Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

actions at these sites, to the extent they are known and reasonably related to the project, are described indetail in the SEIS (see, e.g., Sections 3.2.2.8, 3.2.2.9, 3.3.2.2 through 3.3.2.5, 3.3.2.7, and 3.5.2.7; seealso Response to Comment ER-2). Additionally, the mitigation measures described in the SEIS fullyaddress and reduce any potential impacts of the project as they relate in any way to the remediationactivities at these sites (refer to Section 3.11.3, Mitigation Measures). Comprehensive informationregarding the planned remediation activities at these sites has been made available to CCSF and othermembers of the public through the Presidio’s independent decision-making process that includes formalpublic notice, review, and comment. As stated in the SEIS, final remedies for these sites will be subjectto additional public participation and comment prior to remedy implementation (see Section 2.2.1).Further follow-up by the public regarding these sites, including the nature of hazardous materials present,timing for remediation, involvement of resource agencies with jurisdiction, and monitoring and reportingrequirements, may be addressed at that time. For more information regarding these sites, see also RevisedFeasibility Study for the Main Installation Sites (Presidio Trust 2003d) and Landfills 8 and 10 FeasibilityStudy Report (Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. 2005).ER-2. Impact on Lobos Creek from Landfill 10The CCSF asserted that the presence of hazardous materials on the PHSH site at Landfill 10 is onlymentioned tangentially in the discussion of hydrology, wetlands, and water quality. The CCSF contendedthat because of the adjacency of Lobos Creek, a source of water supply for the [Trust] and NPS, this is acritical element for any environmental impact discussion and this discussion is missing from the SEIS. “Asection should be added to the SEIS to characterize the hazardous materials and evaluate the potentialimpacts from all the alternatives…” They continued: “[t]he SEIS acknowledges the potential forcontamination of the Lobos Creek watershed, but provides no specific information about how to protectagainst the contamination…” And concluded: “[t]he mitigation measures themselves could yieldenvironmental impacts, particularly with respect to installation of storm water drainage system upgradesand slope stabilization. Because the SEIS does not provide any detailed description of the measures to beundertaken, it is impossible to evaluate either the effectiveness of the mitigation measures or possible sideeffects of the measures.”Response ER-2 – To the extent necessary, information regarding the environmental conditions at Landfill10 and mitigation measures to address potential effects on water quality associated with Landfill 10 arediscussed in Section 3.11, Hydrology, Wetlands, and Water Quality and other sections in the SEIS. TheSEIS includes mitigation measures to adequately eliminate any potential effects on water quality,including potential degradation of surface and groundwater quality due to runoff. The mitigationmeasures identified include maintenance of existing and new drains and culverts to ensure that runoff isnot altered or diverted toward Landfill 10 or the Lobos Creek watershed and groundwater basin (seegenerally Section 3.11.3, Mitigation Measures, and specifically Mitigation Measure NR-15 WaterResources Best Management Practices: “[d]ue to the presence of hazardous waste underlying the largeparking area west of the PHSH, the diversion of subsurface drainage around the underground parkingfacility will not divert toward Landfill 10”). In addition to the implementation of water resources bestmanagement practices, the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will further reduce72 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital