VISUAL AND LIGHTING IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE ROBERTS

Transcription

VISUAL AND LIGHTING
IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE
ROBERTS BANK CONTAINER EXPANSION
DELTAPORT THIRD BERTH PROJECT
DELTA, B.C.
Prepared for:
Vancouver Port Authority
2700 Granville Square,
200 Granville Street,
Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2P9
Prepared by:
CATHERINE BERRIS ASSOCIATES INC.
420 – 1639 West 2nd Ave.
Vancouver, B.C. V6J 1H3
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING (B.C.) LIMITED
#300 - 4940 Canada Way
Burnaby, B.C. V5G 4M5
Date: November 30, 2004
Roberts Bank Container Expansion Project
Deltaport Third Berth
Visual and Lighting Impact Assessment
-i-
Catherine Berris Associates Inc.
Associated Engineering (B.C.) Ltd.
November, 2004
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Context
The Vancouver Port Authority (“VPA” or “proponent”) has prepared a container terminal
expansion strategy to enable the Port of Vancouver to maintain its strong competitive position as
a North American gateway for container trade. The expansion strategy includes the development
of additional container facilities at VPA’s existing Roberts Bank Port facility located in Delta,
British Columbia. One of these projects, the Deltaport Third Berth Project, will add a third berth
to the existing Deltaport Container Terminal. VPA is preparing an environmental assessment
(EA) of the Deltaport Third Berth Project. This section of the EA addresses the visual (daytime)
and lighting (night-time) impact assessment.
The Project consists of construction of a wharf to accommodate an additional berth and
approximately 20 hectares (50 acres) of land for an expanded container storage yard. It will also
include dredging to lengthen the existing ship channel and create a tug moorage area adjacent to
the terminal. Based on preliminary research, it is expected that the number of vessels will
increase from 365 vessel calls to approximately 393 vessel calls per year at full capacity in 2012.
Additional terminal lighting will be required but the detailed design has yet to be determined.
Lighting for the Deltaport Third Berth Project will meet the Canada Labour Code requirements
for worker safety, and will be designed to minimize environmental and socio-community impact.
Daytime Visual Assessment
The method for the daytime visual impact assessment included: a visual landscape inventory of
existing conditions, selection and description of four representative viewpoints, a visual
landscape impact assessment of the proposed changes using computer visualizations from the
viewpoints as a tool, and identification of mitigation measures.
The four viewpoints were selected to provide a representative sampling of the various viewing
conditions.
• North Dyke near south end of 34th Street - represents views from the north;
• Tsawwassen First Nation Band Office - represents the TFN village perspective (based on
consultation with the TFN);
• B.C. Ferries causeway pullout (near BC Ferries terminal) – closest viewpoint from which
the facility is seen by the public; and
• Fred Gingell Park on top of English Bluff - represent the views of park users and
residents to the south.
Visual impacts during construction will be related to construction work in the terminal area with
construction equipment and material stockpiles, and dredging equipment in the berth, terminal
and shipping channel areas. The dredging operations will run 24 hours/day for approximately 9
-ii-
November, 2004
months. Since the construction area will be similar to the proposed expansion area, in relation to
the viewpoints, the construction phase will have impacts that are similar to the final visual
impacts during operation (described below). One exception to this is that the dredging equipment
will cover a larger area than the space that will ultimately be occupied by a ship.
Visual impacts during the operation of the third berth will include: three additional gantry cranes
(currently there are six cranes) as prominent vertical features; one additional ship adding to the
visual mass of the terminal; high-mast lighting; and container stacks and other terminal
equipment adding mass and vertical elements to the new terminal.
The following is a summary of the incremental visual impact from each viewpoint:
• North Dyke Viewpoint – From this viewpoint, the overall visual impact is considered low
because of the distance, the viewing angle, and the small change that the expansion will
have on this view (6% more of the view occupied by the terminal).
• Tsawwassen First Nation Band Office - From this viewpoint, overall visual impact is
considered low because the visual area occupied by the terminal will not increase.
• B.C. Ferries Causeway Viewpoint – From this viewpoint, the overall visual impact is
considered moderate because, with the proximity of this viewpoint, the expansion will be
very visible. However, viewers typically see this view for a short duration and their focus
is on reaching the ferry terminal.
• Fred Gingell Park Viewpoint - From this viewpoint, the overall visual impact is
considered low because of the distance and because of the obtuse angle of this view.
The visual impact of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would vary depending on the
viewing distance, relative number and type of viewers, duration and angle of view and the
increased portion of the view that the terminal would occupy. As stated above the visual impact
would be low from three of the viewpoints, and moderate from the BC Ferries causeway. All
views of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would be seen within the context of the
existing Roberts Bank port facility.
No methods are available to mitigate visual impacts during construction of the proposed
Deltaport Third Berth Project. The VPA would, however, work with the community to identify
the need to mitigate visual impacts during operation of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth
Project. Mitigation measures may include consideration of gantry crane colour and, where
practical, options for a landscape buffer strip to be established along the outer edge of the
Roberts Bank causeway.
The residual visual effects after mitigation would be marginally reduced from the originally
estimated effects.
-iii-
November, 2004
Night-time Lighting Assessment
The methodology for the lighting impact assessment consisted of two phases: inventory and
analysis. This included: review of existing lighting systems at the facility, creation of
photometric models for the existing facility to determine the actual lighting levels,
photographing of the existing lighting systems from designated viewpoints to record existing
conditions, review of available lighting reports, and review of lighting recommendations for port
and intermodal facilities as published by Illuminating Engineering Society and the Canada
Labour Code.
The present lighting installations at the Roberts Bank port facility consist of two light sources:
metal halide on the container loading equipment, and high pressure sodium on high-mast poles to
illuminate the container and intermodal yards. The illuminated portions of the causeway use high
pressure sodium luminaires as well.
