Chap

Consultation, Coordina

and Prep

 

CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, 


AND PREPARERS 


HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The public planning process for the Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias / Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (Mariposa Grove FEIS) helped the NPS to understand and fully 

consider the interests of the public. Individuals, other public agencies, traditionally associated Indian 

tribes and groups, organizations, and businesses identified various issues and opportunities 

regarding the Mariposa Grove FEIS as part of this comprehensive process. This section describes the 

public involvement process and summarizes the public comments received during public scoping 

and review of the Mariposa Grove Draft EIS. 

PROJECT SCOPING 

The purpose of scoping is to conduct an early and open process to identify issues and concerns 

related to the planning process and to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the 

environmental analysis. The National Park Service (NPS) public scoping period for the Mariposa 

Grove Plan was open from August 31, 2011, through February 3, 2012. The NPS held public open 

houses on August 31, September 28, and December 7, 2011 and January 25, 2012, to inform 

interested parties about the proposed project and to solicit comments from members of the public in 

order to understand the spectrum of concerns, interests, and issues that should be considered in the 

planning process. The park also conducted a public site visit at the Mariposa Grove on October 14, 

2011. Approximately 20 interested individuals attended. 

The NPS accepted public comments by mail, fax, email, through the Planning, Environment, and 

Public Comment (PEPC) system, and on comment forms available at public scoping meetings. 

During the public scoping period, the park received 43 letters from 41 individuals and 

2 organizations. Analysis of these letters identified 126 discrete substantive comments, from which 

15 general concern statements were generated. All comments received during the scoping period 

were carefully read and considered, and are now part of the administrative record for this project. 

The public scoping letters and a report summarizing comments are available on the PEPC database at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/mariposagrove. 

On June 27, 2012, the park held its monthly open house in Yosemite Valley and shared results of the 

Choosing By Advantages (CBA) workshop for the Mariposa Grove Plan with the public. Design 

drawings and scoring for each preliminary alternative were presented, and input received led to the 

reconsideration of some alternatives. 

During this period, internal scoping was conducted in consultation with NPS managers and staff, 

traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups, affected state and federal agencies, and 

local and state governments. 

PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE MARIPOSA GROVE DRAFT EIS 

The Mariposa Grove Draft EIS was available to the public, federal, state, and local agencies and 

organizations for a 61-day public review period from March 8, 2013 through May 7, 2013. A Notice 

of Availability was published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2013. Electronic copies of the 

Mariposa Grove Draft EIS were posted to the park’s website at 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-1 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers 
Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mgrove.htm and hard copies and/or CDs of the document were 

distributed to individuals that requested them, as well as to congressional delegations, state and local 

elected officials, federal agencies, traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups, 

organizations and local businesses, public libraries, and the news media. The NPS provided notice of 

the plan’s availability for public comment via a press release distributed to a wide variety of news 

media and announcements placed on the park’s website, online newsletters, printed newsletters, and 

local public libraries. 

Essential elements of the Mariposa Grove Draft EIS were presented by park staff at a webinar on 

April 9, 2013. A recording of the webinar is available at http://yose.webex.com. 

In addition, park staff hosted two public meetings focused on the Mariposa Grove Draft EIS. These 

meetings consisted of an open house, presentation, and an opportunity to discuss the plan with park 

staff members and to provide comment. The public meeting schedule was as follows: 

April 12, 2013: Public Meeting at Tenaya Lodge, Fish Camp, California 

April 24, 2013: Yosemite Open House in the Visitor Center Auditorium, Yosemite Valley, 

California 

Public comment letters were received through PEPC website at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/mariposagrove, by email at yoseplanning@nps.gov, and by U.S. mail. The 

full text of public comment letters received can be viewed on the project website at 

http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mgrove_documents.htm. Personal information included with the 

comments (e.g., names and contact information) is redacted in the correspondence posted online to 

protect authors’ privacy. 

During the 61-day public comment period, the park received 334 public comment letters. One 

comment letter was from a state agency, five were from organizations, one business, and the remainder 

originated from unaffiliated individuals. An analysis of these letters identified 356 discrete comments 

(excluding form letters), from which 68 general concern statements were generated. The results of 

the public comment analysis process and NPS responses to substantive public comments are 

provided in Appendix C. The changes to the alternatives under consideration in this EIS resulting 

from public comment are summarized in Chapter 2. 

AGENCY CONSULTATION 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REGULATORY BOARD 

The Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500) requires that federal land agencies consult with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) regarding wetlands located in or near proposed projects. 

The NPS is consulting with the Army Corps regarding the Mariposa Grove FEIS in accordance with 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and Section 10 (33 U.S.C. 403) of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act. 

Also under Section 404, permit approval is required for projects that may result in the discharge of 

dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. This includes all navigable waters, their 

tributaries, impoundments of these waters, and adjacent wetlands. Examples of Section 404 activities 

include infrastructure development, road fills, and riprap. Some actions proposed in the Mariposa 

Grove FEIS may require permits for the discharge of fill material. The NPS will work with the Army 

Corps to obtain required Section 404 permits prior to implementing any such actions. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-2 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers 
Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

Under Section 10, permit approval is required for the placement of structures in or over, or work in 

or over, navigable waters of the United States which affects their course, location, condition, or 

capacity. The NPS will ensure that all Army Corps permit approvals associated with the Mariposa 

Grove FEIS are in place prior to implementation. 

The NPS provided a copy of the Mariposa Grove Draft EIS to the Army Corps as part of the 

consultation process, and received a comment letter on the plan in support of the alternative that 

restores and protects the most waters of the United States. The NPS is working with the Army Corps 

to ensure that wetland maps associated with the Mariposa Grove FEIS are verified per Army Corps 

standards, prior to submittal of permit applications. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires federal agencies to 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 

critical habitat. The NPS originally obtained a list of federally listed endangered and threatened 

species that may be present in the South Entrance area and Mariposa Grove from the USFWS on 

November 14, 2011 and compared this list to park records. The list was updated regularly and used 

as the basis for the special status species analysis in this EIS. On March 15, 2012, the park contacted 

the USFWS regarding the candidate species Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada Red Frog regarding 

timing of possible listing under the Endangered Species Act. On May 3, 2012 the park entered into 

informal consultation with the USFWS for this project to develop appropriate mitigation measures 

and proactive habitat improvements. The NPS provided the USFWS with a set of draft mitigation 

measures to protect the Pacific fisher on June 24, 2013. The USFWS concurred that the measures 

were adequate on June 25, 2013 (see Appendix E). Should the Pacific fisher be proposed for listing or 

listed under the Endangered Species Act during implementation of the Mariposa Grove project, the 

NPS will continue conferencing or consultation with the USFWS as appropriate. 

CALIFORNIA STATE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

The cultural resources investigations and reports for the project were conducted in accordance with 

the Section 106 process under 36 CFR Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” the regulations 

that implement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). A site visit in October 

2011 was conducted with the staff of the California State Office of Historic Preservation during the 

scoping period for the project. 

The NPS initiated consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in Sacramento 

regarding the proposed undertaking at the Mariposa Grove and South Entrance with a letter sent on 

September 30, 2011. On April 11, 2012, the park sent a letter requesting concurrence for a 

determination of ineligibility for four archeological sites in the study area. On June 26, 2012 the park 

sent a letter requesting concurrence on the amendment to the Mariposa Grove consensus 

determination of eligibility. On February 5, 2013, the NPS received a letter from SHPO that stated 

concurrence with the boundaries of the Area of Potential Effects, or APE; and the recommended 

eligibilities, as well as agreement that historic properties have been sufficiently identified. The NPS is 

developing a draft Memorandum of Agreement with the SHPO as part of consultation for this 

project. A draft version is included in Appendix G. The final Memorandum of Agreement will be 

included in the Record of Decision for the Mariposa Grove FEIS. The SHPO will be a signatory on 

the Memorandum of Agreement. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-3 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers 
 

 

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

NPS is consulting with the SHPO under the four-step process outlined in 36 CFR Part 800 rather 

than an existing programmatic agreement. The NPS will continue to communicate with the SHPO 

through design and construction of the project as needed. The NPS will serve as the lead agency on 

behalf of the Army Corps, regarding future consultation with the SHPO regarding permits. 

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL 

WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 

The NPS works with state and local government agencies to maintain the highest possible water 

quality standards and to take action to restore substandard waters, as directed by NPS Management 

Policies 2006 and Director’s Order 84, Public Health (2004). 

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control 

Boards (RWQCBs) are the regulatory boards within California’s Environmental Protection Agency 

that derive their authority from Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 13020 of the 

California Water Code. The SWRCB allocates rights to the use of surface water and, along with the 

regional boards, is charged with protecting surface, ground, and coastal waters throughout the state. 

The RWQCB issues permits that govern and restrict the amount of pollutants discharged into the 

ground or surface water, which includes regulating storm water during construction activities. 

Under the Clean Water Act’s Section 401, every applicant for a federal permit or license for any 

activity that may result in a discharge to a water body must obtain State Water Quality Certification 

that the proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards, if an activity would result in 

a discharge to a water body. 

Yosemite National Park is under the jurisdiction of Regional Board 5, Central Valley, and obtains 

any necessary permits and/or certifications for construction activities from that board. If required, 

the NPS would file a Notice of Intent to discharge storm water and prepare and implement 

provisions of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to control run-off from construction 

activities. The NPS provided a copy of the Mariposa Grove Draft EIS to the RWQCB, who in turn 

notified the NPS that they will provide input as part of future permitting processes, as necessary. 

AMERICAN INDIAN CONSULTATION 

Yosemite National Park consults with seven traditionally associated American Indian tribes and 

groups that have ancestral connections to Yosemite National Park: the American Indian Council of 

Mariposa County, Inc. (aka Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation), Bishop Paiute Tribe, Bridgeport Indian 

Colony, Mono Lake Kutzadika’a Tribe, North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, 

Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians. The 

NPS initiated consultation with these tribes and groups in a letter dated October 19, 2011 (with a 

subsequent correction letter dated November 28, 2011). 

Tribal consultation for this project has included numerous meetings and tribal site visits. In addition 

to consultation meetings with individual tribal groups, all traditionally associated tribes and groups 

were invited to: 

	 an informational project scoping meeting on January 5, 2012. Representatives from the 

American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc. and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk 

Indians attended. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-4 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers 
 

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

 a site visit to the Mariposa Grove on January 11, 2012. Representatives from the American 

Indian Council of Mariposa County and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians attended. 

 a site visit on May 22, 2012. Representatives from the American Indian Council of Mariposa 

County, the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, and the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi 

Indians attended. 

	 a site visit on April 2, 2013. Representatives from the American Indian Council of Mariposa 

County, the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, and the North Fork Rancheria of Mono 

Indians of California attended. 

	 a site visit on July 10, 2013. Representatives from the American Indian Council of Mariposa 

County, the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono 

Indians of California, and the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians attended. 

The Mariposa Grove Restoration Plan was also discussed at the All Tribes meeting in Lee Vining on 

July 12, 2013. 

Throughout the tribal consultation process, traditionally associated tribes and groups brought 

forward a range of issues, concerns, and proposed actions, including (but not limited to) the 

following: 

	 Protect traditionally significant archeological sites; 

	 Remove the gift shop from the Mariposa Grove and restore the area to protect archeological 

resources; 

	 Avoid removing black oaks; 

	 Avoid impacts to mature trees; 

	 Avoid shifting impacts to previously undisturbed areas; 

	 Consider elevated trails to minimize effects on the sequoia roots; 

	 Retain access to Wawona Point for tribal traditional cultural practices; 

	 Enhance picnicking opportunities; 

	 Minimize impacts of restrooms in the lower Grove area (consider keeping vault toilets); 

	 Provide opportunities for Native American youth to participate in project implementation; 

	 Reduce the scale of the parking lots to lessen impacts on resources by keeping shuttle 


operation in Wawona; and 


	 Include information about Native American connections to the Mariposa Grove in 


interpretive components.
 

The NPS has worked with the tribes and groups to integrate these proposed actions into the project, 

and strongly considered these issues and concerns throughout the development of the alternatives. 

Under all alternatives, the gift shop would be carefully removed from the archeological site that it 

was constructed on in the lower Grove area. Plans for developing a shuttle staging area in the lower 

Grove area were also modified between the Draft and Final EIS to ensure protection of archeological 

sites, black oaks and other mature trees, where feasible. Elevated trails (including boardwalks) are 

part of the design of all new proposed accessible trails. Access to Wawona Point for tribal gatherings 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-5 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers 
 

 

 

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

would continue. Trailside interpretive components to emphasize Native American connections to 

the Mariposa Grove would be focused within the sequoia grove. The NPS is actively pursuing 

opportunities to engage American Indian youth in project implementation, particularly in trail 

construction. 

