Port of Long Beach Community Impact Study

Transcription

1 Port of Long Beach Community Impact Study

2

3 PORT OF LONG BEACH COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDY P R E P A R E D B Y : Port of Long Beach 4801 Airport Plaza Drive Long Beach, CA W I T H T E C H N I C A L A S S I S T A N C E F R O M : ICF International ilanco Environmental Fehr & Peers Anchor QEA

4 ICF International April. (ICF ) San Diego, CA. Prepared for Port of Long Beach, Long Beach, CA.

5 Contents List of Tables and Figures... iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations...iv Chapter 1 Introduction Purpose Legal Framework Nexus, Proportionality, and Mitigation Direct Impacts Current Conditions Mitigation Measures Study Methodology Chapter 2 Air Quality and Health Risk Impacts (1) Criteria Pollutants (2) Greenhouse Gases (3) Health Risk Key Findings Potential Mitigation Strategies Chapter 3 Traffic and Mobility Impacts of Port Operations on Traffic and Mobility Contribution of Port Operations to Traffic Impacts (1) Port-related Truck Volumes (2) VMT Key Findings Potential Mitigation Strategies Chapter 4 Noise Impacts of Port Operations on Community Noise Levels Contribution of Port Operations to Community Noise Levels Key Findings Potential Mitigation Strategies Chapter 5 Water Quality Impacts of Port Operations on Water Quality Contribution of Port Operations to Water Quality Key Findings Potential Mitigation Strategies Chapter 6 Summary of Key Findings Air Quality i

6 Traffic and Mobility Noise Water Quality Chapter 7 References Introduction Air Quality Traffic and Mobility Noise Water Quality ii

7 Tables and Figures Table 2-1 Air Pollutant Emissions Comparison of Port-Related GHG Emissions to California s Transportation Sector GHG (CO 2e) Emissions Port-Related Daily Truck Trips in Relation to Total Daily Trips Port-Related Daily Truck VMT in Relation to Regional VMT Estimated Stormwater Runoff Volumes from Watersheds Discharging into San Pedro Bay Figure Page 1-1 Map of the Port of Long Beach Pollutant Emissions Comparison Health Risk Associated with San Pedro Bay Ports Operations Port of Long Beach Daily Truck Volumes Port-Related Truck Trips as a Proportion of Total Volume Port-Related Truck Traffic Noise Levels Noise Levels Associated with All Traffic Sources Noise Level Differences Attributed to Port-Related Truck Traffic Port of Long Beach and Surrounding Watersheds iii

8 Acronyms and Abbreviations AQMP BMP BWHRA Tool CAAP CARB CEQA CIS CO 2e CSLC db dba DPM EPA GHG Guidance Manual HVAC I IGP L dn LID MATES IV MS4 NO X NPDES PM 10 PM 2.5 Port PortTAM SCAB SCAQMD SR TAC VMT Water Boards WRAP Air Quality Management Plan Best Management Practice Bay-wide health risk assessment tool Clean Air Action Plan California Air Resources Board California Environmental Quality Act Community Impact Study carbon dioxide equivalent California State Lands Commission decibel weighted decibels diesel particulate matter U.S. Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas Post Construction Stormwater Quality Design Guidance Manual Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Interstate Industrial General Permit day/night noise level Low Impact Development Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study IV municipal separate storm sewer system nitrogen oxides National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Port of Long Beach Port Transportation Analysis Model South Coast Air Basin South Coast Air Quality Management District State Route toxic air contaminant vehicle miles travelled California State Water Resources Control Board and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Resources Action Plan iv

9 Chapter 1 Introduction Purpose The Port of Long Beach (Port) is the second busiest port in the United States. The Port provides economic benefits at the local, regional, state, and national levels by supporting 30,000 jobs in Long Beach, 316,000 jobs throughout Southern California, and 1.4 million jobs throughout the United States. The Port s robust economic activity, however, has an impact on the communities surrounding these operations. While the Port has a positive effect on neighboring communities by providing high-paying jobs and generating significant local tax revenues, the Port also has environmental and public health impacts on the surrounding communities through increased air, noise, and water pollution, and the disruption of local transportation systems. The Port has made important strides to mitigate these negative environmental impacts through its Green Port Policy as well as through project-specific mitigation measures implemented as requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Over the last decade, the Port has been a leader in addressing its environmental and public health impacts through such groundbreaking efforts as the Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) and Water Resources Action Plan (WRAP), which contain some of the most aggressive and innovative pollution-reduction strategies. The Port s success is evident. Since 2005, Port-related air pollution is down 85%, and the harbor is home to a thriving array of plant and animal life. The Port recognizes, however, that its environmental impacts have had years to accumulate, and even the Port s cutting-edge and aggressive mitigation efforts do not fully address the cumulative effects of Port operations on neighboring communities. The purpose of this Community Impact Study (CIS), therefore, is to identify both the direct impacts of Port-related operations on the local community and community-based mitigation measures to relieve these impacts. The CIS identifies Port-related community impacts through a CEQA-like analysis that uses quantitative and qualitative, industry-accepted technical methodologies to demonstrate a connection between Port operations, the impact on the community, and possible ways to reduce these impacts. Chapter 1 of this CIS provides background on the legal framework that governs the Port s public trust lands and the restrictions that apply to the Port s use of these lands and the revenue from them. Chapter 1 also describes the methods used to develop this CIS. The remainder of the document presents the results of the study as they relate to the environmental issue areas. Legal Framework Five major ports in California, including the ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco, can trace their origins back to statutory trust grants to local governments of State-owned sovereign tide and submerged lands, which are known as the public trust lands. In 1911, the people of California entrusted to local jurisdictions certain of the State s public trust lands for the primary purpose of developing commercial ports with the assurance that these public trust 1-1

10 Chapter 1. Introduction lands would be held by the grantees (i.e., local jurisdictions) for the benefit of all people of the state. The City of Long Beach is the public trustee for the tidelands and submerged lands that compose the Port of Long Beach (see Figure 1). In accordance with the statutory grants and the public trust doctrine, the Port s public trust lands can be used only for purposes related to harbor commerce, navigation, marine recreation, and fisheries (CSLC 2008). The uses must be water-related, or facilitate water-related uses, and must be of utility and benefit to the state as a whole, as opposed to serving municipal interests (Thayer 2009). The public trust doctrine not only restricts the use of the public trust lands, but also the use of revenue generated from businesses and activities conducted on these lands. Thus, public trust revenues are subject to the same restrictions as the lands themselves, meaning they can be used only for purposes consistent with the trust. The California State Lands Commission (CSLC), which is an independent commission consisting of the Lieutenant Governor, the State Controller, and the Governor s Director of Finance, was established to manage the State s public trust lands and to monitor use of public trust lands and resources granted to local jurisdictions. The CSLC ensures compliance with the terms of the relevant statutory grants and, as such, oversees the activities and use of Port revenues to ensure consistency with the public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine, then, limits how and where Port revenues are spent. This limitation is particularly important when it comes to spending Port dollars outside of the Harbor District for community mitigation projects. When evaluating off-site community mitigation projects, the CSLC has stated, there must be a nexus that can be justified, documented, and that is proportional to a port s impacts and/or operations and the proposed off-site project (CSLC 2008). The next section describes this nexus and proportionality requirement in more detail. 1-2

11 Chapter 1. Introduction Figure 1-1: Map of the Port of Long Beach 1-3

12 Chapter 1. Introduction Nexus, Proportionality, and Mitigation The Port is limited by the public trust doctrine as to how and where its public trust revenues are spent. Within the confines of these limitations, the CSLC has advised the Port that trust revenues can be used to mitigate Port impacts on the surrounding community, over and above mitigation required by a law such as CEQA, if certain conditions are met. Those conditions are that a study has verified that (1) Port operations are responsible for the impacts being mitigated, (2) there is a nexus between the impacts and the proposed mitigation, and (3) the proposed mitigation is proportional to the impacts (Thayer 2009). In addition to these three requirements, the trust grantee must ensure that the proposed mitigation is consistent with the public trust doctrine and the grantee s overall management responsibilities for the granted public lands (Thayer 2009). A CEQA-like analysis can be used to determine the impacts and the proportional mitigation (CSLC 2008). The scope and methods of analysis in this CIS adhere to the CSLC guidance on nexus and proportionality. Specifically, the Port: focused only on direct impacts of its operations, analyzed current conditions, and identified mitigation measures with a direct nexus to the impact. Additionally, the Port used, whenever possible, methodologies consistent with current CEQA practice to quantify the impacts (CSLC 2008) and thus meet CSLC s standard of a CEQA-like analysis. Direct Impacts Direct impacts are impacts from land over which the Port and the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners exert control, as well as impacts from Port-related sources originating from or destined for the Port. In accordance with CSLC guidance, the Port cannot use public trust revenue to mitigate impacts associated with third-party operations on non-port property, such as container storage yards or warehouses. These uses may indeed cause negative impacts on the community, but these impacts cannot be directly attributed to the Port. According to the CSLC, [a]ctivities by third parties on property not under control of the Port are the responsibilities of local, state and federal government bodies with jurisdictions over those activities (CSLC 2008). For this reason, the CIS does not analyze impacts from such ancillary port uses. Current Conditions The CIS evaluates the Port s cumulative impacts on the community. This study does not assess potential future impacts, which are unknown and unquantifiable at this time. For future development projects, the Port would require a CEQA analysis, at which time the impacts associated with that project would be quantified and mitigation established. In other words, the CIS addresses current impacts and conditions, while CEQA addresses impacts of future projects. Mitigation Measures Offsite mitigation projects (i.e., outside of the Port s jurisdictional boundaries) comply with the public trust doctrine only if they are direct mitigation of Port impacts to surrounding communities 1-4

13 Chapter 1. Introduction (CSLC 2008). Therefore, this study identifies mitigation measures directly relevant to the impacts. Additionally, to comply with CSLC guidance, these mitigation measures must either: 1. avoid the impact altogether, 2. minimize impacts by limiting their degree or magnitude, 3. rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment, or 4. reduce or eliminate the impact over time. Study Methodology The CIS examines four key areas: air quality, traffic, noise, and water quality. The Port selected these resource areas based on guidance from the CSLC and a review of previous community concerns on Port-related projects and initiatives, including comments on past CEQA documents. These resource areas are most strongly associated with community impacts outside the Harbor District, which is the focus of this study. The CIS represents the first comprehensive analysis of the Port s community impacts across several resource areas; however, the Port s impacts in specific areas, such as air and water, have been studied exhaustively in various documents over the past 10 years. To ensure consistency with these previous studies, the CIS relies largely on these data sources, which have already been publicly vetted and/or subjected to outside technical review. The Port conducted new analyses and modeling only in the absence of relevant data, and those instances are indicated where appropriate. Additionally, the Port conducted a literature review to gather any data related to the impacts of Port operations. Collecting existing literature and studies provides insight into ways to approach community impact studies, provides methods that demonstrate past precedent, and demonstrates how the impacts associated with Port operations on surrounding communities can be addressed. 1-5

14 Chapter 2 Air Quality and Health Risk Impacts evaluated under air quality are similar to impacts that are routinely evaluated in CEQA environmental documents and as such are evaluated with familiar and well-established methodologies. The following impacts are evaluated in this chapter. Criteria pollutant impacts Greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts Health impacts, including cancer risk and other health effects Additionally, this section identifies the geographic distribution of these impacts. Importantly, the Port does not own or operate any of the equipment that generates the emissions contained in this analysis. This equipment, however, is directly linked to goods movement and operates within the Harbor District, thus it can be said to generate air quality impacts from Portrelated activity. Impacts (1) Criteria Pollutants Criteria pollutants are those pollutants that can harm human health and the environment and for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) have adopted health-based ambient air quality standards (i.e., emission levels below which human health is presumed to be protected). Impacts of Port Operations on Criteria Pollutants Criteria pollutant emissions in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) are quantified in the South Coast Air Quality Management District s (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The most recent AQMP was prepared in 2012 (SCAQMD 2013). The 2012 AQMP inventoried criteria pollutant emissions for the 2008 baseline year and projected those pollutant emissions to 2014 and The projected 2014 pollutant emissions were used in this study because they represent the data closest to the present year. Port-related activities such as operation of ships, harbor craft (e.g., tugboats and crewboats), drayage trucks, cargo-handling equipment (e.g., cranes and yard tractors), and locomotives produce criteria pollutant emissions that affect ambient air quality. The Port develops annual emissions inventories to track the Port s progress toward emission reduction goals based on actual activity levels of every piece of port-related equipment. The emissions inventories are reviewed by a technical working group comprising representatives from the Port, the Port of Los Angeles, and the air regulatory agencies (EPA, CARB, and SCAQMD), ensuring the methodologies have been fully vetted by knowledgeable third parties. Additionally, these emissions inventories are posted on the Port s website for public accessibility. Table 2-1 presents the 2014 AQMP emissions for the SCAB 2-1

