,                                                                                                                                                                        
  future                                                                                                                                                                                

  Effluent         **+ -**     **+**         **+ -**          **+ -**                    **-**       **+ -**        **+ -**                          **-**         **-**                **+ -**
  Irrigation                                                                                                                                                                            
  implementation                                                                                                                                                                        

  Visitation on    **-**       **-**         **-**            **-**          **-**       **-**       **+**          **+ -**    **+**                 **+ -**       **+ -**              **-**
  the memorial                                                                                                                                                                          

  Improvements to  **-**       **-**         **-**            **-**          **-**       **-**       **+**          **+**      **+**                 **-**         **+**                **-**
  memorial visitor                                                                                                                                                                      
  center complex                                                                                                                                                                        

  Development      **-**       **-**         **-**            **-**          **-**       **-**       **+ -**        **+ -**    **+**                 **-**         **+ -**              **-**
  outside the                                                                                                                                                                           
  memorial                                                                                                                                                                              
  boundary                                                                                                                                                                              

  Designation of   **+**       **+**         **+**            **+**          **+**       **+**       **+**                                           **+**                              **+**
  Black Elk                                                                                                                                                                             
  Wilderness and                                                                                                                                                                        
  Norbeck Wildlife                                                                                                                                                                      
  Preserve                                                                                                                                                                              
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**DIRECT/INDIRECT EFFECTS KEY: (+) Positive/beneficial; (­)
Negative/detrimental; (Blank) Neutral/no effect**