The NPS minimized the size of the South Entrance parking lot to the extent possible to meet the 

goals of the plan. Alternatives 2 through 4 in the EIS do not leave the large shuttle operation from 

Wawona to the Mariposa Grove, as proposed by some traditionally associated tribal groups. Rather, 

the shuttle operation from Wawona would be substantially reduced, as more parking would be 

available closer to the Grove at the South Entrance. This will reduce congestion and roadside 

parking in Wawona and eliminate backtracking (e.g., visitors who drive to the Grove from Yosemite 

Valley or the South Entrance often find the lot at the Grove or South Entrance full and then have to 

drive to Wawona to park and then take the shuttle to the Grove). 

The NPS will continue to work with traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups 

throughout project design, implementation, and development of a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) with the SHPO. The MOA will include stipulations to avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse 

effects to historic properties with traditional cultural and religious significance to American Indian 

tribes. The Draft MOA is in Appendix G; the signed final MOA will be a part of the Record of 

Decision for the final Mariposa Grove EIS. Traditionally associated American Indian tribes and 

groups are invited to be a concurring party on the MOA. 

FUTURE INFORMATION 

The Mariposa Grove FEIS is available on the Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) 

website at (http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/mariposagrove). To request printed documents or CDs, 

please e-mail (yose_planning@nps.gov) or call (209) 379-1202. A minimum 30-day no-action period will 

follow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency noticing of the availability of the Mariposa Grove FEIS 

in the Federal Register. The NPS will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days after 

release of the FEIS. After approval of the ROD by the Regional Director, the park will announce the 

selected plan through local and regional press and on the project website. The official responsible for 

project implementation is the Superintendent, Yosemite National Park. 

For further information, visit the park website at www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mgrove or contact: 

Superintendent 


ATTN: Mariposa Grove FEIS 


P.O. Box 577
 

Yosemite National Park, CA 95389
 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-6 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers 
Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND BUSINESSES RECEIVING THE 

RESTORATION OF THE MARIPOSA GROVE OF GIANT SEQUOIAS DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

The following pages list the agencies, organizations, and businesses who received a hard copy or CD of the 

Final EIS. 

U.S. Government 

Legislature 

Members of Congress 

Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service 


Bass Lake Ranger District 


Sierra National Forest
 

U.S. Department of Defense 

Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory 

Board 

U. S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento 

Regional Office 

National Park Service 


Pacific West Regional Office 


NPS Water Resources Division 


U.S. Department of Justice 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

San Francisco Regional Office 

American Indian Tribes and Groups 

American Indian Council, Mariposa County 

Bishop Paiute Indian Council 

Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony 

Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi 

Indians 

Mono Lake Kutzadika’a Paiute Indian 

Community 

North Fork Mono Indian Museum 

North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California 

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians 

Tuolumne Mewuk Rancheria 

Western Mono Tribal Government 

County and Local Governments 

Fish Camp 

Advisory Council 

Property Owners Association 

Madera County 

Board of Supervisors 

Planning Department 

Mariposa County 

Board of Supervisors
 

Planning Department 


El Portal Town Planning Advisory 


Committee 


Wawona Town Planning Advisory 


Committee 


Merced County 

Board of Supervisors 

Planning Department 

Visitor Bureaus 

Bass Lake Chamber of Commerce, Bass Lake 

Coarsegold Chamber of Commerce, 

Coarsegold 

Eastern Madera County Chamber of 

Commerce 

Mariposa County Visitors Center (Chamber 

of Commerce), Mariposa 

Merced Visitor Services / California 

Welcome Center, Merced 

North Fork Chamber of Commerce, North 

Fork 

Oakhurst Area Chamber of Commerce, 

Oakhurst 

Yosemite Chamber of Commerce, 

Groveland 

Yosemite / Mariposa County Tourism 

Bureau, Mariposa 

Yosemite Sierra Visitors Bureau, Oakhurst 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-7 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers 
Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

California State Government 

State Agencies and Organizations 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Region #4 

California Department of Transportation 

California State Clearinghouse 

California Office of Historic Preservation 

California Regional Water Quality Control 

Board #5F (Central Valley) 

Organizations and Businesses 

Backcountry Horsemen of California 

California Native Plant Society, Foothills 

Chapter 

California Native Plant Society, Sequoia 

Chapter 

Central Sierra Environmental Resource 

Center 

Delaware North Corporation 

Foothill Conservancy 

Friends of Yosemite 

High Sierra Hikers Association 

Mariposans for the Environment and 

Responsible Government
 

National Audubon Society 


National Parks and Conservation 


Association 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

Native Habitats 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

NatureBridge Yosemite 

Sierra Club 

Sierra Mono Museum 

The Redwoods in Yosemite 

Yosemite Conservancy 

Yosemite Restoration Trust 

Libraries 

Mariposa County Library, El Portal 


Mariposa County Library, Wawona 


Mariposa County Library, Mariposa 


Madera County, Library, Oakhurst 


Public Media 

Newspapers 

Associated Press 

Fresno Bee 

Mariposa Gazette 

Merced Sun-Star 

Modesto Bee 

Mountain Democrat 

Oakland Tribune 

Sacramento Bee 

San Francisco Chronicle 

San Francisco Examiner 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-8 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers 
 

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS 

Name Responsibility Education 

Years of 

Experience 

NPS 

Lisa Acree Compliance Specialist B.A. Environmental Studies 25 NPS 

Teresa Austin Administrative Officer; 

Chief, Division of 

Administration 

M.B.A. Graduate Certificate/ 

Accounting 

B.S. Psychology 

7 NPS 

Barbara Bane Project Archeologist Registered Professional 

Archeologist 

M.A. Anthropology 

B.A. Art History 

3 NPS 

5 Other 

Sue Beatty Restoration Ecologist Graduate Work in Natural 

Resources Management 

B.S. Recreation 

25 NPS 

Tony Brochini Facilities Management 2 years undergraduate studies 34 NPS 

Monica Buhler Former Restoration 

Ecologist 

B.A. International Studies and 

Global Resources 

14 NPS 

Sue Clark Former Compliance 

Specialist 

M.S. Environmental Policy/ 

Natural Resources 

Management 

B.S. Plant and Soil Science 

31 NPS 

6 Other 

Lindsay Cline Wildlife Biologist M.S. Wildlife Management 

B.S. Biology 

4 NPS 

3 Other 

Rebecca Cremeen Outdoor Recreation 

Planner 

M. City and Regional Planning 

B.A. Geography 

1 NPS 

14 Other 

Jim Donovan Project Manager M. Urban and Regional 

Planning 

B.A. Fine Arts 

12 NPS 

15 Other 

Randy Fong Chief, Division of Project 

Management 

M. Architecture 

B.A. Architecture 

35 NPS 

1 Other 

Jennifer Hardin Cultural Anthropologist; 

American Indian Liaison 

Ph.D. Candidate— 

Sociocultural Anthropology 

M.A. Sociocultural 

Anthropology 

M.A. Applied Cultural 

Anthropology 

B.S. Sociocultural 

Anthropology 

3 NPS 

14 Other 

Dave Henderson Traffic Management 

Supervisor 

A.S. Administration of Justice 

RCJTC Graduate—Police 

Science 

11 NPS 

22 Other 

Karen Hockett Social Scientist Ph.D. Natural Resources 

Recreation 

M.S. Zoology 

B.S. Biology 

1 NPS 

8 Other 

Kevin Killian Chief Ranger, Division of 

Visitor and Resource 

Protection 

B.S. Zoology 20 NPS 

Kris Kirby Chief, Division of 

Business and Revenue 

Management 

M.S. Public Administration 

B.A. Political Science 

17 NPS 

4 Other 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-9 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers 
 

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

Name Responsibility Education 

Years of 

Experience 

Laura Kirn Branch Chief in 

Anthropology and Acting 

Branch Chief in History, 

Architecture and 

Landscapes Program, 

Division of Resources 

Management and Science 

M.A. Historic Preservation 

B.S. Anthropology 

29 NPS 

Kimball Koch Acting Park Historic 

Preservation Officer 

M. Landscape Architecture 24 NPS 

Bill Kuhn Terrestrial Ecologist/ 

Biogeographer 

Ph.D. Ecology/Biogeography 

M.S. Ecology 

B.A. Biology 

9 NPS 

Linda Mazzu Chief, Division of 

Resources Management 

and Science 

M.S. Natural Resources 

Management 

B.S. Park and Recreation 

Management 

20 NPS 

10 Other 

Jana Friesen McCabe Visual Information 

Specialist 

M.A. Luso-Brazillian Literature 

B.A. Latin American Studies 

13 NPS 

Kevin McCardle Historical Landscape 

Architect 

M. Landscape Architecture 

B.S. Microbiology 

B.S. Science Education 

3 NPS 

12 Other 

Kathleen Morse Chief, Division of 

Planning 

Graduate Work in Coastal 

Zone Management 

B.S. Natural Resources 

Economics 

2 NPS 

20 USFS 

Thomas R. Medema Chief, Division of 

Interpretation and 

Education 

M.S. Parks and Recreation 

Management 

B.S. Outdoor Recreation and 

Education 

20 NPS 

Bret Meldrum Former Branch Chief, 

Visitor Use and Social 

Sciences 

Ph.D. (ongoing) Natural 

Resources Studies 

M.S. Conservation Social 

Sciences 

B.S. Recreation, Parks, and 

Tourism Services 

5 NPS 

4 Other 

Don Neubacher Superintendent M.S. Natural Resource 

Management 

B.S. Planning and 

Management 

29 NPS 

Marty Nielson Special Assistant to the 

Superintendent 

B.S. Outdoor Recreation 21 NPS 

8 Other 

Charles Repath Former Restoration 

Ecologist 

M.S. Land Resources and 

Environmental Sciences 

B.A. History 

3 NPS 

15 Other 

Ann Roberts Former NEPA Compliance 

Specialist 

M.S. Forestry/Ecological 

Restoration 

B.S. Wildlife Management 

5 NPS 

6 USFS 

5 Other 

Jim Roche Park Hydrologist M.S. Geology 

B.S. Chemistry 

14 NPS 

3 Other 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-10 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers 
Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

Name Responsibility Education 

Years of 

Experience 

Madelyn Ruffner Acting Branch Chief in 

Planning and 

Compliance, Division of 

Project Management 

M.P.P. Public Policy 

B.A. Environmental Studies 

8 NPS 

5 Other 

Daniel Schaible Former Historical 

Landscape Architect 

B.A. Landscape Architecture 6 NPS 

Eric Scott Wawona District Ranger B.S. Resource Recreation 

Management 

26 NPS 

Dean Shenk Supervisory Park Ranger, 

Division of Interpretation 

A.A. Fine Arts 35 NPS 

Woody Smeck Former Deputy 

Superintendent 

M. Landscape Architecture 23 NPS 

6 Other 

Sarah Stock Wildlife Biologist M.S. Zoology 

B.S. Ecology 

6 NPS 

10 Other 

Steve Thompson Branch Chief in Wildlife 

Management, Division of 

Resources Management 

and Science 

M.S. Ecology–Wildlife 

B.S. Biology 

25 NPS 

5 Other 

Kim Tucker Former Concessions 

Management Specialist; 

Division of Business and 

Revenue Management 

Undergraduate studies 

(2 years) 

36 NPS 

Ed Walls Chief, Division of 

Facilities Management 

B.A. Microbiology 23 NPS 

Mithun 

Brendan Connolly Project Director, 

Architect 

M. Architecture 

B.A. Architecture 

15 Private 

Susan Olmsted Project Manager / Lead 

Designer, Architect, 

Landscape Architect 

M. Architecture 

B. Landscape Architecture 

2 Public 

11 Private 

Christian Runge Landscape Designer M. Landscape Architecture 

B.S. Biology 

2 Private 

Independent Consultant (subcontractor to Mithun) 

Robert A. York Giant Sequoia Researcher Ph.D. and M.S. Department of 

Environmental Science, Policy, 

and Management 

B.S. Forestry 

2 Private 

9 Public 

Sherwood Design Engineers (subcontractor to Mithun) 

S. Bry Sarte Principal Civil Engineer B.S. Civil and Environmental 

Engineering 

B.A. Fine Arts 

16 Private 

Shauna Dunton Civil Engineer B.S. Civil and Environmental 

Engineering 

12 Private 

Nelson | Nygaard (subcontractor to Mithun) 