15 Chapter 2. Air Quality and Health Risk and the Port emissions from the 2014 Port emissions inventory (POLB 2015), which is the most recent report available. Table 2-1. Air Pollutant Emissions 2014 NO X Emissions (ton/yr) On-Road Sources [3] Other Mobile Sources [4] Total [5] Port [1] 1,276 6,531 7,807 SCAB [2] 99,141 57, , PM 10 Emissions (ton/yr) Port [1] SCAB [2] 9,231 3,318 56, PM 2.5 Emissions (ton/yr) Port [1] SCAB [2] 4,464 2,986 25,507 Notes: [1] Port emissions are from the 2014 Port Emissions Inventory (POLB 2015). [2] SCAB Emissions are from the 2012 AQMP, Appendix III, Table A-2 for year 2014 (SCAQMD 2013). [3] SCAB category (on-road sources reflects all on-road vehicles) is compared to Port drayage trucks. [4] SCAB category (other mobile sources reflects aircraft, trains, marine vessels, off-road equipment, farm equipment, fuel storage and handling, etc.) is compared to Port marine vessels, harbor craft, trains, construction equipment, and cargohandling equipment. [5] Total for SCAB includes stationary and area sources. Contribution of Port Operations to Criteria Pollutant Impacts Figure 2-1 shows the contribution of Port-related criteria pollutant air emissions to SCAB emissions. The figure shows that Port-related emissions contributed 4.2% to SCAB nitrogen oxides (NO X), 0.3% to SCAB particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM 10), and 0.6% to SCAB particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM 2.5). It should be noted that SCAB source categories include more source types than those normally operating at the Port. For instance, SCAB s on-road source category includes all on-road vehicle types in the SCAB, including light-duty and passenger vehicles, whereas the Port s on-road vehicles primarily include heavy-duty drayage trucks. It should also be noted that SCAB s mobile sources such as heavy-duty trucks and locomotives reflect trucks and locomotives traveling through all of the SCAB, whereas Port trucks and locomotives reflect trucks and locomotives traveling to and from the geographical boundaries identified in the Port inventory. 2-2

16 Chapter 2. Air Quality and Health Risk Figure 2-1: 2014 Pollutant Emissions Comparison 2-3

17 Chapter 2. Air Quality and Health Risk (2) Greenhouse Gases GHGs are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and are emitted from both natural processes and human activities. Scientific evidence indicates a correlation between increasing global temperatures over the past century and the worldwide extent of human-caused GHG emissions, such as combustion of fossil fuel. GHGs are not considered localized pollutants and impacts are global in nature. Impacts of Port Operations on Greenhouse Gases Port-related sources such as ships, trucks, etc. result in GHG emissions and contribute to global GHG impacts. In 2014, the Port reported 774,714 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e) emissions in its 2014 Port Emissions Inventory (POLB 2015). Contribution of Port Operations to Greenhouse Gases CARB publishes an annual GHG Emissions Inventory that reports California GHG emissions by economic sector, fuel type combustion, and source category. The most recent inventory released in 2015 reflects GHG emissions for 2013 (CARB 2015). For this section, CARB s GHG emissions reported for the transportation sector were used because the source categories in the transportation sector best correlate to Port-related activities 1. Table 2-2 shows GHG emissions as reported in the 2015 CARB GHG Inventory for the Transportation Sector. Table 2-2 also shows GHG emissions as reported in the 2013 Port Emissions Inventory (POLB 2014). 2 The table shows the percentage contribution of Port-related GHG emissions to GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector in California. The table shows that Port-related GHG emissions contribute less than 2% to California s transportation sector GHG emissions. 1 Because there is no regional GHG inventory that includes mobile sources, this study relies on the state inventory for the transportation sector only in order to provide a meaningful comparison. If Port-related GHG could be compared to all sectors in the state, the portion would be trivial. 2 The 2013 POLB inventory was used to be consistent with the state s inventory. There was a negligible increase in Port-related GHG emissions from 2013 to 2014 but this increase is not expected to change the analysis. 2-4

18 Chapter 2. Air Quality and Health Risk Table 2-2: Comparison of Port-Related GHG Emissions to California s Transportation Sector GHG (CO 2e) Emissions Heavy-Duty Trucks GHG Emissions by Source Category (MTCO 2e/yr) Vessels & Harbor Craft Locomotives Off-road Equipment California [1] 35,000,000 3,960,000 2,480,000 2,330,000 43,770,000 Port [2] 300, ,057 55, , ,332 Contribution Indicator [3] 0.9% 8.0% 2.2% 4.4% 1.8% Notes: [1] California 2015 GHG Inventory reflects 2013 emissions. Inventory interactive charts by category as defined in the Scoping Plan were used [2] Port 2013 Emissions Inventory. [3] The Contribution Indicator is the percentage of GHG emissions in the California transportation sector that are attributable to Port-related emissions. MTCO2e/yr = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Total (3) Health Risk Scientific studies have linked elevated long-term air concentrations of particulates and diesel particulate matter (DPM), the particulate portion of diesel exhaust, to health effects that are of concern for communities surrounding the Port. These health effects include exacerbation of asthma, increased hospitalizations, premature birth, and premature deaths from heart and/or lung diseases (Pope et al. 1995, 2002; Jerrett et al. 2005; Krewski et al. 2001). Additionally, DPM has been classified as a carcinogen by numerous regulatory and public health agencies, including CARB, EPA, and the World Health Organization. This section characterizes community health risk related to DPM associated with Port-related operations. Certain populations are particularly vulnerable to the health effects of air pollution. These sensitive populations include children, pregnant women and their fetuses, the elderly, and people with respiratory and cardiopulmonary conditions. Importantly, unlike criteria pollutants and GHGs, whose impacts are measured regionally or globally, health risk tends to be localized. That is, people closer to the source of pollution will experience a higher health risk than those farther away. For that reason, this section also examines the geographic distribution of health risk to identify those areas in the community most affected by Port-related operations. Impacts of Port Operations on Health Risk As described in the previous sections, Port-related sources such as ships, harbor craft, drayage trucks, cargo-handling equipment, and locomotives result in air emissions that contribute to health risk. In 2009, the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles, collectively referred to as the San Pedro Bay Ports, conducted a Bay-wide health risk assessment tool (BWHRA Tool) to project health risk reductions as a result of CAAP strategies. The assessment was developed with input from EPA, CARB, and SCAQMD and used standard protocols promulgated by the regulatory agencies, at the 2-5