The use of aimed floodlights which are aimed at angles greater than the cutoff angle cause visual
disturbance (light trespass, excessive brightness and glare) to surrounding properties. The
existing lighting systems at the Roberts Bank port facility are approximately 3 km from the
closest development, however the lighting systems as installed give rise to complaints due
mainly to nuisance glare, brightness and light pollution, not only from the closest neighbours but
from as far away as Saturna Island, approximately 26 km to the southwest of the port facility.
The ship-to-shore gantry cranes, which are used to load and unload the containers, have their
own lighting systems mounted on the gantry arms, to provide the additional lighting needed by
the crane operator to view the immediate work area. The luminaires are mounted along the
length of the arm and when the arms are raised or lowered, the view of the facility changes as
seen by the local residents, causing a visual disturbance to them.
In addition, there is lighting on the crane superstructure, which is used to raise the illumination
level around the perimeter of the crane for worker and vehicle safety. This lighting is of a
floodlight nature, and not only spills light all around the crane, but also reflects off the white
paint of the equipment and compounds the brightness effects on the surrounding residents.
Night-time visual impacts during construction will be related to the following activities:
• lighting associated with terminal construction activities – this is expected to have a low
impact since it will be low level floodlighting from portable lighting plants operating
during limited working hours; and
• lighting associated with dredging in the berth, terminal and shipping channel areas – this
will have a much higher impact with lights on moving dredges for 24 hours per day over
9 months.
During operation, there should not be an increase in the overall lighting levels as viewed from
off site, however as the lighting will be extended over a larger area, there will be a perception
that the overall brightness of the facility is greater. The effect that the facility lighting has on the
-iv-
November, 2004
local residential areas has more to do with light trespass, brightness and nuisance glare than light
contribution.
Photometric measurements were taken from each of the viewpoints, however no measurable
readings were attainable, due to the very low level of light at each location and its distance from
the source. Extraneous local lighting at each location was all that could be picked up with the
instrumentation used. Photometric models indicate that downlight cutoff luminaires would
minimize sky glow and light trespass. However, given the many reflective surfaces at the
facility, it will be virtually impossible to reduce the sky glow and reflections.
The expanded lighting system at the facility will have minimal impacts on all of the viewpoints
except for the TFN Village, where the impacts will be more apparent. The expanded lighting
system will bring the lighted facility closer to the TFN Village. The low viewing angle and the
height of the proposed poles may afford some vision of the luminaire face, which is the main
cause of glare. These issues may be difficult to resolve given present technology, however it is
predicted that any glare will mainly be nuisance glare, with a small disability component.
Local plant and animal life will continue to be affected, however as the existing facility has been
in place for a number of years, and the native wildlife has adapted to the situation, the effects of
the Third Berth construction should not adversely affect their present situation.
The following are the primary mitigation measures proposed:
•
•
•
•
•
use of downlight style cutoff luminaires;
re-aiming of existing luminaires at the Roberts bank port facility;
lighting control systems which will permit the reduction of the amount of lighting during
periods of low activity;
innovative mounting systems for the lighting on the ship-to-shore cranes to minimize the
light throw during raising and lowering of the equipment (keep the lights pointed down,
no matter what the position of the gantry arm; and,
activation of existing automatic lighting controls on the crane arms to extinguish the arm
lights when the arm has been raised for 15 minutes.
If the mitigation measures discussed above are implemented, the overall impact of the lighting
systems proposed for the Deltaport Third Berth Project is expected to be low at all viewpoints,
however the effect on the TFN Village may be slightly higher than for the other areas.
-v-
November, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION..........................................................................2
3.0
2.1
TRAFFIC FORECASTS ................................................................................................ 3
2.2
PROJECT COMPONENTS ............................................................................................ 3
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................... 5
EXISTING VISUAL CONDITIONS...........................................................5
3.1
4.0
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1
Visual Landscape Inventory ....................................................................... 5
3.1.2
Visual Landscape Impact Assessment Overview ....................................... 6
3.1.3
Visual Impact Assessment Procedure......................................................... 7
3.2
VISUAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION.......................................................................... 9
3.3
VIEWPOINTS........................................................................................................... 13
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...........................................................17
4.1
CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................... 17
4.2
OPERATION ............................................................................................................ 17
4.3
ANALYSIS OF VISUAL IMPACTS .............................................................................. 17
4.4
CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION ................................................................................. 26
4.5
OPERATION MITIGATION ....................................................................................... 26
5.0
RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ....................................................26
6.0
CUMULATIVE VISUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT.............................26
7.0
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING DAYTIME VISUAL IMPACT ..........27
8.0
EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS ...................................................28
9.0
8.1
METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 28
8.2
LIGHTING TERMS ................................................................................................... 28
8.3
ROBERTS BANK PORT FACILITY LIGHTING DESCRIPTION ...................................... 30
8.4
REPRESENTATIVE VIEWPOINTS .............................................................................. 33
LIGHTING IMPACT ASSESSMENT......................................................37
9.1
CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................... 37
-vi-
November, 2004
9.2
OPERATION ............................................................................................................ 38
9.3
ANALYSIS OF LIGHTING IMPACTS .......................................................................... 38
9.4
EFFECTS ON FLORA AND FAUNA ............................................................................ 40
9.5
SAFETY AND SECURITY .......................................................................................... 40
9.6
CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION ................................................................................. 41
9.7
OPERATIONAL MITIGATION ................................................................................... 41
10.0 RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ....................................................43
11.0 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING LIGHTING IMPACT.........................44
12.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................45
APPENDIX A: LANDSCAPE UNIT DATABASE ............................................46
APPENDIX B: VIEWPOINT DATABASE ........................................................48
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Site Map......................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 – Aerial Visualization of Proposed Expansion................................................................. 4
Figure 3 – Landscape Units .......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4 – Viewpoint Locations ................................................................................................... 14
Figure 5 – Viewpoint Analysis (Viewpoints 1 and 2) .................................................................. 15
Figure 6 – Viewpoint Analysis (Viewpoints 3 and 4) .................................................................. 16
Figure 7 – Illustration of Lighting Terms ..................................................................................... 30
Figure 8 – Illustration of Existing Lighting .................................................................................. 31
Figure 9 – Crane Lighting............................................................................................................. 32
Figure 10 – Causeway and Railyard Lighting from TFN Longhouse .......................................... 33
Figure 11 – Existing Night Views ................................................................................................ 35
Figure 11 – Existing Night Views (cont’d)................................................................................... 36
Figure 12 – Dredging Equipment ................................................................................................. 37
Figure 13 – Comparison of Luminaire Effects ............................................................................. 39
-1-
November, 2004
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Vancouver Port Authority (“VPA” or “proponent”) has prepared a container terminal
expansion strategy to enable the Port of Vancouver to maintain its strong competitive position as
a North American gateway for container trade. Trans-Pacific container shipments are increasing
due to the growth in global trade, particularly with China, and the ongoing containerization of
products. As a result, major ports on the West Coast of North America expect their container
traffic to triple in the next twenty years. South of Vancouver, the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma are
making major investments in terminal facilities that will enable them to compete for future
business. Port of Vancouver’s container terminal facilities must also expand in order for the port
to continue serving Canada’s trade.
VPA’s expansion strategy proposes to increase the container terminal capacity at the Port of
Vancouver from 1.7 million TEUs in 2003 to over 5 million TEUs by 2020, (a TEU, or twentyfoot equivalent unit, is a standard unit for measuring container volumes based on a container 20
feet in length). The expansion strategy includes the development of additional container facilities
at VPA’s existing Roberts Bank Port facility located in Delta, British Columbia. The Deltaport
Third Berth Project will add a third berth to the existing Deltaport Container Terminal. VPA is
studying the environmental impacts of the Deltaport Third Berth Project and is committed to
developing a project that is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable.
The Deltaport Third Berth Project is located at the existing Roberts Bank Port facility in Delta,
approximately 35 km south of Vancouver. The existing VPA facilities at Roberts Bank include
Deltaport, a 65 hectare (160 acres) container terminal operated by Terminal Systems Inc. (TSI),
and Westshore Terminals, a 50 hectare (approximately 124 acres) bulk handling coal port
facility. These terminals are connected to the mainland by a 4.1 km long causeway, which
supports road and rail infrastructure.
Roberts Bank is located along the southwestern margin of the Fraser River delta. The Roberts
Bank causeway and terminal is located on the south end of Roberts Bank, south of the main area
of the Fraser River outflow. Roberts Bank itself consists of a shallow area of sediments
extending out from the shoreline along the seaward side of the river delta. During low tide, these
sediments are exposed as mudflats, which extend for several hundred meters from the shore
towards the ocean. Marine vegetation in the area consists of estuarine marsh, salt marsh and
eelgrass beds.
The VPA considered several locations for Deltaport Third Berth, including berth locations south
of Deltaport and adjacent to Westshore operations, and terminal land areas on the west side of
the causeway. After a review of these locations, it was determined that the project could not
disrupt the existing Westshore operations, must have a berth location and terminal land location
adjacent to the existing facility for operational reasons, and must be cost effective for both
project construction and operation. In addition, the proposed footprint was designed to minimize
impacts to the marine environment. These requirements led to the Deltaport Third Berth location
north of the existing Deltaport terminal, as shown on Figure 1 – Site Map.
-2-
November, 2004
Figure 1 – Site Map
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Deltaport functions as a transhipment centre for the transfer of containers between marine
vessels and inland transportation by road and rail. The Project consists of construction of a
wharf to accommodate an additional berth and approximately 20 hectares (50 acres) of land for
an expanded container storage yard. It will also include dredging to lengthen the existing ship
channel and create a tug moorage area adjacent to the terminal. The Deltaport Third Berth
Project will result in additional marine, road and rail traffic. Project infrastructure will support
the movement of this additional traffic. Rail improvements will be required on the causeway and
adjacent to Deltaport Way. Road improvements may also be required, pending further Ministry
of Transportation and VPA studies.
2.1
-3-
November, 2004
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Marine traffic at Deltaport is projected to change both in numbers and in vessel size over the
next twenty years. Based on preliminary research, it is expected that the number of vessels will
increase from 365 vessel calls to approximately 393 vessel calls per year at full capacity in 2012.
In the long term it is expected that vessel sizes will continue to increase from the average of
4,500 TEUs, and at some point, vessels as large as 10,000 TEUs will call at Deltaport. This
could result in a lower number of vessel calls in the future.
In 2003, approximately 57 % of all import and export containers were handled by rail. By 2012,
rail container traffic is forecasted to increase to 65 % of all import and export containers at
Roberts Bank, which will increase container trains by three trains per day, resulting in a total of
nine container trains per day. Total Roberts Bank rail traffic, including coal trains, will
increase from the current 18 trains to a total of 23 trains.
In 2003, approximately 43 % of all import and export containers were handled by truck. This
generated approximately 1800 truck trips per day (900 in and 900 out). In early 2004, the
terminal operator introduced a new policy to restrict the number of empty containers being
repositioned to the terminal. This policy reduced the truck traffic to approximately 1500 trips
per day. By 2012, truck traffic is forecasted to represent 35 % of all import and export
containers. This will increase truck traffic to approximately to 2400 trips per day.
2.2
PROJECT COMPONENTS
The components of the Deltaport Third Berth Project consist of construction of a wharf to
accommodate the third berth, land for the container storage yard, an additional truck exit gate, a
tug moorage area and boat launch, extension of the ship channel, additional rail support track and
some limited road improvements. A 3D aerial visualization of the proposed expansion is shown
in Figure 2.
The wharf will be 427 metres (1400 feet) long. The conceptual wharf design incorporates
concrete caissons as the main support structure.
The Deltaport Third Berth Project includes the construction of approximately 20 hectares (50
acres) of new land area for container operations and storage. This will increase the area of
Deltaport from 65 hectares (160 acres) to approximately 85 hectares (210 acres). The land will
be created through dredging and landfill operations. The revetment works (i.e., shoreline
protection) for the northern shoreline of the container yard will consist of rock armoured slopes.