+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Table |            |               |              |               |
| 3-10    |            |               |              |               |
| Cum     |            |               |              |               |
| ulative |            |               |              |               |
| Effects |            |               |              |               |
| by      |            |               |              |               |
| R       |            |               |              |               |
| esource |            |               |              |               |
| Area**  |            |               |              |               |
+=========+============+===============+==============+===============+
| **Res   | **Past and | **Proposed    | **Future     | **Cumulative  |
| ource** | Present    | Actions**     | Actions**    | Effects**     |
|         | Actions**  |               |              |               |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **      | Adverse    | Fireworks     | Increased    | Soils inside  |
| Soils** | soil       | (fireworks    | development  | of the        |
|         | impacts    | induced       | in areas     | memorial      |
|         | (soil      | wildland      | adjacent to  | would improve |
|         | erosion or | fires) could  | the memorial | over time     |
|         | loss) from | have          | will impact  | with soil     |
|         | past       | temporary and | soils;       | development   |
|         | roads,     | minor adverse | Wildland     | and           |
|         | memorial   | effects on    | fires and    | nutrification |
|         | buildings  | soils (soil   | suppression  | from          |
|         | and        | erosion and   | could        | prescribed    |
|         | imp        | compaction)   | adversely    | fires; The    |
|         | rovements, | in a limited  | impact soils | fireworks     |
|         | wildland   | area, but     | (compaction, | program would |
|         | fires and  | also          | erosion from | not result in |
|         | s          | potential     | firebreaks,  | significant   |
|         | uppression | localized     | etc.)        | cumulative    |
|         | efforts,   | beneficial    |              | impacts; the  |
|         | and        | effects (soil |              | Proposed      |
|         | prescribed | development   |              | Action        |
|         | burns;     | and soil      |              | Alternatives  |
|         | Beneficial | n             |              | would         |
|         | soil       | utrification) |              | contribute    |
|         | impacts    |               |              | the most to   |
|         | from past  |               |              | soil          |
|         | fires      |               |              | cumulative    |
|         | (nut       |               |              | impacts,      |
|         | rification |               |              | while the No  |
|         | of soils). |               |              | Action        |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative   |
|         |            |               |              | and           |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative 3 |
|         |            |               |              | would         |
|         |            |               |              | contribute    |
|         |            |               |              | the least     |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **      | Minimal    | Fireworks     | Increased    | Minor effect  |
| Water** | impacts to | program would | development  | on water      |
|         | water      | have no       | in areas     | resources;    |
| **Reso  | resources  | direct        | adjacent to  | Fireworks     |
| urces** | from past  | impacts on    | the memorial | program would |
|         | wildfires  | water         | would likely | not result in |
|         | and        | resources     | indirectly   | cumulative    |
|         | s          |               | impact water | impacts; all  |
|         | uppression |               | resources,   | alternatives  |
|         | efforts;   |               | depending on | would result  |
|         | d          |               | its          | in similar    |
|         | esignation |               | location;    | water         |
|         | of         |               | designation  | resources     |
|         | wilderness |               | of           | impacts       |
|         | and        |               | wilderness   |               |
|         | preserve   |               | and preserve |               |
|         | helps      |               | helps        |               |
|         | protect    |               | protect      |               |
|         | water      |               | water        |               |
|         | resources  |               | resources    |               |
|         | from       |               | from         |               |
|         | d          |               | development  |               |
|         | evelopment |               | (timber,     |               |
|         | (timber,   |               | roads,       |               |
|         | roads,     |               | mineral      |               |
|         | mineral    |               | extraction,  |               |
|         | e          |               | etc.)        |               |
|         | xtraction, |               |              |               |
|         | etc.)      |               |              |               |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Veget | Natural    | The fireworks | Thinning and | Ponderosa     |
| ation** | fuel       | program would | prescribed   | pine habitat  |
|         | loading    | have minimal  | fire efforts | and diversity |
|         | increased  | temporary     | in the Black | would         |
|         | in absence | impacts on    | Hills        | continue to   |
|         | of         | vegetation in | National     | improve;      |
|         | historic   | those areas   | Forest would | noxious weeds |
|         | low        | where spot    | reduce fuel  | would         |
|         | -severity, | fires         | loadings and | continue to   |
|         | high       | occurred,     | help restore | decline;      |
|         | frequency  | however,      | historic     | decreased     |
|         | fire       | vegetation at | fire regime  | fuel loadings |
|         | regime;    | these sites   | to ponderosa | would reduce  |
|         | native     | would quickly | pine stands; | fire danger;  |
|         | plant      | replenish;    | Potential    | Fireworks     |
|         | habitat    | some minimal  | for          | program would |
|         | and        | vegetation    | irrigation   | not result in |
|         | diversity  | impacts would | system       | significant   |
|         | declined;  | also be       | development  | cumulative    |
|         | increased  | observed as a | would        | impacts;      |
|         | i          | result of     | improve      | potential for |
|         | nfestation | suppression   | wildland     | irrigation    |
|         | of noxious | activities;   | fire control | system        |
|         | weeds      | localized     |              | development   |
|         |            | increases in  |              | may improve   |
|         |            | grass and     |              | vegetative    |
|         |            | forb          |              | growth near   |
|         |            | production at |              | the memorial; |
|         |            | spot fire     |              | the Proposed  |
|         |            | sites may be  |              | Action        |
|         |            | observed      |              | Alternatives  |
|         |            |               |              | would         |
|         |            |               |              | contribute    |
|         |            |               |              | the most to   |
|         |            |               |              | vegetation    |
|         |            |               |              | cumulative    |
|         |            |               |              | impacts,      |
|         |            |               |              | while the No  |
|         |            |               |              | Action        |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative   |
|         |            |               |              | and           |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative 3 |
|         |            |               |              | would         |
|         |            |               |              | contribute    |
|         |            |               |              | the least     |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Wil   | Fire       | Concussion    | Thinning and | Wildlife      |
| dlife** | s          | blasts and    | prescribed   | habitat and   |
|         | uppression | potential     | fire efforts | diversity     |
|         | efforts    | fire          | in the Black | increases;    |
|         | within the | suppression   | Hills        | Fireworks     |
|         | memorial   | activities    | National     | program does  |
|         | degraded   | from the      | Forest would | not result in |
|         | wildlife   | fireworks     | help restore | significant   |
|         | habitat    | would result  | historic     | cumulative    |
|         | and        | in minor,     | fire regime  | impacts; the  |
|         | diversity; | short-term    | to ponderosa | Proposed      |
|         | memorial   | disturbance   | pine stands  | Action        |
|         | building   | and           | and benefit  | Alternatives  |
|         | and        | displacement  | habitat and  | would         |
|         | im         | of wildlife   | species      | contribute    |
|         | provements |               | diversity;   | the most to   |
|         | t          |               | increased    | wildlife      |
|         | emporarily |               | development  | cumulative    |
|         | affect     |               | in adjacent  | impacts,      |
|         | wildlife   |               | areas would  | while No      |
|         | species    |               | fragment     | Action        |
|         |            |               | habitat      | Alternative   |
|         |            |               |              | and           |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative 3 |
|         |            |               |              | would         |
|         |            |               |              | contribute    |
|         |            |               |              | the least     |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Air   | Industry   | Fireworks and | Future       | Class II air  |
| Qu      | and        | emissions     | wildland     | quality       |
| ality** | ag         | from          | fires,       | standards     |
|         | ricultural | increased     | prescribed   | would not be  |
|         | practices  | traffic would | fires, and   | violated;     |
|         | emit       | result in     | fireworks    | Fireworks     |
|         | pollutants | very minor,   | programs     | program would |
|         | and        | short-term    | would        | not result in |
|         | p          | air quality   | contribute   | significant   |
|         | articulate | impacts       | to temporary | cumulative    |
|         | matter;    |               | d            | impacts; the  |
|         | au         |               | eterioration | Proposed      |
|         | tomobiles, |               | in air       | Action        |
|         | past       |               | quality and  | Alternative   |
|         | wildland   |               | visibility   | would         |
|         | and        |               |              | contribute    |
|         | prescribed |               |              | the most to   |
|         | fires,     |               |              | air quality   |
|         | fireworks  |               |              | cumulative    |
|         | program    |               |              | impacts,      |
|         | contribute |               |              | while No      |
|         | to some    |               |              | Action        |
|         | temporary  |               |              | Alternative   |
|         | det        |               |              | and           |
|         | erioration |               |              | Alternative 3 |
|         | in air     |               |              | would         |
|         | quality    |               |              | contribute    |
|         | and        |               |              | the least     |
|         | visibility |               |              |               |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **      | Past       | Fireworks     | Traffic      | Noise sources |
| Noise** | d          | program and   | associated   | and levels in |
|         | evelopment | potential     | with         | the memorial  |
|         | and        | fire          | visitation   | would be      |
|         | im         | suppression   | of the       | increased     |
|         | provements | activities    | memorial     | during the    |
|         | resulted   | would result  | continues to | Fireworks     |
|         | in         | in temporary  | produce      | program,      |
|         | short-term | increased     | sustained    | however,      |
|         | noise      | noise levels; | and          | cumulative    |
|         | impacts;   | some          | long-term    | noise levels  |
|         | traffic    | short-term    | source of    | would not be  |
|         | associated | disturbance   | noise;       | effected;     |
|         | with       | and           | thinning and | Fireworks     |
|         | visitation | displacement  | prescribed   | program would |
|         | of the     | of wildlife   | fires would  | not result in |
|         | memorial   | will likely   | provide      | significant   |
|         | continues  | occur; No     | additional   | cumulative    |
|         | to produce | significant   | temporary    | impacts; the  |
|         | sustained  | impacts would | noise        | Proposed      |
|         | and        | be observed   | impacts,     | Action would  |
|         | long-term  | at sensitive  | potential    | contribute    |
|         | source of  | receptors     | for          | the most to   |
|         | noise;     |               | development  | cumulative    |
|         | past       |               | of an        | noise         |
|         | fireworks  |               | irrigation   | impacts,      |
|         | program    |               | system would | while No      |
|         | results in |               | also likely  | Action        |
|         | temporary  |               | result in    | Alternative   |
|         | noise      |               | temporary    | and           |
|         | impacts    |               | noise        | Alternative 3 |
|         |            |               | impacts      | would         |
|         |            |               |              | contribute    |
|         |            |               |              | the least     |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **      | Est        | Beneficial    | Increased    | Long-term     |
| Visitor | ablishment | long-term and | recreation   | enhancement   |
| Use and | of the     | short term    | use as       | of recreation |
| Exp     | memorial,  | effects on    | population   | resources and |
| erience | improved   | visitor use   | grows;       | opportunities |
| (in     | roads and  | and           | Thinning,    | offsets       |
| cluding | trails     | experience    | prescribed   | short-term    |
| Park    | provided   | resulting     | fire, and    | recreation    |
| Operat  | access for | from          | potential    | i             |
| ions)** | recreation | fireworks     | development  | nconveniences |
|         | oppo       | celebration   | of an        | from fire     |
|         | rtunities; |               | irrigation   | management    |
|         | increased  |               | system would | activities;   |
|         | population |               | temporarily  | Fireworks     |
|         | growth     |               | reduce       | program       |
|         | resulted   |               | visitor use  | continues to  |
|         | in         |               | and          | attract       |
|         | increased  |               | experience,  | visitors      |
|         | re         |               | Fireworks    | providing     |
|         | creational |               | program      | long term     |
|         | use;       |               | continues to | cumulative    |
|         | scenic     |               | be key       | benefits; the |
|         | integrity  |               | recreation   | Proposed      |
|         | c          |               | event        | Action        |
|         | ompromised |               |              | Alternative   |
|         | in the     |               |              | would         |
|         | short-term |               |              | contribute    |
|         | as a       |               |              | the most to   |
|         | result of  |               |              | cumulative    |
|         | im         |               |              | impacts,      |
|         | provements |               |              | while No      |
|         | of the     |               |              | Action        |
|         | sculpture; |               |              | Alternative   |
|         | fireworks  |               |              | and           |
|         | program    |               |              | Alternative 3 |
|         | e          |               |              | would         |
|         | stablished |               |              | contribute    |
|         | as a key   |               |              | the least     |
|         | recreation |               |              |               |
|         | event      |               |              |               |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Human | Past       | Fireworks     | Similar      | Human health  |
| Health  | s          | program would | effects as   | and safety    |
| &       | uppression | increase      | described in | would improve |
| S       | efforts    | safety risk   | Past and     | over time     |
| afety** | protected  | to general    | Present      | with thinning |
|         | memorial   | public        | Actions      | and           |
|         | staff and  | observing the |              | prescribed    |
|         | visitors;  | fireworks and |              | fire          |
|         | fireworks  | firefighters  |              | activities,   |
|         | program    | in case of    |              | and with the  |
|         | increased  | wildland      |              | development   |
|         | safety     | fire;         |              | of an         |
|         | risks to   | short-term    |              | irrigation    |
|         | general    | impacts on    |              | system;       |
|         | public     | human health  |              | fireworks     |
|         | observing  | & safety      |              | program risks |
|         | fireworks  |               |              | would         |
|         | display    |               |              | decline;      |
|         |            |               |              | fireworks     |
|         |            |               |              | would not     |