19 Chapter 2. Air Quality and Health Risk time, to assess Port-related health risk. The BWHRA Tool used cancer risk from DPM as the metric for characterizing cancer risk, recognizing that cancer risk is also a surrogate for other health effects, such as asthma, increased hospitalizations, and cardiovascular disease. The selection of DPMattributable cancer risk as the BWHRA Tool metric reflects the fact that DPM has been identified as the dominant contributor to state-wide cancer risks from airborne pollutants (San Pedro Bay Ports, 2009). The BWHRA Tool modeled health risk using the Ports DPM emission inventories, which capture DPM associated with the port-related mobile sources (i.e., trucks, trains, ships, harbor craft and cargo-handling equipment) that link directly with Port activities. The BWHRA Tool used DPM emissions for the baseline year of 2005, forecasted DPM emissions for 2020, and determined health risk reductions that would result from an 85% reduction in Ports-related DPM by 2020 (Ports 2010). In 2014, the Port had already achieved an 85% reduction in DPM (POLB 2015). Thus, it is appropriate to use the 2020 forecasted health risk results to characterize the current impact of Portrelated activity on the neighboring community. Figure 2-2 represents the BWHRA Tool results for individual cancer risk. 3 It is important to reiterate that these health risks represent impacts from both the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. Due to the complexity of health risk assessment modeling, it is not possible to isolate the Port of Long Beach s contribution. Contribution of Port Operations to Health Risk SCAQMD developed a health risk model called the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study IV (MATES IV) to characterize cancer risk from toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the SCAB. MATES IV found that the average population-weighted health risk attributed to air pollution in the SCAB is 367 in a million. 4 Near the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, this risk rises to 480 in a million. This health risk, however, cannot be solely attributed to activity at both ports. MATES IV reflects all sources within the ports areas, including those not directly related to the ports, such as refineries, railyards, and other stationary and non-port mobile sources. Although MATES IV cannot be directly compared to the BWHRA Tool because the models use different methodologies and source parameters, MATES IV indicates that San Pedro Bay DPM sources represent a portion of the air quality and public health risk concerns facing the region. The BWHRA Tool found that within the modeled domain, population-weighted health risk associated with the combined 2020 operations at the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles is 66 in a million (San Pedro Bay Ports 2009). These risks rise closer to the port complexes and along freeways and major goods movement thoroughfares. For residents living within approximately 1.25 miles of the ports and major goods movement routes, the health risk from activities related to the two ports is 143 in a million (San Pedro Bay Ports 2009). Although it is not possible to quantify the Port of Long Beach s contribution to regional health risk given the current modeling limitations, MATES IV and the BWHRA Tool confirm that Port-related operations affect community health risk even if the Port s precise contribution cannot be isolated. 3 Cancer risk is expressed in terms of cases in a million. For example, a cancer risk of 10 in a million indicates that if one million people were exposed to a certain level of pollutant over a 30-year period, there would be a chance that 10 may develop cancer. This would be 10 new cases of cancer above the expected rate of cancer in the population. 4 Population-weighted cancer risk refers to individual cancer risk weighted for population distribution in the modeling domain. 2-6

20 Chapter 2. Air Quality and Health Risk Figure 2-2: Health Risk Associated with San Pedro Bay Ports Operations 2-7

21 Chapter 2. Air Quality and Health Risk Key Findings This analysis has identified the following Port-related impacts on air quality and health risk: Port-related operations have a direct impact on criteria pollutant emissions in the community. In 2014, there were 7,807 tons of Port-related NO X emissions (4.2% of the region), 164 tons of PM 10 (0.3% of the region), and 153 tons of PM 2.5 (0.6% of the region). Port-related operations have a direct impact on GHG emissions. There were 774,714 metric tons of Port-related GHGs in 2014, representing roughly 2% of the state s GHG emissions for the transportation sector. Pollutants common to Port operations, such as DPM, have been linked to health effects, including cancer, asthma, cardiopulmonary conditions, and premature death. Port models have found that population-weighted cancer risk associated with operations at the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles averages 66 in a million, rising to an average of 143 in a million for residents living within approximately 1.25 miles of the ports and major goods movement routes. Due to limitations in the modeling available, it is not possible to quantify the Port of Long Beach s contribution to these health risks separately from the Port of Los Angeles and other air pollution sources near the Port area. Potential Mitigation Strategies The Port has identified several strategies to mitigate the Port-related impacts of air pollution in the community. These strategies have been documented to reduce the exposure to or the health risks associated with Port-related air pollution or have been documented to reduce, avoid, or capture GHG. These mitigation strategies should be employed in the geographic area most impacted by Portrelated activities. These strategies are not designed to reduce the source of air pollution, but rather reduce the effect of air pollution on the community; feasible source control is currently addressed by state and federal regulations and the Port s voluntary CAAP. Health Care Programs: Programs that identify, diagnose, or reduce the impacts of respiratory and cardiopulmonary problems through education and outreach to sensitive populations can minimize the adverse outcomes of Port-related health risk. These programs could include outreach and education to identify and reduce respiratory and cardiopulmonary illness triggers and to educate sensitive populations on how to manage symptoms. Indoor Air Filters and Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Upgrades: Highperformance air filters and upgraded HVAC systems can reduce indoor exposure to outside Port-related air pollution. HVAC systems help maintain good indoor air quality through adequate ventilation. High-performance mechanical air filters remove particles by capturing them on filter materials. A 2009 SCAQMD study of high-performance air filters found that highperformance filters can reduce indoor particulates by more than a 90% in contrast to only 10 20% reduction associated with standard filters (SCAQMD 2009). Window and Door Replacement and/or Seals: The addition of window or door seals and/or replacement of drafty windows and/or doors can improve ventilation and reduce the intrusion 2-8