A truck exit gate and electrical substation buildings are the only new buildings required on the
terminal as part of the Deltaport Third Berth Project. The existing ILWU lunchroom building
located on the Deltaport terminal will be relocated to the Deltaport Third Berth container yard
area.
-4-
November, 2004
Figure 2 – Aerial Visualization of Proposed Expansion
The tug moorage area currently located at the northeast corner of the existing Deltaport terminal
will be relocated to the northern corner of the third berth. The tug moorage area will consist of a
floating dock, walkway and dredged channel to allow tug access. The safety boat launch,
currently located in the Deltaport terminal tug moorage area, will be relocated as part of the
Deltaport Third Berth Project to the new tug moorage area. The existing ship channel will be
extended with a depth of approximately 16 metres to provide access and adequate draft for
container ships.
There is approximately 50,000 feet of rail track currently used for container operations at
Roberts Bank. Preliminary rail analysis indicates that there will be a requirement for
approximately 23,000 feet of additional rail track for the Deltaport Third Berth Project. This rail
track will be provided by extending the arrival/departure tracks at the Gulf siding (east of 57B
Street to 64th Street) and adding support track on the causeway. All of the rail improvements will
be constructed within BC Rail’s property on the Roberts Bank causeway and within their
existing right-of-way.
No new road infrastructure along the causeway will be required to support the Deltaport Third
Berth Project. To address the rail requirements, the at-grade road rail crossing at Deltaport Way
and 57B Street is proposed to be closed, and a rail access road will be constructed south of
Deltaport Way in the rail right-of-way between 57B Street and 64th Street in Delta. In addtion, to
-5-
November, 2004
address the additional Project traffic on Highway 17, the VPA and the Ministry of Transportation
are currently assessing a number of options for short-term improvements. Widening of the
Roberts Bank causeway is not required for the Deltaport Third Berth Project.
There will be limited construction of new site services for the Project, as many of the existing
Deltaport site services are adequate to meet the Deltaport Third Berth Project needs. For
instance, no power line improvements are required, no additional fuel supply or fuel storage
facilities are required, and no additional sewage or waste disposal facilities are required. No offsite water services will be required, however an on-site storage tank will be constructed.
Additional terminal lighting will be required but the detailed design has yet to be determined.
Lighting for the Deltaport Third Berth Project will meet the Canada Labour Code requirements
for worker safety, and will be designed to minimize environmental and socio-community impact.
Deltaport operations consist of the loading and unloading of container ships, container storage,
and container transfers to and from rail and road transport. The container ships are loaded and
unloaded by electric powered ship-to-shore gantry cranes that are rail mounted at the berth face.
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental assessment will be conducted which will meet both provincial (BCEAA) and
federal (CEAA) requirements. The environmental assessment will identify potential
environmental, economic, social, heritage and health impacts associated with the Project and
define how potential adverse impacts will be avoided or mitigated. As part of the environmental
assessment, biophysical and socio-community studies on a wide range of topics are being
undertaken. This study is the visual and lighting impact assessment. The visual component (daytime analysis) is described first, followed by the lighting (night-time) assessment.
3.0 EXISTING VISUAL CONDITIONS
3.1
METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the visual landscape assessment consists of two key phases: inventory and
analysis. The tasks involved for each phase are described below.
3.1.1
Visual Landscape Inventory
Conduct a daytime visual landscape inventory, including the following information:
• Determination of the geographic scope of the visual impact assessment based on the
extent of potential impacts,
-6-
November, 2004
• Delineation of the Roberts Bank facility and the surrounding landscape into landscape
units (areas with similar visual characteristics) and description for each unit as follows:
• Natural characteristics of the landscape, including:
• Landform – terrain slope, height, topographic variety
• Land cover – type, diversity
• Alteration – level and type of alteration, including surrounding development, B.C.
Ferries terminal and Roberts Bank facility
• Social considerations – residents or public, identified or potential interests and
concerns
• Identification of four representative viewpoints based on community and public use
areas and the ability to see the proposed works from different angles.
• Taking photographs of the container port from each viewpoint, ensuring that the
photographs show as much as possible, e.g., sunlight at an optimum angle for lighting of
the facility, minimize foreground obstructions.
• Description of each viewpoint, including: distance, number and type of viewers, typical
duration of view (e.g. shorter from a road than from a residence), frequency of view,
view angle,
• Identifying existing conditions related to the current Roberts Bank facility,
• Identifying potential measures to mitigate existing impacts, e.g., trees and/or shrubs along
causeway, colour of structures or equipment at the container port
3.1.2
Visual Landscape Impact Assessment Overview
Conduct a daytime visual landscape impact assessment, including the following tasks:
• Prepare computer visualizations illustrating the proposed Deltaport Third Berth as
follows:
1. Prepare 3D computer models of the existing Roberts Bank terminal facilities, and
align these with the four representative photographs from key viewpoints. Add the
proposed Deltaport Third Berth into the computer visualizations in the proper
position to scale using solid colour shading.
2. Use photo-realistic simulation methods, e.g. texture, colour, and shading matched
to resemble existing facilities, to prepared visualizations of the proposed
Deltaport Third Berth as it will appear within each view.
• Provide a description of the estimated visual impacts that would potentially result from
the construction and operation of the proposed facility. (Existing conditions are
considered the baseline. Visual impact assessment criteria are explained in more detail in
the following sections.)
November, 2004
-7-
• Identify appropriate mitigation measures to address the potential visual impacts
associated with the construction and operation of the proposed projects.
• Identify necessary follow-up requirements associated with the construction and operation
of the proposed projects.
• Assess and report the residual visual effects, after taking into account the implementation
of proposed mitigation measures and follow-up requirements.
3.1.3
Visual Impact Assessment Procedure
The procedure for assessing visual impact was based on the evaluation of two components:
• Viewer considerations – primary factors are the number of viewers, duration of view, and
angle of view.
