VISUAL AND LIGHTING IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE … · ROBERTS BANK CONTAINER EXPANSION DELTAPORT THIRD BERTH ... and review of lighting recommendations for ... • activation of existing

VISUAL AND LIGHTING

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE

ROBERTS BANK CONTAINER EXPANSION

DELTAPORT THIRD BERTH PROJECT

DELTA, B.C.

Prepared for:

Vancouver Port Authority

2700 Granville Square,

200 Granville Street,

Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2P9

Prepared by:

CATHERINE BERRIS ASSOCIATES INC.

420 – 1639 West 2nd

Ave.

Vancouver, B.C. V6J 1H3

ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING (B.C.) LIMITED

#300 - 4940 Canada Way

Burnaby, B.C. V5G 4M5

Date: November 30, 2004

Roberts Bank Container Expansion Project Catherine Berris Associates Inc.

Deltaport Third Berth Associated Engineering (B.C.) Ltd.

Visual and Lighting Impact Assessment -i- November, 2004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Context

The Vancouver Port Authority (“VPA” or “proponent”) has prepared a container terminal

expansion strategy to enable the Port of Vancouver to maintain its strong competitive position as

a North American gateway for container trade. The expansion strategy includes the development

of additional container facilities at VPA’s existing Roberts Bank Port facility located in Delta,

British Columbia. One of these projects, the Deltaport Third Berth Project, will add a third berth

to the existing Deltaport Container Terminal. VPA is preparing an environmental assessment

(EA) of the Deltaport Third Berth Project. This section of the EA addresses the visual (daytime)

and lighting (night-time) impact assessment.

The Project consists of construction of a wharf to accommodate an additional berth and

approximately 20 hectares (50 acres) of land for an expanded container storage yard. It will also

include dredging to lengthen the existing ship channel and create a tug moorage area adjacent to

the terminal. Based on preliminary research, it is expected that the number of vessels will

increase from 365 vessel calls to approximately 393 vessel calls per year at full capacity in 2012.

Additional terminal lighting will be required but the detailed design has yet to be determined.

Lighting for the Deltaport Third Berth Project will meet the Canada Labour Code requirements

for worker safety, and will be designed to minimize environmental and socio-community impact.

Daytime Visual Assessment

The method for the daytime visual impact assessment included: a visual landscape inventory of

existing conditions, selection and description of four representative viewpoints, a visual

landscape impact assessment of the proposed changes using computer visualizations from the

viewpoints as a tool, and identification of mitigation measures.

The four viewpoints were selected to provide a representative sampling of the various viewing

conditions.

• North Dyke near south end of 34th Street - represents views from the north;

• Tsawwassen First Nation Band Office - represents the TFN village perspective (based on

consultation with the TFN);

• B.C. Ferries causeway pullout (near BC Ferries terminal) – closest viewpoint from which

the facility is seen by the public; and

• Fred Gingell Park on top of English Bluff - represent the views of park users and

residents to the south.

Visual impacts during construction will be related to construction work in the terminal area with

construction equipment and material stockpiles, and dredging equipment in the berth, terminal

and shipping channel areas. The dredging operations will run 24 hours/day for approximately 9



Visual and Lighting Impact Assessment -ii- November, 2004

months. Since the construction area will be similar to the proposed expansion area, in relation to

the viewpoints, the construction phase will have impacts that are similar to the final visual

impacts during operation (described below). One exception to this is that the dredging equipment

will cover a larger area than the space that will ultimately be occupied by a ship.

Visual impacts during the operation of the third berth will include: three additional gantry cranes

(currently there are six cranes) as prominent vertical features; one additional ship adding to the

visual mass of the terminal; high-mast lighting; and container stacks and other terminal

equipment adding mass and vertical elements to the new terminal.

The following is a summary of the incremental visual impact from each viewpoint:

• North Dyke Viewpoint – From this viewpoint, the overall visual impact is considered low

because of the distance, the viewing angle, and the small change that the expansion will

have on this view (6% more of the view occupied by the terminal).

• Tsawwassen First Nation Band Office - From this viewpoint, overall visual impact is

considered low because the visual area occupied by the terminal will not increase.

• B.C. Ferries Causeway Viewpoint – From this viewpoint, the overall visual impact is

considered moderate because, with the proximity of this viewpoint, the expansion will be

very visible. However, viewers typically see this view for a short duration and their focus

is on reaching the ferry terminal.

• Fred Gingell Park Viewpoint - From this viewpoint, the overall visual impact is

considered low because of the distance and because of the obtuse angle of this view.

The visual impact of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would vary depending on the

viewing distance, relative number and type of viewers, duration and angle of view and the

increased portion of the view that the terminal would occupy. As stated above the visual impact

would be low from three of the viewpoints, and moderate from the BC Ferries causeway. All

views of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would be seen within the context of the

existing Roberts Bank port facility.

No methods are available to mitigate visual impacts during construction of the proposed

Deltaport Third Berth Project. The VPA would, however, work with the community to identify

the need to mitigate visual impacts during operation of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth

Project. Mitigation measures may include consideration of gantry crane colour and, where

practical, options for a landscape buffer strip to be established along the outer edge of the

Roberts Bank causeway.

The residual visual effects after mitigation would be marginally reduced from the originally

estimated effects.



Visual and Lighting Impact Assessment -iii- November, 2004

Night-time Lighting Assessment

The methodology for the lighting impact assessment consisted of two phases: inventory and

analysis. This included: review of existing lighting systems at the facility, creation of

photometric models for the existing facility to determine the actual lighting levels,

photographing of the existing lighting systems from designated viewpoints to record existing

conditions, review of available lighting reports, and review of lighting recommendations for port

and intermodal facilities as published by Illuminating Engineering Society and the Canada

Labour Code.

The present lighting installations at the Roberts Bank port facility consist of two light sources:

metal halide on the container loading equipment, and high pressure sodium on high-mast poles to

illuminate the container and intermodal yards. The illuminated portions of the causeway use high

pressure sodium luminaires as well.

The use of aimed floodlights which are aimed at angles greater than the cutoff angle cause visual

disturbance (light trespass, excessive brightness and glare) to surrounding properties. The

existing lighting systems at the Roberts Bank port facility are approximately 3 km from the

closest development, however the lighting systems as installed give rise to complaints due

mainly to nuisance glare, brightness and light pollution, not only from the closest neighbours but

from as far away as Saturna Island, approximately 26 km to the southwest of the port facility.

The ship-to-shore gantry cranes, which are used to load and unload the containers, have their

own lighting systems mounted on the gantry arms, to provide the additional lighting needed by

the crane operator to view the immediate work area. The luminaires are mounted along the

length of the arm and when the arms are raised or lowered, the view of the facility changes as

seen by the local residents, causing a visual disturbance to them.

In addition, there is lighting on the crane superstructure, which is used to raise the illumination

level around the perimeter of the crane for worker and vehicle safety. This lighting is of a

floodlight nature, and not only spills light all around the crane, but also reflects off the white

paint of the equipment and compounds the brightness effects on the surrounding residents.

Night-time visual impacts during construction will be related to the following activities:

• lighting associated with terminal construction activities – this is expected to have a low

impact since it will be low level floodlighting from portable lighting plants operating

during limited working hours; and

• lighting associated with dredging in the berth, terminal and shipping channel areas – this

will have a much higher impact with lights on moving dredges for 24 hours per day over

9 months.

During operation, there should not be an increase in the overall lighting levels as viewed from

off site, however as the lighting will be extended over a larger area, there will be a perception

that the overall brightness of the facility is greater. The effect that the facility lighting has on the



Visual and Lighting Impact Assessment -iv- November, 2004

local residential areas has more to do with light trespass, brightness and nuisance glare than light

contribution.

Photometric measurements were taken from each of the viewpoints, however no measurable

readings were attainable, due to the very low level of light at each location and its distance from

the source. Extraneous local lighting at each location was all that could be picked up with the

instrumentation used. Photometric models indicate that downlight cutoff luminaires would

minimize sky glow and light trespass. However, given the many reflective surfaces at the

facility, it will be virtually impossible to reduce the sky glow and reflections.

The expanded lighting system at the facility will have minimal impacts on all of the viewpoints

except for the TFN Village, where the impacts will be more apparent. The expanded lighting

system will bring the lighted facility closer to the TFN Village. The low viewing angle and the

height of the proposed poles may afford some vision of the luminaire face, which is the main

cause of glare. These issues may be difficult to resolve given present technology, however it is

predicted that any glare will mainly be nuisance glare, with a small disability component.

Local plant and animal life will continue to be affected, however as the existing facility has been

in place for a number of years, and the native wildlife has adapted to the situation, the effects of

the Third Berth construction should not adversely affect their present situation.

The following are the primary mitigation measures proposed:

• use of downlight style cutoff luminaires;

• re-aiming of existing luminaires at the Roberts bank port facility;

• lighting control systems which will permit the reduction of the amount of lighting during

periods of low activity;

• innovative mounting systems for the lighting on the ship-to-shore cranes to minimize the

light throw during raising and lowering of the equipment (keep the lights pointed down,

no matter what the position of the gantry arm; and,

• activation of existing automatic lighting controls on the crane arms to extinguish the arm

lights when the arm has been raised for 15 minutes.

If the mitigation measures discussed above are implemented, the overall impact of the lighting

systems proposed for the Deltaport Third Berth Project is expected to be low at all viewpoints,

however the effect on the TFN Village may be slightly higher than for the other areas.



Visual and Lighting Impact Assessment -v- November, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..........................................................................2

2.1 TRAFFIC FORECASTS................................................................................................ 3

2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS ............................................................................................ 3

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................... 5

3.0 EXISTING VISUAL CONDITIONS...........................................................5

3.1 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 5

3.1.1 Visual Landscape Inventory ....................................................................... 5

3.1.2 Visual Landscape Impact Assessment Overview ....................................... 6

3.1.3 Visual Impact Assessment Procedure......................................................... 7

3.2 VISUAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION.......................................................................... 9

3.3 VIEWPOINTS........................................................................................................... 13

4.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...........................................................17

4.1 CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................... 17

4.2 OPERATION ............................................................................................................ 17

4.3 ANALYSIS OF VISUAL IMPACTS.............................................................................. 17

4.4 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION ................................................................................. 26

4.5 OPERATION MITIGATION ....................................................................................... 26

5.0 RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT....................................................26

6.0 CUMULATIVE VISUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT.............................26

7.0 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING DAYTIME VISUAL IMPACT..........27

8.0 EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS ...................................................28

8.1 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 28

8.2 LIGHTING TERMS ................................................................................................... 28

8.3 ROBERTS BANK PORT FACILITY LIGHTING DESCRIPTION ...................................... 30

8.4 REPRESENTATIVE VIEWPOINTS .............................................................................. 33

9.0 LIGHTING IMPACT ASSESSMENT......................................................37

9.1 CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................... 37



Visual and Lighting Impact Assessment -vi- November, 2004

9.2 OPERATION ............................................................................................................ 38

9.3 ANALYSIS OF LIGHTING IMPACTS .......................................................................... 38

9.4 EFFECTS ON FLORA AND FAUNA ............................................................................ 40

9.5 SAFETY AND SECURITY.......................................................................................... 40

9.6 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION ................................................................................. 41

9.7 OPERATIONAL MITIGATION ................................................................................... 41

10.0 RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT....................................................43

11.0 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING LIGHTING IMPACT.........................44

12.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................45

APPENDIX A: LANDSCAPE UNIT DATABASE ............................................46

APPENDIX B: VIEWPOINT DATABASE ........................................................48

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Site Map......................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2 – Aerial Visualization of Proposed Expansion................................................................. 4

Figure 3 – Landscape Units .......................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4 – Viewpoint Locations ................................................................................................... 14

Figure 5 – Viewpoint Analysis (Viewpoints 1 and 2) .................................................................. 15

Figure 6 – Viewpoint Analysis (Viewpoints 3 and 4) .................................................................. 16

Figure 7 – Illustration of Lighting Terms ..................................................................................... 30

Figure 8 – Illustration of Existing Lighting .................................................................................. 31

Figure 9 – Crane Lighting............................................................................................................. 32

Figure 10 – Causeway and Railyard Lighting from TFN Longhouse .......................................... 33

Figure 11 – Existing Night Views ................................................................................................ 35

Figure 11 – Existing Night Views (cont’d)................................................................................... 36

Figure 12 – Dredging Equipment ................................................................................................. 37

Figure 13 – Comparison of Luminaire Effects ............................................................................. 39



Visual and Lighting Impact Assessment -1- November, 2004

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Vancouver Port Authority (“VPA” or “proponent”) has prepared a container terminal

expansion strategy to enable the Port of Vancouver to maintain its strong competitive position as

a North American gateway for container trade. Trans-Pacific container shipments are increasing

due to the growth in global trade, particularly with China, and the ongoing containerization of

products. As a result, major ports on the West Coast of North America expect their container

traffic to triple in the next twenty years. South of Vancouver, the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma are

making major investments in terminal facilities that will enable them to compete for future

business. Port of Vancouver’s container terminal facilities must also expand in order for the port

to continue serving Canada’s trade.

VPA’s expansion strategy proposes to increase the container terminal capacity at the Port of

Vancouver from 1.7 million TEUs in 2003 to over 5 million TEUs by 2020, (a TEU, or twenty-

foot equivalent unit, is a standard unit for measuring container volumes based on a container 20

feet in length). The expansion strategy includes the development of additional container facilities

at VPA’s existing Roberts Bank Port facility located in Delta, British Columbia. The Deltaport

Third Berth Project will add a third berth to the existing Deltaport Container Terminal. VPA is

studying the environmental impacts of the Deltaport Third Berth Project and is committed to

developing a project that is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable.

The Deltaport Third Berth Project is located at the existing Roberts Bank Port facility in Delta,

approximately 35 km south of Vancouver. The existing VPA facilities at Roberts Bank include

Deltaport, a 65 hectare (160 acres) container terminal operated by Terminal Systems Inc. (TSI),

and Westshore Terminals, a 50 hectare (approximately 124 acres) bulk handling coal port

facility. These terminals are connected to the mainland by a 4.1 km long causeway, which

supports road and rail infrastructure.

Roberts Bank is located along the southwestern margin of the Fraser River delta. The Roberts

Bank causeway and terminal is located on the south end of Roberts Bank, south of the main area

of the Fraser River outflow. Roberts Bank itself consists of a shallow area of sediments

extending out from the shoreline along the seaward side of the river delta. During low tide, these

sediments are exposed as mudflats, which extend for several hundred meters from the shore

towards the ocean. Marine vegetation in the area consists of estuarine marsh, salt marsh and

eelgrass beds.

The VPA considered several locations for Deltaport Third Berth, including berth locations south

of Deltaport and adjacent to Westshore operations, and terminal land areas on the west side of

the causeway. After a review of these locations, it was determined that the project could not

disrupt the existing Westshore operations, must have a berth location and terminal land location

adjacent to the existing facility for operational reasons, and must be cost effective for both

project construction and operation. In addition, the proposed footprint was designed to minimize

impacts to the marine environment. These requirements led to the Deltaport Third Berth location

north of the existing Deltaport terminal, as shown on Figure 1 – Site Map.




Figure 1 – Site Map

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Deltaport functions as a transhipment centre for the transfer of containers between marine

vessels and inland transportation by road and rail. The Project consists of construction of a

wharf to accommodate an additional berth and approximately 20 hectares (50 acres) of land for

an expanded container storage yard. It will also include dredging to lengthen the existing ship

channel and create a tug moorage area adjacent to the terminal. The Deltaport Third Berth

Project will result in additional marine, road and rail traffic. Project infrastructure will support

the movement of this additional traffic. Rail improvements will be required on the causeway and

adjacent to Deltaport Way. Road improvements may also be required, pending further Ministry

of Transportation and VPA studies.




2.1 TRAFFIC FORECASTS

Marine traffic at Deltaport is projected to change both in numbers and in vessel size over the

next twenty years. Based on preliminary research, it is expected that the number of vessels will

increase from 365 vessel calls to approximately 393 vessel calls per year at full capacity in 2012.

In the long term it is expected that vessel sizes will continue to increase from the average of

4,500 TEUs, and at some point, vessels as large as 10,000 TEUs will call at Deltaport. This

could result in a lower number of vessel calls in the future.

In 2003, approximately 57 % of all import and export containers were handled by rail. By 2012,

rail container traffic is forecasted to increase to 65 % of all import and export containers at

Roberts Bank, which will increase container trains by three trains per day, resulting in a total of

nine container trains per day. Total Roberts Bank rail traffic, including coal trains, will

increase from the current 18 trains to a total of 23 trains.

In 2003, approximately 43 % of all import and export containers were handled by truck. This

generated approximately 1800 truck trips per day (900 in and 900 out). In early 2004, the

terminal operator introduced a new policy to restrict the number of empty containers being

repositioned to the terminal. This policy reduced the truck traffic to approximately 1500 trips

per day. By 2012, truck traffic is forecasted to represent 35 % of all import and export

containers. This will increase truck traffic to approximately to 2400 trips per day.

2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS

The components of the Deltaport Third Berth Project consist of construction of a wharf to

accommodate the third berth, land for the container storage yard, an additional truck exit gate, a

tug moorage area and boat launch, extension of the ship channel, additional rail support track and

some limited road improvements. A 3D aerial visualization of the proposed expansion is shown

in Figure 2.

The wharf will be 427 metres (1400 feet) long. The conceptual wharf design incorporates

concrete caissons as the main support structure.

The Deltaport Third Berth Project includes the construction of approximately 20 hectares (50

acres) of new land area for container operations and storage. This will increase the area of

Deltaport from 65 hectares (160 acres) to approximately 85 hectares (210 acres). The land will

be created through dredging and landfill operations. The revetment works (i.e., shoreline

protection) for the northern shoreline of the container yard will consist of rock armoured slopes.

A truck exit gate and electrical substation buildings are the only new buildings required on the

terminal as part of the Deltaport Third Berth Project. The existing ILWU lunchroom building

located on the Deltaport terminal will be relocated to the Deltaport Third Berth container yard

area.




Figure 2 – Aerial Visualization of Proposed Expansion

The tug moorage area currently located at the northeast corner of the existing Deltaport terminal

will be relocated to the northern corner of the third berth. The tug moorage area will consist of a

floating dock, walkway and dredged channel to allow tug access. The safety boat launch,

currently located in the Deltaport terminal tug moorage area, will be relocated as part of the

Deltaport Third Berth Project to the new tug moorage area. The existing ship channel will be

extended with a depth of approximately 16 metres to provide access and adequate draft for

container ships.

There is approximately 50,000 feet of rail track currently used for container operations at

Roberts Bank. Preliminary rail analysis indicates that there will be a requirement for

approximately 23,000 feet of additional rail track for the Deltaport Third Berth Project. This rail

track will be provided by extending the arrival/departure tracks at the Gulf siding (east of 57B

Street to 64th

Street) and adding support track on the causeway. All of the rail improvements will

be constructed within BC Rail’s property on the Roberts Bank causeway and within their

existing right-of-way.

No new road infrastructure along the causeway will be required to support the Deltaport Third

Berth Project. To address the rail requirements, the at-grade road rail crossing at Deltaport Way

and 57B Street is proposed to be closed, and a rail access road will be constructed south of

Deltaport Way in the rail right-of-way between 57B Street and 64th

Street in Delta. In addtion, to




address the additional Project traffic on Highway 17, the VPA and the Ministry of Transportation

are currently assessing a number of options for short-term improvements. Widening of the

Roberts Bank causeway is not required for the Deltaport Third Berth Project.

There will be limited construction of new site services for the Project, as many of the existing

Deltaport site services are adequate to meet the Deltaport Third Berth Project needs. For

instance, no power line improvements are required, no additional fuel supply or fuel storage

facilities are required, and no additional sewage or waste disposal facilities are required. No off-

site water services will be required, however an on-site storage tank will be constructed.

Additional terminal lighting will be required but the detailed design has yet to be determined.

Lighting for the Deltaport Third Berth Project will meet the Canada Labour Code requirements

for worker safety, and will be designed to minimize environmental and socio-community impact.

Deltaport operations consist of the loading and unloading of container ships, container storage,

and container transfers to and from rail and road transport. The container ships are loaded and

unloaded by electric powered ship-to-shore gantry cranes that are rail mounted at the berth face.

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

An environmental assessment will be conducted which will meet both provincial (BCEAA) and

federal (CEAA) requirements. The environmental assessment will identify potential

environmental, economic, social, heritage and health impacts associated with the Project and

define how potential adverse impacts will be avoided or mitigated. As part of the environmental

assessment, biophysical and socio-community studies on a wide range of topics are being

undertaken. This study is the visual and lighting impact assessment. The visual component (day-

time analysis) is described first, followed by the lighting (night-time) assessment.

3.0 EXISTING VISUAL CONDITIONS

3.1 METHODOLOGY

The methodology for the visual landscape assessment consists of two key phases: inventory and

analysis. The tasks involved for each phase are described below.

3.1.1 Visual Landscape Inventory

Conduct a daytime visual landscape inventory, including the following information:

• Determination of the geographic scope of the visual impact assessment based on the

extent of potential impacts,




• Delineation of the Roberts Bank facility and the surrounding landscape into landscape

units (areas with similar visual characteristics) and description for each unit as follows:

• Natural characteristics of the landscape, including:

• Landform – terrain slope, height, topographic variety

• Land cover – type, diversity

• Alteration – level and type of alteration, including surrounding development, B.C.

Ferries terminal and Roberts Bank facility

• Social considerations – residents or public, identified or potential interests and

concerns

• Identification of four representative viewpoints based on community and public use

areas and the ability to see the proposed works from different angles.

• Taking photographs of the container port from each viewpoint, ensuring that the

photographs show as much as possible, e.g., sunlight at an optimum angle for lighting of

the facility, minimize foreground obstructions.

• Description of each viewpoint, including: distance, number and type of viewers, typical

duration of view (e.g. shorter from a road than from a residence), frequency of view,

view angle,

• Identifying existing conditions related to the current Roberts Bank facility,

• Identifying potential measures to mitigate existing impacts, e.g., trees and/or shrubs along

causeway, colour of structures or equipment at the container port

3.1.2 Visual Landscape Impact Assessment Overview

Conduct a daytime visual landscape impact assessment, including the following tasks:

• Prepare computer visualizations illustrating the proposed Deltaport Third Berth as

follows:

1. Prepare 3D computer models of the existing Roberts Bank terminal facilities, and

align these with the four representative photographs from key viewpoints. Add the

proposed Deltaport Third Berth into the computer visualizations in the proper

position to scale using solid colour shading.

2. Use photo-realistic simulation methods, e.g. texture, colour, and shading matched

to resemble existing facilities, to prepared visualizations of the proposed

Deltaport Third Berth as it will appear within each view.

• Provide a description of the estimated visual impacts that would potentially result from

the construction and operation of the proposed facility. (Existing conditions are

considered the baseline. Visual impact assessment criteria are explained in more detail in

the following sections.)




• Identify appropriate mitigation measures to address the potential visual impacts

associated with the construction and operation of the proposed projects.

• Identify necessary follow-up requirements associated with the construction and operation

of the proposed projects.

• Assess and report the residual visual effects, after taking into account the implementation

of proposed mitigation measures and follow-up requirements.

3.1.3 Visual Impact Assessment Procedure

The procedure for assessing visual impact was based on the evaluation of two components:

• Viewer considerations – primary factors are the number of viewers, duration of view, and

angle of view.

• Actual visual impact – primary factors are the distance and the proportional increase in

the view occupied by the terminal

Each factor above was rated individually according to the definitions in Table 1.

Table 1 Visual Impact Assessment Criteria

Criteria Definition

Number of Viewers:

• High

• Moderate

• Low

• > 1000 people average per day

• 200-1000 people average per day

• < 200 people average per day

Duration of View

• High

• Moderate

• Low

• > 1 hour

• 5 minutes to 1 hour

• < 5 minutes

Angle of View

• Focal

• Focal/Obtuse

• Obtuse

• With 45 degrees of typical view

• Typical view varies

• > 45 degrees of typical view

View Distance

• Long distance

• Medium distance

• Short distance

• > 3 km

• 1.5 – 3 km

• < 1.5 km

Increase of Terminal in View

• None

• Low

• Moderate

• High

• No increase

• < 10% increase

• 10 – 40% increase

• >40% increase

The factors above were used to rate viewer considerations and actual visual impact separately.




Viewer Consideration

Viewer considerations were determined by the number of viewers and duration of the view, as

per the table below. If the angle of view is obtuse, the viewer consideration rating is dropped

down one level. For example, if there are a moderate number of viewers, with a moderate

duration of view, and the angle is focal, the viewer consideration rating is moderate, as per the

table below. If however, the angle is obtuse, then the rating is dropped to low.

Table 2 Viewer Considerations

Number of Viewers

Duration of View Low Moderate High

Low L L L

Moderate L M M

High M H H

Actual Visual Impact

Actual viewer impact was determined by the distance and the proportional increase in the view

occupied by the terminal, as per the table below.

Table 3 Actual Visual Impact

Distance

Increase of Terminal Low Moderate High

None None None None

Low M L L

Moderate H M L

High H H M

Overall Visual Impact

Once viewer considerations and actual visual impact were determined, an overall visual impact

rating was determined, as per the table below.

Table 4 Overall Visual Impact

Viewer Considerations

Actual Visual Impact Low Moderate High

None None None L

Low L L M

Moderate L M H

High M H H




3.2 VISUAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION

The visual landscape inventory provides a description of existing visual conditions. The visual

landscape inventory includes delineation of landscape units (areas with similar visual

characteristics). These are illustrated in Figure 4, and the associated database is presented in

Appendix A, along with the landscape unit criteria. The landscape units cover an approximation

of the area from which the Roberts Bank terminal is visible.

The following is a summary of the visual landscape inventory:

1. Roberts Bank Port Facility – The Roberts Bank port facility is a large industrial facility that

includes Deltaport, a 65 ha (160 acre) container terminal, and Westshore Terminal, a 50 ha (125

acre) bulk handling coal facility. It is a dominant visual feature from a number of land use areas.

From low elevation viewpoints, the most visible features at the facility are the six gantry cranes

at Deltaport. Their white colour makes them stand out when the sun is behind the viewer. When

the sun is behind the terminal, the cranes are silhouetted and appear dark. The second most

prominent feature is the ships that occupy the two berths at the terminal. The third most visually

prominent feature at the facility are the coal piles at the bulk handling coal facility, and the

multicoloured shipping containers stacked up to five high at Deltaport. These are even more

visible from higher elevation viewpoints.

2. Roberts Bank Causeway – The Roberts Bank causeway is accessed from an elevated road

that passes over the railway tracks. The causeway serves rail and truck traffic to the Roberts

Bank port facility. There is limited public use of the causeway. The primary visual consideration

related to the Roberts Bank causeway is the view of it from public use areas such as the TFN

Village. From close to the shoreline the gray base of the rip rap is obvious. From the shoreline

and points farther away, the rail cars are often silhouetted. The overhead power line located

along the causeway is also visible from some distance.

3. TFN Village – The TFN Village is a small community including some homes and small

businesses, the TFN Band Office, Longhouse, and a Youth Centre. The marine area and the

Roberts Bank port facility are most visible from the Band Office and Youth Centre since they are

located on the west side of the road that passes through the village. The Longhouse does not have

windows. Most of the other homes and businesses are on the east side of the road and lower in

elevation. The Roberts Bank port facility is most visible from the second storey of these

structures.

4. BC Ferries Causeway – The BC Ferries causeway accommodates high levels of traffic

destined for the BC Ferries terminal. The speed of traffic is typically high and there are open

views to the north and south. The Roberts Bank port facility is a dominant feature to the north.

There are two pullouts along the BC Ferries causeway; one near the shore and another just prior

to the terminal.

5. BC Ferries Terminal – The BC Ferries terminal consists of vehicular gates and large paved

holding areas for vehicles, a small pedestrian entry building, some small buildings with viewing

towers, small patches of grass, paving and play structures for pedestrian use, and the ferry berths

connected to the entry building with overhead walkways. The BC Ferries terminal supports high




levels of use. Once inside the terminal, views are mostly internal and there is little exposure to

the view of the Roberts Bank port facility.

6. North Tidal Flat – The north tidal flat is located north of the Roberts Bank causeway. It is a

large mudflat that is exposed during low tides and under water at high tides. There is very low

public use of this area since it is not close to a large population centre or recreation use area. The

south tidal flat is the primary public use area in the vicinity.

7. Centre Tidal Flat – The centre tidal flat is located between the Roberts Bank and BC Ferries

causeways. It is a large mudflat that is exposed during low tides and under water at high tides.

There is very low public use of this area since it is not close to a large population centre or

recreation use area.

8. South Tidal Flat – The south tidal flat is located south of the BC Ferries causeway. It is a

large mudflat that is exposed during low tides and under water at high tides. There is moderate

public use of this area, with the users including residents of the lower portion of English Bluff

and others who obtain access from the south side of the BC Ferries causeway. The Roberts Bank

port facility is visible from this area, but not very dominant because viewers are generally at sea

level and the BC Ferries causeway and terminal dominate views to the north.

9. Dyke – The dyke extends along the shoreline north and a short way south of the Roberts

Bank causeway. A gravel service road is along the top of the dyke. Public use of the dyke

appears to be low. Although there is nothing precluding public use, it is not promoted, access

requires crossing railway tracks, and there are no established parking lots or signs. The Roberts

Bank port facility is visible from the dyke, especially where the dyke is closest to the facility.

10. Outer Dyke – The outer dyke extends along the shoreline offshore from the TFN reserve.

There is a gravel service road along the top. Public use of the dyke appears to be very low,

particularly because of TFN property signs. There are 360 degree panoramic views from the

dyke, including marine views and views back to the land. The Roberts Bank port facility is

visible from the dyke, as is the BC Ferries terminal. The dyke itself limits views of the marine

area from the TFN village.

11. Agricultural Land – The agricultural land is flat farmland below sea level, protected from

flooding by the dyke. The landscape consists of farm fields, hedgerows, farm structures, homes

and narrow roads. Although views are typically internal, from some locations the gantry cranes

of the Roberts Bank port facility or the overpass leading to the Roberts Bank causeway are

visible in the distance.

12. Upper Tidal Grassland – The upper tidal grassland is located between the outer dyke and

the TFN village. It is a grassy area that floods during the highest tides. There is minimal use of

the grassland area. The area provides a visual buffer, along with the outer dyke, between the

TFN village and the marine area.




13. Tsatsu Shores –Tsatsu Shores includes a condominium complex and an upper tidal grassy

area that has informal trails. The condominium has two wings; one of these is oriented parallel

with the shoreline, the other is angled more towards the north. There is a 180 degree panorama

view from this area, with the Roberts Bank port facility occupying about 6% of this view.

14. High English Bluff – The High English Bluff area includes single family residences along

Pacific Drive and English Bluff Road, as well as Fred Gingell Park. This area is on the west edge

of a large community; the remainder of the community does not have views to the west due to

the flat topography of the area. Views of the Roberts Bank port facility vary from home to home

at High English Bluff based on siting and foreground vegetation. Fred Gingell Park is small but

it has a moderate level of use since it is the only park with this outlook.

15. Low English Bluff – The Low English Bluff area includes several pockets of single family

private residences along the beach. Views of the Roberts Bank port facility vary along the

shoreline, with the facility visible behind the BC Ferries causeway due to the low elevation.

Although the Roberts Bank port facility is easily seen from this perspective, there are also many

other features to view, and most homes are oriented directly towards the ocean.




Figure 3 – Landscape Units




3.3 VIEWPOINTS

In order to assess the potential visual impacts of the Deltaport Third Berth Project, four

representative viewpoints based on community and public use areas and on the distance and

angle from the proposed development were identified (Figure 4). The four viewpoints were

selected to provide a representative sampling of the various viewing conditions in the study area:

1. North Dyke near south end of 34th

Street - represents views from the north;

2. Tsawwassen First Nation Band Office - represents the TFN village perspective (based on

consultation with the TFN);

3. B.C. Ferries causeway pullout (near BC Ferries terminal) – closest viewpoint from which

the facility is seen by the public; and

4. Fred Gingell Park on top of English Bluff - represent the views of park users and residents

to the south.




Figure 4 – Viewpoint Locations

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the views from these perspectives and provide a content analysis as a

percentage of the entire panorama. It should be noted that the panorama views tend to

deemphasize the terminal facility because the views are so wide in focus.

Appendix B provides information about the viewpoints.




Figure 5 – Viewpoint Analysis (Viewpoints 1 and 2)




Figure 6 – Viewpoint Analysis (Viewpoints 3 and 4)




4.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

It is anticipated that in terms of visibility, the potential impacts of the proposed Deltaport Third

Berth during construction and operation would be similar (i.e. activities, structures and mobile

elements would be visible from the same view locations during both construction and operation).

One exception to this is that the dredging equipment will cover a larger area than the space that

will ultimately be occupied by a ship, which will bring the impacts closer to some viewers.

4.1 CONSTRUCTION

Visual impacts during construction of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would be a

result of the following activities and associated materials and equipment:

• construction work in the terminal area with construction equipment and material

stockpiles;

• dredging equipment in the berth, terminal and shipping channel areas.

Construction is proposed to start in August 2005 with completion in spring 2008. The dredging

operations will run 24 hours/day within the allowable dredging windows established by the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The dredging activities will take place for approximately 9

months.

4.2 OPERATION

Visually dominant elements that would result in visual impacts during the operation of the

Deltaport Third Berth Project include the following:

• gantry cranes and terminal equipment – would stand out as prominent vertical features;

• ships - their movement and bulk would add to the visual impact of the terminal;

• terminal lighting – high mast terminal lighting would provide vertical elements to the

proposed Third Berth (night time lighting impacts are discussed in detail in the latter

portion of this report); and

• container stacks - would provide vertical element to the new terminal.

4.3 ANALYSIS OF VISUAL IMPACTS

The visual impacts of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project are analysed from the four

representative viewpoints. For each representative viewpoint, a description of the view is

provided along with the Roberts Bank port facility percentage of view, type and number of

viewers, distance of view and typical duration of view. Overall ratings of the viewer

considerations, actual visual impact, and overall visual impact are provided.

The existing views and visualizations of the expansion are shown on Figures 7 to 10 following

discussion of the visual impacts at each viewpoint. The visualizations are only representations of

what the proposed Deltaport Third Berth would look like once fully developed. It is important to




note that the computer visualizations tend to emphasize the Roberts Bank port facility since they

are focused only on that portion of view.

The visual impacts at the North Dyke viewpoint are discussed below in Table 5.

Table 5 North Dyke Viewpoint (Viewpoint 1)

Viewing Condition Service road along top of dyke, supports small amount of

public use (walking and cycling). View of facility changes

gradually as one moves along the dyke.

Description of Existing

View

360° panorama (Figure 5):

- Landward view: agriculture (fields, hedgerows,

structures).

- Marine view NW to SE: dyke/road/trees/homes (8%);

mudflat/ocean/Vancouver Island (39%); mudflat/Roberts

Bank port facility (9%); mudflat/Roberts Bank causeway

with rail cars (24%); mudflat/rail cars/English Bluff

(11%); dyke/bridge to Roberts Bank port facility (9%).

Existing Roberts Bank

Port Facility Percentage

of View

9%

Type of Viewers General public

Relative Number of

Viewers

Low

Distance of View Long distance

Typical Duration of View Moderate

Angle of View Obtuse

Increase of Terminal Low

Viewer Considerations Low

Actual Visual Impact Low

Overall Visual Impact Low

Comment

The proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would have a low visual impact on views of

the general public from the north dyke. A low number of the general public would view

the proposed Deltaport Third Berth, over a long distance and for a moderate duration of

time (5 minutes to 1 hour). The Roberts Bank port facility would occupy approximately 6

% more of the view than it currently occupies (Currently the facility occupies 9% of the

view; with Deltaport Third Berth , the facility would increase to 10% of the view). The

reason for this small increase is that the proposed Deltaport Third Berth would be almost

parallel with the viewing angle and would be viewed in the context of existing port

related structures. Nine cranes would be visible instead of the existing six cranes and the

additional cranes would also appear slightly larger than the existing cranes.




Figure 7 – Existing Views and Visualizations of Expansion (North Dyke)

Viewpoint 1: North Dyke Existing

Viewpoint 1: North Dyke Visualization




The visual impacts at the Tsawwassen First Nation Band Office viewpoint are discussed below

in Table 6.

Table 6 Tsawwassen First Nation Band Office Viewpoint (Viewpoint 2)

Viewing Condition Offices and board room used by staff and their visitors,

similar to some views from residences. Residences are

slightly more distant and lower in elevation.

Description of

ExistingView

180° panorama view (Figure 5):

- View NW to SE: buildings along shore (longhouse,

pumphouse, homes) and trees (16%); grassland/Roberts

Bank causeway bridge (7%); grassland/Roberts Bank

railcars/Vancouver Island (10%); grassland/Gulf Islands

(11%); grassland/BC Ferries terminal/Gulf Islands (3%);

grassland/BC Ferries causeway/Gulf Islands (10%);

grassland/English Bluff (13%); Youth Centre/shoreline

(7%).


Port Facility Percentage of

View

10%

Type of Viewers TFN chief, councillors, elders, staff, community members

and visitors.

Relative Number of

Viewers

Moderate

Distance of View Long distance

Typical Duration of View Moderate

Angle of View Focal

Increase of Terminal None

Viewer Considerations High

Actual Visual Impact None

Overall Visual Impact Low

Comment


people using the TFN Band Office. A moderate number of people would view the

proposed Deltaport Third Berth, over a long distance and for a moderate duration of time

(5 minutes to 1 hour). The Roberts Bank port facility would not occupy any more of the

view than it currently does, because the proposed Deltaport Third Berth would be in front

of an area that is already within the facility. The facility would, therefore, still occupy

10% of the entire panorama . The vertical mass within the facility would be increased:

instead of six cranes, there would be nine and instead of a maximum of two container

ships, there would be a maximum of three.




Figure 8 – Existing Views and Visualizations of Expansion (TFN Band Office)

Viewpoint 2: TFN Band Office Existing

Viewpoint 2: TFN Band Office Visualization




The visual impacts at the BC Ferries Causeway Pullout viewpoint are discussed below in Table

7.

Table 7 BC Ferries Causeway Pullout Viewpoint (Viewpoint 3)

Viewing Condition Vehicular traffic to BC Ferries terminal, fast moving,

similar to view from BC Ferries terminal but the focus

there is mostly internal to the facility, low use of the

pullout.

Description of

ExistingView


- view SW to NE: BC Ferries causeway and terminal

(13%); mudflat/ocean/islands (11%); mudflats/Roberts

Bank port facility (14%); mudflat/Roberts Bank causeway

(25%); mudflat/Roberts Bank causeway/shoreline (13%);

mudflat/TFN Village/shoreline (16%); BC Ferries

causeway (8%).


Port Facility Percentage of

View

14%

Type of Viewers Motorists, public

Relative Number of

Viewers

High

Distance of View Medium distance

Typical Duration of View Low

Angle of View Focal/Obtuse

Increase of Terminal High

Viewer Considerations Low

Actual Visual Impact High

Overall Visual Impact Moderate

Comment

The proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would have a moderate visual impact on the

views of motorists using the BC Ferries causeway. While a high number of motorists

would view the proposed Deltaport Third Berth from this vantage point, their typical

duration of view would be low (less than 5 minutes). Given the close proximity of this

viewpoint, and that views from this vantage point would be essentially “face-on”, the

Roberts Bank port facility would appear larger than it is now and would occupy

approximately 50% more of the view than it currently occupies. (Currently the facility

occupies 14% of the view; with Deltaport Third Berth , the facility would increase to

21% of the view).The proposed Deltaport Third Berth would, however, be viewed in the

context of the existing port related structures.




Figure 9 – Existing Views and Visualizations of Expansion (BC Ferries Causeway)

Viewpoint 3: BC Ferries Causeway Existing

Viewpoint 3: BC Ferries Causeway Visualization




The visual impacts at the Fred Gingell Park viewpoint are discussed below in Table 8. This

viewpoint also represents the views from the residential area on English Bluff hillside.

Table 8 Fred Gingell Park Viewpoint (Viewpoint 4)

Viewing Condition Small public park with viewing deck. Trees obscure

portion of the Robert Bank port facility view. Similar to

view from nearby residences.

Description of

ExistingView


-NW to SE: trees/tidal flats/both causeways/Vancouver

Island (43%); trees/tidal flats/BC Ferries

causeway/Roberts Bank port facility/Vancouver Island

(8%); mudflats/BC Ferries terminal/ocean/Vancouver

Island (12%); trees/ocean/Gulf Islands (24%).


Port Facility Percentage

of View

21%

Park Users Residents

Type of Viewers General public (park users) Residents

Relative Number of

Viewers

Low Moderate

Distance of View Long distance Long distance

Typical Duration of View Moderate Moderate

Angle of View Obtuse Obtuse

Increase of Terminal Moderate Moderate

Viewer Considerations Low Low

Actual Visual Impact Moderate Moderate

Overall Visual Impact Low Low

Comment


the general public from Fred Gingell Park and residents along High English Bluff. A low

number of the general public and a moderate number of residents would view the

proposed Deltaport Third Berth, over a long distance and for a moderate duration of time

(5 minutes to 1 hour). The moderate duration applies to residents as well because of the

distance and obtuse angle. The Roberts Bank port facility would appear larger than it is

now since it would be essentially a “face-on” view of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth

from this vantage point, although from a greater elevation and distance than the BC

Ferries causeway. The Roberts Bank port facility would occupy 36% more of the view

than it currently occupies and would be viewed in the context of the existing port related

structures. (Currently the facility occupies 21% of the view; with Deltaport Third Berth ,

the facility would increase to 29% of the view).




Figure 10 – Existing Views and Visualizations of Expansion (Fred Gingell Park)

Viewpoint 4: Fred Gringell Park Existing

Viewpoint 4: Fred Gringell Park Visualization




Table 9 provides a summary of the visual impact assessment component and overall ratings for

each viewpoint.

Table 9 Summary of Visual Impact Assessment Ratings

Viewpoint Viewer

Considerations

Actual Visual

Impact

Overall Visual

Impact

1. North Dyke L L L

2. TFN Office H N L

3. BC Ferries Causeway L H M

4. Fred Gingell Park L M L

4.4 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION


Deltaport Third Berth Project.

4.5 OPERATION MITIGATION

The VPA would work with the community to identify the needs for mitigation of visual impacts

during operation of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project. Mitigation measures may

include consideration of:

• gantry crane colour (research indicates that the light gray camouflage colour used by

NATO is generally the most effective at blending with sea and sky during the daytime);

and

• a landscape buffer strip (consisting of native vegetation) to be established, where

practical, along the outer edge of the Roberts Bank causeway.

5.0 RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

If the mitigation measures identified are implemented, the residual visual effects after mitigation

would be marginally reduced from the originally estimated effects. The colour of the gantry

cranes would blend better with the surroundings, however they would still be visible and would

still appear dark when the sun is behind the facility (in relation to the viewer).

6.0 CUMULATIVE VISUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

The visual impact will occur as the project is built, then once it is built, the visual impact will not

change over time.




7.0 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING DAYTIME VISUAL IMPACT

The visual impact of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would vary depending on the

viewing distance, relative number and type of viewers, duration and angle of view and the

increased portion of the view that the terminal would occupy.

The visual impact of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would be low from north dyke,

the TFN Band Office and from Fred Gingell Park. A low number of the general public would

view the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project from north dyke, over a long distance (greater

than 3 km), for a moderate duration. A moderate number of the TFN community would view the

proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project from the TFN Band Office over a long distance (greater

than 3 km), for a moderate duration. Similarly, a low number of the general public and moderate

number of residents would view the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project from Fred Gingell

Park and High English Bluff over a long distance (greater than 3 km), at an obtuse angle, for a

moderate duration.

The visual impact of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project from the BC Ferries causeway

would be moderate largely because the Project would take up more of the view from this

viewpoint. While a high number of motorists would view the proposed Deltaport Third Berth

from this vantage point, their typical duration of view would be low (less than 5 minutes).

All views of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would be seen within the context of the

existing Roberts Bank port facility.


Deltaport Third Berth Project. The VPA would, however, work with the community to identify

the need to mitigate visual impacts during operation of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth

Project. Mitigation measures may include consideration of gantry crane colour and, where

practical, options for a landscape buffer strip to be established along the outer edge of the

Roberts Bank causeway.

The residual visual effects after mitigation would be marginally reduced from the originally

estimated effects.




8.0 EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS

8.1 METHODOLOGY

The methodology for the lighting impact assessment consists of two phases: inventory (discussed

in Section 8.0) and analysis (discussed in Section 9.0). In order to establish existing night

illumination levels, the following preparatory work was undertaken:

• Review available as-built drawings for existing lighting systems installed at the facility.

• Create photometric models for the existing facility to determine the actual lighting levels.

Models were created using photometric data made available by the luminaire

manufacturer for the exact luminaires used.

• Photograph the existing lighting systems from designated viewpoints to record existing

conditions.

• Review available lighting reports.

• Review lighting recommendations for port and intermodal facilities as published by the

Illuminating Engineering Society and the Canada Labour Code.

A rating system was developed to quantify the additional effect the expansion of the facility

lighting system will have over the existing lighting conditions. Ratings of Low, Moderate and

High have been established as follows:

Low: no change in the lighting condition is anticipated, except that an enlarged lighted

area will be seen, with no overall increase in brightness or glare anticipated.

Moderate: there may be some additional brightness or glare seen from a particular

viewpoint, but the overall lighting condition should not worsen.

High: there will be a significant increase in the lighting system, from additional

brightness and/or glare from a particular viewpoint.

8.2 LIGHTING TERMS

Certain terms are used in this report to express the lighting environment encountered. The terms

and definitions used are derived from the Lighting Handbook produced by the Illuminating

Engineering Society of North America (IES) 2000.

Glare is generally defined as the sensation produced by luminance within the visual field that is

sufficiently greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted. An example would be

looking at a dark area, and then having light introduced suddenly into the area. Glare basically




comes in three forms: discomfort, disability and nuisance. Discomfort glare is defined as glare

producing discomfort that does not necessarily interfere with visual performance or ability.

Disability glare is defined as the effect of stray light in the eye whereby visibility and visual

performance are reduced. Nuisance glare cannot be quantified presently, but is defined as light

appearing where it does not belong. Nuisance glare is the general type of glare that is affecting

the neighbours of Deltaport, although a certain amount of discomfort glare is introduced when

looking out over the water away from Deltaport, and then turning to view the terminal facility.

Light Trespass is defined essentially as light that is produced for a particular location, but affects

adjacent areas. Generally light trespass falls into two categories: unwanted light and excessive

brightness. Light trespass is somewhat suggestive, as it often relates to immeasurable or

indefinable factors. The complaint of “light shining in my window” is an example of Light

Trespass.

Light Pollution or sky glow is the result of dust, water vapour and other particles in the

atmosphere that reflect light that is emitted into the atmosphere. The result, particularly in urban

areas, is a decrease in the ability to see the night sky. Although sky glow is not injurious, it does

deprive people from enjoying the natural environment.

Brightness is the subjective attribute of any light sensation giving rise to the perception of

luminous magnitude, including the qualities of being bright, light, brilliant, dim and dark.

Reflection is the process whereby part of the light falling on a medium leaves that medium from

the incident side. Reflection can be specular, diffuse, spread or compound in nature, and all of

these effects are generated from the lighting system, depending on the local weather conditions.

For example, on a clear calm night, light is reflected off the smooth water surface, which almost

acts like a mirror. On dark stormy nights, the light from the facility is scattered by reflecting off

raindrops while the water surface is no longer calm, so specular reflectance is now more diffuse

or spread, thereby giving a different visual image.

Cutoff Angle is the angle measured up from Nadir (vertical axis), and the first line of sight at

which the bare source is not visible.

Light Distribution Classification is the intensity distribution produced by the luminaire. There

are four distribution patterns which are classified as: Full Cutoff, Cutoff, Semicutoff and

Noncutoff. Full Cutoff is defined as: zero candela occurs at 90° or more and no more than 10%

of candela output above 80°. Cutoff is defined as: no more than 2.5% candela output occurs

above 90° and no more than 10% above 80°. Semicutoff is defined as: no more than 5% candela

output above 90° and 20% above 80°. Noncutoff is defined as: no candela limitation in the zone

above maximum candela.




Figure 7 – Illustration of Lighting Terms

8.3 ROBERTS BANK PORT FACILITY LIGHTING DESCRIPTION

The present lighting installations at the Roberts Bank port facility consist of two light sources:

high pressure sodium lamps and metal halide lamps.

High pressure sodium lamps have a higher lumen/watt (light out to power in) ratio than other

light sources, and therefore have a lower operating cost. However, some sacrifice is made in

colour recognition. This is typically not an issue where visual tasks are restricted to general

recognition of shapes and obstructions rather than requiring identification of small items or print.

High pressure sodium lamps on high-mast poles are used to illuminate the container yards at the

Roberts Bank port facility, the intermodal yards and portions of the Roberts Bank causeway.

Metal halide lamps have a slightly lower lumen/watt ratio than high pressure sodium, but colour

recognition is better. This type of lighting is therefore used in areas where critical visual tasks

are required. Metal halide lighting is used on container loading equipment at the facility.

The mixture of these two light sources, i.e. high pressure sodium and metal halide, also has an

effect on the visual presentation from the surrounding residential areas, mainly due to the

perception of brightness of the light source. The human eye sees the blue end of the spectrum

(associated with metal halide light) better at night than the red/yellow end (associated with high

pressure sodium light), and therefore the areas of the port illuminated with the metal halide

lighting appear brighter than the areas illuminated just with high pressure sodium.




