appendix 6.4-1 visual quality baseline study

APPENDIX 6.4-1

Visual Quality Baseline Study

REPORT

WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project Visual Quality

Baseline Study WESPAC TILBURY MARINE JETTY PROJECT

Submitted to:

WesPac Midstream-Vancouver LLC

Submitted by:

Golder Associates Ltd.

Suite 200 - 2920 Virtual Way Vancouver, BC, V5M 0C4 Canada

+1 604 296 4200

1314220049-134-R-Rev2

20 March 2019

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

i

Table of Contents

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

1.1 Project Description Overview ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Project Boundary .................................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Local Assessment Area ....................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Regional Assessment Area .................................................................................................................. 2

2.4 Administrative Boundaries ................................................................................................................... 3

2.5 Technical Boundaries ........................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Review of Existing Information ............................................................................................................. 5

3.1.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting ......................................................................................................... 5

3.1.1.1 Input from Consultation ................................................................................................................ 6

3.1.1.2 Existing Studies ........................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.1.3 Base Mapping .............................................................................................................................. 7

3.1.2 Visibility Analysis and Viewpoint Identification ................................................................................ 7

3.1.3 Photographic Field Survey .............................................................................................................. 8

3.1.4 Landscape Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 8

3.1.4.1 Landscape Character ................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.4.2 Scenic Quality .............................................................................................................................. 8

3.1.4.3 Viewer Sensitivity ......................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.4.4 Landscape Rating ...................................................................................................................... 10

3.1.5 Lighting .......................................................................................................................................... 11

4.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Photographic Field Surveys ............................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Landscape Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 13

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

ii

4.2.1 Landscape Character .................................................................................................................... 13

4.2.2 Scenic Quality Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 14

4.2.3 Sensitivity Level Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 18

4.2.4 Landscape Rating ......................................................................................................................... 21

4.2.5 Lighting .......................................................................................................................................... 23

4.2.5.1 Light Levels ................................................................................................................................ 23

4.2.5.1.1 Light Trespass ........................................................................................................................ 23

4.2.5.1.2 Sky Glow ................................................................................................................................. 23

4.2.5.2 Lighting Conditions .................................................................................................................... 24

5.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... 26

6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 28

6.1 Acts and Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 30

7.0 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................................. 31

TABLES

Table 1: Landscape Ratings ................................................................................................................................... 10

Table 2: Environmental Lighting Zone .................................................................................................................... 11

Table 3: Scenic Quality Ratings VP1 - Riverport Flats ........................................................................................... 14

Table 4: Scenic Quality Ratings VP2 - Dyke Road (Tl'uqtinus Village Site) .......................................................... 15

Table 5: Scenic Quality Ratings VP3 - Fraser River (Upstream) ........................................................................... 15

Table 6: Scenic Quality Ratings VP4 - Fraser River (Downstream) ....................................................................... 16

Table 7: Scenic Quality Ratings VP5 – Tilbury Industrial Park ............................................................................... 16

Table 8: Scenic Quality Ratings VP6 – Deas Island Regional Park ....................................................................... 17

Table 9: Scenic Quality Ratings VP7 – Garry Point Park ....................................................................................... 17

Table 10: Sensitivity Ratings VP1 – Riverport Flats ............................................................................................... 18

Table 11: Sensitivity Ratings VP2 – Dyke Road (Tl'uqtinus Village Site)............................................................... 18

Table 12: Sensitivity Ratings VP3 – Fraser River (Upstream) ............................................................................... 19

Table 13: Sensitivity Ratings VP4 – Fraser River (Downstream) ........................................................................... 19

Table 14: Sensitivity Ratings VP5 – Tilbury Industrial Park ................................................................................... 20

Table 15: Sensitivity Ratings VP6 – Deas Island Regional Park ........................................................................... 20

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

iii

Table 17: Landscape Rating for Key Viewpoints .................................................................................................... 21

Table 18: Existing Illuminance Levels .................................................................................................................... 23

Table 19: Existing Sky Glow Levels ....................................................................................................................... 24

Table 20: Environmental Light Levels for Key Nighttime Viewpoints ................................................................. 25

FIGURES

Figure 1: Visual Quality Baseline Study Area Boundaries ...................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Visual Quality Survey and Key Viewpoints ............................................................................................ 12

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Baseline Photographic Inventory

APPENDIX B Baseline Light Survey

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

iv

ACRONYMS

BC British Columbia

CEAA 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DSM Digital Surface Model

EAC Environmental Assessment Certificate

FLNRORD Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development

GIS Geographic Information System

NRCan Natural Resources Canada

RAA regional assessment area

the Project Tilbury Marine Jetty

USDI BLM United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

USFS United States Forest Service

VLI Visual Landscape Inventory

VP viewpoint

UNITS OF MEASURE

% percent

km kilometre

mm millimetre

m metre

° degree

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description Overview

WesPac Midstream-Vancouver LLC (“WesPac”) is proposing to construct the WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project

(the Project) at Tilbury Island on the Fraser River in Delta, BC. The Project comprises the removal of existing

abandoned marine infrastructure and the construction of a new marine jetty, including a vessel loading platform,

four berthing dolphins, four mooring dolphins, and an access trestle to provide berthing and loading facilities to

LNG carriers and barges. The marine jetty will accommodate one vessel at a time, either self-propelled LNG

carriers up to 100,000 m3 of LNG capacity to serve offshore export markets, or individual LNG barges from

7,500 m3 to 12,000 m3 to serve regional markets. The Project will allow WesPac to transfer processed LNG from

the existing adjacent FortisBC Tilbury LNG Plant facility. The Project location and boundary are illustrated in

Figure 1.

The Project is subject to review under the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (2002) and under the

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) (2012), as outlined in the Tilbury Marine Jetty Project

Application Information Requirements (BCEAO 2015).

1.2 Purpose

Visual quality is the aesthetic condition and character of the visual resources (e.g., topography, vegetation, land

use patterns) of a landscape, which are related to its scenic appeal to viewers. The visual quality of the

environment has value to individuals, society, and the economy, and is particularly important to persons involved

in recreational, tourism, and residential land use activities.

Visual quality was selected as an issue of concern following input from the Working Group and from Aboriginal

Groups and because it is related to socio-economic factors identified under subsection 5(1) and 5(2) of CEAA

2012. The construction and operation of a marine jetty and related berthing and departure activities of LNG

vessels has the potential to adversely affect the existing visual quality within the Project boundary and

surrounding landscape setting. Additional safety and security lighting that may alter existing nighttime viewing also

has the potential to increase visible light levels in the vicinity of the Project.

The purpose of this baseline visual quality study is to describe the current visual quality of the Project’s landscape

setting in order to support the assessment of potential visual effects.

1.3 Scope

The scope of this visual quality baseline study involved collecting information during desktop and field survey

investigations and analysing that information to determine the current condition of the visual environment

surrounding the Project. The study consisted of four activities:

Reviewing literature to determine the regulatory context for visual resources and obtrusive light management

Analyzing maps to identify locations for viewing the Project

Conducting photographic field surveys to gather an inventory of the viewing conditions from surveyed

viewpoints

Conducting a visual analysis to determine visual characteristics and rating of scenic value from key viewing

locations

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

2

2.0 STUDY AREA

Spatial boundaries used for the visual quality baseline study were defined based on the influence of viewing

distance from the Project. Viewing distance affects the visible level of detail in the landscape; visual elements are

more discernible and prominent the closer they are to the observer (USDI BLM 1986a). As viewing distance from

the project increases, the detail of and sensitivity to alteration decreases. Viewing distance zones were measured

outward from the Project to determine study area boundaries. These zones were defined as foreground (less than

1 km), middle-ground (1 to 5 km), and background (greater than 5 km) based on distances consistent with

established visibility thresholds and considering the overall scale of Project features and viewer exposure (USDI

BLM 1986a; BC MoF 1997).

2.1 Project Boundary

The Project Boundary is the spatial extent of the area where landscape features would be directly disturbed due

to Project construction and operation. The Project Boundary corresponds to the extent of the Project, including the

Onshore Facilities and Offshore Facilities portions of the Project site and the area required for berthing and

departure. The Onshore Facilities portion of the Project will include all land-based components located on

easements and rights-of-way inside the FortisBC Energy Inc. (FortisBC) property, parts of which are within the

Project site boundary. The Offshore Facilities portion of the Project will include all foreshore and water-based

components located outside the FortisBC property but within the Project site boundary.

2.2 Local Assessment Area

The Local Assessment Area (LAA) for the visual quality baseline study includes all areas within 5 km of the

Project Boundary. This includes the area within foreground (less than 1 km from the Project boundary) and

middle-ground (1 to 5 km from the Project Boundary) viewing distances, at which viewers will generally perceive a

discernible level of visual detail. This is appropriate to assess the potential effects of the Project on receptors

likely to be most sensitive to visual quality effects (USDI BLM 1986a; BC MoF 1997). The LAA includes potential

viewing locations within Richmond and Delta that represent industrial, suburban, rural, and natural land-use

settings as well as locations of interest to Aboriginal groups. The LAA also includes a 1 km buffer along the

shipping route from the Project site to Sand Heads.

2.3 Regional Assessment Area

The Regional Assessment Area (RAA) for the visual quality baseline study includes all areas within 10 km of the

Project Boundary, based on the farthest reasonable distance at which the Project may be visible. The RAA

provides a regional landscape context within Metro Vancouver that includes foreground, middle-ground, and

background viewing distances. From background viewing distances, viewers may have distant views toward the

Project that include little discernable detail. The RAA also includes a 1.5 km buffer along the shipping route from

the Project site to Sand Heads.

The visual quality baseline study area boundaries are shown on Figure 1.

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

3

2.4 Administrative Boundaries There are no defined administrative boundaries that pertain to the assessment of existing visual quality.

2.5 Technical Boundaries

Visual resource management for Crown land in BC is achieved through the application of the Ministry of Forests,

Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Developments (FLNRORD) Visual Resource Management (VRM)

system. The BC VRM system provides a framework for the systematic inventory of visual resources and the

assessment of visual impacts on forested landscapes, primarily to manage visual resources and maintain timber

supply within the provincial land base. However, this system is designed principally to assist in the management

of forestry applications involving the visual impacts of vegetation clearing related to timber harvesting and road

construction, and it is therefore not wholly suitable for assessing the visual effects of projects that consist primarily

of infrastructure development, such as a marine jetty.

To address this limitation, a technical approach for the baseline assessment of visual quality was developed that

adapts elements of the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management's (USDI BLM)

Visual Resource Management (VRM) system and the United States Forest Service (USFS) Scenery Management

System (SMS) inventory rating systems to systematically identify landscape character, scenic quality, and viewer

sensitivity (USDI BLM 1986a; USFS 1995). These systems provide a well-established framework for orderly

inventory and analysis of a range of landscape types and offer a standardized approach to identify qualities of the

landscape that can be consistently described and evaluated.

Photographs taken to represent nighttime viewing conditions were captured from land-based locations only. The

technical challenges associated with long-exposure photography make it impractical to take pictures from a water-

based location, such as a moving boat in the Fraser River, as conditions would not provide the stability required to

obtain clear photographs. As such, the selection of nighttime viewpoints on land took into account their ability to

represent viewing opportunities relative to the Fraser River.

Accuracy of the results from desktop visibility analysis are limited by the availability and resolution of spatial data.

Efforts were made to gather current data sources that represent features and topography at an appropriate extent

and resolution for the purposes of this baseline study.

!o

FRASER RIVER (SOUT H ARM)

MUSQUEAM IR 4

STRAIT OFGEORGIA

SAND HEADSLIGHTHOUSE

DELTA

RICHMOND

VANCOUVER

DEAS ISLANDREGIONAL

PARK

LADNERHARBOUR

PARK

WELLINGTONPOINT PARK

LULUISLAND

TILBURYISLAND

WESTHAMISLAND

SHADYISLAND

KIRKLANDISLAND

BARBERISLAND

GUNNISLAND

DEASISLAND

ANNACISISLAND

TSAWWASSENFIRST NATION

BOUNDARYBAY

MUSQUEAM IR 2

BURNS BOGECOLOGICAL

CONSERVATIONAREA

SURREY

NEWWESTMINSTER

BURNABY

East Broadway

Royal Avenue

Kingsway

Highwa

y 10

East 12th Avenue

Westminster Highway

Gr iffiths Drive

Grant McConachie Way

Granville Avenue

96 Avenue

Willing

don Av

enue

Garde

nCity

Roa d

Canada Way

Tenth Avenue

Alderbridge Way

Southridge D r ive

Lougheed Highway

72 Avenue

Marine Way

No 4 R

oad

Eighth Street

Ke nsin

gt onA

venue

Scott R

oad

Highw

ay 17A

Nordel Way

Steveston Highway

Gagla rd

iWa y

Hi ghway 17

Nanai

mo St

reet

No 1 R

oad

Southwest Mari ne Dri ve

West King Edward Avenue

Bridgeport Road

Trans-Canada HighwayJoyce S

treet

Granvi

lle Str

eet

St ewardsonWay

Imperial Street

Grandview Highway

Ferry Caus

eway

West 41st Avenue

West 10th Avenue

Blundell Road

56 Str

eet

Como Lake Avenue

Highway 91

Austin Avenue

Deltaport Way

Derwent Way

ArthurD rive

Front Street

88 Avenue

Southeast Marine Drive

Highway 99

West 16th Avenue

Kittson Parkway

58 Avenue

River Road

Ladner Trunk Road

East 41st Avenue

No 3 R

oad

120 St

reetGilber

t Road

Shell

Road

North

Road

No 2 R

oad

K nigh t

S tre et Deer La ke Parkw a y

Oak S

treet

Camb

ie Stree

t

No 6 R

oad

Bound

ary Ro

ad

Royal

O akA

venue

East C

olumb

ia Stree

t

Twelfth Street

RussBake

rWay

Railwa

y Aven

ue

52 Str

eet

H ighway

91A

CLIENT

LEGENDPROJECT BOUNDARYVIEWING DISTANCE - FOREGROUND (1km)VIEWING DISTANCE - MIDDLE-GROUND (5km)VISUAL QUALITY LAAVISUAL QUALITY RAAMUNICIPAL BOUNDARYINDIAN RESERVETSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION LANDSRESIDENTIAL/URBAN AREAPARK / FOREST AREABURNS BOG ECOLOGICAL CONSERVATION AREAGEORGE C. REIFEL MIGRATORY BIRD SANCTUARY

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ALAKSEN NATIONAL WILDLIFE AREAÄ Ä Ä

Ä Ä Ä

Ä Ä Ä WETLANDWATERWATERCOURSEHIGHWAYROADRAILWAYFRASER RIVER SHIPPING CHANNEL

REFERENCE

PROJECT

TITLE

13-1422-0049

Path:

Y:\bu

rnaby

\CAD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\W

esPa

c_Mi

dstre

am_L

LC\Ti

lbury\

99_P

ROJE

CTS\

1314

2200

49_M

arine

Jetty

\02_P

RODU

CTIO

N\17

000\M

XD\R

eport

\Visu

al\TIL

BURY

_Figu

re_01

_Visu

al_LA

A_RA

A.mx

d

IF TH

IS M

EASU

REME

NT D

OES

NOT M

ATCH

WHA

T IS

SHOW

N, TH

E SH

EET H

AS B

EEN

MODI

FIED

FROM

: ANS

I B

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. CONTROL Rev. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DDPREPAREDDESIGNREVIEWAPPROVED

25mm

0

METRESSCALE

DHRSDHJP

2018-08-16

1017000

VISUAL QUALITY BASELINE STUDYAREA BOUNDARIES

TILBURY MARINE JETTYDELTA, B.C.