• Actual visual impact – primary factors are the distance and the proportional increase in
the view occupied by the terminal
Each factor above was rated individually according to the definitions in Table 1.
Table 1 Visual Impact Assessment Criteria
Criteria
Number of Viewers:
• High
• Moderate
• Low
Duration of View
• High
• Moderate
• Low
Angle of View
• Focal
• Focal/Obtuse
• Obtuse
View Distance
• Long distance
• Medium distance
• Short distance
Increase of Terminal in View
• None
• Low
• Moderate
• High
Definition
•
•
•
> 1000 people average per day
200-1000 people average per day
< 200 people average per day
•
•
•
> 1 hour
5 minutes to 1 hour
< 5 minutes
•
•
•
With 45 degrees of typical view
Typical view varies
> 45 degrees of typical view
•
•
•
> 3 km
1.5 – 3 km
< 1.5 km
•
•
•
•
No increase
< 10% increase
10 – 40% increase
>40% increase
The factors above were used to rate viewer considerations and actual visual impact separately.
November, 2004
-8-
Viewer Consideration
Viewer considerations were determined by the number of viewers and duration of the view, as
per the table below. If the angle of view is obtuse, the viewer consideration rating is dropped
down one level. For example, if there are a moderate number of viewers, with a moderate
duration of view, and the angle is focal, the viewer consideration rating is moderate, as per the
table below. If however, the angle is obtuse, then the rating is dropped to low.
Table 2 Viewer Considerations
Duration of View
Low
Moderate
High
Number of Viewers
Low
Moderate
L
L
L
M
M
H
High
L
M
H
Actual Visual Impact
Actual viewer impact was determined by the distance and the proportional increase in the view
occupied by the terminal, as per the table below.
Table 3 Actual Visual Impact
Increase of Terminal
None
Low
Moderate
High
Distance
Low
None
M
H
H
Moderate
None
L
M
H
High
None
L
L
M
Overall Visual Impact
Once viewer considerations and actual visual impact were determined, an overall visual impact
rating was determined, as per the table below.
Table 4 Overall Visual Impact
None
Low
Moderate
High
Viewer Considerations
Low
Moderate
None
None
L
L
L
M
M
H
High
L
M
H
H
3.2
-9-
November, 2004
VISUAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION
The visual landscape inventory provides a description of existing visual conditions. The visual
landscape inventory includes delineation of landscape units (areas with similar visual
characteristics). These are illustrated in Figure 4, and the associated database is presented in
Appendix A, along with the landscape unit criteria. The landscape units cover an approximation
of the area from which the Roberts Bank terminal is visible.
The following is a summary of the visual landscape inventory:
1. Roberts Bank Port Facility – The Roberts Bank port facility is a large industrial facility that
includes Deltaport, a 65 ha (160 acre) container terminal, and Westshore Terminal, a 50 ha (125
acre) bulk handling coal facility. It is a dominant visual feature from a number of land use areas.
From low elevation viewpoints, the most visible features at the facility are the six gantry cranes
at Deltaport. Their white colour makes them stand out when the sun is behind the viewer. When
the sun is behind the terminal, the cranes are silhouetted and appear dark. The second most
prominent feature is the ships that occupy the two berths at the terminal. The third most visually
prominent feature at the facility are the coal piles at the bulk handling coal facility, and the
multicoloured shipping containers stacked up to five high at Deltaport. These are even more
visible from higher elevation viewpoints.
2. Roberts Bank Causeway – The Roberts Bank causeway is accessed from an elevated road
that passes over the railway tracks. The causeway serves rail and truck traffic to the Roberts
Bank port facility. There is limited public use of the causeway. The primary visual consideration
related to the Roberts Bank causeway is the view of it from public use areas such as the TFN
Village. From close to the shoreline the gray base of the rip rap is obvious. From the shoreline
and points farther away, the rail cars are often silhouetted. The overhead power line located
along the causeway is also visible from some distance.
3. TFN Village – The TFN Village is a small community including some homes and small
businesses, the TFN Band Office, Longhouse, and a Youth Centre. The marine area and the
Roberts Bank port facility are most visible from the Band Office and Youth Centre since they are
located on the west side of the road that passes through the village. The Longhouse does not have
windows. Most of the other homes and businesses are on the east side of the road and lower in
elevation. The Roberts Bank port facility is most visible from the second storey of these
structures.
4. BC Ferries Causeway – The BC Ferries causeway accommodates high levels of traffic
destined for the BC Ferries terminal. The speed of traffic is typically high and there are open
views to the north and south. The Roberts Bank port facility is a dominant feature to the north.
There are two pullouts along the BC Ferries causeway; one near the shore and another just prior
to the terminal.
5. BC Ferries Terminal – The BC Ferries terminal consists of vehicular gates and large paved
holding areas for vehicles, a small pedestrian entry building, some small buildings with viewing
towers, small patches of grass, paving and play structures for pedestrian use, and the ferry berths
connected to the entry building with overhead walkways. The BC Ferries terminal supports high
-10-
November, 2004
levels of use. Once inside the terminal, views are mostly internal and there is little exposure to
the view of the Roberts Bank port facility.
6. North Tidal Flat – The north tidal flat is located north of the Roberts Bank causeway. It is a
large mudflat that is exposed during low tides and under water at high tides. There is very low
public use of this area since it is not close to a large population centre or recreation use area. The
south tidal flat is the primary public use area in the vicinity.
7. Centre Tidal Flat – The centre tidal flat is located between the Roberts Bank and BC Ferries
causeways. It is a large mudflat that is exposed during low tides and under water at high tides.
There is very low public use of this area since it is not close to a large population centre or
recreation use area.
8. South Tidal Flat – The south tidal flat is located south of the BC Ferries causeway. It is a
large mudflat that is exposed during low tides and under water at high tides. There is moderate
public use of this area, with the users including residents of the lower portion of English Bluff
and others who obtain access from the south side of the BC Ferries causeway. The Roberts Bank
port facility is visible from this area, but not very dominant because viewers are generally at sea
level and the BC Ferries causeway and terminal dominate views to the north.