Existing Lighting - Terminal Lighting on Right - Ship to Shore Crane Lighting on Left

Existing Terminal Area Floodlights – High Pressure Sodium

Figure 8 – Illustration of Existing Lighting

Container and Intermodal Yard Lighting

The Roberts Bank port facility is illuminated to an average maintained level of 50 lux with an

average to minimum uniformity ratio of approximately 2.2:1. This basically meets the minimum

requirements set by the Canada Labour Code, which requires a lighting system to 2:1 average to

minimum uniformity ratio, and an average maintained illumination of 50 lux.

High pressure sodium lamps (1000W floodlights) mounted on 35 m poles are used to illuminate

the container and intermodal yards at the Roberts Bank port facility. Red aviation warning lights

and surveillance cameras are also mounted on floodlights at the facility. Typically there are 12 to

16 luminaires on each pole, with aiming angles set at various angles up to a maximum of

approximately 68°. As defined by the manufacturer, the existing luminaires have a cutoff

distribution when the aiming angle is set to less than 62.5°, with semi-cutoff and non-cutoff

distribution above 63°. The use of floodlights which are aimed at angles greater than the

published cutoff angle can cause visual disturbance (light trespass, excessive brightness and

glare) to surrounding properties.

The existing lighting systems at the Roberts Bank port facility gives rise to complaints (due

mainly to nuisance glare, brightness, and light pollution) from the closest neighbours

approximately 3 km away and as far away as Saturna Island, approximately 26 km to the

southwest of the port facility.

Terminal Systems Incorporation (TSI) has agreed to conduct a lighting study in 2005 to

determine the feasibility to re-aim the lights at the cut-off angle. Adjusting the existing lighting

downward to the cutoff angle may leave darkened areas on the site which would be unacceptable

from a safety and security aspect.

The ship-to-shore gantry cranes, which are used to load and unload the containers, have their

own lighting system mounted on the gantry arms that provides the additional lighting needed by




the crane operator to view the immediate work area. The luminaires are mounted along the

length of the arm and when the arms are raised or lowered, the view of the facility changes as

seen by the local residents, causing visual disturbance. The gantry arms are also outfitted with

red aviation lights, as well as white flashing warning lights, for day use.

TSI has installed a lighting control system on the arms of the ship-to-shore gantry cranes to

automatically shut the lighting off after 15 minutes when the arm is raised, however, it would

appear that these controls may have been overridden as field observations have not been able to

confirm the automatic shut-off is working. This issue has been reviewed with TSI and TSI has

been advised and asked to correct it.

Lighting on the gantry crane superstructure (main support column) is used to raise the

illumination level around the perimeter of the crane for worker and vehicle safety. This lighting

is of a floodlight nature, which spills light around the crane and also reflects off the white paint

of the equipment, compounding the brightness effects on the surrounding residents.

Figure 9 –Crane Lighting

Causeway and Rail Yard Lighting

The Roberts Bank causeway consists of a 2 lane undivided road (Deltaport Way) and is for the

most part un-illuminated. The exception is at intersections where localized lighting and traffic

signals are installed, and at the overpass structure, which takes road traffic above the railroad.

The marshalling yards for the railroad are illuminated using low level pole-mounted low pressure

sodium luminaires to provide lighting for safety of rail yard workers and security. The causeway

is continuously illuminated by high pressure sodium lamps, from the intersection of Deltaport

Way and Westshore Way into the facility. This lighting does not add significantly to the overall

lighting levels, as the area floodlighting overpowers the low level roadway and marshalling yard

lighting.




Figure 10 – Causeway and Railyard Lighting from TFN Longhouse

8.4 REPRESENTATIVE VIEWPOINTS

In order to assess the potential lighting impacts of the Deltaport Third Berth Project, four

representative viewpoints based on community and public use areas, and on distance and angle

from the proposed development, were identified (see Table 10 and Figure 4). These viewpoints

were selected to coincide with the daytime visual viewpoints where possible for consistency.

Daytime Viewpoints Night-time Viewpoints

North Dyke

TFN Village (Band Office) TFN Village (Longhouse)

BC Ferries Causeway (second pull-out) BC Ferries Causeway (first pull-out)

Fred Gingell Park Fred Gingell Park (High English Bluff)

Low English Bluff

Table 10 Comparison of Daytime and Night-time Viewpoints

No night assessment was made from the dyke at the end of 34th

Street (North Dyke daytime

viewpoint) as this area is not used at night. Instead an assessment was made from Low English

Bluff. The BC Ferries Causeway night assessment was made from the first traffic pullout rather

than the second, to more closely coincide with the view from the Tatsu Shores development.

The lighting impact of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project was assessed at each of the

above viewpoints and is described in Section 9 – Assessment of Impact.

TFN Village

The TFN village is a small community including homes, small businesses, the TFN Band Office,

Longhouse and Youth Centre, among others. The marine area and the Roberts Bank port facility

are most visible during the day from the Band Office and Youth Centre located on the west side

of the road through the village. The night time view of the port from the Longhouse seemed to be




more representative of the effects the lighting system has on the Village than the Band Office.

Most of the other homes and businesses on the east side of the road are lower in elevation. The

Roberts Bank port facility is most visible from the second storey of these structures.

BC Ferries Causeway

The BC Ferries causeway accommodates high levels of vehicle traffic destined for the BC

Ferries terminal. The speed of traffic is typically high and there are open views to the north and

south. The Roberts Bank port facility is a dominant feature to the north. There are two pullouts

along the causeway; one near the shore and another just prior to the port facility. These are

seldom used and mainly serve emergency purposes.

Fred Gingell Park (High English Bluff – Hillside)

The High English Bluff area includes single family residences along Pacific Drive and English

Bluff Road, as well as Fred Gingell Park. This area is on the western edge of a large community;

the remainder of the community does not have views to the west due to the flat topography of the

area. Views of the Roberts Bank port facility vary from home to home at High English Bluff

based on siting and foreground vegetation. Fred Gingell Park is small and has a low level of use

at night. Recently a pathway has been constructed between the park and Tsawwassen Beach to

allow public access to the beach.

Low English Bluff

There are several pockets of development along Tsawwassen Beach at the foot of English Bluff,

including the Tsatsu Shores condominium complex, and housing developments along the various

portions of Tsawwassen Beach Road. These areas have views of the Roberts Bank port facility,

which are comparable to the view from the BC Ferries causeway. The fact that the residential

development is significantly lower than the High English Bluff does give a different perspective

than views from the High Bluffs.




View from TFN Village (Longhouse)

View from BC Ferries Causeway (Westshore Coal Terminal is on the extreme left)

Figure 11 – Existing Night Views




View from Fred Gingell Park -High English Bluff

(BC Ferries Terminal and Causeway in Foreground)

View from Low English Bluff (Tsawwassen Beach Road)

Figure 11 – Existing Night Views (cont’d)




9.0 LIGHTING IMPACT ASSESSMENT

9.1 CONSTRUCTION

Night-time visual impacts would be created by the following elements during construction of the

proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project:

• lighting associated with dredging in the berth, terminal and shipping channel areas; and

• lighting associated with terminal construction activities, which would vary depending on

the time of day and season, as well as the construction schedule milestones.

Dredging

The dredging operations would be undertaken 24 hours/day, seven days a week for a period of

approximately nine months, proposed to start in August 2005, and would be undertaken within

the allowable dredging windows established by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

Typically the fisheries window at Roberts Bank is from August 15 to March 1, with some

possible variation to these times depending on the dredging operation. This timeframe would

require dredging equipment and ancillary vessels to be illuminated for longer periods of the day

due to shorter daylight hours during these months.

During hours of darkness, the ship would be illuminated to meet industry standards for

occupational health and safety. Accordingly, equipment such as dredge masts and booms (which

would be raised and lowered as needed to perform their duties) would be illuminated. The dredge

would be set up in the water south and east of the existing facility and would therefore be closer

to the Tsawwassen residential area than any of the present operations at the Roberts Bank port

facility. As the dredge is mobile, it would be constantly relocating on a regular basis, which

would present a changing lighting scenario to the surrounding residences.

Large Scale Dredging Equipment -

The Marco Polo - 3rd

Largest in World

Typical Cutter Suction Dredging Equipment

Figure 12 – Dredging Equipment




The dredging vessel, Marco Polo, which is approximately 116m long, 20m wide and 20m tall, or

other equipment of a similar size, would likely be used on this project (see Figure 12).

Modifications to the dredge lighting systems would be specified to shield light from spilling

outside the basic working footprint of the dredge.

Terminal Yard Construction

Lighting for terminal yard construction, proposed to start in January 2007 with completion by

spring 2008, would typically be low level, portable floodlighting until such time as the

permanent high mast yard lighting used for operations is available. Other sources of light during

construction activities would result from vehicle lights and equipment lighting. The majority of

construction of the terminal facilities would likely take place during normal construction hours

(7am to 4pm) with additional construction activities occasionally during other hours to meet

project milestones and to lessen operational impacts on the existing port facilities. These lights

would likely have minimal impact on the surrounding environment, mainly due to their relatively

low intensity and height. Moreover, the effects of the terminal yard construction lighting would

be lessened because of the overall effects of the existing high mast lighting at the facility.

9.2 OPERATION

The proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would require expansion of the existing Roberts

Bank port facility lighting system. This expansion would be to the east and north of the existing

lighting to accommodate the expanded container yard, new wharf, and tug moorage facility.

There would also be three new gantry cranes along the waterfront to facilitate the loading of

ships. These crane units would have their own lighting, similar to the existing cranes.

The preliminary design parameters for the container yard lighting and area around the cranes are

the same as for the existing facility (i.e. an average maintained level of 50 lux, with an average to

minimum uniformity ratio of 2:1). Typical poles would be unpainted, galvanized steel

approximately 36 m tall. Luminaires would be either 1000 or 400 watt high pressure sodium

depending on the location.