22 Chapter 2. Air Quality and Health Risk of particulate matter indoors. This strategy can also reduce the overall demand for energy by improving a building s energy efficiency, thus avoiding GHG emissions. Landscaping: Vegetation acting as a barrier between humans and an air pollution source (such as a heavily traveled roadway) has been found to remove 30% to 80% of particulate matter (Cahill 2008). Other studies have shown that vegetation or landscape barriers (such as shrubs, bushes, or trees) can serve as bio-filters, or biological devices that remove dust and particulate matter from the air (CARB 2003). Additionally, trees capture and store atmospheric carbon dioxide, thus reducing GHGs. Drought-tolerant landscaping also reduces GHG emissions by minimizing water, whose purveyance accounts for almost 20% of the state s electricity use, according to the California Energy Commission. Buffer Parks and Open Space: Increasing the distance between a source of air pollution and a person, as in the case of a passive buffer park, can reduce a person s exposure to harmful air pollutants. Buffer parks can be effective air quality mitigation strategies if they replace a pollution source (for example, by converting a heavily traveled road to open space, thus eliminating the source entirely) or if the park is planted with vegetation as described above. Energy Efficiency Upgrades: Energy efficiency projects seek to reduce the overall demand for energy by improving performance through increased use of high-efficiency products, such as LED lighting. motion-sensor lighting, or programmable thermostats. These projects reduce energy consumption, thereby reducing GHG emissions associated with energy production and use. Renewable Energy Projects: Renewable energy projects generate heat or electricity from naturally replenished sources such as sunlight and wind, thereby avoiding GHG emissions. Electric vehicles: Electric vehicles reduce GHGs by avoiding fossil fuel consumption. Additionally, electric vehicles do not emit NO x and PM, thus reducing human exposure to harmful air pollution within the vehicle s vicinity. The use of electric vehicles in fleets serving sensitive populations reduces GHGs and minimizes health effects among the most vulnerable residents. 2-9

23 Chapter 3 Traffic and Mobility The majority of the cargo that travels through the Port is containerized and is moved by truck over the regional roadway network to warehouses, railyards, and other destinations. Impacts associated with truck trips are routinely analyzed for environmental and planning purposes using familiar and well-established transportation models. These same models are also used in this study to identify the primary ways that truck traffic related to Port operations affects the surrounding roadway networks and community by looking at the magnitude, proportion, and geographic distribution of Port-related truck trips. This section uses truck trips and vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the primary metrics to characterize traffic impacts. High volumes and concentrations of trucks, particularly on already-congested roadways, exacerbate congestion (FHWA 2014) and have impacts on neighboring communities. This analysis focuses on these effects; although traffic is also linked to poor air quality and noise, those impacts are captured elsewhere in this study. This analysis presents Port-related traffic impacts in terms of (1) Port-related truck volumes relative to overall traffic volumes, and (2) VMT. Both of these approaches are critical in understanding the nature and extent of Port-related traffic impacts on the community. Port-related truck volume in and of itself does not constitute an impact if these volumes represent only a small share of the overall volume on the road. Likewise, a high proportion of Port-related trucks does not necessarily indicate a substantial community burden if there is very little traffic to begin with. Thus, to characterize Port-related traffic impacts, this study identifies areas with large volumes of Portrelated trucks and a high proportion of Port-related trucks, as these areas are associated with the greatest community impact. Impacts of Port Operations on Traffic and Mobility While traffic congestion can be a sign of a healthy economy, excessive congestion can have negative effects such as loss of productivity, loss of personal time, stress, excess fuel usage, air pollution, and noise (FHWA 2008; Hennessy et al. 2000). To the extent that Port-related trucks contribute to excessive congestion, they also contribute to these negative effects. Specifically, the effect of high volumes of traffic and the presence of heavy-duty vehicles on the experience of people walking and biking has been the subject of extensive research. Research has shown that these variables lessen the compatibility of roadways with other modes of transportation and that heavy-duty trucks in particular can be a deterrent to alternative forms of transportation, such as bicycling (University of Washington 2012). Although the presence of trucks and other heavy vehicles is not a direct input into some of the more widely used methodologies for the calculation of pedestrian level of service, it is commonly recognized that heavy-duty vehicles amplify many of the negative impacts that vehicle traffic has on its immediate surroundings such as noise, pollution, conflicts with other modes of transportation, challenges with visibility, and the discomfort of traveling in close proximity to such vehicles. 3-1

24 Chapter 3. Traffic and Mobility To determine traffic impacts from Port-related trucks, the Port used the Port Transportation Analysis Model (PortTAM), a focused travel demand forecasting model developed jointly by the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to assist in the transportation planning process. PortTAM is routinely used in technical studies and is based on other regional models, including the Southern California Association of Governments model. The data include the entire six-county Southern California region. 5 Even though PortTAM uses data from both ports, only Port of Long Beach trucks are analyzed for this study. For the purposes of this study, the Port included all truck trips originating from or ending in the Port using PortTAM s latest available data from The study excludes areas near the Queen Mary, which serves visitors and does not have a measurable amount of Port-related truck trips, and automobiles, which are not associated with goods movement. The study looks at weekday traffic during a peak month of Port activity to capture a worst-case scenario. The results of these model runs were then mapped in order to visualize the locations of the highest volume and proportion of Port-related truck traffic. Contribution of Port Operations to Traffic Levels Model results show there are about 37.5 million daily trips in the Southern California region and about 24,000 of these trips are made by Port-related trucks (PortTAM, March 2016) (Table 3-1). Overall, the number of Port-related truck trips amounts to 0.06% of the region s trips. Table 3-1. Port-Related Daily Truck Trips in Relation to Total Daily Trips Total Regional Trips per Day 37,504,856 Port Truck Trips per Day 24,149 Proportion of Total Daily Trips 0.06% Source: PortTAM, March 2016 (1) Port-related Truck Volumes Port-related truck trips are concentrated nearest the Port, and as such, communities near the Port are disproportionally affected. Figure 3-1 shows the geographic distribution of Port-related trucks by volume. The regional freeway system carries the highest volume of Port-related trucks, although segments of arterial streets such as Alameda Street, Sepulveda Boulevard, Henry Ford Avenue, Long Beach Boulevard, Santa Fe Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway also carry substantial volumes. This is to be expected, however, as each of these segments is part of a designated network of truck routes that have been identified as suitable for use by heavy-duty vehicles due to their location within the overall street network and their design characteristics, such as pavement quality, adjacent land uses, and physical parameters. Except for local deliveries, all heavy-duty trucks must follow those routes. 5 The six counties include the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, and Imperial. 3-2