9. Dyke – The dyke extends along the shoreline north and a short way south of the Roberts
Bank causeway. A gravel service road is along the top of the dyke. Public use of the dyke
appears to be low. Although there is nothing precluding public use, it is not promoted, access
requires crossing railway tracks, and there are no established parking lots or signs. The Roberts
Bank port facility is visible from the dyke, especially where the dyke is closest to the facility.
10. Outer Dyke – The outer dyke extends along the shoreline offshore from the TFN reserve.
There is a gravel service road along the top. Public use of the dyke appears to be very low,
particularly because of TFN property signs. There are 360 degree panoramic views from the
dyke, including marine views and views back to the land. The Roberts Bank port facility is
visible from the dyke, as is the BC Ferries terminal. The dyke itself limits views of the marine
area from the TFN village.
11. Agricultural Land – The agricultural land is flat farmland below sea level, protected from
flooding by the dyke. The landscape consists of farm fields, hedgerows, farm structures, homes
and narrow roads. Although views are typically internal, from some locations the gantry cranes
of the Roberts Bank port facility or the overpass leading to the Roberts Bank causeway are
visible in the distance.
12. Upper Tidal Grassland – The upper tidal grassland is located between the outer dyke and
the TFN village. It is a grassy area that floods during the highest tides. There is minimal use of
the grassland area. The area provides a visual buffer, along with the outer dyke, between the
TFN village and the marine area.
-11-
November, 2004
13. Tsatsu Shores –Tsatsu Shores includes a condominium complex and an upper tidal grassy
area that has informal trails. The condominium has two wings; one of these is oriented parallel
with the shoreline, the other is angled more towards the north. There is a 180 degree panorama
view from this area, with the Roberts Bank port facility occupying about 6% of this view.
14. High English Bluff – The High English Bluff area includes single family residences along
Pacific Drive and English Bluff Road, as well as Fred Gingell Park. This area is on the west edge
of a large community; the remainder of the community does not have views to the west due to
the flat topography of the area. Views of the Roberts Bank port facility vary from home to home
at High English Bluff based on siting and foreground vegetation. Fred Gingell Park is small but
it has a moderate level of use since it is the only park with this outlook.
15. Low English Bluff – The Low English Bluff area includes several pockets of single family
private residences along the beach. Views of the Roberts Bank port facility vary along the
shoreline, with the facility visible behind the BC Ferries causeway due to the low elevation.
Although the Roberts Bank port facility is easily seen from this perspective, there are also many
other features to view, and most homes are oriented directly towards the ocean.
-12-
Figure 3 – Landscape Units
November, 2004
3.3
-13-
November, 2004
VIEWPOINTS
In order to assess the potential visual impacts of the Deltaport Third Berth Project, four
representative viewpoints based on community and public use areas and on the distance and
angle from the proposed development were identified (Figure 4). The four viewpoints were
selected to provide a representative sampling of the various viewing conditions in the study area:
1.
North Dyke near south end of 34th Street - represents views from the north;
2.
Tsawwassen First Nation Band Office - represents the TFN village perspective (based on
consultation with the TFN);
3.
B.C. Ferries causeway pullout (near BC Ferries terminal) – closest viewpoint from which
the facility is seen by the public; and
4.
Fred Gingell Park on top of English Bluff - represent the views of park users and residents
to the south.
-14-
November, 2004
Figure 4 – Viewpoint Locations
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the views from these perspectives and provide a content analysis as a
percentage of the entire panorama. It should be noted that the panorama views tend to
deemphasize the terminal facility because the views are so wide in focus.
Appendix B provides information about the viewpoints.
-15-
November, 2004
Figure 5 – Viewpoint Analysis (Viewpoints 1 and 2)
-16-
November, 2004
Figure 6 – Viewpoint Analysis (Viewpoints 3 and 4)
-17-
November, 2004
4.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
It is anticipated that in terms of visibility, the potential impacts of the proposed Deltaport Third
Berth during construction and operation would be similar (i.e. activities, structures and mobile
elements would be visible from the same view locations during both construction and operation).
One exception to this is that the dredging equipment will cover a larger area than the space that
will ultimately be occupied by a ship, which will bring the impacts closer to some viewers.
4.1
CONSTRUCTION
Visual impacts during construction of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would be a
result of the following activities and associated materials and equipment:
• construction work in the terminal area with construction equipment and material
stockpiles;
• dredging equipment in the berth, terminal and shipping channel areas.
Construction is proposed to start in August 2005 with completion in spring 2008. The dredging
operations will run 24 hours/day within the allowable dredging windows established by the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The dredging activities will take place for approximately 9
months.
4.2
OPERATION
Visually dominant elements that would result in visual impacts during the operation of the
Deltaport Third Berth Project include the following:
• gantry cranes and terminal equipment – would stand out as prominent vertical features;
• ships - their movement and bulk would add to the visual impact of the terminal;
• terminal lighting – high mast terminal lighting would provide vertical elements to the
proposed Third Berth (night time lighting impacts are discussed in detail in the latter
portion of this report); and
• container stacks - would provide vertical element to the new terminal.
4.3
ANALYSIS OF VISUAL IMPACTS
The visual impacts of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project are analysed from the four
representative viewpoints. For each representative viewpoint, a description of the view is
provided along with the Roberts Bank port facility percentage of view, type and number of
viewers, distance of view and typical duration of view. Overall ratings of the viewer
considerations, actual visual impact, and overall visual impact are provided.
The existing views and visualizations of the expansion are shown on Figures 7 to 10 following
discussion of the visual impacts at each viewpoint. The visualizations are only representations of
what the proposed Deltaport Third Berth would look like once fully developed. It is important to
-18-
November, 2004
note that the computer visualizations tend to emphasize the Roberts Bank port facility since they
are focused only on that portion of view.
The visual impacts at the North Dyke viewpoint are discussed below in Table 5.