1. INDIAN RESERVES, TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION LANDS AND MUNICIPALBOUNDARIES OBTAINED BY B.C. MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURALRESOURCE OPERATIONS.2. RAILWAY, WATER, FOREST, PARKS, WATERCOURSE, WATERBODY AND RESIDENTIALAREA DATA OBTAINED FROM CANVEC © DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESCANADA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.3. IMAGERY OBTAINED FROM BING MAPS FOR ARCGIS PUBLISHED BY MICROSOFTCORPORATION, REDMOND, WA, MAY 2009. TOPO BASEMAP © ESRI AND ITSLICENSORS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10; DATUM: NAD 83

WESPAC MIDSTREAM - VANCOUVER LLC

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

^ WASHINGTONUSA

ALBERTA

YUKON TERRITORY NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

VICTORIA

VANCOUVER

KAMLOOPS

KELOWNA

PRINCE RUPERT

PORT HARDY

NANAIMO

CAMPBELLRIVER

HOPE TRAIL

CRANBROOK

REVELSTOKE

WILLIAMS LAKE

KITIMAT

BELLA COOLA

QUEENCHARLOTTE

FORT ST JAMES

FORT ST JOHN

FORT NELSONDEASE LAKE

TERRACE

NELSON

1:110,000

3,000 0 3,000

275 0 275

1:19,000,000KILOMETRES

SCALE:

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

5

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Review of Existing Information

3.1.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting

The Project site is located within the Metro Vancouver area of British Columbia (BC) and overlaps a portion of the

Corporation of Delta (Delta) and federal land and water under the jurisdiction of the Vancouver Fraser Port

Authority (VFPA). It is adjacent to the City of Richmond (Richmond). There are no regulations in BC that manage

the effects of LNG facility development on visual quality. However, guidance for management of visual quality

exists in part through a number of policies and regulations within the RAA.

Existing relevant information and planning documents were reviewed to understand the context for visual quality

management and obtrusive lighting within the RAA. This included a review of the BC Visual Landscape Inventory

(VLI) database, the BC Land and Resource Plans listing, municipal planning guidance for Delta and Richmond,

the VFPA land use plan and permitting process, and the Oil and Gas Activities Act (2008). The regulatory and

policy setting for the Project as it relates to the management of visual quality is summarized below.

Land Use and Resource Planning

In BC, visual resource management for Crown land is achieved under the authority of the Forest & Range Practices

Act (FRPA) (2002) and through policies within higher level strategic land and resource plans which draw on the

application of the BC VRM system (MFLNRO 2002). The VRM system includes the development the VLI, which

establishes viewpoints and areas of the provincial landscape identified as visually sensitive (i.e., areas visible from

communities, public use areas, and travel corridors), and the designation of management objectives for the visual

quality of each area.

No provincial VLI data defining existing viewpoints, visually sensitive areas, or management objectives were

identified within the Metro Vancouver area (MFLNRO 2011). Similarly, no SLRPs have been developed for the

Metro Vancouver area (MFLNRO 2018).

Municipal and Regional Planning

Regional, municipal, and public authorities may provide visual design and development guidelines to address

visual appearance, lighting, and related impacts of development projects within their jurisdiction. These guidelines

and policies may be included in Official Community Plans, by-laws, or development permit guidelines.

While Delta and Richmond’s local municipal planning documents acknowledge the value of ‘visual amenities’ and

encourage good building design in established industrial areas and maintenance of views in the site design, there

are no specific guidelines or management direction provided to address visual impacts (City of Richmond 2012;

Corporation of Delta 2013; City of Richmond 2015; Corporation of Delta 2015). General guidance on obtrusive

lighting design criteria exists in Delta and Richmond municipal planning by-laws to minimize disturbances to

receptors (i.e., residents and wildlife) resulting from light pollution and to develop objectives for light pollution

reduction and restrictions relating to light from industrial use. The by-laws do not specify regulatory requirements

or limits for the visual effects of obtrusive lighting.

Visual quality is also acknowledged as a value in the Metro Vancouver Regional Park Plan, which indicates that

natural areas possess scenic importance; however, no specific guidelines or management direction are provided

to address visual impacts (Metro Vancouver 2016).

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

6

VFPA has developed Project and Environmental Review application guidelines to address project development

within the federal port lands of Metro Vancouver. These include View and Shade Impact Guidelines and Lighting

Guidelines to support the review of a project for permitting. View and Shade Impact Guidelines provide basic

information requirements related to view and shade analysis for proposed buildings and structures (VFPA 2015a).

They do not provide a framework to assess the quality of existing visual resources or potential visual effects. The

Lighting Guidelines provide best practices for exterior lighting where developments are proposed in close

proximity to residential or public areas (VFPA 2015b). They do not provide a framework to assess the existing

conditions of the nighttime environment or potential lighting effects of projects.

The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) outlines requirements for fixed lighting aids to navigation to manage marine

traffic. Marine navigational lighting requirements from the CCG Aids to Navigation System call for fixed lighting

aids to indicate the location of hazards, including mooring locations (e.g., docks, piers, or wharves) (CCG 2011;

Government of Canada 2014). They do not provide a framework to assess the existing conditions of the nighttime

environment or potential lighting effects of navigation lighting.

Oils and Gas Commission

The BC Oil and Gas Commission does not identify specific requirements for visual resource management as per

the OGAA; however, it does recommend considering scenic areas and mitigation to address impact to significant

visual values (BC OGC (BC Oil & Gas Commission) 2015).

3.1.1.1 Input from Consultation

Between 2014 and 2018, WesPac has undertaken public stakeholder consultation to share information about the

Project and obtain input about issues and concerns (Section 13). Public stakeholders include regulatory agencies,

elected officials, adjacent land owners, river users, and members of the public. WesPac began Aboriginal

consultation in 2014 and continues to engage with Aboriginal Groups who have Interests that may be affected by

the Project, such as those with Indian Reserves or Treaty Lands in closest proximity to the Project (Section 12).

The results of public and stakeholder engagement and Aboriginal consultation and studies were used to identify

potential viewing locations within the LAA, to inform an understanding of local concerns pertaining to visual

effects, and as a source of Aboriginal perspectives on the cultural value of the visual landscape.

3.1.1.2 Existing Studies

The visual quality in the RAA has recently been studied for a number of industrial and infrastructure development

environmental assessment applications. The following previous studies related to the Fraser River area and Metro

Vancouver were reviewed to provide additional context for the understanding of the existing visual quality:

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project (MOTI 2017)

Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application (Vancouver

Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation 2011)

South Fraser Perimeter Road Project Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate (MOTI 2006)

Westridge Marine Terminal Upgrade and Expansion Project Application to Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

(Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC 2017)

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

7

3.1.1.3 Base Mapping

Spatial data describing the physical characteristics of the landscape and Project Boundary were used to conduct

spatial analysis using a geographic information system (GIS). Base mapping data for the surrounding

physiographic and environmental features, transportation networks, communities, and administrative boundaries

were collected from the following data sources:

The Canadian Digital Elevation Model and Digital Surface Model from Natural Resources Canada (Natural

Resources Canada 2017a; Natural Resources Canada 2017b) to understand the topography of natural

landforms and land cover features

Transportation networks (i.e., road and railways), parks and protected areas, recreation areas and amenities,

residential areas, municipal and First Nations reserve boundaries, and water bodies from CanVec (Natural

Resources Canada 2017c) to determine land use activity patterns and potential viewing opportunities

Archaeological sites from the BC Remote Access to Archaeological Data (BC Archaeology Branch 2016) to

determine cultural heritage sites and potential viewing opportunities

Data from WesPac about the locations and dimensions of the Project proposed marine jetty infrastructure and

vessels

These data were used to conduct an initial visibility analysis to determine potential viewpoint locations.

3.1.2 Visibility Analysis and Viewpoint Identification

Visibility analysis is a form of spatial analysis using GIS software and digital terrain data to delineate the area

across a landscape that can be seen from one or more viewpoints, also known as a viewshed. A line-of-sight

exists between the area within the viewshed and the viewpoint from which the viewshed was generated.

The visibility analysis was conducted on a 20 m resolution terrain model calibrated to a geodetic model1 of the

earth’s surface. The level of detail available in this data for surface features that may result in visual screening in

the terrain model, such as landforms, buildings, and vegetation, provides a coarse estimation of the visible area

from viewpoint locations and represents a conservative assessment of the visibility of the landscape. While the

accuracy of visibility analysis modelling results is restricted, it provides an adequate level of detail for identifying

viewpoints for further analysis.

Initial viewpoints with a line-of-sight to the Project were determined using the following factors consistent with

criteria defined by the (BC MoF 1997):

Accessibility to the public and ease of access

Proximity to transportation routes (e.g., roads, marine routes), recreational or tourism activity areas, residential

areas, and areas of Aboriginal cultural use or value

Level of residential, recreational, or tourism use (e.g., parks, recreation sites, trails, waterbodies, etc.), and

Aboriginal cultural use or value

Potential for least obstructed views of the Project Boundary

1 a mathematically defined reference ellipsoid that approximates the size and shape of the Earth

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

8

3.1.3 Photographic Field Survey

Photographic field surveys were conducted surrounding the Project site and shipping route at land-based

locations on the south and north shores of the Fraser River in Delta and Richmond as well as at marine locations

in the Fraser River. The purpose of the field surveys was to capture a series of landscape photographs to

document current viewing conditions representative of public viewing opportunities of the Project.

Field survey activities included gathering photographs of the Project site and surrounding landscape from

surveyed locations, which were identified during initial visibility analysis. The field surveys provide an opportunity

to gain an on-the-ground familiarity with the visible area of the Project from an observer’s perspective, to confirm

the identified viewpoints from the visibility analysis, and to gather images and related geographic data.

Key viewpoints that demonstrate representative public viewing opportunities from a range of viewing distances

and angles within the LAA were selected from the inventory of surveyed viewpoints. The photographs from these

key viewpoints were used for further evaluation of landscape analysis for the baseline visual quality study. The

survey viewpoints and selected baseline viewpoint are shown on Figure 2. Photographs from key viewpoints are

included in APPENDIX A.

3.1.4 Landscape Analysis

As stated in Section 3.1.1, the review of provincial VLI data did not identify any established viewpoints or visually

sensitive areas within the Metro Vancouver area, which may have provided descriptions of the existing visual

quality of the landscape or sensitivity to visual change. As a result, a technical approach for the characterization of

existing viewing conditions and the assessment of baseline visual quality was developed from elements of the

USDI BLM visual inventory rating system and the USFS SMS to systematically identify dimensions of scenic

quality and viewer sensitivity intrinsic to built landscape settings such as Metro Vancouver (USDI BLM 1986a;

USFS 1995). This inventory assessment approach is easily integrated with the USDI BLM contrast rating system

that will be used to assess the potential visual effect of the Project (USDI BLM 1986b).

3.1.4.1 Landscape Character

The combination of natural and cultural features gives an area character and creates a unique sense of place for

different regions within the landscape setting (Horner et al. 2006). The character of a landscape setting provides a

frame of reference from which to determine potential scenic qualities and social concern for visual quality.

Landscape characterization provides a concise, qualitative description of the major landscape components and

elements in the RAA and LAA. Natural environments include features such as landforms, water features, and

vegetation. Cultural environments include features such as buildings, infrastructure, and human-related land use

patterns (e.g., agricultural, urban, industrial development). This narrative is based on reviewing the results of

baseline photography, observed conditions during field surveys, and available information to identify and inventory

current landscape features and qualities.

3.1.4.2 Scenic Quality

Scenic quality is a measure of the visual appeal of a view determined by the characteristics of its visual resources.

The classification of scenic quality is based on established research in perceptual psychology and the premise

that all landscapes have some scenic value, but those with the visual diversity, harmonious composition, or

containing distinct features have the greatest potential for high scenic quality (USDI BLM 1986a). Scenic quality

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

9

criteria generally assumes that the level of naturalness denotes scenic appeal; however, features of the built

environment (i.e., structural features such as buildings or roads, or modified natural areas such as playfields or

pastures) also contribute to the inherent scenic quality and character of a landscape (USFS 1995). The

determination of scenic quality applied in this study considers landscape qualities related to natural and built

elements and patterns for their combined contribution to scenic quality.

The scenic quality of landscapes visible from key viewpoints were described and rated based on seven key

factors related to physical landscape components: landform/land use pattern, vegetation, water, colour, influence

of adjacent scenery, scarcity, and built elements (i.e., manmade structural or landscape design additions). See

APPENDIX A for details on these factors. Ratings consider the visual characteristics of the individual components

against established criteria to systematically identify scenic qualities. The total of the ratings is used to determine

the overall scenic quality classification for a given viewpoint. The overall scenic quality is characterized using

three descriptive categories:

High Scenic Quality – the landscape exhibits considerable variety of form, line, color, and texture and has

strong visual composition, creating a landscape that is distinctive or unique within the region. Land use

patterns and built features appear integrated and related to natural landscape qualities and may contribute to

a sense of visual harmony and/or uniqueness.

Medium Scenic Quality – the landscape is generally common to the region and displays some variety of

form, line, color, and texture. Land use patterns and built features may be disruptive but remain co-dominant

or subordinate to the natural landscape qualities.

Low Scenic Quality – the landscape appears prominently altered, with visual disharmony introduced by

land use patterns and built features. The form, line, color, and texture of landscape features are generally

uniform and indistinct. Land use patterns and built features are not related to natural landscape qualities and

may promote dissonance.

3.1.4.3 Viewer Sensitivity

Visual resources have a social setting, which includes public expectations, values, goals, awareness, and concern

regarding visual quality. Viewer sensitivity is an evaluation of potential viewers and a ranking of expectations and

concern for visual quality at selected viewpoints. Viewer sensitivity levels are categorized as High, Medium, or

Low based on factors that include the type of users, amount of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, and

special areas. See APPENDIX A for details on these factors. Viewer sensitivities were characterized using three

descriptive categories:

High Viewer Sensitivity – locations where there are a large number of viewers, sustained viewing

opportunities, commercial or cultural use where scenic views are of primary importance, or high public

interest in visual quality. Typical viewers may include nearby residents, recreational users in designated

scenic areas, or members of commercial site-seeing tours.

Medium Viewer Sensitivity – locations where there are an intermediate number of viewers, viewing may be

temporary but regular, commercial or cultural use where scenic views are of secondary importance, or

general public interest in visual quality. Typical viewers may include motorists on main highways or

recreational fishers and hunters.

Low Viewer Sensitivity – locations that are infrequently visited with few public uses, have brief viewing

opportunities, or where most viewers are travelling through or working within commercial or industrial land

uses and have little or no expectations for visual quality. Typical viewers may include workers on resource

development sites.

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

10

Viewer sensitivity ratings for key viewpoints were informed by professional and local knowledge, spatial analysis,

input from stakeholders, and primary research results gathered in relation to interviews for Land and Marine

Resource Use and Current Use (Section 6.3) of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes (Section 6.4) of

the EAC.

3.1.4.4 Landscape Rating

Determination of the scenic value of the landscape viewed from a key viewpoint is based on a combination of the

ranking of scenic quality, viewer sensitivity, and viewing distance. This provides an indication of the value of the

landscape’s existing visual quality. It reflects both the qualities of the viewing condition and the expectations and

concerns inherent in the viewing opportunity. A matrix of how these rankings are combined is presented in Table

1.

Table 1: Landscape Ratings

Viewer Sensitivity

Scenic Quality High Medium Low

High High High High

Medium High Moderate Moderate Low Low

Low Moderate Low Low Low

Distance Zone FG/MG BG FG/MG BG FG/MG/BG

Notes: based on USDI BLM inventory system (USDI BLM 1986a); FG = foreground (less than 1 km); MG = middle-ground (1 to 5 km), BG = background (> 5 km).

Landscape ratings were characterized using three descriptive categories:

High – indicates a viewing opportunity holding notable scenic value or vulnerability to visual alteration. The

views typically have strong visual composition of natural or cultural features, have a high degree of visual

variety, and may contain distinct or unique features. Land use patterns and built elements may be integrated

with natural landscape qualities or are prominent with a high amount of visual unity. The view is important to

viewers, and it is expected that the public would be concerned if the existing conditions were visually altered.

Moderate - indicates a viewing opportunity with some distinct dimension or character or that is moderately

sensitive to visual alteration. The views may have evident visual composition of landscape features but

contain few visually diverse characteristics. Land use patterns and built elements may be co-dominant or

subordinate to natural landscape qualities, but somewhat discordant. The area is moderately important to

viewers, and it is likely the public would be concerned if the area was visually altered.

Low - indicates a viewing opportunity with little scenic value or low vulnerability to visual alteration. The

views may have minimal visual composition and little visual diversity. Built elements are dominant to natural

landscape qualities or have strong visual disharmony. It is expected that the public would be less likely to be

concerned if the area was visually altered.

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

11

3.1.5 Lighting

While proper lighting of the Project is necessary to ensure a safe and secure facility during evening and nighttime

periods, the visual effects of obtrusive artificial lighting are increasingly recognized as a social concern. Obtrusive

visual lighting has the potential to adversely impact viewers’ ability to observe the night sky and may cause

annoyance or discomfort for nighttime viewers (CIE 1997). Currently, there are no specific provincial regulations

or guidelines to address obtrusive artificial light from facilities. However, guidance is available from the

Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE), also known as the International Commission on Illumination, and

from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), for evaluating existing lighting conditions and

developing best practices for effective lighting that minimizes light pollution (CIE 1997; IESNA 2000; CIE 2003a).

A technical approach for the baseline assessment of lighting conditions was developed using CIE and IESNA

guidance to characterize the existing nighttime viewing conditions, including the identification of light sources and

related level of brightness perceived by observers. Indicators of the existing level of lighting include

measurements of two key dimensions: light trespass and sky glow. Light trespass is the unintended direct

illumination of nearby off-site locations by light sources from the Project. This is typically related to the direct

emission of obtrusive light from fixtures within a facility to the environment and receptors outside the facility. Sky

glow is the illumination of the night sky due to the scattering and reflection of light radiated upward or reflected

from the ground. This is typically related to the cumulative effect of the lights within a region.

To establish a baseline of the pre-Project lighting conditions, a quantitative baseline light survey (i.e.,

measurements of light trespass and sky glow levels) was conducted as part of the photographic field survey.

Results supported the further qualitative classification of environmental lighting conditions and analysis of the

nighttime photographs at selected key viewpoint locations that have the potential to be affected by the presence

of obtrusive artificial lighting. The baseline light survey report forms APPENDIX B of this baseline study and

provides further technical detail and definition of key concepts and quantitative assessment of light within the LAA.

Lighting conditions were classified based on definitions and descriptions from CIE and IESNA guidelines, which

consist of a set of established environmental lighting zones for classifying light levels (CIE 1997; CIE 2003a).

These zones range from environments that are intrinsically dark to areas of high ambient brightness. Table 2

presents the environmental lighting zone and descriptions used for this assessment and related light trespass and

sky glow limits.

Table 2: Environmental Lighting Zone

Environmental Light Zone

Surrounding Environmental Light Level

Examples (a) Recommended Light Trespass Limit (lux)

Sky Glow (% Brightness above Natural Dark Sky)

E1 Natural Intrinsically dark National parks or protected sites, roads usually unlit

0 0 % < x ≤ 20 %

E2 Rural Low district brightness

Agricultural, industrial, or outer urban / rural residential areas

1 20 % < x ≤ 100 %

E3 Suburban Medium district brightness

Industrial or small town centres / residential suburbs

2 100 % < x ≤ 200 %

E4 Urban High district brightness

Town / city centres and commercial areas urban areas, residential and commercial with high levels of night time activity

5 x > 200 %

Source: based on CIE guidelines (CIE 1997; CIE 2003b) Notes: (a) examples of environmental zones based on those provided by the CIE and consider further descriptions of each zone from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) and the Light Pollution Handbook (IESNA 1999; Narisada and Schreuder 2004); x = Sky Glow (% Brightness above Natural Dark Sky)

!o

FRASER RIVER (SOUT H ARM)

MUSQUEAM IR 4

STRAIT OFGEORGIA

SAND HEADSLIGHTHOUSE

DELTA

RICHMOND

VANCOUVER

DEAS ISLANDREGIONAL

PARK

LADNERHARBOUR

PARK

WELLINGTONPOINT PARK

LULUISLAND

TILBURYISLAND

WESTHAMISLAND

SHADYISLAND

KIRKLANDISLAND

BARBERISLAND

GUNNISLAND

DEASISLAND

ANNACISISLAND

TSAWWASSENFIRST NATION

BOUNDARYBAY

MUSQUEAM IR 2

BURNS BOGECOLOGICAL

CONSERVATIONAREA

SURREY

NEWWESTMINSTER

BURNABY

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0#0

#0

#0#0#0

#0#0

#0#0#0#0

,,"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

9

E

9

E

PID16

PID15

VP-7PID14

NicomeklRiver

Burnaby Lake

GundersenSlough

Deer Lake

TroutLake

FraserRiver

CLIENT

LEGENDPROJECT BOUNDARYVISUAL QUALITY LAAVISUAL QUALITY RAAMUNICIPAL BOUNDARYINDIAN RESERVETSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION LANDSRESIDENTIAL AREAPARK / FOREST AREABURNS BOG ECOLOGICAL CONSERVATION AREAWETLANDWATERWATERCOURSEROADRAILWAYCENTER LINE OF SHIPPING CHANNELINNER/OUTER LIMIT OF SHIPPING CHANNEL

"/ KEY VIEWPOINT#0 SURVEYED VIEWPOINT

E VIEWING DIRECTION

REFERENCE

PROJECT

TITLE

13-1422-0049

Path:

Y:\bu

rnaby

\CAD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\W

esPa

c_Mi

dstre

am_L

LC\Ti

lbury\

99_P

ROJE

CTS\

1314

2200

49_M

arine

Jetty

\02_P

RODU

CTIO

N\17

000\M

XD\R

eport

\Visu

al\TIL

BURY

_Figu

re_02

_Visu

al_Su

rvey_

Key_

Viewp

oints.

mxd

IF TH

IS M

EASU

REME

NT D

OES

NOT M

ATCH

WHA

T IS

SHOW

N, TH

E SH

EET H

AS B

EEN

MODI

FIED

FROM

: ANS

I B

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. CONTROL Rev. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DDPREPAREDDESIGNREVIEWAPPROVED

25mm

0

2,500 0 2,500

1:110,000 METRESSCALE

DHRSDHJP

2018-08-22

2017000

VISUAL QUALITY SURVEY AND KEY VIEWPOINTS

TILBURY MARINE JETTYDELTA, B.C.

1. INDIAN RESERVES, TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION LANDS AND MUNICIPALBOUNDARIES OBTAINED BY B.C. MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURALRESOURCE OPERATIONS.2. RAILWAY, WATER, FOREST, PARKS, WATERCOURSE, WATERBODY AND RESIDENTIALAREA DATA OBTAINED FROM CANVEC © DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESCANADA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.3. IMAGERY OBTAINED FROM BING MAPS FOR ARCGIS PUBLISHED BY MICROSOFTCORPORATION, REDMOND, WA, MAY 2009. TOPO BASEMAP © ESRI AND ITSLICENSORS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10; DATUM: NAD 83

WESPAC MIDSTREAM - VANCOUVER LLC

#0

#0#0

#0

#0

#0#0

#0

#0#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0 ,

,,

,

,

,

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

9E

9

E

9

E

9

E

9

E

9

E

PID12b

VP-6PID13

PID10PID11a

PID12aPID1b

PID2

PID3bPID4

PID5

PID7

PID9

VP-5PID11b

VP-1PID1a

VP-2

VP-4PID6

VP-3PID8

400 0 400

1:50,000METRES

SCALE:

,

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

13

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Photographic Field Surveys

Four (4) field surveys were undertaken by Golder field staff to visit viewpoints and gather information about

existing viewing conditions. Surveys were conducted in September 2015 to capture daytime viewing conditions,

December 2015 to capture nighttime viewing conditions, and in May and June of 2018 to update photographs

from the previous surveys. Survey locations were adjusted or added during the field surveys to capture

unobstructed sightlines to the Project where possible. Photographs were taken using a Nikon D3200 digital

camera with a focal length of approximately 50 mm (35 mm equivalent 2), which is consistent with the view

perceived by the human eye (BC MoF 2001). Where views of the Project Boundary and adjacent landscape

features were not able to fit into a single frame, multiple overlapping photographs were taken and assembled into

panoramic images.

The locations of the viewpoints were recorded in the field with a handheld global positioning system (GPS) and

integrated into a GIS database. The field staff also completed an observation log that describes geographic

information, camera settings, and observational information for each surveyed viewpoint. The conditions

referenced in the photographs do not account for varying weather or atmospheric environments that may

potentially decrease visibility (i.e., haze or fog) and, as a result, conservatively represent clear and unobstructed

viewing conditions.

Results of the photographic survey from selected key viewpoints which represent a range of viewing opportunities

during daytime and nighttime are presented in Figure 1 to Figure 7 of APPENDIX A. These photographs and

related information were used for further analysis of scenic quality and lighting conditions. Surveyed and key

viewpoint locations are presented in Figure 2.

4.2 Landscape Analysis

4.2.1 Landscape Character

The Project is located along the south bank of the Fraser River in Metro Vancouver, a major urban centre located

in southwest BC. The RAA is characterized by the physiography of the Fraser River Delta, which includes

estuarine marshes, peat bogs, tidal flats, sloughs, and numerous meandering river channels such as the North

Arm, Middle Arm and South Arm. Sediments deposited by the Fraser River over time have resulted in variations in

topography and have established a number of islands of various sizes within the delta. These include Lulu Island,

which contains the City of Richmond; Sea Island, which contains the Vancouver International Airport; Westham

Island; Deas Island; Tilbury Island; Annacis Island; and the grouping of Kirkland Island, Gunn Island, and Barber

Island that make up the South Arm Marshes (Schaefer 2004). Terrestrial ecosystems consist of riparian habitat

along the shorelines, farmland and old field grasslands, and remnant floodplain and upland forests (Schaefer

2004).

Upland areas of the RAA have been heavily modified for rural, urban, and industrial activities within Richmond,

Delta, the City of Vancouver, and the City of Burnaby. Urban and suburban land uses are focused near the

downtown cores and waterfront areas (e.g., Richmond City Centre, Ladner Village). Rural areas extend across

the eastern and southern portions of Lulu Island and cover most of Westham Island and the Corporation of Delta.

2 35 mm equivalent is a comparison between the field of view seen through a digital camera lens, which use various sized image sensors, and the field of view seen through a 35mm film camera, which uses a standard size film (35 mm). The use of the appropriate 35mm equivalent focal length produces a fields of view that is similar to the 35mm film camera field of view.

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

14

Relatively large natural areas also remain in the form of parks and conservation areas (e.g., South Arm Marshes,

Burns Bog, Deas Island Regional Park).

The Fraser River is an important marine transportation route; barges, container ships, and bulk carriers regularly

access the South Arm for commercial purposes. The Project is located within a large developed corridor of the

South Arm of the Fraser River that extends between Deas Island and the Port Mann Bridge and is predominately

designated for industrial and commercial marine uses. Marine terminals situated in the area include Seaspan

Ferries, Lehigh Hanson Cement, Deltaport Container Terminals, Annacis Auto Terminals, and Fraser Surrey

Docks. Other foreshore industrial marine uses include tug mooring, barges, and some log storing and handling

facilities. In addition to its commercial and industrial uses, the South Arm of the Fraser River is used for

recreational purposes like fishing and boating. There are a number

The Project site is located at the southwestern end of Tilbury Island in the South Arm of the Fraser River, where

the local topography is relatively flat. This area is characterized by foreshore ecosystems of tidal marsh and

mudflats. Although the Project area has historically been subject to extensive disturbance, some consolidated

patches of riparian and upland vegetation cover remain with few mature trees. The Project site is located next to

the Tilbury Industrial Area, an industrial business park that contains industrial product, service, and warehouse

facilities. The Project site was historically used for the operation of Weyerhaeuser Company Limited’s Northwest

Hardwood Mill. There is existing abandoned marine infrastructure present along the foreshore, including timber

piles, mooring dolphins, steel piles, and concrete deck.

4.2.2 Scenic Quality Evaluation

Photos for each key viewpoint were evaluated to determine a classification for the level of existing scenic quality.

The landscape component ratings and overall scenic quality classifications determined for each key viewpoint are

summarized in Table 3 to Table 9.

Table 3: Scenic Quality Ratings VP1 - Riverport Flats

Scenic Element Rationale

Landform / Land Use Flat terrain with mass of Coast mountains in background; natural and built elements

blend together but visual order is partially disrupted (industrial land use mixed with

intermittent natural vegetation).

Vegetation Some variety of vegetation with moderately distinct forms, textures and patterns

(irregular, rounded forms of riparian areas creates complex and jagged horizon).

Water Slow flowing water of the Fraser River is a dominant scenic element.

Colour Mostly subtle colour variations from relatively uniform vegetation colour with some

with localized intensity of colour from buildings and barges, and exposed rock of

shoreline protection. Not a dominant scenic element.

Adjacent scenery Views of adjacent land uses (industrial and urban areas) and landscape features /

design (features surrounding the walkway are designed for aesthetic appeal)

moderately enhances overall visual quality.

Scarcity Common in this region of the Fraser River (South Arm of the Fraser River).

Built Elements Geometric and linear forms of buildings provide some visual variety to the area but

introduces elements that are discordant with natural features. Temporary vessel

traffic expected.

Scenic Quality Rating Medium

Source: based on USDI BLM inventory system and USFS SMS (USDI BLM 1986a; USFS 1995).

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

15

Table 4: Scenic Quality Ratings VP2 - Dyke Road (Tl'uqtinus Village Site)


Landform / Land Use Flat terrain with few or no distinct landscape features; natural and built elements blend

together but visual order is partially disrupted (industrial land use mixed with






with localized intensity of colour from buildings and barges, and exposed soil of

shoreline. Not a dominant scenic element.

Adjacent scenery Views of adjacent land uses (industrial areas) and landscape features have little

influence on overall visual quality.

Scarcity A landscape that includes natural foreshore and industrial use is fairly common within

the region (South Arm of the Fraser River).

Built Elements Prominent geometric and linear forms of buildings and barges provide some visual

variety to the area but introduce elements that are discordant with natural features.

Temporary vessel traffic expected.



Table 5: Scenic Quality Ratings VP3 - Fraser River (Upstream)


Landform / Land Use Flat terrain with few or no distinct landscape features; natural and built elements blend




(irregular, rounded forms of riparian and woodland areas creates complex and jagged

horizon).



with localized intensity of colour from buildings and barges. Not a dominant scenic

element.

Adjacent scenery Views of adjacent land uses (industrial areas) and landscape features have little

influence on overall visual quality.



Built Elements Prominent geometric and linear forms of buildings, barges and piles provide some

visual variety to the area but introduce elements that are discordant with natural

features. Temporary vessel traffic expected.


Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system and USFS SMS (USDI BLM 1986a; USFS 1995).

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

16

Table 6: Scenic Quality Ratings VP4 - Fraser River (Downstream)









with localized intensity of colour from buildings and barges. Not a dominant scenic

element.

Adjacent scenery Views of adjacent land uses (industrial and urban areas) and landscape features

(distant view of mountains and foreground woodlands) moderately enhances overall

visual quality.

Scarcity Common in this region of the Fraser River (industrial area between Deas Island Park

and the Port Mann bridge).

Built Elements Geometric and linear forms of buildings and barges; some visual variety added but

somewhat discordant with natural foreshore environment. Temporary vessel traffic

expected.



Table 7: Scenic Quality Ratings VP5 – Tilbury Industrial Park


Landform / Land Use Flat terrain with moderately defined arrangement of built structures that are dominant

but coherent (i.e., consistent with industrial park setting).

Vegetation Little variety of vegetation (i.e., mostly grass) with indistinct textures and patterns.

Water No water visible.

Colour Mostly subtle colour variations with localized intensity of colour (tank, buildings); not a

dominant scenic element.

Adjacent scenery Adjacent scenery has little or no influence on overall visual quality.



Built Elements Industrial structures (e.g., LNG storage tanks, warehouse buildings transmission

infrastructure) and landscape design appear dominant and discordant with natural

features.

Scenic Quality Rating Low


20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

17

Table 8: Scenic Quality Ratings VP6 – Deas Island Regional Park




intermittent natural vegetation); dense urban land use visible in background.





with localized intensity of colour from buildings, barges, and containers. Not a

dominant scenic element.

Adjacent scenery Views of adjacent land uses (industrial and urban areas) and landscape features

(distant view of mountains and foreground woodlands) moderately enhances overall

visual quality.



Built Elements Geometric and linear forms of buildings, barges, and containers provide some visual

variety to the area but introduce elements that are discordant with natural features.

Temporary vessel traffic expected. Vertical forms of urban centre residential towers

(Burnaby).



Table 9: Scenic Quality Ratings VP7 – Garry Point Park


Landform / Land Use Flat terrain with irregular shoreline, form of Coast mountains or Vancouver Island in

background (depending on viewing direction); natural and built elements blend



Vegetation Some variety of vegetation (grass and woodlands) with moderately distinct forms,

textures and patterns.



with localized intensity of colour from buildings, boats, and marine-infrastructure. Not

a dominant scenic element.

Adjacent scenery Views of adjacent land uses and landscape features moderately enhances overall

visual quality.



Built Elements Geometric forms and composition of buildings, marine infrastructure (i.e. piles, jetty,

signal), and boats (Steveston Harbour) provide some visual variety to the area and

promotes some visual harmony with natural features.



20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

18

4.2.3 Sensitivity Level Evaluation

Public concerns about visual alterations are considered in this analysis based upon the type of land use activities

affected, characteristics of anticipated viewers along with their anticipated expectations and concerns for visual

quality3, and public comments received during consultation. Visual issues were identified as concerns by the

Working Group of stakeholders, regulators, and Aboriginal Groups during the draft Valued Component Selection

process. A summary of the issues raised by Aboriginal groups related to Visual Quality during scoping

consultations are contained in Section 12 Aboriginal Consultation.

The viewer sensitivity level ratings that were determined for each key viewpoint are summarized in Table 10 to

Table 16.

Table 10: Sensitivity Ratings VP1 – Riverport Flats

Sensitivity Element Rationale

Type of user Typical viewers are residents and recreational users (waterfront walkway); visual

quality is typically a major expectation/concern for residents and recreational users.

Amount of use Brief to permanent duration of views with moderate number of viewers and/or regular

frequency of use.

Public interest Visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.

Adjacent land uses Views of landscape with evident commercial and industrial land and marine use areas.

Special areas No visual management objectives exist.

Other factors N/A

Overall viewer

sensitivity rating

High Residential area with regular and moderate level of use in context that

includes evident commercial and industrial land and marine use.

Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system (USDI BLM 1986a). Notes: N/A = not applicable.

Table 11: Sensitivity Ratings VP2 – Dyke Road (Tl'uqtinus Village Site)


Type of user Informal recreational use; Aboriginal cultural use/value related to location.

Amount of use Brief to sustained duration of views with a low number of viewers and/or irregular

frequency of use.


Adjacent land uses Views of landscape with prominent commercial and industrial land and marine use

areas.


Other factors N/A

Overall viewer

sensitivity rating

Low Informal recreation area with irregular and low level of use in context that

includes evident industrial land and marine use.

Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system (USDI BLM 1986a).

3 A key assumption of this technical approach to determining viewer expectations is that it relates to typical or known values that viewers place on the existing visual quality and is not related to aesthetic appeal, viewer preference, or concepts of beauty.

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

19

Notes: N/A = not applicable.

Table 12: Sensitivity Ratings VP3 – Fraser River (Upstream)


Type of user Marine-based commercial / industrial use (e.g., shipping, commercial fishing) with

limited marine recreation use; Aboriginal cultural use/value related to use of the Fraser

River. Visual quality is typically of a minor expectation/concern for commercial /

industrial uses.

Amount of use Brief duration of views with a low number of viewers and/or intermittent frequency of

use.


Adjacent land uses Views of landscape with prominent industrial land and marine use areas.


Other factors N/A

Overall viewer

sensitivity rating

Low Mostly marine-based commercial / industrial use with intermittent and low

level of use in context that includes prominent industrial land and marine use.


Table 13: Sensitivity Ratings VP4 – Fraser River (Downstream)


Type of user Marine-based commercial / industrial use (e.g., shipping, commercial fishing) and

marine recreation users (e.g., boating); Aboriginal cultural use/value related to use of

the Fraser River. Visual quality is typically of a minor expectation/concern for

commercial / industrial uses and a major expectation/concern for recreational users.

Amount of use Brief duration of views with a low to moderate number of viewers and/or intermittent

frequency of use.


Adjacent land uses Views of landscape with evident residential and industrial land and marine use areas.


Other factors N/A

Overall viewer

sensitivity rating

Medium Marine-based commercial / industrial and recreation area with intermittent

and low to moderate level of use in context that includes evident residential

and industrial land and marine use.

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

20


Table 14: Sensitivity Ratings VP5 – Tilbury Industrial Park


Type of user Local employees and commercial traffic. Visual quality is typically of a minor

expectation/concern for commercial / industrial uses.

Amount of use Brief duration of views with a low to moderate number of viewers and/or regular

frequency of use.


Adjacent land uses Views of landscape with prominent industrial land use areas.


Other factors N/A

Overall viewer

sensitivity rating

Low Commercial / industrial use with regular and low to moderate level of use in

context that includes prominent industrial land use.


Table 15: Sensitivity Ratings VP6 – Deas Island Regional Park


Type of user Typical viewers are recreational users. Visual quality is typically a major

expectations/concern for recreational users.

Amount of use Brief to sustained duration of views with moderate number of viewers and/or regular

frequency of use; seasonal peak in summer.


Adjacent land uses Within natural parkland setting; views of landscape with evident industrial,

commercial, recreational, and residential land and marine use areas.


Other factors N/A

Overall viewer

sensitivity rating

Medium Recreational use in regional park in context that includes evident industrial

land and marine use.


20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

21

Table 16: Sensitivity Ratings VP7 – Garry Point Park


Type of user Typical viewers are recreational users and tourists.

Amount of use Visitors with brief to sustained duration of views with moderate to high number of

viewers and/or high frequency of use; seasonal peak in summer.

Public interest Visual quality is typically a major expectations/concern for recreational users and

tourists; visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.

Adjacent land uses Within waterfront parkland setting; views of landscape with evident industrial,

commercial, recreational, and residential land and marine use areas.


Other factors Variation in viewing opportunities and distinct character between views upstream of the Fraser River to the east and downstream of the Fraser River to the west.

Overall viewer

sensitivity rating

High Recreational use in park in context that includes evident industrial land and

marine use.


4.2.4 Landscape Rating

Following procedures described in Section 3.1.4.4, the scenic quality and viewer sensitivity classification for each

of the key viewpoints were combined with classification of viewing distance zones to develop a landscape rating

that ranks the relative value of the existing visual quality for each key viewpoint. The ratings for all key viewpoints

(VP1 to VP7) are summarized in Table 17.

Table 17: Landscape Rating for Key Viewpoints

Viewpoint Description Scenic Quality Viewer

Sensitivity

Distance

Zone

Landscape

Rating

VP1 – Riverport

Flats

View northeast from

entrance to waterfront

walkway near Riverport Flats

apartment in Richmond.

Medium High MG High

VP2 – Dyke

Road (Tl'uqtinus

Village Site) (a)

View southeast along Dyke

Rd at pullout. Identified as

historic location of Tl'uqtinus

village site.

Medium Low FG Low

VP3 – Fraser

River

(Upstream)

Marine-based view

southwest from upstream of

Project.

Medium Low FG Low

VP4 – Fraser

River

(Downstream)

Marine-based view northeast

from downstream of Project

site.

Medium Medium MG Moderate

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

22

Viewpoint Description Scenic Quality Viewer

Sensitivity

Distance

Zone

Landscape

Rating

VP5 – Tilbury

Industrial Park

View northwest from junction

of Tilbury Rd and Hopcott

Rd.

Low Low FG Low

VP6 – Deas

Island Regional

Park

View northeast from trail at

entrance/exit of Deas Island

Regional Park.

Medium Medium MG Moderate

VP7 – Garry

Point Park

View west and southeast

from trail in Garry Point Park

Medium High FG High

Notes: km = kilometre; BG = background; FG = foreground (less than 1 km); MG = middle-ground (1 to 5 km); see Section 3.1.4.2, Section 3.1.4.3, and Section 3.1.4.4 for definitions of Scenic Quality, Viewer Sensitivity, and Landscape Rating classes respectively. (a) Tl'uqtinus, also known as ƛ̓əqtinəs, ƛ’eqtines or tl’ektines, is an Aboriginal village and registered archaeological site (DgRs-017) located

across the Fraser River from the Project. The historical use of this location is claimed by the descendant communities of the Cowichan Nation (Cowichan Tribes, Stz'uminus First Nation, Halalt First Nation, Penelakut Tribe, and Lyackson First Nation), Musqueam Indian Band and Tsawwassen First Nation (Jones and McLaren 2016; Marshall 2017; Tam, J. et al. 2018);

Most of the seven viewpoints were rated as offering a Medium level of scenic quality, indicating the presence of

some distinct landform or water features (i.e., Fraser River), some variety of vegetation pattern, and adjacent land

uses or built elements that may provide visual variety while introducing some discordant elements to the scenic

quality (i.e., geometric forms of structures).

The developed corridor that extends along the South Arm of the Fraser River, particularly between Deas Island

Park and the Port Mann Bridge, is predominately designated for industrial and commercial marine uses. Typical

viewers in this area would be involved in commercial or industrial related land use activities and would be

considered to have low expectations and concerns for visual quality as it is typically of little interest or importance

to these activities. Viewpoints related to current residential viewing opportunities (VP1), Aboriginal cultural use

and value (VP2, VP4), and recreational use (VP6, VP7) were rated as having viewer sensitivityrelative to an

anticipated level of expectation and concern about visual change to the landscape.

All viewpoints located in a middle-ground (VP1, VP4, VP6) or foreground (VP2,VP3, VP5, VP7) viewing distance

are within 0-5 km of the Project site or shipping route, which will allow for a discernable level of detail, texture, and

contrast to be observed in the landscape.

In consideration of the assessed level of scenic quality, viewer sensitivity, and viewing distance from

representative key viewpoints, as well as an understanding of the existing landscape character, a landscape

rating of High was determined for two viewpoints (VP1 and VP7), indicating these locations are related to viewing

opportunities holding notable scenic value or vulnerability to visual alteration. Two viewpoints (VP4 and VP6) were

determined to have a Moderate rating, indicating viewing opportunities with some distinct dimension or character

or that are moderately sensitive to visual alteration. The remaining three viewpoints (VP2, VP3, and VP5) were

determined to have a Low rating, indicating viewing opportunities with little scenic value or low vulnerability to

visual alteration. These representative key viewpoints will be used to support assessment of potential visual

effects of the Project, and the landscape ratings associated with each viewpoint will be the reference point for

comparing the level of contrast and visual dominance of Project features.

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

23

4.2.5 Lighting

The characteristics of existing lighting conditions were determined from the results of baseline light surveys,

analysis of existing light trespass and sky quality levels, analysis of baseline photographs, and field observations

at selected nighttime viewpoint locations in the LAA.

As described in Section 4.1, Golder field staff undertook photographic field surveys to visit viewpoints during

nighttime viewing conditions. Surveys were conducted in December 2015 and May 2018. Light measurements

from each surveyed viewpoint were taken after astronomical twilight to allow for appropriately dark conditions for

astronomical observation. Quantitative measurements of light levels were carried out at each identified survey

location using photometric detectors for light trespass and sky glow and following best practices as per CIE and

IESNA guidelines (IESNA 2000; CIE 2003a). Locations where light levels are assessed are referred to as points

of reception (PORs), which are related to surveyed viewpoints for the visual quality baseline assessment.

Photographs were taken to illustrate nighttime viewing conditions. Nighttime exposures were adjusted to

represent viewing conditions similar to those perceived by the human eye during nighttime observation. Four key

nighttime viewpoint locations were identified to demonstrate representative public viewing opportunities related to

nighttime uses within the LAA and to support further analysis of lighting conditions. The location of key nighttime

viewpoints are shown Figure 2.

4.2.5.1 Light Levels

The quantitative baseline light survey and assessment (APPENDIX B) and provides further technical detail and

definition of key concepts and quantitative assessment of light levels. Results from the baseline light survey are

summarized below.

4.2.5.1.1 Light Trespass

Table 18 summarizes the measured average illuminance levels and their related environmental lighting zone CIE

classifications for light trespass at key nighttime viewpoints.

Table 18: Existing Illuminance Levels

Viewpoint (VP) Point of Reception

Identification (POR)

Illuminance (lux) Environmental Light

Zone Classification

VP1 POR4 0.846 E2

VP2 POR3 0.419 E2

VP5 POR2 2.935 E4

VP6 POR5 0.204 E2

Illuminance levels were less than 1 lux at three viewpoint locations (VP1, VP2, VP6), which were classified as

Environmental Light Zone E2, and just below 3 lux at one location (VP5), which was classified as Environmental

Light Zone E3.

4.2.5.1.2 Sky Glow

Table 19 summarizes the measured average sky quality levels, equivalent sky glow levels, and their related

environmental lighting zone classifications for sky glow at key nighttime viewpoints.

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

24

Table 19: Existing Sky Glow Levels

Viewpoint (VP) Point of Reception

Identification (POR ID)

Sky Glow (% above

Natural Background)

Environmental Light

Zone Classification

VP1 POR4 5,148 E4

VP2 POR3 5,871 E4

VP5 POR2 70,372 E4

VP6 POR5 9,020 E4 Notes: Sky quality measurements were influenced by partly cloudy skies during the measurement period and have been corrected using amplification factors (Kyba et al. 2011).

Illuminance levels at all viewpoint locations were measured at > 200% above natural background, which were

classified as Environmental Light Zone E4.

4.2.5.2 Lighting Conditions

While existing exterior light levels were assessed qualitatively and classified by environmental lighting zones at

selected key viewpoints, the perceived lighting conditions experienced by viewers during the nighttime was further

assessed qualitatively based on observations during field surveys and analysis of nighttime photographs. Figures

Figure 8 to Figure 11 in APPENDIX A illustrate the existing lighting conditions and visible light sources at each

location.

The Project boundary is located within a predominantly built environment that includes a mix of rural, suburban,

urban and industrial land uses. This setting currently contains a large amount of visible exterior lighting, most of

which is related to industrial developments to provide safe work conditions during nighttime hours and to provide

security for the workers and the facility. The closest discernable light sources to the Project Boundary are:

Operations in the Tilbury Island Industrial Park including the FortisBC Tilbury LNG facility, Lehigh Hanson

Cement Plant, Seaspan Ferries Tilbury Terminal, the Varsteel/Dominion Pipe as well as local roadway

lighting

Urban residential and commercial land uses near Riverport area (e.g., Riverport Sports and Entertainment

Complex)

Navigational lighting on vessels transiting within the Fraser River that provide additional temporary lighting

along the Fraser River

Additional discernable lighting present within the LAA, and regionally, is direct and ambient light related to:

Urban residential and commercial land uses within the City of Vancouver, the City of Burnaby and the City of

Surrey

Aviation lighting of aircraft arriving and departing from the Vancouver International Airport that provides

additional temporary lighting in the sky

Ambient light from the regional urban context of Metro Vancouver

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

25

Table 20 summarizes the environmental light zone classification for each key nighttime viewpoint, along with

descriptions of the perceived lighting conditions experienced by viewers at these locations.

Table 20: Environmental Light Levels for Key Nighttime Viewpoints

Viewpoint Environmental

Light Level

Description

VP1 Low district

brightness

Lighting levels are indicative of a low brightness setting with existing

lighting visible from residential areas (i.e., Riverport Flats,

Queensborough), industrial facilities (i.e., FortisBC Tilbury LNG facility,

Seaspan Ferries, Lehigh Hanson Cement) and transportation

infrastructure (i.e., street lights) in Richmond, Delta, and New

Westminster.

Ambient light is evident from the regional urban context of Metro

Vancouver.

High district

brightness

VP2 Low district

brightness


lighting visible from industrial facilities (i.e., FortisBC Tilbury LNG facility,

Seaspan Ferries, Lehigh Hanson Cement) and transportation

infrastructure (i.e., street lights) in Delta.


Vancouver.

High district

brightness

VP5 High district

brightness

Lighting levels are indicative of a high brightness setting with numerous

existing lighting visible from industrial facilities (FortisBC Tilbury LNG

facility, Varsteel/Dominion Pipe) and overhead street lighting.

Ambient light is evident from regional urban context of Metro Vancouver.

High district

brightness

VP6 Low district

brightness


lighting visible from industrial facilities (i.e., FortisBC Tilbury LNG facility,

Coast2000 Container Terminals, Lehigh Hanson Cement), transportation

infrastructure (i.e., street lights), and residential development (e.g.,

Queensborough), in Richmond, Delta, New Westminster, and Coquitlam.


Vancouver.

High district

brightness

Source: classifications based on CIE guidelines (IESNA 2000; CIE 2003b)

The analysis of baseline environmental lighting indicates that lighting conditions at nearly all the key nighttime

viewpoints (VP1,VP2, VP6) are representative of a low level of brightness related to light trespass, similar to that

of agricultural, industrial, or outer urban / rural residential setting. Evidence of obtrusive lighting from light trespass

is experienced in a local setting and brightness of the environment may vary for key viewpoints within the LAA

relative to the characteristics of the light source in neighbouring areas. The lighting condition of the key nighttime

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

26

viewpoints VP5 (on Tilbury Island) would be representative of a high level of brightness, similar to that of an urban

residential and commercial setting with high levels of nighttime activity and related lighting.

All key nighttime viewpoints are representative of a high level of brightness related to sky glow, which is

representative of urban town centres where night sky is relatively bright. Evidence of obtrusive lighting is

experienced in a regional setting, and brightness of the environment is more likely to be consistent in the LAA as it

is influenced by the ambient effect of multiple sources that reflect light rays above the horizon into the night sky.

5.0 SUMMARY

Projects that alter the visible landscape can have different effects depending on the visual characteristics and

value of the existing landscape context. A visual quality baseline study was required to develop a visual inventory

and assessment that describes the existing visual quality present in the Project’s landscape setting during

daytime and nighttime, in order to support the assessment of potential visual effects.

The visual quality baseline study included a review of applicable policies and guidelines for management of visual

quality and lighting. Visibility analysis was conducted in GIS to determine locations that would have a line-of-sight

to the Project. Based on the results of this desktop analysis, photographic field surveys were conducted in

September and December of 2015 and May and June of 2018 to capture photographs that document the daytime

and nighttime viewing conditions in the LAA from surveyed viewpoints. The visual quality baseline study also

included a systematic analysis of the scenic quality of landscape features and the level of viewer sensitivity to

visual changes of the landscape from key representative viewpoints. Further assessment considered the

dimensions of scenic quality, viewer sensitivity, and viewing distance to determine a rating that indicates the

relative value of the landscape’s existing visual quality from key viewpoints.

The visual quality baseline study concludes that the view from key viewpoints expresses a predominately

‘Medium’ level of scenic quality, indicating the presence of some distinct landform or water features (e.g., Fraser

River) and some variety in land uses or built elements (i.e., geometric forms of structures) that may be disruptive

but remain co-dominant or subordinate to the natural landscape qualities. Key viewpoints were classified as

having a range of viewer sensitivity, including ‘High’ to “Medium’ levels related to residential and frequent

recreational use areas, and ‘Low’ related to locations of primarily commercial / industrial use. Similarly, the

landscape rating established for key viewpoints indicated the value of existing visual quality was considered ‘High’

to “Medium’ related to residential and recreational use areas, indicating viewing opportunities holding notable or

distinct scenic value or vulnerability to visual alteration, and ‘Low’ related to locations of primarily commercial /

industrial use, indicating viewing opportunities with little scenic value or low vulnerability to visual alteration.

Characteristics of existing exterior lighting were considered in order to describe the baseline lighting condition for

nighttime viewing. The viewing conditions for most key viewpoints were characterized by a low level of brightness

with visible light sources from existing residential and commercial areas, industrial facilities, and navigational /

transportation infrastructure along the Fraser River. All viewing locations experience a bright night sky related to

the sky glow created by lighting from urban centres within Metro Vancouver (i.e., Richmond, Delta, and New

Westminster).

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

27

Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Golder Associates Ltd.

Daryl Harrison, BA, ADP GIS Linda Havers, MA(Anth)

Visual and Land Use Assessment Specialist Associate, Social Scientist

DH/LH/asd

Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation

o:\final\2013\1422\13-1422-0049\1314220049-134-r-rev2\1314220049-134-r-rev2-tilbury visual quality baseline 20mar_19.docx

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

28

6.0 REFERENCES

BC Archaeology Branch. 2016. BC Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD). [accessed 2016 Dec 15].

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/accessing_archaeological_data/.

BC MoF. 1997. Visual Landscape Inventory: Procedures and Standards Manual. Victoria, BC: Forest Practices

Branch for the Culture Task Force, Resource Inventory Committee.

BC MoF. 2001. Visual Impact Assessment Guidebook. 2nd ed. Victoria, BC: Recreation Branch.

BC OGC (BC Oil & Gas Commission). 2015. Are the visual quality objectives, as defined under FRPA, applicable

to OGAA applications? [accessed 2015 Jun 1]. http://www.bcogc.ca/are-visual-quality-objectives-defined-

under-frpa-applicable-ogaa-applications.

BCEAO. 2015. WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project Application Information Requirements.

CCG. 2011. The Canadian Aids to Navigation System 2011. [accessed 2016 Jan 19]. http://www.ccg-

gcc.gc.ca/folios/00020/docs/CanadianAidsNavigationSystem2011-eng.pdf.

CIE. 1997. Technical Report: Guidelines for Minimizing Sky Glow. Vienna, Austria: Commission Internationale de

l’Eclairage Report No.: CIE 126: 1997, ISBN 978 3 900734 83 1.

CIE. 2003a. Technical Report: Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Installations.

Vienna, Austria: Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage Report No.: CIE 150: 2003, ISBN 9788 3

901906 19 0.

CIE. 2003b. Technical Report: Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light From Outdoor

Installations. ISBN 9788 3 901906 19 0. Vienna, Austria: Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage.

City of Richmond. 2012. Bylaw 9000 - City of Richmond Official Community Plan. [accessed 2018 May 1].

https://www.richmond.ca/plandev/planning2/ocp.htm#ViewOCP.

City of Richmond. 2015. City of Richmond - Planning, Building & Development. [accessed 2015 Nov 1].

http://www.richmond.ca/plandev/overview.htm.

Corporation of Delta. 2013. Zoning Bylaw No. 3950. [accessed 2018 May 1]. http://www.delta.ca/your-

government/bylaws/bylaws-search/official-community-plan-bylaw.

Corporation of Delta. 2015. Corporation of Delta - Bylaws. [accessed 2015 Nov 1]. http://www.delta.ca/your-

government/bylaws/bylaws-search.

Government of Canada. 2014. Navigation Protection Act.

Horner, Maclennan, Envision. 2006. Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidelines.

IESNA. 1999. RP-33-99, Lighting for Exterior Environments.

IESNA. 2000. Light Trespass: Research, Results, and Recommendations, IESNA TM-11-2000.

Jones B, McLaren D. 2016. Kwantlen Land Use and Occupation in the Vicinity of Tilbury Island. Report prepared

for Kwantlen First Nation and Seyem’ Qwantlen. 11 p.

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

29

Kyba C, Ruhtz T, Fischer J, Holker F. 2011. Cloud Coverage Acts as an Amplifier for Ecological Light Pollution in

Urban Ecosystems.

Marshall. 2017. Patullo Bridge Replacement Project; Cowichan Nation Alliance, Strength of Claim Report.

Metro Vancouver. 2016. Regional Park Plan. [accessed 2018 Jun 1].

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/parks/ParksPublications/RegionalParksPlan.pd.

MFLNRO. 2002. Forest and Range Practices Act.

MFLNRO. 2011. Visual Landscape Inventory.

MFLNRO. 2018. Strategic Land and Resource Planning. [accessed 2018 May 1].

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/SLRP/.

MOTI. 2006. South Fraser Perimeter Road Project – Volume 15: Socio-Community Impact Assessment.

MOTI. 2017. George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project – Section 5.5: Visual Quality.

Narisada K, Schreuder D. 2004. Light Pollution Handbook.

Natural Resources Canada. 2017a. Digital Elevation Model from Natural Resources Canada Canadian Digital

Elevation Data. [accessed 2017 Jul 1]. http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/7f245e4d-76c2-4caa-951a-

45d1d2051333.

Natural Resources Canada. 2017b. Digital Surface Model from Natural Resources Canada Canadian Digital

Elevation Data. [accessed 2017 Jul 1]. http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/768570f8-5761-498a-bd6a-

315eb6cc023d.

Natural Resources Canada. 2017c. CanVec Topographic Data. [accessed 2017 Jun 1].

http://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/pub/nrcan_rncan/vector/canvec/.

Schaefer V. 2004. Ecological setting of the Fraser River delta and its urban estuary. In Fraser River Delta, British

Columbia: Issues of an Urban Estuary. Groulz BJ, Mosher DC, Luternauer JL, Bilderback DE, editors.

Geol Surv Can. Bulletin 567:35–47.

Tam, J. et al. 2018. xwməθkwəy̓əm Musqueam Indian Band Knowledge and Use Study: WesPac Midstream’s

Proposed LNG Marine Jetty Project, prepared by Jordan Tam, Rachel Olson and Firelight Research Inc.

with the Musqueam Indian Band, October 9, 2018.

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. 2017. Westridge Marine Terminal Upgrade and Expansion Project Application to

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority - Westridge Marine Terminal Visual and Shade Impact Analysis.

[accessed 2018 Jun 1]. https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/May-2017-

%E2%80%93-Project-Permit-Application-Visual-and-Shade-Impact-Analysis-TR-11.pdf.

USDI BLM. 1986a. Handbook H-8410-1 - Visual Resource Inventory. Bureau of Land Management Manual

Handbook H-8410-1, Rel. 8-30. Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of

Land Management.

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

30

USDI BLM. 1986b. Handbook H-8431-1 - Visual Contrast Rating. Bureau of Land Management Manual Handbook

H-8431-1, Rel. 8-30. Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land

Management.

USFS. 1995. Agriculture Handbook Number 701 -Landscape Aesthetics, a Handbook for Scenery Management.

USFS.

Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation. 2011. Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Environmental Assessment

Certificate Application - Chapter 6: Assessment of Social and Economic Effects.

VFPA. 2015a. Project and Environmental Review Guidelines – View and Shade Impact. [accessed 2016 Nov 28].

http://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PER-View-and-Shade-Impact-Guidelines-

FINAL-2015-07-13.pdf.

VFPA. 2015b. Project and Environmental Review Guidelines – Lighting. [accessed 2016 Nov 28].

http://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PER-Lighting-Guidelines-Final-2015-07-

08.pdf.

6.1 Acts and Regulations Note: S.BC = Statute of British Columbia; R.S.BC = Revised Statute of British Columbia; S.C. = Statute of Canada; R.S.C. = Revised Statute of Canada, c. = Chapter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. S.C. 2012, C.19. Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-

15.21/index.html

Oil and Gas Activities Act. S.BC 2008, c.36. Available at:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_08036_01

Forest and Range Practices Act, S.B.C 2002, c.69. Available at:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_02069_01.

British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act, S.B.C 2002, c.43. Available at:

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_02043_01.

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

31

7.0 GLOSSARY

Ambient Light General overall level of lighting in a surrounding area

Co-dominant Description of the scale or size where features are of equal visual

importance

District Brightness Perceived ambient lighting levels of the surrounding environment. Used to

describe Environmental Lighting Zones

Environmental Light Level Level of illuminance present in the surrounding environment in a specific area.

Recommended light levels may be desired or required for different activities.

Similar to District Brightness.

Environmental Lighting

Zones

Classification scheme used to define areas of high to low ambient lighting

levels

Key Viewpoint One or more locations representative of typical and/or sensitive viewing

locations, used in the baseline report.

Landscape A heterogeneous land area with interacting ecosystems that are repeated in

similar form throughout.

Landscape Character The overall impression formed from a combination of physical, biological, and

cultural qualities that gives an area its identity and helps to define a "sense of

place.”

Landscape Rating An assessed baseline condition that specifies the relative value that observers

are likely to put on the visual quality of a certain landscape. It is the product of

scenic quality analysis, sensitivity level analysis and the viewing distance

between the observer and the relevant landscape.

Light Trespass Light that strays from its intended purpose into neighbouring area where

lighting may be undesirable; also known as light spillage

Lux A unit used for the measurement of illuminance / illumination level

Middle-ground Between 1 to 5 km viewing distance from the Project boundary.

Regional Assessment Area Represents the extent of the geographic study area for the baseline report.

Based on maximum viewing distance of 10 km from the Project boundary.

Scenic Quality The overall appeal of the visual aesthetics of a landscape related to physical

characteristics of landscape features evaluated using visual design elements

(e.g., form, line, color, and texture).

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

32

Sky Glow stray light being scattered in the atmosphere and brightening the natural night

sky, thereby reducing the visibility of stars for observers

Subordinate Description of the scale or size where features is notable in size but occupies

a minor part of the setting

Topography The terrestrial surface features of a region that are expressed in vertical relief,

such as hills or valleys.

Viewer Exposure A measure of the viewer's ability to see a particular object typically related to

dimensions of visible extent, viewing frequency, proximity, and duration

Viewer Sensitivity A measure of viewer’s sensitivity to visual change, obtained by analyzing

various indicators of public concern for scenic quality including patterns of use,

adjacent land use or management context.

Viewing Distance Zones Distance measured outward from the Project boundary, includes foreground,

middle ground and background distance zones.

Viewshed The area of the landscape that can be seen from one or more source points.

Therefore, according to the model, a person standing at any area identified in

the viewshed would be able to see at least one of the source points.

Visibility Analysis Landscape modelling that identifies areas that can be seen from one or more

observation points, often called a ‘viewshed’.

Visual Landscape Inventory The identification, classification, and recording of the location and quality of

visual resources and values.

Visual Quality The aesthetic characteristics or condition of the visual resources of a

landscape area. Related to the landscapes ability to provide scenic appeal for

viewers.

Visual Resource

Management

The process of identifying and classifying scenic landscapes, and managing

activities on the landscape to meet the visual needs of the public, visitors and

other resource users.

Visual Resources The components of the physical environment within a landscape area that contribute to its visual quality (e.g., landforms, vegetation, water surfaces and cultural modifications)

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

APPENDIX A

Baseline Photographic Inventory

APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

i

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Abbreviation Term

CIE Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage

IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

PID photo identification

SMS Scenery Management System

USDI BLM United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

USFS United States Forest Service

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

VP viewpoint

VRM Visual Resource Management

Glossary of Terms Term Description

Ambient Light general overall level of lighting in a surrounding area

District Brightness perceived ambient lighting levels of the surrounding environment. Used to describe Environmental Lighting Zones

Environmental Light Level

level of illuminance present in the surrounding environment in a specific area. Recommended light levels may be desired or required for different activities. Similar to District Brightness.

Environmental Lighting Zones

classification scheme used to define areas of high to low ambient lighting levels

Light Trespass light that strays from its intended purpose into neighbouring area where lighting may be undesirable; also known as light spillage

Scenic Quality a measure of the visual appeal of a view determined by the characteristics it’s visual resources

Sky Glow stray light being scattered in the atmosphere and brightening the natural night sky, thereby reducing the visibility of stars for observers

Viewer Sensitivity observer sensitivity to visual changes in the landscape and/or concern for the maintenance of visual quality


ii

List of Units Abbreviation Term

° degrees

km kilometre

m metre

MASL metres above sea level

mm millimetre

sec seconds


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION The technical approach for the characterization of existing viewing conditions and the assessment of baseline

visual quality was developed from elements of the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land

Management's (USDI BLM) Visual Resource Management (VRM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS)

Scenery Management System (SMS) inventory rating systems to systematically identify scenic quality and viewer

sensitivity (USDI BLM 1986; USFS 1995).

A technical approach for the baseline assessment of lighting conditions was develop from the Commission

Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE), and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) guidance

to characterize the existing nighttime viewing conditions including the identification of light sources and related

level of brightness perceived by observers. Indicators of the existing level of lighting include measurements of two

key dimension; light trespass and sky glow using established environmental lighting zones for classifying light

levels (CIE 1997; CIE 2003a).

This baseline photographic inventory report includes photographic field survey images and baseline assessment

ratings (Figure 1 to Figure 11) for all key viewpoints used to determine visual characteristics and scenic value of

existing viewing conditions. Photographic inventory information for all surveyed viewpoints are presented in Table

3 and Table 4.

2.0 SCENIC QUALITY FACTORS Scenic quality in built environment from key viewpoints was determined using seven key factors adapted from the

criteria and guidelines in the BLM handbook 8410 -1 and USFS Handbook for Scenery Management. These

consisted of the following:

Landform / Land Use Pattern – the development pattern visible on the landscape contributes to the area’s

character and distinctiveness. Primary consideration should be given to land use patterns and their visual

appearance. Secondary consideration should be given to landscape pattern and the relationship between

structural and cultural function. In general, patterns become more valued when they are varied and

intelligible to the natural landscape qualities (i.e. naturally shaped clearings);

Vegetation – large scale vegetated areas or smaller scale vegetation features may add striking and

harmonious character to the predominantly built environment. Consideration is given to the strength and

variety of patterns, forms and textures created by vegetation.

Water – surface water can add movement, influence tranquillity, and create strong lighting contrasts to a

view. Consideration is given to the presence and the degree to which rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands

dominate the view;

Color - Consider the overall color(s) of the basic components of the landscape (e.g., soil, building surfaces,

vegetation, etc.) as they appear. Key factors to consider are variety, contrast, and harmony.

Adjacent Scenery – consider the degree to which scenery outside the project area enhances the overall

impression of the view;

Scarcity - considers the importance of one or of all landscape features that appear to be a unique and

memorable attraction or of relatively rare character within the surroundings physiographic region; and


2

Built Elements – consider the composition and interrelationships among the structural and designed elements

of the landscape. The physical condition of the built elements is also considered.

Error! Reference source not found. provides ratings and descriptions for each of the key scenic quality factors.

Table 1: Scenic Quality Rating

Scenic Quality Factor Rating Criteria and Score

Landform / Land Use

Pattern

Strongly defined and

composed arrangement of

land use patterns that

complement each other.

Distinct visual patterns

that is coherent and/or

memorable. Natural and

man-made elements

blend together.

Moderately defined

arrangement of land use

patterns that exhibit some

spatial harmony. Visual

patterns which are

moderately coherent and

memorable. Natural and

man-made elements

blend together, but visual

order is disrupted.

Poorly defined

arrangement of land use

patterns and/or many

discordant elements

present.

Natural and man-made

elements do not join

together and visual order

is lacking.

Score 5 Score 3 Score 1

Vegetation

A variety of vegetative

types as expressed in

distinctive forms, textures,

and patterns.

Some variety of

vegetation, but only one

or two major types

expressed in moderately

distinct forms, textures

and patterns.

Little or no variety in

vegetation with indistinct

vegetation forms, textures

and patterns.


Water

Large still or white water

features which are a

dominant factor in the

landscape.

Small flowing or still

bodies of water that are

not dominant in the

landscape.

Bodies of water are

absent, or present but not

noticeable.


Color

Rich combinations, variety

and vivid colors and/or

Some intensity or variety

in colors and/or moderate

Subtle color variations,

little complement or visual


3

Scenic Quality Factor Rating Criteria and Score

appealing strong

complement in color of the

soil, rock, vegetation,

water or structures.

complement in color of the

soil, rock, vegetation,

water or structures.

interest with generally

mute tones of the soil,

rock, vegetation, water or

structures.


Adjacent Scenery

Influence of adjacent

scenery greatly enhances

visual quality

Influence of adjacent

scenery moderately

enhances overall visual

quality.

Adjacent scenery has little

or no influence on overall

visual quality.


Scarcity Distinctly memorable or

very rare within a region.

Distinctive, though

somewhat similar to other

areas within the region.

May be interesting within

its immediate setting, but

fairly common within the

region.

*Score 5+ Score 3 Score 1

Built Elements Structures and landscape

design add considerably

to visual variety while

promoting visual harmony.

May include notable

manmade structures or

monuments.

Structures and landscape

design add some visual

variety to the area but

may introduce some

discordant elements with

natural features.

May include some

recognizable manmade

structures.

Structures and landscape

design add no visual

variety, are discordant, or

promote strong

disharmony with natural

features. Indistinct

manmade structures

Score 3 Score 0 Score -3


3.0 SENSITIVITY LEVEL FACTORS The USDI BLM VRM system categorizes viewer sensitivity levels as “High”, “Medium”, or “Low” based on an

approach which considers viewer sensitivity as a function of expectations, values, goals, awareness and concern

regarding visual quality. Establishing a rating of viewer’s sensitivity for key viewpoints considered the following

factors:


4

Type of Users - visual sensitivity will vary with the type of users. Recreational sightseers may be highly

sensitive to any changes in visual quality, whereas workers who pass through the area on a regular basis may

not be as sensitive to change;

Amount of Use - areas seen and used frequently by large numbers of people are potentially more sensitive.

Protection of visual quality usually becomes more important as the number of viewers and/or viewing

duration increases;

Public Interest - the visual quality of an area may be of concern to local, regional, or international groups.

Indicators of this concern are usually expressed in public meetings, communications, media, land-use plans,

etc.

Adjacent Land Uses - the interrelationship with land uses in adjacent lands can affect the visual sensitivity of

an area. For example, an area within the viewshed of a residential area may be very sensitive, whereas an

area surrounded by commercially developed lands may not be visually sensitive;

Special Areas - management objectives for special areas such as scenic areas, parks, and tourism sites may

require special consideration for the protection of the visual values. This does not necessarily mean that these

areas are scenic, but rather that management objectives may be defined to preserve the landscape setting.

Other Factors – consideration of any other information such as research or studies that includes indicators of

visual sensitivity.

4.0 LIGHTING ZONES Lighting conditions from key viewpoints were classified based on definitions and descriptions from CIE guidelines,

which consists of a set of established environmental lighting zones for classifying exterior light levels (CIE 1997;

CIE 2003a). These zones range from light levels that are intrinsically dark to areas of high ambient brightness.

Table 2 presents the CIE environmental lighting zone and descriptions used for this assessment.


5

Table 2: Environmental Lighting Zones

Environmental Light Zone Surrounding Environmental Light Level

Examples (a)

E1 Natural Intrinsically dark

National parks or protected sites, roads usually unlit

E2 Rural Low district brightness

Agricultural, industrial, or outer urban / rural residential areas

E3 Suburban Medium district brightness

Industrial or small town centres / residential suburbs

E4 Urban High district brightness

Town / city centres and commercial areas urban areas, residential and commercial with high levels of night time activity

Source: based on CIE guidelines (CIE 1997; CIE 2003b) Notes: (a) examples of environmental zones based on those provided by the CIE and consider further descriptions of each zone from the IESNA and the Light Pollution Handbook (IESNA 1999; Narisada and Schreuder 2004).


6

Figure 1: Photo Survey Viewpoint 1 (VP1) – Riverport Flats

Coordinates: 495393E 5442326N UTM 10

Elevation: 14m MASL1 Viewing Direction: 60° Distance: ~ 1.4km

Description: View northeast towards Project site at the entrance to waterfront walkway near Riverport Flats residences in Richmond on the north bank of the Fraser River’s South Arm. Representative of residential and recreational viewing opportunity.

Date: April 19, 2018

Scenic Element Rating Rationale

Landform/Land Use Pattern

3 Flat terrain with mass of Coast mountains in background; natural and built elements blend together but visual order is partially disrupted (industrial land use mixed with intermittent natural vegetation)

Vegetation 3 Some variety of vegetation with moderately distinct forms, textures and patterns (irregular, rounded forms of riparian areas creates complex and jagged horizon)

Water 4 Slow flowing water of the Fraser River is a dominant scenic element

Colour 2 Mostly subtle colour variations from relatively uniform vegetation colour with some with localized intensity of colour from buildings and barges, and exposed rock of rip rap. Not a dominant scenic element.

Adjacent scenery 3 Views of adjacent land uses (industrial and urban areas) and landscape features / design (features surrounding the walkway are designed for aesthetic appeal) moderately enhances overall visual quality.

Scarcity 2 Common in this region of the Fraser River (South Arm of the Fraser River).

Built Elements 0 Geometric and linear forms of buildings provide some visual variety to the area but introduces elements that are discordant with natural features. Temporary vessel traffic expected.

Total 17


Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system and USFS SMS (USDI BLM 1986; USFS 1995) Notes: High = (greater than 19), Medium (12 to 18), Low (0 to 11)

Sensitivity Element Rating Rationale

Type of user High Typical viewers are residents and recreational users (waterfront walkway); visual quality is typically a major expectation/concern for residents and recreational users.

Amount of use High Brief to permanent duration of views with moderate number of viewers and/or regular frequency of use

Public interest Medium Visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.

Adjacent land uses Medium Views of landscape with evident commercial and industrial land and marine use areas

Special areas Low No visual management objectives exist.

Other factors None N/A

Overall Viewer Sensitivity High Residential area with regular and moderate level of use in context that includes evident commercial and industrial land and marine use.

Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system (USDI BLM 1986).

Notes: N/A = not applicable; Viewing duration ratings reflect the exposure of viewers related to types of activities typically available at each site and the opportunities they present for viewing: Brief = temporary and/or intermittent viewing opportunity (e.g., moving vehicle); Sustained = extended viewing opportunity (e.g., rest stop); Permanent = continual viewing opportunity (e.g., residence); Number of viewers and frequency of visits are estimates relative to the type of activities identified at the key viewpoints.

1 MASL: metres above sea level


7

Figure 2: Photo Survey Viewpoint 2 (VP2) – Dyke Road (Tl'uqtinus Village Site)

Coordinates: 496982E 5443939N UTM 10 Elevation: 2m MASL Viewing Direction: 152° Distance: ~ .37km

Description: View southeast towards the Project site along Dyke Rd. in Richmond on the north bank of the Fraser River’s South Arm opposite Tilbury Island. Evidence of informal recreational use (off-road vehicles and fire pit). This is an identified location of a historic Tl'uqtinus village site, also known as ƛ̓әqtinәs, ƛ’eqtines or tl’ektines, and is a registered archaeological site (DgRs-017) located across the Fraser River from the Project. The historical use of this location is claimed by the descendant communities of the Cowichan Nation (Cowichan Tribes, Stz'uminus First Nation, Halalt First Nation, Penelakut Tribe, and Lyackson First Nation), Musqueam Indian Band and Tsawwassen First Nation (Jones and McLaren 2016; Marshall 2017; Tam, J. et al. 2018). It is representative of a potential recreation viewing opportunity and is a location of Aboriginal cultural use and value.



Landform/Land Use Pattern 2

Flat terrain with few or no distinct landscape features; natural and built elements blend together but visual order is partially disrupted (industrial land use mixed with intermittent natural vegetation)

Vegetation 3

Some variety of vegetation with moderately distinct forms, textures and patterns (irregular, rounded forms of riparian areas creates complex and jagged horizon)


Colour 2

Mostly subtle colour variations from relatively uniform vegetation colour with some with localized intensity of colour from buildings and barges, and exposed soil of shoreline. Not a dominant scenic element.

Adjacent scenery 1

Views of adjacent land uses (industrial areas) and landscape features have little influence on overall visual quality

Scarcity 2

A landscape that includes natural foreshore and industrial use is fairly common within the region (South Arm of the Fraser River).

Built Elements -1 Prominent geometric and linear forms of buildings and barges provide some visual variety to the area but introduce elements that are discordant with natural features. Temporary vessel traffic expected.

Total 13




Type of user High Informal recreational use; Aboriginal cultural use/value related to location.

Amount of use Low Brief to sustained duration of views with a low number of viewers and/or irregular frequency of use


Adjacent land uses Low Views of landscape with prominent commercial and industrial land and marine use areas



Overall Viewer Sensitivity Low Informal recreation area with irregular and low level of use in context that includes evident industrial land

and marine use.




8

Figure 3: Photo Survey Viewpoint 3 (VP3) – Fraser River (Upstream)

Coordinates: 497557E 5443858N UTM 10 Elevation: 4m MASL Viewing Direction: 210° Distance: ~ 0.57km

Description: View southwest from a marine-based location in the Fraser River’s South Arm near Lehigh Hanson Cement Limited upstream of the Project site. It is representative of a potential marine-based activity and recreation viewing opportunity and is a location of Aboriginal cultural use and value. Date: April 20, 2018



Flat terrain with few or no distinct landscape features; natural and built elements blend together but visual order is partially disrupted (industrial land use mixed with intermittent natural vegetation)

Vegetation 3

Some variety of vegetation with moderately distinct forms, textures and patterns (irregular, rounded forms of riparian and woodland areas creates complex and jagged horizon)


Colour 2

Mostly subtle colour variations from relatively uniform vegetation colour with some with localized intensity of colour from buildings and barges. Not a dominant scenic element.

Adjacent scenery 1

Views of adjacent land uses (industrial areas) and landscape features have little influence on overall visual quality

Scarcity 2


Built Elements -1 Prominent geometric and linear forms of buildings, barges and piles provide some visual variety to the area but introduce elements that are discordant with natural features. Temporary vessel traffic expected.

Total 13




Type of user Low Marine-based commercial / industrial use (e.g., shipping, commercial fishing) with limited marine recreation use; Aboriginal cultural use/value related to use of the Fraser River. Visual quality is typically of a minor expectation/concern for commercial / industrial uses

Amount of use Medium Brief duration of views with a low number of viewers and/or intermittent frequency of use.


Adjacent land uses Low Views of landscape with prominent industrial land and marine use areas



Overall Viewer Sensitivity Low Mostly marine-based commercial / industrial use with intermittent and low level of use in context that includes prominent industrial land and marine use.




9

Figure 4: Photo Survey Viewpoint 4 (VP4) – Fraser River (Downstream)


Description: View northeast from a marine-based location in the Fraser River’s South Arm downstream of the Project site. It is representative of a potential marine-based activity and recreation viewing opportunity. Potential for future viewing opportunity related to transportation activity by motorists along a bridge replacing the George Massey Tunnel, and is a location of Aboriginal cultural use and value. Date: April 20, 2018



Flat terrain with mass of Coast mountains in background; natural and built elements blend together but visual order is partially disrupted (industrial land use mixed with intermittent natural vegetation)

Vegetation 3

Some variety of vegetation with moderately distinct forms, textures and patterns (irregular, rounded forms of riparian areas creates complex and jagged horizon)


Colour 2

Mostly subtle colour variations from relatively uniform vegetation colour with some with localized intensity of colour from buildings and barges. Not a dominant scenic element.

Adjacent scenery 3

Views of adjacent land uses (industrial and urban areas) and landscape features (distant view of mountains and foreground woodlands) moderately enhances overall visual quality.

Scarcity 2


Built Elements 0 Geometric and linear forms of buildings and barges; some visual variety added but somewhat discordant with natural foreshore environment. Temporary vessel traffic expected.

Total 17


Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system and USFS SMS (USDI BLM 1986; USFS 1995);

Notes: High = (greater than 19), Medium (12 to 18), Low (0 to 11)


Type of user Medium

Marine-based commercial / industrial use (e.g., shipping, commercial fishing) and marine recreation users (e.g, boating); Aboriginal cultural use/value related to use of the Fraser River. Visual quality is typically of a minor expectation/concern for commercial / industrial uses and a major expectation/concern for recreational users.

Amount of use Medium Brief duration of views with a low to moderate number of viewers and/or intermittent frequency of use.


Adjacent land uses Medium Views of landscape with evident residential and industrial land and marine use areas



Overall Viewer Sensitivity Medium Marine-based commercial / industrial and recreation area with intermittent and low to moderate level of use in context that includes evident residential and industrial land and marine use.

Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system (USDI BLM 1986). Notes: N/A = not applicable; Viewing duration ratings reflect the exposure of viewers related to types of activities typically available at each site and the opportunities they present for viewing: Brief = temporary and/or intermittent viewing opportunity (e.g., moving vehicle); Sustained = extended viewing opportunity (e.g., rest stop); Permanent = continual viewing opportunity (e.g., residence); Number of viewers and frequency of visits are estimates relative to the type of activities identified at the key viewpoints.


10

Figure 5: Photo Survey Viewpoint 5 (VP5) – Tilbury Industrial Park


Description: View northwest towards Project site from the Tilbury Industrial Park at the corner of Tilbury Road and Hopcott Road on Tilbury Island. Representative of viewing opportunities related to commercial use and transportation activity (i.e., motorists) along a principal route on Tilbury Island.



Landform/Land Use Pattern

2 Flat terrain with moderately defined arrangement of built structures that are dominant but coherent (i.e., consistent with industrial park setting).

Vegetation 1 Little variety of vegetation (i.e., mostly grass) with indistinct textures and patterns.

Water 0 No water visible.

Colour 2

Mostly subtle colour variations with localized intensity of colour (tank, buildings); not a dominant scenic element.

Adjacent scenery 0 Adjacent scenery has little or no influence on overall visual quality.

Scarcity 2


Built Elements -2 Industrial structures (e.g., LNG storage tanks, warehouse buildings transmission infrastructure) and landscape design appear dominant and discordant with natural features.

Total 5

Scenic Quality Rating Low




Type of user Low Local employees and commercial traffic. Visual quality is typically of a minor expectation/concern for commercial / industrial uses

Amount of use Medium Brief duration of views with a low to moderate number of viewers and/or regular frequency of use.

Public interest Medium Visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally

Adjacent land uses Low Views of landscape with prominent industrial land use areas



Overall Viewer Sensitivity Low

Commercial / industrial use with regular and low to moderate level of use in context that includes prominent industrial land use.



11

Figure 6: Photo Survey Viewpoint 6 (VP6) – Deas Island Regional Park


Description: View northeast towards Project site from trail at entrance/exit of Deas Island Regional Park in Delta. Day use recreation opportunities, parking and access to Deas slough are located near this site. Representative of recreation viewing opportunity experienced by visitors to the park. Date: April 19, 2018

Scenic Element Rating Rationale Landform/Land Use Pattern

3 Flat terrain with mass of Coast mountains in background; natural and built elements blend together but visual order is partially disrupted (industrial land use mixed with intermittent natural vegetation); dense urban land use visible in background.

Vegetation 3 Some variety of vegetation with moderately distinct forms, textures and patterns (irregular, rounded forms of riparian areas creates complex and jagged horizon)

Water 4 Slow flowing water of the Fraser River is a dominant scenic element Colour 2 Mostly subtle colour variations from relatively uniform vegetation colour with some with

localized intensity of colour from buildings, barges, and containers. Not a dominant scenic element.

Adjacent scenery 3 Views of adjacent land uses (industrial and urban areas) and landscape features (distant view of mountains and foreground woodlands) moderately enhances overall visual quality.

Scarcity 2 A landscape that includes natural foreshore and industrial use is fairly common within the region (South Arm of the Fraser River).

Built Elements 0 Geometric and linear forms of buildings, barges, and containers provide some visual variety to

the area but introduce elements that are discordant with natural features. Temporary vessel traffic expected. Vertical forms of urban centre residential towers (Burnaby).

Total 17 Scenic Quality Rating Medium

Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system and USFS SMS (USDI BLM 1986; USFS 1995)



Type of user High Typical viewers are recreational users. Visual quality is typically a major expectations/concern for recreational users.

Amount of use Medium Brief to sustained duration of views with moderate number of viewers and/or regular frequency of use; seasonal peak in summer


Adjacent land uses Medium Within natural parkland setting; views of landscape with evident industrial, commercial, recreational, and residential land and marine use areas



Overall Viewer Sensitivity Medium Recreational use in regional park in context that includes evident industrial land and marine use



12

Figure 7: Photo Survey Viewpoint 7 (VP7) – Garry Point Park


13

Coordinates: 485801E 5441311N UTM 10 Elevation: 1m MASL Viewing Direction: 240° / 140° Distance: ~ 0..5 km (to shipping route)

Description: View of transiting vessels in marine shipping channel from trail in Garry Point Park in Richmond. Represents both viewing southeast (upstream) towards existing land use patterns of the Fraser River, and west (downstream), towards Sand Heads. Day use recreation opportunities, commercial and tourism opportunities (i.e., Steveston Harbour) and residential area located near this site. Representative of recreation viewing opportunity experienced by visitors to the park. Date: May 31, 2018

Scenic Element Rating Rationale Landform/Land Use Pattern 3

Flat terrain with irregular shoreline, form of Coast mountains or Vancouver Island in background (depending on viewing direction); natural and built elements blend together but visual order is partially disrupted (industrial land use mixed with intermittent natural vegetation)

Vegetation 3

Some variety of vegetation (grass and woodlands) with moderately distinct forms, textures and patterns.

Water 4 Slow flowing water of the Fraser River is a dominant scenic element. Colour

2 Mostly subtle colour variations from relatively uniform vegetation colour with some with localized intensity of colour from buildings, boats, and marine-infrastructure. Not a dominant scenic element.

Adjacent scenery 3

Views of adjacent land uses and landscape features moderately enhances overall visual quality.

Scarcity 2


Built Elements 1 Geometric forms and composition of buildings, marine infrastructure (i.e. piles, jetty, signal), and boats (Steveston Harbour) provide some visual variety to the area and promotes some visual harmony with natural features.

Total 18 Scenic Quality Rating Medium


Notes: High = (greater than 19), Medium (12 to 18),

Low (0 to 11); photographs representing two viewing directions are presented at this location to address the variation in viewing opportunities of vessel

movement within the shipping channel and the distinct character between views upstream of the Fraser River to the southeast and downstream of The

Fraser River to the west;


Type of user High Typical viewers are recreational users and tourists.

Amount of use High Visitors with brief to sustained duration of views with moderate to high number of viewers and/or high

frequency of use; seasonal peak in summer

Public interest High Visual quality is typically a major expectations/concern for recreational users and tourists; visual

quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.

Adjacent land uses Medium Within waterfront parkland setting; views of landscape with evident industrial, commercial,

recreational, and residential land and marine use areas


Other factors Medium Variation in viewing opportunities and distinct character between views upstream of the Fraser River

to the east and downstream of the Fraser River to the west. Overall Viewer Sensitivity High Recreational use in park in context that includes evident industrial land and marine use


Notes: Viewing duration ratings reflect the exposure of viewers related to types of activities typically available at each site and the opportunities they present for viewing: Brief = temporary and/or intermittent viewing opportunity (e.g., moving vehicle); Sustained = extended viewing opportunity (e.g., rest stop); Permanent = continual viewing opportunity (e.g., residence); Number of viewers and frequency of visits are estimates relative to the type of activities identified at the key viewpoints.


14

Figure 8: Photo Survey Viewpoint 1 (VP1) – Riverport Flats Nighttime View

DATE: April 19, 2018

Light Trespass - Environmental Lighting Zone

Sky Glow - Environmental Lighting Zone

Environmental Light Level Description

E2 E4 Lighting levels for light trespass are of a low district

brightness representative of agricultural, industrial,

or outer urban / rural residential areas

Lighting levels are indicative of a low brightness setting with existing lighting visible from residential (i.e., Riverport Flats,

Queensbrough), industrial facilities (i.e., FortisBC Tilbury LNG facility, Seaspan Ferries, Lehigh Hanson Cement) and transportation

infrastructure (i.e., street lights) in Richmond, Delta, and New Westminster. Ambient light is evident from the regional urban context of

Metro Vancouver.

Lighting levels for sky glow are of a high district

brightness representative of town / city centres and

commercial areas urban areas, residential and

commercial with high levels of nighttime activity


15

Figure 9: Photo Survey Viewpoint 2 (VP2) – Dyke Road (Tl'uqtinus Village Site) Nighttime View








Lighting levels are indicative of a low brightness setting with existing lighting visible from industrial facilities (i.e., FortisBC Tilbury LNG

facility, Seaspan Ferries, Lehigh Hanson Cement) and transportation infrastructure (i.e., street lights) in Delta. Ambient light is evident

from the regional urban context of Metro Vancouver.

Lighting levels for sky glow are of a high district





16

Figure 10: Photo Survey Viewpoint 5 (VP5) – Tilbury Industrial Park Nighttime View





E4 E4 Lighting levels for light trespass and sky glow are of

a high district brightness representative of urban

areas, residential and commercial with high levels of

nighttime activity

Lighting levels are indicative of a high brightness setting with numerous existing lighting visible from industrial facilities (FortisBC

Tilbury LNG facility, Varsteel/Dominion Pipe), and overhead street lighting. Ambient light is evident from regional urban context of

Metro Vancouver.


17

Figure 11: Photo Survey Viewpoint 6 (VP6) – Deas Island Regional Park Nighttime View2

DATE: December 9, 2015







Lighting levels are indicative of a low brightness setting with existing lighting visible from industrial facilities (i.e., FortisBC Tilbury LNG

facility, Coast2000 Container Terminals, Lehigh Hanson Cement), transportation infrastructure (i.e., street lights), and residential

development (e.g., Queensbrough), in Richmond, Delta, New Westminster, and Coquitlam. Ambient light is evident from the regional

urban context of Metro Vancouver. Lighting levels for sky glow are of a high district




2 It is not anticipated this location would experience substantial visitation during nighttime as park facilities are closed (Metro Vancouver 2017). Programming within regional parks does existing related to nighttime activities (e.g., Deas Island Regional Park Owl Prowl, Starry Night to Deas Island Park) (Corporation of Delta 2017; Corporation of Delta 2018).


18

Photographic Inventory Observation Logs

Project Name: Wespac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project

Project No.: 13-1422-0049

Date Started: 08/12/2015 Date Completed: 04/20/2015

Photographer: Daryl Harrison (Golder)

Type of Camera: Nikon D3200

Lens: 18-55mm

Projection: UTM Zone 10 Datum: NAD 83

Table 3: Daytime Viewpoint Observation Log

Photo ID

Viewpoint ID

Photo Date

Time Viewing Conditions

Viewing Duration

Comments Focal Length (mm)

F Stop ISO Exposure (sec)

X Coordinate

Y Coordinate

Elevation (m)

Approx. Viewing Direction (°)

Approx. Horizontal Field of View (°)

Approx. Viewing Distance (km)

Tilt (°)

Photos Panoramic Sequence

PID1a VP1

8/12/2015 9:50 AM

partial cloud and sunny brief to

permanent

view northeast from entrance to waterfront walkway near Riverport Flats apartment in Richmond. Residential and recreation viewing opportunity.

50 f/11 400 1/500

495393 5442326 14 60 30 - 105 1.4 ~0-5

DSC0120-0131 DSC0120-0123

4/19/2018 11:08 AM

partial cloud and sunny

52 27

f/9 100 1/320 DSC0502-0505 (52 mm) DSC0506-0508 (27 mm)

DSC0502-0505

PID1b 8/12/2015

10:05 AM


permanent

view northeast from halfway along waterfront walkway near Riverport Flats apartment in Richmond. Residential and recreation viewing opportunity.

50 f/11 400 1/500

495501 5442457 13 100 18-111 1.22 ~0-5

DSC0132-0149 DSC0132-0136

4/19/2018 11:33 AM


52 27

f/8 100 1/250 DSC0509-0512 (52 mm) DSC0513-0515 (27 mm)

DSC0509-0512

PID2 8/12/2015 10:30 AM


brief

view east from empty lot near William Rd (Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project location) with access from informal trail near Riverport Flats. Evidence of use (litter, graffiti, firepits).

48 f/11 320 1/500 495864 5442976 15 66 36 - 111 0.67 ~0-5 DSC0150-0160 DSC0155-0160

PID3a

8/12/2015 11:06 AM


sustained

view southeast along Dyke Rd at pullout. Observation and evidence of use (off-road motor vehicle use, clearing, firepit).

49 f/12 250 1/500

496567 5443704 9 135 71-173 0.34 ~0-5

DSC0061-0189 DSC0175-0180

4/19/2018 12:12 PM


52 27

f/9 100 1/320 DSC0540-0545 (52 mm) DSC0546-0549 (27 mm)

DSC0540-0545

PID3b

8/12/2015 11:19 AM


brief to sustained

view southeast along Dyke Rd at beach next to pullout. Less obstruction from vegetation than PID 3a.

48 f/11 250 1/500

496612 5443733 4 135 71-173 0.34 ~0-5

DSC0190-0218 DSC0211-0218

4/19/2018 12:07 PM


52 27

f/10 100 1/400

DSC0517-0523 (52 mm) DSC0524-0532 (52 mm) DSC0533-0539 (52 mm) DSC0550-0553 (27 mm)

DSC0535-0537

PID4 VP2

8/12/2015 11:36 AM


brief to sustained

view south from beach site along Dyke Rd. Observation and evidence of use (off-road motor vehicle use, firepit); no current dwelling or indication of frequent use, but identified as location of historic Aboriginal village site referred to as Tl'uqtinus, ƛ̓әqtinәs, ƛ’eqtines or tl’ektines.

48 f/11 180 1/500

496982 5443939 2 152 69-192 0.37 ~0-5

DSC0219-0234 DSC0226-0232

4/19/2018 3:10 PM


52 27

f/9 100 1/320 DSC0598-0602 (52 mm) DSC0603-0607 (27 mm)

DSC0598-0601

PID5 8/12/2015 12:19 PM


brief view southwest from riverbank near end of Dyke Rd. (gated). Accessed by long foot trail starting near end of McCartney Rd.

50 f/11 250 1/500 498379 5444389 9 205 170-280 1.57 ~0-5 DSC0235-0244 DSC0235-0238

PID6 VP4

8/12/2015 2:59 PM

partially overcast

brief

marine-based view northeast from downstream of Project site. Near the proposed location the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project on Hwy 99; potential viewing locations associated with Aboriginal

48 f/11 250 1/500

494790 5441072 6 50 355-105 2.7 ~0-5

DSC0245-0276 DSC0264-0268

4/20/2018 7:33 AM

Overcast, early morning

52 27

f/8 100 1/250

DSC0651-0654 (52 mm) DSC0655-0656 (52 mm) DSC0660-0662 (52 mm)

DSC0655-0656


19

Photo ID

Viewpoint ID

Photo Date


Viewing Duration



X Coordinate

Y Coordinate

Elevation (m)




Tilt (°)


cultural use and values within the Fraser River.

DSC0657-0659 (27 mm) DSC0665-0668 (Further upstream closer to site)

PID7

8/12/2015 3:07 PM

partially overcast

brief

marine-based view adjacent to Project site; potential viewing locations associated with Aboriginal cultural use and values within the Fraser River.

50 f/11 320 1/500 496751 5443294 4 110 30-180

0

~0-5 DSC0277-0306 DSC0283-0291

4/20/2018 7:51 AM

overcast, early morning

52 27

f/9 100 1/320 497024 5443515 4 170 105-205 ~0-5


DSC0676-0680

PID8 VP3

8/12/2015 3:14 PM

partially overcast

brief

marine-based view southwest from upstream of Project site near Lehigh Northwest Cement Limited; potential viewing locations associated with Aboriginal cultural use and values within the Fraser River.

50 f/11 250 1/500

497557 5443858 4 210 158-254 0.57 ~0-5

DSC0307-0324 DSC0312-0318

4/20/2018 7:56 AM

overcast, early morning

52 27

f/8 100 1/250


DSC0685-0689

PID9

8/12/2015 3:28 PM

partially overcast

brief

marine-based view southwest from upstream of Project site; potential viewing locations associated with Aboriginal cultural use and values within the Fraser River

50 f/11 200 1/500

498586 5444329 3 230 173-270 1.66 ~0-5

DSC0325-0339 DSC0330-0335

4/20/2018 8:01 AM

overcast 54 52

f/98 100 1/250

DSC0698-0700 (54 mm) DSC0701-0702 (54 mm) DSC0704-0708 (22 mm-Project site)

DSC0698-0700

PID10 8/12/2015 4:45 PM

clear and sunny

brief view north near junction of River Rd and 68 St.

40 f/10 400 1/200 497496 5442441 4 5 317-49 0.42 ~0-5 DSC0340-0352 DSC0340-0343

PID11a

8/12/2015 4:49 PM

clear and sunny

brief view west from entrance to FortisBC Tilbury LNG facility on Tilbury Rd.

50 f/11 280 1/500

497699 5442823 5 269 240-10 0.02 ~0-5

DSC0353-0368 DSC0353-0359

4/19/2018 1:39 PM


51 60 27

f/7.1 100 1/200 DSC575-0578 (60 mm) DSC0582-0586 (51 mm) DSC0579-0581 (27 mm)

DSC0582-0586

PID11b

VP5

8/12/2015 4:58 PM

clear and sunny

brief view northwest from junction of Tilbury Rd and Hopcott Rd (motorist).

50 f/11 280 1/500

497968 5443027 4 278 234-320 0.23 ~0-5

DSC0369-0379 DSC0373-00379

4/19/2018 12:44 PM


52 27

f/9 100 1/320 DSC554-0558 (52 mm) DSC0562-0565 (52 mm) DSC0559-0561 (27 mm)

DSC0555-0557

PID12a

8/12/2015 5:07 PM

clear and sunny

brief view northwest from riverbank accessed by foot trail at the end of MacDonald Rd.

48 f/11 400 1/500 497077 5442915 5 347 328-35 0.18 ~0-5 DSC0380-0389 DSC0380-0382

PID12b

12/9/2015

4:27 PM

partial cloud

brief view northwest from riverbank accessed by footrail at the end of MacDonald Rd.

40 f/5.3 400 1/30

496856 5442500 11 11 300-19 0.47 ~0-5

DSC0395-0405 DSC0396-0398

4/19/2018 1:12 PM


52 27

f/8 100 1/250 DSC0566-0569 (52 mm) DSC0570-0574 (27 mm)

DSC0566-0569

PID13 VP6

8/12/2015 5:22 PM

clear and sunny

brief to sustained

view northeast from trail parallel to Deas Island Rd at entrance/exit of Deas Island Regional Park.