|         |            |               |              | result in     |
|         |            |               |              | significant   |
|         |            |               |              | cumulative    |
|         |            |               |              | impacts; the  |
|         |            |               |              | Proposed      |
|         |            |               |              | Action would  |
|         |            |               |              | contribute    |
|         |            |               |              | the most to   |
|         |            |               |              | human health  |
|         |            |               |              | and safety    |
|         |            |               |              | cumulative    |
|         |            |               |              | impacts,      |
|         |            |               |              | while No      |
|         |            |               |              | Action        |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative   |
|         |            |               |              | and           |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative 3 |
|         |            |               |              | would         |
|         |            |               |              | contribute    |
|         |            |               |              | the least     |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Socio | Previous   | Community     | Effects      | The proposed  |
| --**    | fireworks  | would         | similar to   | program       |
|         | programs   | continue to   | those        | provides      |
| **econ  | have       | experience    | described    | enhanced      |
| omics** | enhanced   | beneficial    | under the    | visibility    |
|         | community  | effects of    | proposed     | for the       |
|         | experience | increased     | actions;     | region and    |
|         | and        | visitor       | Program      | other         |
|         | provided a | levels during | would be     | available     |
|         | temporary  | the holiday   | expected to  | recreational  |
|         | stimulus   | weekend;      | continue to  | o             |
|         | to local   | Proposed      | benefit      | pportunities. |
|         | economy;   | program       | local        | Increased     |
|         | peak       | supports      | community    | visitor       |
|         | visitor    | local         | and the      | spending has  |
|         | levels at  | participating | regional     | a substantial |
|         | memorial   | organizations | economy;     | immediate     |
|         | result in  | and enhances  | c            | benefit on    |
|         | fuller     | regional      | ontroversial | local         |
|         | u          | visibility;   | nature of    | employment    |
|         | tilization | Local         | program      | and income as |
|         | of other   | controversy   | continues    | well as       |
|         | local      | over          | for some     | longer-term   |
|         | tourism,   | potential     | local        | benefit       |
|         | recreation | fire risk and | residents.   | through       |
|         | and        | effects of    |              | induced       |
|         | visitor    | large tourist |              | spending in a |
|         | accom      | influx is     |              | region that   |
|         | modations; | unresolved    |              | accounts for  |
|         | local      |               |              | approximately |
|         | c          |               |              | 54 percent of |
|         | ontroversy |               |              | the total     |
|         | is         |               |              | visitor       |
|         | generated  |               |              | spending in   |
|         | over fire  |               |              | the state;    |
|         | risk       |               |              | The proposed  |
|         | versus     |               |              | program would |
|         | program    |               |              | not be        |
|         | benefit    |               |              | expected to   |
|         |            |               |              | conflict with |
|         |            |               |              | other,        |
|         |            |               |              | similar       |
|         |            |               |              | holiday       |
|         |            |               |              | programs in   |
|         |            |               |              | the region;   |
|         |            |               |              | The potential |
|         |            |               |              | economic      |
|         |            |               |              | benefit to    |
|         |            |               |              | the region is |
|         |            |               |              | strongest     |
|         |            |               |              | under the     |
|         |            |               |              | proposed      |
|         |            |               |              | action; with  |
|         |            |               |              | similar but   |
|         |            |               |              | slightly      |
|         |            |               |              | diminished    |
|         |            |               |              | benefits      |
|         |            |               |              | anticipated   |
|         |            |               |              | for           |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative   |
|         |            |               |              | 3; The No     |
|         |            |               |              | Action        |
|         |            |               |              | alternative   |
|         |            |               |              | would reduce  |
|         |            |               |              | the potential |
|         |            |               |              | for           |
|         |            |               |              | controversy   |
|         |            |               |              | over the      |
|         |            |               |              | program, but  |
|         |            |               |              | also          |
|         |            |               |              | eliminate the |
|         |            |               |              | economic and  |