Table 5 North Dyke Viewpoint (Viewpoint 1)
Viewing Condition
Description of Existing
View
Service road along top of dyke, supports small amount of
public use (walking and cycling). View of facility changes
gradually as one moves along the dyke.
360° panorama (Figure 5):
- Landward view: agriculture (fields, hedgerows,
structures).
- Marine view NW to SE: dyke/road/trees/homes (8%);
mudflat/ocean/Vancouver Island (39%); mudflat/Roberts
Bank port facility (9%); mudflat/Roberts Bank causeway
with rail cars (24%); mudflat/rail cars/English Bluff
(11%); dyke/bridge to Roberts Bank port facility (9%).
9%
Existing Roberts Bank
Port Facility Percentage
of View
General public
Type of Viewers
Low
Relative Number of
Viewers
Long distance
Distance of View
Typical Duration of View Moderate
Obtuse
Angle of View
Low
Low
Low
Low
Comment
The proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would have a low visual impact on views of
the general public from the north dyke. A low number of the general public would view
the proposed Deltaport Third Berth, over a long distance and for a moderate duration of
time (5 minutes to 1 hour). The Roberts Bank port facility would occupy approximately 6
% more of the view than it currently occupies (Currently the facility occupies 9% of the
view; with Deltaport Third Berth , the facility would increase to 10% of the view). The
reason for this small increase is that the proposed Deltaport Third Berth would be almost
parallel with the viewing angle and would be viewed in the context of existing port
related structures. Nine cranes would be visible instead of the existing six cranes and the
additional cranes would also appear slightly larger than the existing cranes.
-19-
November, 2004
Viewpoint 1: North Dyke Existing
Viewpoint 1: North Dyke Visualization
Figure 7 – Existing Views and Visualizations of Expansion (North Dyke)
-20-
November, 2004
The visual impacts at the Tsawwassen First Nation Band Office viewpoint are discussed below
in Table 6.
Table 6 Tsawwassen First Nation Band Office Viewpoint (Viewpoint 2)
Viewing Condition
Description of
ExistingView
Offices and board room used by staff and their visitors,
similar to some views from residences. Residences are
slightly more distant and lower in elevation.
180° panorama view (Figure 5):
- View NW to SE: buildings along shore (longhouse,
pumphouse, homes) and trees (16%); grassland/Roberts
Bank causeway bridge (7%); grassland/Roberts Bank
railcars/Vancouver Island (10%); grassland/Gulf Islands
(11%); grassland/BC Ferries terminal/Gulf Islands (3%);
grassland/BC Ferries causeway/Gulf Islands (10%);
grassland/English Bluff (13%); Youth Centre/shoreline
(7%).
10%
Port Facility Percentage of
View
TFN chief, councillors, elders, staff, community members
Type of Viewers
and visitors.
Moderate
Relative Number of
Viewers
Long distance
Distance of View
Moderate
Typical Duration of View
Focal
Angle of View
None
High
None
Low
Comment
people using the TFN Band Office. A moderate number of people would view the
proposed Deltaport Third Berth, over a long distance and for a moderate duration of time
(5 minutes to 1 hour). The Roberts Bank port facility would not occupy any more of the
view than it currently does, because the proposed Deltaport Third Berth would be in front
of an area that is already within the facility. The facility would, therefore, still occupy
10% of the entire panorama . The vertical mass within the facility would be increased:
instead of six cranes, there would be nine and instead of a maximum of two container
ships, there would be a maximum of three.
-21-
November, 2004
Viewpoint 2: TFN Band Office Existing
Viewpoint 2: TFN Band Office Visualization
Figure 8 – Existing Views and Visualizations of Expansion (TFN Band Office)
-22-
November, 2004
The visual impacts at the BC Ferries Causeway Pullout viewpoint are discussed below in Table
7.
Table 7 BC Ferries Causeway Pullout Viewpoint (Viewpoint 3)
Viewing Condition
Description of
ExistingView
Vehicular traffic to BC Ferries terminal, fast moving,
similar to view from BC Ferries terminal but the focus
there is mostly internal to the facility, low use of the
pullout.
- view SW to NE: BC Ferries causeway and terminal
(13%); mudflat/ocean/islands (11%); mudflats/Roberts
Bank port facility (14%); mudflat/Roberts Bank causeway
(25%); mudflat/Roberts Bank causeway/shoreline (13%);
mudflat/TFN Village/shoreline (16%); BC Ferries
causeway (8%).
14%
Port Facility Percentage of
View
Motorists, public
Type of Viewers
High
Relative Number of
Viewers
Medium distance
Distance of View
Typical Duration of View Low
Focal/Obtuse
Angle of View
High
Low
High
Moderate
Comment
The proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would have a moderate visual impact on the
views of motorists using the BC Ferries causeway. While a high number of motorists
would view the proposed Deltaport Third Berth from this vantage point, their typical
duration of view would be low (less than 5 minutes). Given the close proximity of this
viewpoint, and that views from this vantage point would be essentially “face-on”, the
Roberts Bank port facility would appear larger than it is now and would occupy
approximately 50% more of the view than it currently occupies. (Currently the facility
occupies 14% of the view; with Deltaport Third Berth , the facility would increase to
21% of the view).The proposed Deltaport Third Berth would, however, be viewed in the
context of the existing port related structures.
-23-
November, 2004
Viewpoint 3: BC Ferries Causeway Existing
Viewpoint 3: BC Ferries Causeway Visualization
Figure 9 – Existing Views and Visualizations of Expansion (BC Ferries Causeway)
November, 2004
-24-
The visual impacts at the Fred Gingell Park viewpoint are discussed below in Table 8. This
viewpoint also represents the views from the residential area on English Bluff hillside.
Table 8 Fred Gingell Park Viewpoint (Viewpoint 4)
Viewing Condition
Description of
ExistingView
Port Facility Percentage
of View
Small public park with viewing deck. Trees obscure
portion of the Robert Bank port facility view. Similar to
view from nearby residences.