Michael Eiseman Transportation Planner B.A. Political Science 8 Private 

Bonnie Nelson Transportation Planner B.S. Civil Engineering 30 Private 

Cathleen Sullivan Transportation Planner M. City and Regional Planning 8 Private 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-11 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers 
 

 

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

Name Responsibility Education 

Years of 

Experience 

URS Corporation 

Keith Pohs Former DEIS Project 

Manager, Writer-Editor, 

M.S. Earth Science 

B.A. Geology 

8 Private 

6 Public 

Jennifer Pyne EIS Project Manager, 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

M.E.P. Environmental Planning 

B.A. Politics 

13 Private 

2 Public 

Kinzie Gordon Principal-in-Charge, 

Independent Technical 

Review 

B.A. Anthropology 38 Private 

Janis Offermann Archaeology, Traditional 

Cultural Resources 

M.A. Anthropology 

B.A. Anthropology 

2 Private 

35 Public 

Jeremy Hollins Historic structures M.A. Public History 

B.A. History 

9 Private 

Melanie Lytle Historic structures M.A. Historic Preservation 

B.A. History 

6 Private 

Bonnie DeBerry Hydrology and Water 

Quality 

M.F.S. Aquatic Chemistry 

B.S. Natural Resources 

13 Private 

4 Public 

Tim Rimpo Air Quality M.S. Economics 

B.A. Economics 

28 Private 

Ron Reeves Soundscapes B.S. Information Systems 21 Private 

JP Charpentier Vegetation, Wetlands, 

Special Status Species, 

and Wildlife 

M.S. Wildlife Ecology 13 Private 

Philip Mineart Hydrology and Water 

Quality 

M.S. Civil Engineering 

B.S. Environmental Resources 

Engineering 

28 Private 

David Konopka Visitor Use and 

Experience 

Graduate Studies in Landscape 

Architecture & Outdoor 

Recreation Planning 

B.S. Natural Resource 

Conservation 

2 Private 

12 Public 

Allison Getty Park Operations M.A. Natural Resources/ 

Environmental Management 

B.S. Natural Resources/ 

Environmental Management 

5 Private 

Ryan McMullan Soundscapes B.A. Political Science 

B.A. Audio Arts and Acoustics 

4 Private 

John Qoyawayma Graphics Business Computing Systems 28 Private 

Kathy Hinkel Project Administrator Business Certificate 8 Private 

Meg Quarrie Senior Word Processor B.A. English 30 Private 

Climate Wise Solutions, LLC (subcontractor to URS) 

Dr. George Koch Technical Expert, 

Vegetation, Wetlands, 

Special Status Species, 

and Wildlife 

Ph.D. Biology 

B.S. Biology 

30 Academia, 

Research, and 

Consulting 

Independent Consultant (subcontractor to URS) 

Dr. Steve Lawson Technical Expert, Visitor 

Use and Experience 

Ph.D. Natural Resources 

M.S. Resource Economics and 

Policy 

B.A. Political Science 

10 Academia 

4 Consulting 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-12 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers 
 

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

Name Responsibility Education 

Years of 

Experience 

David Evans and Associates, Inc. 

Perry Palmer Landscape Architect B. Landscape Architecture 20 Private 

Jim Smith Civil Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering 30 Private 

Kayla Pirotte Civil Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering 5 Private 

Victor Vaskelis Civil Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering 12 Private 

Independent Consultant (subcontractor to DEA) 

Brenda Ostrom Project Facilitator B.S. Geography 

M.T. Aeronautical Technology 

4 Public 

12 Private 

Independent Consultant (subcontractor to DEA) 

Karen Braitmayer, 

FAIA 

Accessible Design B.S. Behavioral Science 

M.S. Architecture 

18 Private 

Laugenour and Meikle (subcontractor to DEA) 

Tom Horgan Waste Water 

Management 

B.S. Civil Engineering 41 Private 

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (subcontractor to DEA) 

Michael Watari Geotechnical B.S. Civil Engineering 

M.S. Civil Engineering 

13 Private 

9 Public 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-13 October 2013 

Chapter 4: Consultation, Coordination, 

and Preparers