|         |            |               |              | social        |
|         |            |               |              | benefits      |
|         |            |               |              | associated    |
|         |            |               |              | with the      |
|         |            |               |              | other         |
|         |            |               |              | alternatives. |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **C     | Est        | Concussion    | Similar      | Cultural      |
| ultural | ablishment | blasts from   | effects as   | resources     |
| Reso    | of the     | fireworks     | described in | continue to   |
| urces** | memorial   | could result  | Past and     | be protected; |
|         | helped     | in impacts to | Present      | fireworks     |
|         | protect    | the           | Actions      | program could |
|         | cultural   | sculptures;   |              | contribute to |
|         | resources  | fire          |              | the           |
|         |            | suppression   |              | cumulative    |
|         |            | activities    |              | impact on     |
|         |            | could result  |              | cultural      |
|         |            | in impacts to |              | resources;    |
|         |            | recorded      |              | the Proposed  |
|         |            | cultural      |              | Action would  |
|         |            | resources     |              | contribute    |
|         |            |               |              | the most to   |
|         |            |               |              | cultural      |
|         |            |               |              | resources     |
|         |            |               |              | cumulative    |
|         |            |               |              | impacts,      |
|         |            |               |              | while No      |
|         |            |               |              | Action and    |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative 3 |
|         |            |               |              | would         |
|         |            |               |              | contribute    |
|         |            |               |              | the least     |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Tr    | Past       | Fireworks     | Similar      | Traffic flow  |
| ansport | fireworks, | program would | effects as   | and           |
| ation** | memorial   | result in     | described in | t             |
|         | and fire   | temporary     | Past and     | ransportation |
|         | management | minor impact  | Present      | would remain  |
|         | activities | to            | Actions      | relatively    |
|         | resulted   | t             |              | instant;      |
|         | in minor   | ransportation |              | fireworks     |
|         | and        | resulting     |              | program would |
|         | temporary  | from traffic  |              | not result in |
|         | impact on  | congestion    |              | significant   |
|         | tran       |               |              | cumulative    |
|         | sportation |               |              | impacts on    |
|         |            |               |              | tr            |
|         |            |               |              | ansportation; |
|         |            |               |              | the Proposed  |
|         |            |               |              | Action        |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative   |
|         |            |               |              | and           |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative 3 |
|         |            |               |              | would         |
|         |            |               |              | contribute    |
|         |            |               |              | the most to   |
|         |            |               |              | t             |
|         |            |               |              | ransportation |
|         |            |               |              | cumulative    |
|         |            |               |              | impacts,      |
|         |            |               |              | while No      |
|         |            |               |              | Action3 would |
|         |            |               |              | contribute    |
|         |            |               |              | the least     |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Wilde | Fire       | Temporary     | Similar      | Wilderness    |
| rness** | s          | minor impacts | effects as   | will continue |
|         | uppression | to the        | described in | to be managed |
|         | efforts,   | wilderness as | Past and     | as such.      |
|         | past       | a result of   | Present      | Fireworks     |
|         | fireworks, | the noise     | Actions      | program would |
|         | and noise  | from the      |              | not result in |
|         | from       | concussion    |              | significant   |
|         | memorial   | blasts of the |              | cumulative    |
|         | operations | fireworks and |              | impacts; the  |
|         | have       | fireworks     |              | Proposed      |
|         | p          | related       |              | Action        |
|         | otentially | activities    |              | Alternatives  |
|         | affected   |               |              | would         |
|         | the        |               |              | contribute    |
|         | current    |               |              | the most to   |
|         | wilderness |               |              | air quality   |
|         | area       |               |              | cumulative    |
|         |            |               |              | impacts,      |
|         |            |               |              | while No      |
|         |            |               |              | Action        |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative   |
|         |            |               |              | and           |
|         |            |               |              | Alternative 3 |
|         |            |               |              | would         |
|         |            |               |              | contribute    |
|         |            |               |              | the least     |
+---------+------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+

**[4.0 REFERENCES]{.smallcaps}**

Bahr, 2002). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 12 December 2002. Fireworks program comment letter from Dick
Bahr, National Fire Use Specialist.

(BEA, 2002). Bureau of Economic Analysis. Press release date: 10 June
2002. Regional Accounts Data, Gross State Product Data. Accessed at:

http://www.Bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/action.cfm.

(BHAG, 1999). Black Hills Administrative Group. 1999. Costs Incurred for
1999 Fireworks Event. Memorandum to the Superintendent, Mount Rushmore
National Memorial from the Administrative Officer, 29 September 1999.

(BHAG, 2000). Black Hills Administrative Group. 2000.

(BHAG, 2001). Black Hills Administrative Group. 10 September 2001. Costs
Incurred for 1999 Fireworks Event. Memorandum to the Superintendent,
Mount Rushmore National Memorial from the Administrative Officer/Budget
Analyst.

(Burdge, 1995). Burdge 1995. *A Community Guide to Social Impact
Assessment*. Middleton, Wisconsin: Social Ecology Press.

(Census, 1997). United States Census Bureau. 1997. Economic Census for
Custer County, SD. Accessed at:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GQRTable?\_ts=62086460580

(Census, 2002). United States Census Bureau. Accessed on 9 January 2003.
Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF-1) 100-Percent Data. Accessed at:
http://www.census.gov.

(Daly, 2002). Daly , D. 7 December 2002. *Feds to Study Rushmore
Fireworks*. Rapid City Journal, Page C-1.

(DOI, No Date). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. No Date. Mount Rushmore Economic Impact Study.

(DOI, 1999). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. August 1999. Director's Order #41 Wilderness Preservation and
Management.

(DOI, 2001a). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 08 January 2001. Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact
Analysis, and Decision Making. Director's Order #12 and Handbook.

(DOI, 2001b). United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 27 December 2000. *2001 Management Policies*.

(Gerpen, 2002). South Dakota Department of Tourism. 14 November 2002.
Personal communication with Patricia Van Gerben, Cabinet Secretary.

(ICGPSA, 1995). Inter-organizational Committee on Guidelines and
Principles for Social Impact Assessment. 1995. *Guidelines and
Principles for Social Impact Assessment*. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, vol. 15, pp. 11-43.

(Jobman, 2002). Xanterra Parks and Resorts, Mount Rushmore National
Memorial. 31 October 2002. Personal communication from Russ R. Jobman,
General Manager, Xanterra Parks and Resorts.

(Madden, 2002). Madden, M.K. January 2002. *Economic And Fiscal Impacts
Associated With the Vacation Travel Industry In South Dakota*, *November
2000 Through October 2001.* Rapid City, SD: The South Dakota Department
of Tourism. Accessed at: http://www.sdvisitind.com/report/index.htm

(Madden, 2002a). South Dakota Department of Tourism. 18 December 2002.
Personal communication with Dr. Michael K. Madden.

(Popovich, 2002). United States Department of Interior, National Park
Service. 17 December 2002. Personal communication with Jim Popovich,
Chief of Interpretations.

(Popovich, 2002a). United States Department of Interior, National Park
Service. 12 December 2002. Personal communication with Jim Popovich,
Chief of Interpretations.

(RCHA, No Date). Rapid City Area Hospitality Association. No date.
*Occupancy Stats Beginning with First of July thru July 7 by Year*.

(RESPEC, 2002).RESPEC. July 2002. Semiannual Report on the Mount
Rushmore Rock Block Monitoring System: Year 2002 Topical Report
RSI-1646. By Skaug, Nils T. and Blankenship, Douglas A.

(Ode, 2002). South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 28 January
2002. Personal communication with David Ode.

(Schultz, 2002). South Dakota Department of Natural Resources. 05 August
2002. Personal communication with Brad Schultz.

(South Dakota, No Date). State of South Dakota, Governor's Office of
Economic Development. No date. Pennington County Profile. Accessed at:

<http://www.sdgreatprofits.com/cp/RequestSummaryReport.asp>

(Traux, 1999). Traux, Barry. Handbook for Acoustic Ecology Second
Edition. Simon Fraser University, 1999.

(USDA, 2000a). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
April 2000. *Incorporating Air Quality Effects of Wildland Fire
Management into Forest Plan Revisions -- A Desk Guide (Draft)*.

(USDA, 2000b). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station. July 2000. Smoke Exposure at Western
Wildfires. Research Paper. PNW-RP-525.

(USDA, 2001). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Wildland Fire Suppression Chemicals Toxicity and Environmental Issues
and Concerns. Web page. Date accessed: 06 June 2001. Accessed at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/The_Environment.html

(USEPA, 1997). United States Environmental Protection Agency. September
1997. EPA's Updated Clean Air Standards: A Common Sense Primer. Accessed
at: <http://www.epa.gov/air/primer/common.htm>

(Vogl, 1979). Vogl, R.J. Some basic principles of grassland fire
management. *Environmental Management* 3(1):51-57, 1979.

(Wright and Bailey, 1980). Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey. 1980. Fire
ecology and prescribed burning in the Great Plains -- A research review.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Forest Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. General Technical Report.
INT-77.