9.3 ANALYSIS OF LIGHTING IMPACTS

The proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would not involve an increase in the overall lighting

levels at the facility or as viewed from off site, however, as the lighting would be extended over

a larger area, there will be a perception that the overall brightness of the facility is greater. The

effect that the new facility lighting would have on the local residential areas would have more to

do with light trespass, brightness and nuisance glare than with the additional light contribution.

Photometric measurements were taken from each of the representative viewpoints, however no

measurable readings were attainable, due to the very low level of light at each location and its

distance from the source. Extraneous local lighting at each location was all that could be

recorded with the instrumentation used.

Photometric models were created based on using both the existing floodlight style with cutoff

optic luminaires as well as using downlight style cutoff luminaires. The photometric models




indicated that the use of downlight cutoff luminaires, which direct the vast percentage of light

output downward toward the work area, rather than outward and upward, as is partly the case

with the existing installation, would minimize sky glow and light trespass. Noting the many

reflective surfaces at the facility, it would be virtually impossible to substantially reduce the sky

glow and light reflected upward and outward off of these surfaces.

Existing Luminaire Widelite Aktra 1000 Watt High Pressure Sodium

Alternate Downlight Style Cutoff Luminaire

Luminaire with Non or Semi

Cutoff Optics Luminaire with Cutoff Optics

Figure 13 – Comparison of Luminaire Effects

The expanded lighting system at the facility would have different effects on the night-time visual

environment from each of the representative viewpoints as described below:

TFN Village: The TFN is likely to experience the most impact from the Deltaport Third Berth

Project, however the overall additional impact should be low to moderate, depending on the

lighting design and equipment chosen during detailed design. The village is low in relation to the

lighting system, and is located the closest to the facility. The expanded lighting system would

bring the lighted facility even closer to the village than it is at present. The low viewing angle

and the height of the proposed poles may afford some vision of the luminaire face, which is the

main cause of glare. These issues may be difficult to resolve given present technology, however

it is predicted that any glare would mainly be nuisance glare.

BC Ferries Causeway and Low English Bluff: The view from the BC Ferries Causeway and

the Low English Bluff area would see an enlarged lighting area, extending eastward from the

existing facility. The lighting system would not come any closer to these viewpoints and the




overall lighting level would not increase, therefore it is predicted the impact of the expanded

lighting system on this area would be low.

Fred Gingell Park (High English Bluff – Hillside): The view from High English Bluff area

would likely be the least affected by the Deltaport Third Berth Project lighting if downlight style

cutoff luminaires were employed. Overall, this area looks down on the Roberts Bank port

facility, and as the light source would not generally be visible from this vantage point, most

issues with the lighting, except perhaps certain reflective glare issues, should be minimized.

This viewpoint will also see an enlarged lighting area, but no overall increase in lighting levels,

and as a result, it is predicted the impact of the expanded lighting system on this area would be

low.

9.4 EFFECTS ON FLORA AND FAUNA

Much research has been conducted on the effects that an introduction of area lighting has on

local plant and animal life, with the conclusions being that night lighting does affect the life

cycle and habits of local plant and animal life. The precise effects on the native species are

difficult to determine as each species is affected differently. Although the addition of lighting to

the facility affects the local environment and its inhabitants, sound engineering judgement in

lighting design, coupled with the Vancouver Port Authority (VPA)’s desire to minimize impacts

while maintaining a viable operation would go a long way to minimizing the overall long term

effects on local plant and animal life.

Additional discussion on lighting impacts on flora and fauna is contained in the Terrestrial

Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment and the Coastal Seabird and Waterfowl Resources Impact

Assessment.

9.5 SAFETY AND SECURITY

The main function of lighting is to provide a safe operating environment for workers who have to

perform their duties when natural light is not present or sufficient. Lighting is also required for

security of both the public and of property. Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on

September 11, 2001, the security of ports has become of leading importance to not only

governments, but also to business, industry and the public.

Regulations have been enacted that require port facilities to institute stronger security measures

to attempt to prevent the entry of materials and persons that may threaten the security of society.

Video surveillance and lighting are two of the forms of security enhancements. Transport Canada

has issued a Code Compliant certificate to TSI, the operator of Deltaport, to certify they meet the

requirements of the International Ship and Port Requirements (ISPS), which came into effect

July 1, 2004.




9.6 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION

Dredging Activities

Dredging operations will take place 24 hours a day for nine months and may present some rather

major issues for the surrounding population. The equipment lighting will be used during

darkness, with the type of lights dependent on the type of dredging equipment that is ultimately

selected. As the dredging equipment is mobile, it will likely be relocating on a very regular basis

throughout the work shift, which will present a constantly changing lighting scenario to the

surrounding residences. Modifications to the dredge lighting systems would be specified to

shield light from spilling outside the basic working footprint of the dredge. It should be noted

that the effectiveness of any such shielding would not be guaranteed due to the constantly

changing working environment.

Terminal Yard Construction

Lighting during construction would likely have a minor impact on the neighbouring

communities. The following mitigation measures would, however, be adopted to minimize

lighting impacts during terminal yard construction:

• ensure lighting equipment is pointed north and west as much as possible (to reduce

impacts to residents who are typically located east and south of the Roberts Bank port

facility);

• implement shielding on construction lighting; and,

• develop a 24 hour environmental helpline for lighting events so that terminal personnel

can identify what operations are causing the most disturbance in the community.

9.7 OPERATIONAL MITIGATION

The most important consideration for the new permanent lighting system is to design the system

to minimize the effect on the surrounding neighbours. It is strongly recommended that an

engineering report for the lighting of the Deltaport Third Berth Project be conducted as part of

the final design. This study would identify several different lighting systems and light sources

and thoroughly examines the pros and cons for each. This report would also take into account

such aspects as light trespass and dark sky principles, in order to make the lighting system work

not only for the safety and security of the Port, but also for the local residents who must live with

the system nightly. The use of metal halide luminaires exclusively for the Deltaport Third Berth

Project area (wharf and container yard) should be considered in order to take advantage of the

human eye’s mesopic range, which may allow for better vision at night with less light required.

As well, the models should take into account that the light source or face of the luminaire should

not be visible over a variety of distances and elevations.

Merely continuing the “status quo” for the lighting system would only increase the existing level

of dissatisfaction the residents have for the system, and by extension for the Port. The expansion




required for Deltaport Third Berth Project would bring the lighting systems even closer to the

TFN, and increased levels of visual disruption likely would not be acceptable to the community

at large, without a sound engineering report justifying the selected system.

Operationally there are options, which should be considered for the lighting system in order to

minimize the effects of the lighting system on the local environment. Keeping in mind that safety

and security are paramount to the facility operation, the lighting control system should be

designed to permit the reduction in the amount of lighting used during off-peak times. Lighting

cannot be totally shut down, as minimal lighting levels are required for surveillance cameras and

security personnel manoeuvring around the site. Careful planning of the lighting needs for

particular areas and tasks should be undertaken to avoid cycling the lights on and off, as this can

be more disruptive to the neighbours than leaving the lights on. It should be kept in mind that

high pressure sodium lights need between 5 and 10 minutes to restart and come up to full light

output, while metal halide lights can require up to 15 minutes to produce full output. Where

localized areas of disruptive lighting are encountered the addition of shields to the luminaires

may reduce the interference, but care must be taken not to disrupt the required illuminance

requirements on the work site.

Another potential mitigation option is to paint the cranes and other permanent equipment with

low reflectance paint in order to reduce the reflections and brightness of the lighting system.

Refer to the day-time visual assessment section for additional discussion.

The following summarizes the more important mitigation measures recommended to reduce the

potential lighting impacts during operation of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project; these

would be detailed in the lighting design plan as part of the final Project design:

• the use of downlight style cut-off luminaries for the wharf and container yard areas;

• the exclusive use of metal halide luminaries for wharf and container yard areas;

• the use of lighting control systems to reduce the amount of lighting in selected areas

during periods of low activity;

• incorporate the automatic light shutdown system when the boom is raised and inactive for

longer than 15 minutes for the new ship to shore gantry cranes;

• evaluate the use of innovative mounting systems for the lighting on the ship-to-shore

gantry cranes to minimize light throw during raising and lowering of the equipment. This

would include examining options for mounting luminaries on the arms of the gantry

cranes to prevent them from rotating when the arms are raised and lowered;

• the use of downlighting rather than floodlighting on the gantry crane superstructure; and

• develop a 24 hour environmental helpline for lighting events so that terminal personnel

can identify what operations are causing the most disturbance in the community.

In addition, VPA and TSI have reviewed a number of lighting concerns raised by local residents

with respect to the existing terminal. In response to these concerns, TSI has agreed to implement

the following in 2005:

• a review of the existing lighting equipment and sources (based on reusing the existing

pole locations if viable);

• the feasibility of incorporating shielding, if appropriate;




• the feasibility of adding supplementary localized lighting to enhance areas which may be

adversely affected by changing lighting equipment; and

• review of the existing lighting control system for ship-to shore gantry cranes to ensure

that the automatic shutdown of the gantry arm lighting system is operating, and that the

crane operators are familiar with the system and are aware of the importance of ensuring

the arm lights are off when the arm is up and lights are not required.

If the above review were to recommend replacing the existing lighting system with downlight

style luminaires, the existing luminaires to be replaced could potentially be used on the proposed

Terminal 2 project, which is being considered for the north side of the Roberts Bank port facility.

There is less development (i.e., residential communities) located north of Deltaport Way than on

the south side. With careful design, the existing luminaires could be very effective for lighting

the proposed Terminal 2 area without negatively affecting the environment. This would offer a

cost saving to Terminal 2 construction, as new luminaires would not need to be purchased for

that project.

The VPA should also require the supplier of the ship-to-shore cranes to design their lighting

systems to minimize any wasted light that affects the surrounding environment. The use of

downlighting on the superstructure rather than floodlighting should be considered. As well,

innovative mounting details for luminaires on the arms to prevent them from rotating when the

arms are being raised or lowered would go a long way to mitigating the neighbours’ concerns.