25 Chapter 3. Traffic and Mobility Figure 3-1: Port of Long Beach Daily Truck Volumes 3-3

26 Chapter 3. Traffic and Mobility As stated previously, Port volume in and of itself does not constitute an impact if the volumes represent only a small proportion of traffic on the road; other congestion sources such as cars and non-port trucks would outweigh the Port s volumes, thereby diminishing the community impacts to nominal levels. Thus, it is important to view Port-related truck volumes in the context of overall traffic levels. To help pinpoint the proportion of Port-related traffic impacts, the Port calculated the percentage of Port-related trucks on each segment of the surrounding roadway network. Figure 3-2 depicts Portrelated truck trips as a proportion of total roadway volume. As shown in Figure 3-2, the highest proportion of Port-related truck traffic occurs within Port boundaries. Moreover, this figure shows that Port traffic volumes dissipate quickly throughout the region, and Port trucks represent only a small proportion of the traffic on roads such as Interstate (I) 710 and I-605 north of CA-91 (1 2%) despite high Port truck volumes on these routes (1,000 3,000 trucks per day as shown in Figure 3-1). That is because the overall volume on these roadways is high as a result of regional, non-port traffic. Figure 3-2 also demarcates an Affected Region, which contains the highest proportion of Portrelated trucks. The Affected Region excludes trucks operating within the terminals, as these trucks do not impact congestion in the neighboring community 6. Within the Affected Region, Port-related trucks exceed 5% of total traffic. This is also the area with the greatest volume of Port-related truck traffic. Thus, the Affected Region represents the community experiencing the greatest impact from Port-related trucks high Port truck volumes and a high proportion of Port trucks. These roadways lie within about 10 miles of the Port and are roughly bounded by the junction of I-710 and I-105 in the northeast and by southern Wilmington in the southwest. The most heavily affected roadways are concentrated in a north/south corridor roughly bounded by Alameda Street and I-710, with additional affected roadways to the west along segments of Wilmington Avenue, Sepulveda Boulevard, Lomita Boulevard, Eubank Street, and Harry Bridges Boulevard. Moreover, these roadways lie within a region already considered highly congested by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2014). Congestion is linked to slower traffic speeds and time delays, which can affect residents and other travelers, and trucks have been cited as a significant factor contributing to congestion on capacity-stretched roadways (FHWA 2014). 6 The Affected Region applies only to traffic-related impacts. The Port has analyzed the air emissions from trucks on Port terminals and throughout the region, and these results are included in Chapter

27 Chapter 3. Traffic and Mobility Figure 3-2: Port-Related Truck Trips as a Proportion of Total Volume 3-5

28 Chapter 3. Traffic and Mobility (2) VMT VMT is a metric commonly used to communicate traffic impacts and to quantify congestion-related impacts. Within the Affected Region, there are 371,939 daily VMT from Port-related trucks, equating to 102,283,225 over the course of a year. 7 As previously stated, these VMT represent peak levels. Of the total estimated 1,387,000 daily VMT associated with Port-related trucks in the Southern California region, more than one-quarter (26.82%) occurs within the Affected Region. By comparison, the Affected Region experiences a much smaller percentage of the region s overall total daily VMT (2.38%). As shown in Table 3-2, within the entire region, about one-third of 1% of the total daily VMT is due to Port-related trucks. But within the Affected Region, the share of total VMT due to Port-related trucks is about 4%. Table 3-2. Port-Related Daily Truck VMT in Relation to Regional VMT Southern California Region Affected Region Port s Share Port-Related Truck VMT 1,387, , % Total VMT 393,323,989 9,356, % Port s Share 0.35% 3.98% - Source: Port TAM, March 2016 Key Findings This analysis has identified the following Port-related impacts on traffic and mobility. The majority of the cargo that travels through the Port is containerized and is moved by truck over the regional roadway network to warehouses, railyards, and other destinations. While traffic congestion can be a sign of a healthy economy, excessive congestion can have negative effects such as loss of productivity, loss of personal time, stress, excess fuel usage, air pollution, and noise. There are 24,149 daily Port-related truck trips, representing 0.06% of total trips in the Southern California region. The area experiencing the most significant Port traffic impact, referred to in this study as the Affected Region, has the highest concentration of Port truck volume and the highest proportion of Port trucks. The Affected Region encompasses areas within about 10 miles of the Port. The Affected Region represents approximately 27% of the total Port-related VMT. There are 371,939 daily VMT associated with Port-related trucks, equating to 102,283,225 VMT in the Affected Region over the course of a year. 7 To calculate the annual VMT, daily VMT are multiplied by 275, which represents Port work days excluding weekends and holidays. 3-6

29 Chapter 3. Traffic and Mobility Potential Mitigation Strategies The mitigation strategies below focus on community-based transportation enhancements. These mitigation strategies should be employed in the geographic area most impacted by Port-related activities. Providing infrastructure for and access to alternative modes of transportation has been cited as an effective strategy for reducing traffic congestion (FHWA 2008). In its 2011 nexus study for a congestion management fee, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority included bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and traffic-calming improvements as strategies to shift people to other modes of transportation and thus reduce traffic congestion, citing a body of research in support of this approach (LACMTA 2011). The following project types could be used to help offset Port-related traffic impacts within the Affected Region. These strategies are not designed to reduce congestion, but rather to reduce the effect of the congestion on the community. Bicycling Infrastructure Improvements: New or extended bike lanes of any class and bicycle parking, particularly in conjunction with public transit, can shift vehicle trips to other modes and reduce congestion time (LACMTA 2011). Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements: New or expanded sidewalks, pedestrian signals, pedestrian gap closures, and pedestrian overcrossings help increase pedestrian capacity in congested areas and support the shift from vehicular modes of transportation (LACMTA 2011). Traffic-Calming Measures: Traffic-calming involves physical measures that reduce the negative effects of vehicular traffic and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. These strategies increase access to alternative modes of transport (ITE/FHWA 1999) and have been found to enhance the attractiveness of and encourage the use of non-vehicular transportation (LACMTA 2011). Examples include pedestrian-scale lighting, raised crosswalks, pedestrian crossing lights, and streetscaping as a complement to other traffic-calming measures (LACMTA 2011). 3-7

30 Chapter 4 Noise Operations at the Port contribute to noise levels that can adversely affect the surrounding community. Port terminals include noise sources such as ships, gantry cranes, truck- and trainloading/unloading, forklifts, yard tractors, and mechanical equipment, as well as intermittent shortterm noises of warning signals (backup alarms and warning bells), ship horns, and the metallic clang of containers in motion. However, these noise sources are confined within the Port boundaries and are generally separated from the closest residents by significant distances (hundreds or thousands of feet) and intervening non-sensitive land uses (industrial properties, roadways, railroads, the Los Angeles River, etc.) that attenuate the noise levels. Port-related trucks, however, generate noise within the community along freeways, and major truck routes that border neighborhoods, parks, and schools. For this reason, this study focuses on noise from Port-related trucks. Impacts of Port Operations on Community Noise Levels Studies have shown that excessive noise levels can affect various aspects of life including interrupting activities, disrupting normal cognitive processes, and contributing to various health risks. A review of existing literature indicates that excessive noise can cause or contribute to: hearing loss, sleep disturbance, annoyance and stress, impaired performance at work or school, disruption of communication (including communication required for learning inside schools and classrooms), cardiovascular disease, and increased blood pressure 8. Heavy-duty trucks such as those typically associated with the Port generate higher noise levels than other vehicle types (e.g., automobiles). As a result, Port-related trucks can be a significant contributor to overall traffic noise levels along some roadways. In order to quantify Port-related traffic noise levels, the Port modeled noise impacts using SoundPLAN software, which implements the traffic noise calculations of the Federal Highway Administration s Traffic Noise Model. Truck trip data came from the analysis conducted for Chapter 3, Traffic and Mobility. The Port focused on the Affected Region defined in Chapter 3 because this area experiences the highest Port-related traffic levels and thus the greatest noise impacts from Port-related trucks. All noise levels are presented in terms of the day/night noise level (abbreviated L dn). L dn is a measure of the average 24-hour noise level that accounts for the greater annoyance of noise occurring during 8 Please see noise references for additional details. 4-1

31 Chapter 4. Noise nighttime hours. This additional sensitivity is addressed by adding a 10 decibel (db) penalty to all noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The modeling did not include the shielding effects of existing structures such as sound walls (which are prevalent along I-710 as a buffer for nearby homes). Therefore, the overall noise levels presented here are likely higher than actual noise levels. Figure 4-1 illustrates the noise impacts associated with Port-related truck traffic. Land uses that are generally considered most sensitive to potential noise impacts include residences, transient lodging (hotels/motels), schools, parks, playgrounds, libraries, churches, hospitals, and nursing homes. As context, referring to the State of California s General Plan Guidelines (State of California 2003), noise levels in excess of 60to 70 A-weighted decibels (dba) L dn are generally considered excessive for these types of noise-sensitive uses. As shown in Figure 4-1, Port-related traffic noise varies greatly throughout the Affected Region. Port-related trucks generate noise levels of up to approximately 75 dba L dn at land uses adjacent to the I-710 freeway. It is noted that these highest noise levels are primarily limited to commercial/industrial properties located immediately adjacent to the freeway that are not shielded by sound walls. Noise levels at residential land uses adjacent to I-710 are typically lower because the homes are set back from the freeway and/or shielded by sound walls. Land uses adjacent to other roadways with significant Port truck traffic, such as segments of Pacific Coast Highway (State Route [SR] 1), Terminal Island Freeway (SR-103), Glenn Anderson Freeway (I-105), Alameda Street/SR- 47, and Anaheim Street, are exposed to noise levels of approximately 65 to 70 dba L dn as a result of Port-related trucks. Adjacent to the remaining studied roadway segments, the noise levels due to Port-related trucks are generally less than 65 dba L dn. Contribution of Port Operations to Community Noise Levels To isolate the incremental impact associated with Port-related truck traffic, noise levels from Portrelated trucks were compared to noise levels from all traffic noise sources on the same roadways. Figure 4-2 displays the noise levels generated by all traffic on the studied roadways within the Affected Region, including Port-related trucks, non-port-related trucks, and automobiles. The contours in Figure 4-2 were then compared to those in Figure 4-1 (Port-related truck traffic only) to determine the relative difference. This difference is depicted in Figure

