Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

1.6 mgd after accounting for minimum flows to support riparian habitat. In addition to Lobos Creeksupplies, the Trust is developing an on-site recycled water system that will provide up to 0.5 mgd ofrecycled water to offset irrigation demands.The Trust is also taking measures to control water demands. These include installing water meters onbuildings, billing tenants for usage, requiring that low-flow fixtures be installed as buildings arerenovated, and installing efficient irrigation systems where landscaping is irrigated.The Trust is committed to providing potable water to the park, protecting water resources and waterquality, and conserving water. To this end, Trust staff are available to the SFPUC and wish to participatein its water planning efforts to provide timely and effective exchange of information in order to helpensure that these commitments are fulfilled (and also to identify opportunities to achieve mutual goals).1.13 HYDROLOGY, WETLANDS, AND WATER QUALITY (HY)HY-1. Impact of Mitigation MeasuresThe CCSF suggested that mitigation measures themselves could yield environmental impacts, particularlywith respect to installation of storm water drainage system upgrades and slope stabilization. They said adetailed description of mitigations is needed to evaluate effectiveness or side effects of the mitigations.Response HY-1 – The requested evaluation would be based on pure conjecture, as detailed site designinformation will be unavailable until after the environmental review process is completed. Nevertheless,the best management practices (BMPs) outlined under Mitigation Measure NR-15 in Section 3.11.3 of theFinal SEIS that would be required to be implemented as part of the Storm Water Pollution PreventionPlan (SWPPP) provide sufficient information describing how discharges of storm water would becontrolled to ensure that erosion and sedimentation would be reduced and adverse effects on waterquality, including “possible side effects,” would be minimized.1.14 BIOLOGY (BI)BI-1. Impacts on California QuailThe Golden Gate Audubon Society and various individuals maintained that increased traffic, noise, nightlighting, and garbage associated with Alternative 2 would threaten to “undo the years of effort that havegone into bringing back the California quail.” They urged that the reduction in human use that wouldresult from selecting Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative would significantly reduce the impacts of aproject located in such close proximity to quail habitat.Response BI-1 – While the EIS preparers disagree with the conclusion reached by the commenters (as theCalifornia quail population would be protected under Mitigation Measure NR-9 Wildlife and Wildlife70 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital