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)
Scenic Element Rationale
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
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 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.
Scenic Quality Rating Medium
Source: based on USDI BLM inventory system and USFS SMS (USDI BLM 1986a; USFS 1995).
Table 5: Scenic Quality Ratings VP3 - Fraser River (Upstream)
Scenic Element Rationale
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
intermittent natural vegetation).
Vegetation Some variety of vegetation with moderately distinct forms, textures and patterns
(irregular, rounded forms of riparian and woodland 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. 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, barges and piles provide some
visual variety to the area but introduce elements that are discordant with natural
features. Temporary vessel traffic expected.
Scenic Quality Rating Medium
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)
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. 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.
Scenic Quality Rating Medium
Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system and USFS SMS (USDI BLM 1986a; USFS 1995).
Table 7: Scenic Quality Ratings VP5 – Tilbury Industrial Park
Scenic Element Rationale
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.
Scarcity A landscape that includes natural foreshore and industrial use is fairly common within
the region (South Arm of the Fraser River).
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
Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system and USFS SMS (USDI BLM 1986a; USFS 1995).
20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
17
Table 8: Scenic Quality Ratings VP6 – Deas Island Regional Park
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); dense urban land use visible in background.
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, 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.
Scarcity A landscape that includes natural foreshore and industrial use is fairly common within
the region (South Arm of the Fraser River).
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).
Scenic Quality Rating Medium
Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system and USFS SMS (USDI BLM 1986a; USFS 1995).
Table 9: Scenic Quality Ratings VP7 – Garry Point Park
Scenic Element Rationale
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
together but visual order is partially disrupted (industrial land use mixed with
intermittent natural vegetation).
Vegetation Some variety of vegetation (grass and woodlands) with moderately distinct forms,
textures and patterns.
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, boats, and marine-infrastructure. Not
a dominant scenic element.
Adjacent scenery Views of adjacent land uses and landscape features moderately enhances 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 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.
Scenic Quality Rating Medium
Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system and USFS SMS (USDI BLM 1986a; USFS 1995).
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)
Sensitivity Element Rationale
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.
Public interest Visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.
Adjacent land uses Views of landscape with prominent commercial and industrial land and marine use
areas.
Special areas No visual management objectives exist.
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)
Sensitivity Element Rationale
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.
Public interest Visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.
Adjacent land uses Views of landscape with prominent industrial land and marine use areas.
Special areas No visual management objectives exist.
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.
Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system (USDI BLM 1986a). Notes: N/A = not applicable.
Table 13: Sensitivity Ratings VP4 – Fraser River (Downstream)
Sensitivity Element Rationale
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.
Public interest Visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.
Adjacent land uses Views of landscape with evident residential and industrial land and marine use areas.
Special areas No visual management objectives exist.
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
Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system (USDI BLM 1986a). Notes: N/A = not applicable.
Table 14: Sensitivity Ratings VP5 – Tilbury Industrial Park
Sensitivity Element Rationale
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.
Public interest Visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.
Adjacent land uses Views of landscape with prominent industrial land use areas.
Special areas No visual management objectives exist.
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.
Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system (USDI BLM 1986a). Notes: N/A = not applicable.
Table 15: Sensitivity Ratings VP6 – Deas Island Regional Park
Sensitivity Element Rationale
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.
Public interest Visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.
Adjacent land uses Within natural parkland setting; views of landscape with evident industrial,
commercial, recreational, and residential land and marine use areas.
Special areas No visual management objectives exist.
Other factors N/A
Overall viewer
sensitivity rating
Medium Recreational use in regional park in context that includes evident industrial
land and marine use.
Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system (USDI BLM 1986a). Notes: N/A = not applicable.
20 March 2019 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
21
Table 16: Sensitivity Ratings VP7 – Garry Point Park
Sensitivity Element Rationale
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.
Special areas No visual management objectives exist.
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.
Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system (USDI BLM 1986a). Notes: N/A = not applicable.
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 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.
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 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.,
Queensborough), in Richmond, Delta, New Westminster, and Coquitlam.
Ambient light is evident from the regional urban context of Metro
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
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
ii
List of Units Abbreviation Term
° degrees
km kilometre
m metre
MASL metres above sea level
mm millimetre
sec seconds
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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.
Score 5 Score 3 Score 1
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.
Score 5 Score 3 Score 0
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
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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.
Score 5 Score 3 Score 1
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.
Score 5 Score 3 Score 0
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
Source: based on USDI BLM inventory system and USFS SMS (USDI BLM 1986a; USFS 1995).
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:
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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.
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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).
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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
Scenic Quality Rating Medium
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
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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.
Date: April 19, 2018
Scenic Element Rating Rationale
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)
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 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
Scenic Quality Rating Medium
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 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
Public interest Medium Visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.
Adjacent land uses Low Views of landscape with prominent commercial and industrial land and marine use areas
Special areas Low No visual management objectives exist.
Other factors None N/A
Overall Viewer Sensitivity 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 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.
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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
Scenic Element Rating Rationale
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 and woodland 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. 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, 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
Scenic Quality Rating Medium
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 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.
Public interest Medium Visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.
Adjacent land uses Low Views of landscape with prominent industrial land and marine use areas
Special areas Low No visual management objectives exist.
Other factors None N/A
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.
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.
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
9
Figure 4: Photo Survey Viewpoint 4 (VP4) – Fraser River (Downstream)
Coordinates: 494790E 5441072N UTM 10 Elevation: 6m MASL Viewing Direction: 50° Distance: ~ 2.7km
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
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. 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 and barges; some visual variety added but somewhat discordant with natural foreshore environment. Temporary vessel traffic expected.
Total 17
Scenic Quality Rating Medium
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 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.
Public interest Medium Visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.
Adjacent land uses Medium Views of landscape with evident residential and industrial land and marine use areas
Special areas Low No visual management objectives exist.
Other factors None N/A
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.
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
10
Figure 5: Photo Survey Viewpoint 5 (VP5) – Tilbury Industrial Park
Coordinates: 497968E 5443027N UTM 10 Elevation: 4m MASL Viewing Direction: 278° Distance: ~ 0.23km
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.
Date: April 19, 2018
Scenic Element Rating Rationale
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
A landscape that includes natural foreshore and industrial use is fairly common within the region (South Arm of the Fraser River).
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
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 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
Special areas Low No visual management objectives exist.
Other factors None N/A
Overall Viewer Sensitivity Low
Commercial / industrial use with regular and low to moderate level of use in context that includes prominent industrial land 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.
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
11
Figure 6: Photo Survey Viewpoint 6 (VP6) – Deas Island Regional Park
Coordinates: 496075E 5441611N UTM 10 Elevation: 9m MASL Viewing Direction: 24° Distance: ~ 2.15km
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)
Notes: High = (greater than 19), Medium (12 to 18), Low (0 to 11)
Sensitivity Element Rating Rationale
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
Public interest Medium Visual quality is considered a moderate public issue regionally.
Adjacent land uses Medium Within natural parkland setting; views of landscape with evident industrial, commercial, recreational, and residential land and marine use areas
Special areas Low No visual management objectives exist.
Other factors None N/A
Overall Viewer Sensitivity Medium Recreational use in regional park in context that includes evident 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.
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
12
Figure 7: Photo Survey Viewpoint 7 (VP7) – Garry Point Park
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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
A landscape that includes natural foreshore and industrial use is fairly common within the region (South Arm of the Fraser River).
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
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); 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;
Sensitivity Element Rating Rationale
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
Special areas Low No visual management objectives exist.
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
Source: ratings based on USDI BLM inventory system (USDI BLM 1986).
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.
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
15
Figure 9: Photo Survey Viewpoint 2 (VP2) – Dyke Road (Tl'uqtinus Village Site) 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 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
brightness representative of town / city centres and
commercial areas urban areas, residential and
commercial with high levels of nighttime activity
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
16
Figure 10: Photo Survey Viewpoint 5 (VP5) – Tilbury Industrial Park Nighttime View
DATE: April 19, 2018
Light Trespass - Environmental Lighting Zone
Sky Glow - Environmental Lighting Zone
Environmental Light Level Description
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.
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
17
Figure 11: Photo Survey Viewpoint 6 (VP6) – Deas Island Regional Park Nighttime View2
DATE: December 9, 2015
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 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
brightness representative of town / city centres and
commercial areas urban areas, residential and
commercial with high levels of nighttime activity
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).
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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
partial cloud and sunny brief to
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
partial cloud and sunny
52 27
f/8 100 1/250 DSC0509-0512 (52 mm) DSC0513-0515 (27 mm)
DSC0509-0512
PID2 8/12/2015 10:30 AM
partial cloud and sunny
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
partial cloud and sunny brief to
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
partial cloud and sunny
52 27
f/9 100 1/320 DSC0540-0545 (52 mm) DSC0546-0549 (27 mm)
DSC0540-0545
PID3b
8/12/2015 11:19 AM
partial cloud and sunny
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
partial cloud and sunny
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
partial cloud and sunny
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
partial cloud and sunny
52 27
f/9 100 1/320 DSC0598-0602 (52 mm) DSC0603-0607 (27 mm)
DSC0598-0601
PID5 8/12/2015 12:19 PM
partial cloud and sunny
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
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
19
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
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
DSC0670-0675 (52 mm) DSC0676-0680 (52 mm) DSC0681-0683 (27 mm)
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 (52 mm) DSC0690-0692 (52 mm) DSC0693-0696 (27 mm)
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
partial cloud and sunny
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
partial cloud and sunny
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
partial cloud and sunny
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
partial cloud and sunny
52 27
f/9 100 1/320
DSC0587-0590 (52 mm) DSC0591-0594 (52 mm) DSC0595-0597 (27 mm)
DSC0591-0594
PID14 VP7 5/31/2018 2:30 PM
partial cloud and sunny
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
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
20
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
(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
partial cloud and sunny
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
partial cloud and sunny
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
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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
night; partial cloud
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
night; partial cloud
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 (51 mm) DSC0612-0615 (51 mm) DSC0616-0622 (27 mm)
DSC0608-0611
PID11b
VP5
12/9/2015 6:26 PM
night; partial cloud
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
night; partial cloud
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
night; partial cloud
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
DSC0633-0637 (52 mm) DSC0638-0641 (52 mm) DSC0642-0644 (27 mm)
DSC0638-0641
PID13 VP6 12/9/2015 7:08 PM
night; partial cloud
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
APPENDIX A 1314220049-134-R-Rev2
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 LBERTHINGDOLPHIN 3
C LBERTHINGDOLPHIN 4
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
CATWALK & DOLPHINLUMINAIRES
3c#101000
3c#121000
TRESTLE LUMINAIRES3c#101000
TRESTLE LUMINAIRES
ROADWAY LUMINAIRES
CATWALK & DOLPHINLUMINAIRES
CATWALK & DOLPHINLUMINAIRES
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