48 f/11 400 1/500

496075 5441611 9 24 350-45 2.15 ~0-5

DSC0390-0393 DSC0390-0391

4/19/2018 2:07 PM


52 27

f/9 100 1/320


DSC0591-0594

PID14 VP7 5/31/2018 2:30 PM


brief to sustained

view south east from Garry Point Park adjacent to Fishermen's Memorial monument. Observation and evidence of use

54

52

27

f/9 100 1/320 485801 5441311 1 240 200-300 ~0.50 ~0-5

DSC0751-0753 (52 mm)

DSC0754-0756 (54 mm)

DSC0757-0759 (27mm)

DSC0754-0756


20

Photo ID

Viewpoint ID

Photo Date


Viewing Duration



X Coordinate

Y Coordinate

Elevation (m)




Tilt (°)


(Recreational use: scenery viewing, walking, biking and kite flying). 52

27 f/8 100 1/250 1 140 108-200

DSC0760-0762 (52 mm)

DSC0763-0768 (52 mm)

DSC0769-0772 (27mm)

DSC0773-776 (27 mm)

DSC0763-0765

PID15 5/31/2018 12:36 PM


brief to sustained

view south from No 3 Road Fisher Pier. There is parking area adjacent to the pier, also an east to west gravel trail along the dyke road. The pier includes a rest area with seating. There is a picnic area (table and bench) and washroom facility in the site. Evidence of use include recreational fishing with rod.

52 27

f/10 100 1/400 489896 5439717 4 190 110-250 ~0.25 ~0-5

DSC0720-0724 (52 mm) DSC0725-0729 (52 mm) DSC0730-0732 (27mm) DSC0733-735 (52 mm)

DSC0721-0723

PID16 5/31/2018 11:10 AM


brief

view north east from Alaksen National Wildlife Area trail in Westham Island. Surrounding area had natural character (bird habitat). Existing vegetation was moderately obstructing the view. There was an information signage close to the site and evidence of use include two joggers using the trail as well as tugs and industrial vessels on the river.

52 27

f/9 100 1/320 487803 5439247 9 40 9-90 ~0.50 ~0-5 DSC0710-0712 (52 mm) DSC0713-0714 (27 mm) DSC0715-0718 (52mm)

DSC0715-0718

Notes:

a) Viewing duration ratings reflect the exposure of viewers related to types of activities typically available at each site and the opportunities they present for viewing: Brief = temporary and/or intermittent viewing opportunity (i.e., moving vehicle); Sustained = extended viewing opportunity (i.e., rest stop); Permanent = continual viewing opportunity (i.e., residence)

b) Aperture setting may vary for separate frames of a panoramic sequence to normalize exposure of each image

°= degrees; m= metres; mm= millimetres; km= kilometres; sec= seconds; MASL= metres above sea level; ID= identification; NAD= North American Datum; UTM= Universal Transverse Mercator


21

Table 4: Nighttime Viewpoint Observation Log

Photo

ID

Viewpoint

ID

Photo

Date

Time Viewing

Conditions

Viewing

Duration

Comments Focal

Length

(mm)

F

Stop

ISO Exposure

(sec)

X

Coordinate

Y

Coordinate

Elevation

(m)

Approx.

Viewing

Direction

(°)

Approx.

Horizonta

l Field of

View (°)

Approx.

Viewing

Distance

(km)

Tilt

(°)

Photos Panoramic

Sequence

PID1a VP1

12/9/2015 7:40 PM

night; partial cloud brief to

permanent

view northeast from entrance to waterfront walkway near Riverport Flats apartment in Richmond. Residential and recreation viewing opportunity.

34 f/6.3 200 2.5

495393 5442326 14 60 30 - 105 1.4 ~0-5

DSC0434-0449 DSC0440-0442

4/19/2018 9:08 PM

night; partial cloud

52 f/5.6 200 0.62 DSC0623-0626; DSC0627-0631

DSC0623-0626

PID3a 12/9/2015 8:16 PM


brief to sustained

view southeast along Dyke Rd at pullout. Observation and evidence of use (off-road motor vehicle use, clearing, firepit).

18 f/3.5 200 1.6 496567 5443704 9 135 71-173 0.34 ~0-5 DSC0450-0457 DSC0456-0457

PID4 VP2 4/19/2018 8:33 PM


brief to sustained

view south from beach site along Dyke Rd. Observation and evidence of use (off-road motor vehicle use, firepit); no current dwelling or indication of frequent use, but identified as location of historic Aboriginal village site referred to as Tl'uqtinus, ƛ̓әqtinәs, ƛ’eqtines or tl’ektines.

51 27

f/5.6 200 1 496982 5443939 2 152 69-192 0.37 ~0-5


DSC0608-0611

PID11b

VP5

12/9/2015 6:26 PM


brief view northwest from junction of Tilbury Rd and Hopcott Rd (motorist).

45 f/5.6 200 1

497968 5443027 4 278 234-320 0.23 ~0-5

DSC0413-0422 DSC0417-0422

4/19/2018 10:13 PM


52 27

f/5,6 200 0.62

DSC0647-0650 (52 mm) DSC0645-0646 (27 mm)

DSC0647-0649

PID12b

4/19/2018 9:54 PM


brief view northwest from riverbank accessed by foot trail at the end of MacDonald Rd.

52 27

f5.6 200 1.3 496856 5442500 11 347 300-19 0.47 ~0-5


DSC0638-0641

PID13 VP6 12/9/2015 7:08 PM


brief to sustained

view northeast from trail parallel to Deas Island Rd at entrance/exit of Deas Island Regional Park.

50 f/5.6 200 2 496075 5441611 9 24 350-45 2.15 ~0-5 DSC0423-0433 DSC0430-0432

Notes:

)a) Viewing duration ratings reflect the exposure of viewers related to types of activities typically available at each site and the opportunities they present for viewing: Brief = temporary and/or intermittent viewing opportunity (i.e., moving vehicle); Sustained = extended viewing opportunity (i.e., rest stop);

Permanent = continual viewing opportunity (i.e., residence)

a)b) Aperture setting may vary for separate frames of a panoramic sequence to normalize exposure of each image

b)c) Nighttime images are taken and processed to capture the tonal range of multiple photos in low light conditions and approximate the view of the human eye within the more limited range of a monitor or print media

°= degrees; m= metres; mm= millimetres; km= kilometres; “= minutes; MASL= metres above sea level; ID= identification; NAD= North American Datum; UTM= Universal Transverse Mercator


22

5.0 REFERENCES CIE. 1997. Technical Report: Guidelines for Minimizing Sky Glow. Vienna, Austria: Commission Internationale de

l’Eclairage Report No.: CIE 126: 1997, ISBN 978 3 900734 83 1.

CIE. 2003a. Technical Report: Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Installations.

Vienna, Austria: Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage Report No.: CIE 150: 2003, ISBN 9788 3

901906 19 0.

CIE. 2003b. Technical Report: Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light From Outdoor

Installations. ISBN 9788 3 901906 19 0. Vienna, Austria: Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage.

Corporation of Delta. 2017. Event Calendar. [accessed 2018 May 1]. http://delta.ca/your-government/news-

events/event-calendar/2017/08/20/home-calendar/starry-night.

Corporation of Delta. 2018. Spring 2018 Program Guide. [accessed 2018 May 1].

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/parks/ParksPublications/CIO-FallWinter2017.pdf.

IESNA. 1999. RP-33-99, Lighting for Exterior Environments.

Jones B, McLaren D. 2016. Kwantlen Land Use and Occupation in the Vicinity of Tilbury Island. Report prepared

for Kwantlen First Nation and Seyem’ Qwantlen. 11 p.

Marshall. 2017. Patullo Bridge Replacement Project; Cowichan Nation Alliance, Strength of Claim Report.

Metro Vancouver. 2017. Deas Island Regional Park. [accessed 2018 May 1].

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/parks/parks-greenways-reserves/deas-island-regional-park.

Narisada K, Schreuder D. 2004. Light Pollution Handbook.

Tam, J. et al. 2018. xwmәθkwәy̓әm Musqueam Indian Band Knowledge and Use Study: WesPac Midstream’s

Proposed LNG Marine Jetty Project, prepared by Jordan Tam, Rachel Olson and Firelight Research Inc.

with the Musqueam Indian Band, October 9, 2018.

USDI BLM. 1986. Handbook H-8410-1 - Visual Resource Inventory. Bureau of Land Management Manual

Handbook H-8410-1, Rel. 8-30. Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of

Land Management.

USFS. 1995. Agriculture Handbook Number 701 -Landscape Aesthetics, a Handbook for Scenery Management.

USFS.

20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2

APPENDIX B

Baseline Light Survey

Site East (m) North (m)Sky quality @ 45 degrees

Sky quality @ zenith

Light Trespass @ 45 degrees (mlux)

Light Trespass facing site (mlux)

Measurement Conditions

Urban/Rural OktasCorrected Sky quality @ 45 degrees

Brightnessr (% Brightness above natural dark sky)

POR1End of Dennett Pl (Tilbury Island, Delta) 496872 5442521 15.12 17.27 607 399 Partly Cloudy Urban 5 15.82 15964 20349

POR2Delta Community Animal Shelter (Tilbury Island, Delta) 497912 5442978 13.78 16.55 2540 2935 Partly Cloudy Urban 5 14.48 55014 70372

POR3Dyke Road / Tl'uqtinus Village Site (Richmond) 496854 5443916 16.46 17.81 300 419 Partly Cloudy Urban 5 17.16 4661 5871

POR4 Riverport Flats (Richmond) 495388 5442322 16.60 17.60 789 846 Partly Cloudy Urban 5 17.30 4097 5148

POR5Deas Island Regional Park (Delta) 496056 5441614 16.00 16.67 199 204 Partly Cloudy Urban 5 16.70 7120 9020

T10

T5

T0

T15H2

H1 H1 H1H1 H1

H1H1 H1

H1 H1H1

H1 H1H1 H1

H1H1 H1

H1 H1H1

H1 H1H1

H1

H1

H1

H2

H2

H2H2H2 H2

H2

H2

H1

H2

H2

H2

H2H2H2 H2

H2

H2

H2

H2

H2

H1H1 H1

H1 H1

H1 H2H2

H1

H1H2

H1

H2H2

H1

H1

H1

CCT. 5

CCT. 4

AusencoCOPYRIGHT c

A1Ausenco

Vancouver, British Columbia,Canada

T +1 778 684 9311W www.ausenco.com

Nov

04,20

15 -

10:44

am S

:\Pro

j\100

761-

01\C

AD\00

00\e\

drg\1

0076

1-00

00-E

-002

.dwg -

laur

a.tan “

”“

”“

”

10 50403020100

SCALE = 1:750

60m

PRELIMINARY

DREDGED APPROACH CHANNELAND BERTH POCKET

ACCESS TRESTLE

LOADING PLATFORM

90,000m³ LNGC

-5

2,200m³ LNG BARGE

-6

-7

-8

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

0

1

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

-8

-9

-10

-10

C LMOORINGDOLPHIN 1

C LMOORINGDOLPHIN 2

C L BERTHINGDOLPHIN 1

C LBERTHINGDOLPHIN 2

C L LOADINGPLATFORM



C LMOORINGDOLPHIN 3

C L MOORINGDOLPHIN 4

49000 35500 21000 24000 24000 26000 35500 49000

TOP OF DREDGEDSLOPE

CATWALK No. 1

CATWALK

No. 2

CATWALK No. 3

CATWALK No. 4

CATWALK No. 8

CATWALK No. 7

CATWALK No. 6

CATWALK No. 5

PLAN1:750

4198

4 41984

BERTH FACE AZIMUTH 060.5°T

H1

LEGEND:STANCHION MOUNT LED LUMINAIREHOLOPHANE PETROLUX 2 LED, CLASS 1 DIV. 2HPLED 42 700 4K AS XX XX X L5

NOTES:

H2STANCHION MOUNT LED LUMINAIREHOLOPHANE PETROLUX 2 LED, CLASS 1 DIV. 2HPLED 42 700 5K AS XX XX X L1

NOTES:

1. PE - PHOTOCELL ORIENT TO NORTH SKY.

2. TR TIMER RELAY TO CONTROL HIGH/LOW LIGHTING LEVELS ATSPECIFIC TIMES. TIMER TO BE MODEL H5S-WFB2 BY OMRON.

3. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL EQUIPMENT IS LOCATED INLIGHTING CONTACTOR PANEL.

4. LIGHTING CONTACTORS LC2, LC3 AND ALL ASSOCIATEDCONTACTS SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM LC1 BY A BARRIERINSIDE LIGHTING CONTACTOR PANEL.

N120V

O TO ROADWAY LUMINAIRESCCT. 1 & 2

PE

LC1

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOREXTERIOR LIGHTING CONTROL

120VAC

R5

LC2NOTE 1

LIGHTING CONTROL ANDOFF-LO-HI-AUTO SWITCHINSIDE LIGHTING SWITCHPANEL

MANUAL HI-ON RELAY

LOHIA

MANUAL LOW-ON RELAY

PHOTOCELL CONTROL RELAY

LIGHTING CONTACTORS#1, #2 & #3

R-3

R-4

R-3

R-3 R-4TR

R1A LIGHTING CONTACTORHI-ON RELAY

LIGHTING CONTROL PANEL LAYOUT(COVER)

LIGHTINGCONTROL PANEL

PE3c14 TECK

(750m) PHOTOCELL

JB JB JB JB JB

JB

ROADWAY LUMINAIRES

CATWALK & DOLPHIN LUMINAIRES

POWER DISTRIBUTION BLOCK DIAGRAM

3c#1/0 TECK (600V)

TRANSFORMER25kVA

480-120/240V

3c#4/0 TECK (1000V)(1000m)

480V POWER SUPPLYFROM ELECTRICAL ROOM

PHOTOCELL

ROADWAYLIGHTING

CATWALK& DOLPHIN

LIGHTING

NEMA 4X RATED KIOSK/ENCLOSURE(LOCATED NEAR SITE OFFICE)

R3

R4

R5

JB JB JB JB

AusencoCOPYRIGHT c

A1Ausenco

Vancouver, British Columbia,Canada

T +1 778 684 9311W www.ausenco.com

Nov

04,20

15 -

10:42

am S

:\Pro

j\100

761-

01\C

AD\00

00\e\

drg\1

0076

1-00

00-E

-004

.dwg -

laur

a.tan “

”“

”“

”

PRELIMINARY

LOADINGPLATFORM &

TRESTLELIGHTING

LOADING PLATFORM & TRESTLE LUMINAIRES

JB JB JB JB JB

JB JB JB JB JB

H1

H1

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H2

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H1

H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2

LC3

LOADING PLATFORM &TRESTLE LUMINAIRESCCT. 7, 8 & 9

SPARE

CATWALK & DOLPHINLUMINAIRESCCT. 3, 4, 5 & 6

SPARE

36 CCTDISTRIBUTION

PANEL

3c1/0 TECK(750m)

3c12 TECK(100m)

3c12 TECK(225m)

3c10 TECK(325m)

3c10 TECK(370m)

3c10 TECK(350m)

3c8 TECK(500m)

3c14 TECK

3c4 TECK

3c8 TECK

3c12 TECK

3c12 TECK

3c10 TECK

3c10 TECK

3c10 TECK

3c8 TECK

L1 L2

NEUTRALLOAD(W)

BRKR.RATING

(A)

36 CCT., 120/240V, 1-PHASE, 60A PANEL

ROADWAY LUMINAIRES

CIRCUIT OR LOADDESIGNATION

CABLESIZE

CCTNo.

CIRCUIT OR LOADDESIGNATION

CABLESIZE

3

5

1

7

11

9

4

6

2

8

12

10

3670 1515

15

3c1/0

CATWALK & DOLPHINLUMINAIRES

3c#8

SPARE

3c#4

1000

LOAD(W)

BRKR.RATING

(A)

CCTNo.

PHOTOCELL

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15


3c#101000

3c#121000

TRESTLE LUMINAIRES3c#101000

TRESTLE LUMINAIRES

ROADWAY LUMINAIRES



TRESTLE LUMINAIRES

SPARE

3670

1000

1000

1000

3c#8

3c#10

3c#12

SPARE

3c#14

3c4 TECK(325m)

3c8 TECK(500m)

3c1/0 TECK

3635SPACE

golder.com

appendix 6.4-1 visual quality baseline study

Documents