32 Chapter 4. Noise Figure 4-1: Port-Related Truck Traffic Noise Levels 4-3

33 Chapter 4. Noise Figure 4-2: Noise Levels Associated with All Traffic Sources 4-4

34 Chapter 4. Noise Figure 4-3: Noise Level Differences Attributed to Port-Related Truck Traffic 4-5

35 Chapter 4. Noise Assessing the proportionality of noise impacts is complicated by the logarithmic nature of the db scale by which noise is measured, and the non-linear way in which people perceive changes in noise levels. Because decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. On the db scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase. In other words, if a given street generates 60 dba at a distance of 100 feet, doubling the traffic on the roadway (assuming all other variables, such as speed, do not change) would not produce 120 dba; rather, it would increase the noise level to 63 dba. The California Department of Transportation Technical Noise Supplement (2013) indicates that under controlled conditions in an acoustics laboratory, the trained healthy human ear is able to discern changes in sound levels of 1 dba. Outside such controlled conditions, the trained ear can detect changes of 2 dba in normal environmental noise. It is generally accepted that the average healthy ear, however, can barely perceive a noise level change of 3 dba. Changes of 5 dba are readily perceptible, and changes of 10 db are perceived as an approximate halving or doubling of loudness. Referring to Figure 4-3, the incremental impact of Port-related truck noise varies dramatically throughout the Affected Region. For roads inside the Port boundary, Port trucks are clearly the primary and dominant source of traffic noise. For roadways outside of the Port, the maximum noise increases due to Port trucks are 3 to 4 dba L dn. These increases occur adjacent to I-710 between the Port and Pacific Coast Highway, adjacent to Anaheim Street between SR-103 and I-710, and on Eubank Avenue between East Lomita Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. The contribution of Port truck noise to overall traffic noise levels at these locations is likely noticeable. Noise level increases of 2 to 3 dba L dn due to Port-related trucks occur adjacent to I-710 between Pacific Coast Highway and I-405, adjacent to SR-103 between Pacific Coast Highway and East Sepulveda Boulevard, Anaheim Street between SR-103 and SR-47, and North Henry Ford Avenue between Anaheim Street and Alameda Street. Noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to these roadways include homes on the west side of I-710, and schools, homes, and a park on the east side of SR-103. There are also homes on the east side of I-710, but these are on the opposite side of the Los Angeles River, at a distance of approximately 800 feet from the freeway. The contribution of Port truck noise to overall traffic noise levels at these locations is likely barely perceptible. Adjacent to all of the other roadways considered in the analysis, the traffic noise increase due to Port trucks is 2 dba L dn or less and would generally not be noticeable. Key Findings This analysis has identified the following noise impacts from Port-related trucks. Noise from Port-related trucks exceeds 65 dba L dn (a common threshold for excessive noise) at land uses directly adjacent to many of the roadways in the Affected Region. The contribution of Port-related trucks to overall traffic noise levels generally decreases with distance from the Port. Locations where Port trucks make a perceptible or noticeable increase to the overall traffic noise levels are generally located within about 5 miles of the Port. This result corresponds to the fact that the relative proportion of Port trucks is reduced beyond that point 4-6

36 Chapter 4. Noise as the trucks spread out into the wider transportation network and mix with non-port traffic from progressively more sources. Noise increases generated by Port-related truck traffic are generally modest in terms of human perceptibility. Potential Mitigation Strategies The following project types could be used to mitigate noise impacts from Port-related traffic noise and should be employed in the geographic area most impacted by Port-related activities. These strategies are not designed to reduce the source of noise (i.e., truck noise emissions), as source control is currently addressed by state and federal regulations, but rather to reduce the effect of the noise on the community. Noise Barriers. Noise barriers such as sound walls or berms can significantly reduce noise levels. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between the traffic and a receiver will generally provide at least 5 db of noise reduction; taller barriers can provide greater noise reduction. Buffer Areas and Open Space. Increasing the distance between a noise source (roadway) and a person directly reduces the noise exposure from the source. Land planning to separate noisesensitive land uses from major roadways can significantly reduce traffic noise levels. Buffer areas may consist of open space or non-sensitive uses such as parking lots. Sound-Rated Windows and Doors and Insulation. Sound-rated windows and doors, or increased insulation, can noticeably reduce interior noise levels. The amount of noise reduction that is achievable depends on the existing condition of the building and the extent and quality of upgrades provided. HVAC or Other Mechanical Ventilation Systems. Adding HVAC or other mechanical ventilation systems to buildings where none currently exists enables windows and doors to be kept closed. Closing windows and doors reduces interior noise levels by 8 to 10 db, potentially more if sound-rated windows are installed. 4-7

37 Chapter 5 Water Quality The Port is located in the San Pedro Bay between the Dominguez Channel and the Los Angeles River (Figure 5-1). San Pedro Bay receives urban runoff in the form of both stormwater and nonstormwater discharges, from nearshore land uses within the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach, and the Dominguez Channel, Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, and Los Cerritos Channel watersheds. These watersheds include dense, highly populated, and industrialized cities that discharge waste and pollutants into the nearby rivers, which in turn drain into San Pedro Bay and affect harbor waters. Water quality within the Long Beach Harbor District is regulated through several National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Boards). The Port s efforts to comply with these regulations have been summarized and documented in the City of Long Beach Nearshore Watershed Management Program (City of Long Beach 2015), WRAP (Ports 2009), and the Contaminated Sediment Management Plan (POLB 2015). The Port has been implementing a wide variety of control measures to address pollutants associated with urban runoff for several years under these programs (Ports 2009). Vessel discharge is not addressed in this study as it is controlled and regulated through other mechanisms 9, and thus, does not significantly impact harbor waters. The local and regional communities use San Pedro Bay for several beneficial uses designated by the Water Boards including water contact recreation (swimming), non-water contact recreation (boating), commercial and sport fishing, and shellfish harvesting, among others. San Pedro Bay is listed as an impaired water body under the Clean Water Act by the Water Boards (i.e., 303(d) listed) for several contaminants, and impaired water quality within San Pedro Bay may affect the community s ability to participate in these beneficial uses. In recent years, urban runoff has become one of the most significant pollution sources degrading surface water quality nationwide (NRC 2008). Urban runoff is affected by anthropogenic pollutant sources, which are widely distributed throughout urban watersheds and are very difficult to control. Rainfall mobilizes these pollutants into the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), which, in turn, transports them into receiving waters where they can cause or contribute to water quality impairments and 303(d) listings. Given the prominence of stormwater as a leading pollution source to urban receiving water bodies, this study uses stormwater to assess the Port s water quality impacts. This analysis provides a quantitative summary of estimated cumulative anthropogenic water quality impacts within San Pedro Bay due to urban runoff, and provides a method to quantify the Port of Long Beach s impact as a relative contribution to all anthropogenic impacts on the common receiving water body, San Pedro Bay. 9 Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles Vessel Rules and Regulations. Available online at 5-1

38 Chapter 5. Water Quality Figure 5-1: Port of Long Beach and Surrounding Watersheds 5-2