10.0 RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

The residual effects of the lighting system on the local area surrounding the port should be

minimal providing the mitigation measures outlined herein are implemented for the Deltaport

Third Berth Project. Implementation of some or all of the mitigation measures recommended for

the existing lighting at the Roberts Bank port facility should provide an overall reduction of the

residual effect that lighting has on the surrounding communities, and provide some measure of

relief to the outstanding concerns of the neighbours.

The levels of glare would be reduced, except perhaps nuisance glare caused primarily from

reflectance. The lighting as observed from the communities at High English Bluff and Low

English Bluff would be restricted to the Roberts Bank port facility, with little direct light

observed. Although these viewpoints would see an enlarged lighting area, there would not be an

increase in overall lighting levels. The downlight style cutoff luminaires would further reduce the

lighting impact, especially at Low English Bluff.

Given that the TFN Village is closer to the Port than both High English Bluff and Low English

Bluff, viewing angles would be greater and therefore more of the light source may be visible.

With the implementation of downlight style cutoff luminaries for the Deltaport Third Berth

Project and by re-aiming the existing Roberts bank port facility lights, there would, however, be

an improvement over the existing lighting conditions.




11.0 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING LIGHTING IMPACT

The impact of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would be low at all representative

viewpoints, however, the effect on the TFN Village may be slightly higher than for the other

areas given its low elevation and close proximity to the facility. The impact of the lighting on

the surrounding environment would be minimized by the introduction of certain measures.

These include, but are not limited to:

• use of downlight style cutoff luminaires;

• re-aiming of existing luminaries at the Roberts Bank port facility;

• use of light sources which take advantage of the night vision abilities of the eye;

• lighting control systems which permit the reduction of the amount of lighting during

periods of low activity;

• innovative mounting systems for the lighting on the ship-to-shore cranes to minimize the

light throw during raising and lowering of the equipment (keep the lights pointed down,

no matter what the position of the gantry arm); and,

• activation of existing automatic lighting controls on the crane arms to extinguish the arm

lights when the arm has been raised for 15 minutes.

Local plant and animal life will continue to be affected, however as the existing facility has been

in place for a number of years, and the native wildlife has adapted to the situation, the effects of

Deltaport Third Berth Project construction should not adversely affect their present situation.




12.0 REFERENCES

1. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 2000. IESNA Lighting Handbook

Ninth Edition.

2 Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 1999. RP-33-99 Lighting for Exterior

Environments.

3 Dark Sky Society, 2004. http://www.darksky.org/links/enviro.html

4 Dr. Ian Lewin, Lighting Sciences Inc., 1999. Should Vision Influence Roadway Lighting

Design?




Number Name/Location Landform

Slope

Landform

Height

Topographic

Variety

Land Cover Land

Cover

Diversity

Level of

Alteration

Type of

Alteration

Expressed or Potential Concerns Comments

1 Dyke Low Low Low Grassland Low Moderate Service

Road

Accessible for public use, construction noise and visual impact

could be a concern

Use is currently low, trail not publicized or signed for pubic use

2 Outer Dyke Low Low Low Grassland Low Moderate Service

Road

RB terminal has significant impact on this area due to proximity and

combination with BCF terminal, use and concerns unknown

Most of outer dyke is on TFN land, use unknown, appears low,

public use discouraged by signs

3 Upper Tidal Grassland Low Low Low Grassland Low Low Grading Minimal use of this area due to occasional flooding, wet ground Unit combined with outer dyke provides a visual buffer between

TFN village and marine facilities

4 TFN Village Low Low Low Residential Moderate Moderate Residential,

Recreational

Significant concerns expressed by TFN about visual impacts on

their homes and public gathering spaces

View of RB terminal varies within the village

5 North Tidal Flat Low Low Low Mudflat Low None None anticipated - tidal flat users are limited and can go elsewhere

6 Centre Tidal Flat Low Low Low Mudflat Low None None anticipated - tidal flat users are limited and can go elsewhere

7 South Tidal Flat Low Low Low Mudflat Low None None anticipated - significant recreational use of tidal flat, but users

are buffered from RB terminal by the BCF causeway and terminal

8 Roberts Bank Causeway Low Low Low Industrial Low High Road, Rail None anticipated - primarily industrial users

9 Roberts Bank Terminal Low Low Low Industrial Low Very High Industrial None anticipated - limited to industrial users

10 BC Ferries Causeway Low Low Low Industrial Low High Road High traffic by BC Ferries users, RB terminal is an accepted part of

the landscape - of interest to some

11 BC Ferries Terminal Low Low Low Industrial Low High Industrial Views within the ferry terminal are mostly internal, RB terminal not

likely of concern

12 Tsatsu Shores Low Low Low Residential Low High Residential,

Recreational

Focus of view is mostly straight out to ocean or BC Ferries, some

residents could be concerned about the expansion

13 Low English Bluff Moderate Low Moderate Forest,

Residential

Moderate Moderate Residential Focus of view is mostly straight out to ocean or BC Ferries, some

residents could be concerned about the expansion

View of RB terminal varies depending on the residence

14 High English Bluff High Moderate Moderate Forest,

Residential

Moderate Moderate Residential Focus of view is mostly straight out to ocean or BC Ferries, some

residents could be concerned about the expansion, more of RB

terminal is visible from this height on bluff

View of RB terminal varies depending on the residence

15 Agricultural Land Low Low Moderate Agricultural Moderate Moderate Agricultural None anticipated - terminal is visible in background from some

locations, not prominent

APPENDIX A: LANDSCAPE UNIT DATABASE




LANDSCAPE UNIT DATABASE CRITERIA

Landform Slope

Low – under 10%

Moderate – 10 – 30%

High – over 30%

Landform Height

Low – under 10 m

Moderate – 10 – 30 m

High – over 30 m

Topographic Variety

Low – minimal horizontal or vertical variety of landform

Moderate – horizontal or vertical variety of landform

High – high horizontal and vertical variety of landform

Land Cover Diversity

Low – one dominant type of land cover, e.g. tidal flat, agricultural land, industrial plant

Moderate – generally two land cover types, e.g., houses, vegetation

High – diverse land cover types, e.g., forest, meadow, buildings

Level of Alteration

None – no major alteration has ever occurred

Low – alteration may have occurred in the past but is not discernable to the casual visitor

Moderate – obvious alteration with some natural features, e.g., housing subdivision, agricultural

land

High – alteration is dominant, e.g., causeway, high density development

Very High – extreme level of alteration, e.g. heavy industry

Number of Viewers

Low – under 200 people average per day

Moderate – 200 to 1000 people average per day

High – over 1000 people average per day

Typical Duration of View

Low – under 5 minutes

Moderate – 5 minutes to one hour

High – over one hour




Number Location Distance to

Terminal

Number

of

Viewers

Type of

Viewers

Typ

Duration

of View

View

Angle

Terminal

% of

View

Description of Viewing Condition Description of View Existing Visual Conditions

1 North Dyke 3.87 km Low Other Public

Space

Moderate Obtuse 9% Service road along top of dyke,

supports small amount of public use -

walking, cycling; view of terminal

changes gradually as one moves along

the dyke

360˚ panorama; landward view

agricultural - fields, hedgerows,

structures; marine view NW to SE:

dyke road/trees/homes (8%);

mudflat/ocean/Vancouver Island

(39%); mudflat/terminal (9%);

mudflat/RB causeway with rail cars

(24%); mudflat/rail cars/English Bluff

(11%); dyke/bridge to RB terminal

(9%) [Note: %s are of marine

portion.]

RB terminal is large but quite

far away, many other things to

view, low use though this could

increase with promotion of dyke

trail by Delta, cranes are the

most obvious feature

2 TFN

Administration

Building

4.21 km Moderate Institutional

Building

High Focal 10% Offices and boardroom used by staff

and their visitors, similar to views from

some residences (residences are

slightly more distant and lower in

elevation)

180˚ panorama; view NW to SE:

buildings along shore including

longhouse, pumphouse, homes and

trees (16%); grassland/RB causeway

bridge (7%); grassland/RB railcars/

Vancouver Island (23%);

grassland/RB terminal/Vancouver

Island (10%); grassland/Gulf Islands

(11%); grassland/BCF terminal/Gulf

Islands (3%); grassland/BCF

causeway/Gulf Islands (10%);

grassland/English Bluff (13 %); Youth

Centre/shoreline (7%)

Users are senstive to the

intrusion of the Roberts Bank

terminal, focal view, significant

duration of viewing, cranes are

the most obvious feature

3 BC Ferries

Causeway

Pullout

1.99 km High Road Traffic

to BC Ferries

Short Obtuse 14% Vehicular traffic to BCF terminal, fast-

moving, similar to view from BCF

terminal but the focus there is mostly

internal to the terminal, low use of the

pullout

180˚ panorama; view SW to NE:

BCF causeway and terminal (13%);

mudflat/ocean/islands (11%);

mudflat/RB terminal (14%);

mudflat/RB causeway (25%);

mudflat/RB causeway/shoreline

(13%); mudflat/TFN village/shoreline

(16%); BCF causeway (8%)

RB terminal is a very dominant

visual feature from the

causeway, but viewing time is

short, typical focus is on getting

to the ferry terminal and arriving

on time

4 Fred Gingell

Park

4.61 km Low Park Users,

Residential

Moderate Obtuse 21% Small public park with viewing deck,

trees obscure portion of RB terminal

view especially in summer, similar to

view from residences - visibility of RB

terminal varies

120˚ panorama NW to SE: trees/tidal

flats/both causeways/Vancouver

Island (43%); trees/tidal flats/BCF

causeway/ RB terminal (13%);

trees/mudflats/BCF and RB

terminals/Vancouver Island (8%);

mudflats/BCF

terminal/ocean/Vancouver Island

(12%); trees/ocean/Gulf Islands

(24%)

Developed area, park is small,

many other features to view,

outlook mostly to ocean and

Vancouver Island, coal and

ships more obvious compared

to other viewpoints due to the

elevation

APPENDIX B: VIEWPOINT DATABASE

Documents

VISUAL AND LIGHTING IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE … · ROBERTS BANK CONTAINER EXPANSION DELTAPORT THIRD BERTH ... and review of lighting recommendations for ... • activation of existing