-NW to SE: trees/tidal flats/both causeways/Vancouver
Island (43%); trees/tidal flats/BC Ferries
causeway/Roberts Bank port facility/Vancouver Island
(8%); mudflats/BC Ferries terminal/ocean/Vancouver
Island (12%); trees/ocean/Gulf Islands (24%).
21%
Park Users
General public (park users)
Low
Residents
Residents
Moderate
Long distance
Moderate
Obtuse
Long distance
Moderate
Obtuse
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Type of Viewers
Relative Number of
Viewers
Distance of View
Angle of View
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Comment
the general public from Fred Gingell Park and residents along High English Bluff. A low
number of the general public and a moderate number of residents would view the
proposed Deltaport Third Berth, over a long distance and for a moderate duration of time
(5 minutes to 1 hour). The moderate duration applies to residents as well because of the
distance and obtuse angle. The Roberts Bank port facility would appear larger than it is
now since it would be essentially a “face-on” view of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth
from this vantage point, although from a greater elevation and distance than the BC
Ferries causeway. The Roberts Bank port facility would occupy 36% more of the view
than it currently occupies and would be viewed in the context of the existing port related
structures. (Currently the facility occupies 21% of the view; with Deltaport Third Berth ,
the facility would increase to 29% of the view).
-25-
November, 2004
Viewpoint 4: Fred Gringell Park Existing
Viewpoint 4: Fred Gringell Park Visualization
Figure 10 – Existing Views and Visualizations of Expansion (Fred Gingell Park)
November, 2004
-26-
Table 9 provides a summary of the visual impact assessment component and overall ratings for
each viewpoint.
Table 9 Summary of Visual Impact Assessment Ratings
Viewpoint
1. North Dyke
2. TFN Office
3. BC Ferries Causeway
4. Fred Gingell Park
4.4
Viewer
Considerations
L
H
L
L
Actual Visual
Impact
L
N
H
M
Overall Visual
Impact
L
L
M
L
CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION
Deltaport Third Berth Project.
OPERATION MITIGATION
4.5
The VPA would work with the community to identify the needs for mitigation of visual impacts
during operation of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project. Mitigation measures may
include consideration of:
•
gantry crane colour (research indicates that the light gray camouflage colour used by
NATO is generally the most effective at blending with sea and sky during the daytime);
and
•
a landscape buffer strip (consisting of native vegetation) to be established, where
practical, along the outer edge of the Roberts Bank causeway.
5.0 RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
If the mitigation measures identified are implemented, the residual visual effects after mitigation
would be marginally reduced from the originally estimated effects. The colour of the gantry
cranes would blend better with the surroundings, however they would still be visible and would
still appear dark when the sun is behind the facility (in relation to the viewer).
6.0 CUMULATIVE VISUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
The visual impact will occur as the project is built, then once it is built, the visual impact will not
change over time.
-27-
November, 2004
7.0 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING DAYTIME VISUAL IMPACT
The visual impact of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would vary depending on the
viewing distance, relative number and type of viewers, duration and angle of view and the
increased portion of the view that the terminal would occupy.
The visual impact of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would be low from north dyke,
the TFN Band Office and from Fred Gingell Park. A low number of the general public would
view the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project from north dyke, over a long distance (greater
than 3 km), for a moderate duration. A moderate number of the TFN community would view the
proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project from the TFN Band Office over a long distance (greater
than 3 km), for a moderate duration. Similarly, a low number of the general public and moderate
number of residents would view the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project from Fred Gingell
Park and High English Bluff over a long distance (greater than 3 km), at an obtuse angle, for a
moderate duration.
The visual impact of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project from the BC Ferries causeway
would be moderate largely because the Project would take up more of the view from this
viewpoint. While a high number of motorists would view the proposed Deltaport Third Berth
from this vantage point, their typical duration of view would be low (less than 5 minutes).
All views of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would be seen within the context of the
existing Roberts Bank port facility.
Deltaport Third Berth Project. The VPA would, however, work with the community to identify
the need to mitigate visual impacts during operation of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth
Project. Mitigation measures may include consideration of gantry crane colour and, where
practical, options for a landscape buffer strip to be established along the outer edge of the
Roberts Bank causeway.
The residual visual effects after mitigation would be marginally reduced from the originally
estimated effects.
-28-
November, 2004
8.0 EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS
8.1
METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the lighting impact assessment consists of two phases: inventory (discussed
in Section 8.0) and analysis (discussed in Section 9.0). In order to establish existing night
illumination levels, the following preparatory work was undertaken:
• Review available as-built drawings for existing lighting systems installed at the facility.
• Create photometric models for the existing facility to determine the actual lighting levels.
Models were created using photometric data made available by the luminaire
manufacturer for the exact luminaires used.
• Photograph the existing lighting systems from designated viewpoints to record existing
conditions.
• Review available lighting reports.
• Review lighting recommendations for port and intermodal facilities as published by the
Illuminating Engineering Society and the Canada Labour Code.
A rating system was developed to quantify the additional effect the expansion of the facility
lighting system will have over the existing lighting conditions. Ratings of Low, Moderate and
High have been established as follows:
Low: no change in the lighting condition is anticipated, except that an enlarged lighted
area will be seen, with no overall increase in brightness or glare anticipated.
Moderate: there may be some additional brightness or glare seen from a particular
viewpoint, but the overall lighting condition should not worsen.
High: there will be a significant increase in the lighting system, from additional
brightness and/or glare from a particular viewpoint.
8.2
LIGHTING TERMS
Certain terms are used in this report to express the lighting environment encountered. The terms
and definitions used are derived from the Lighting Handbook produced by the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America (IES) 2000.
Glare is generally defined as the sensation produced by luminance within the visual field that is
sufficiently greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted. An example would be
looking at a dark area, and then having light introduced suddenly into the area. Glare basically
-29-
November, 2004
comes in three forms: discomfort, disability and nuisance. Discomfort glare is defined as glare
producing discomfort that does not necessarily interfere with visual performance or ability.
Disability glare is defined as the effect of stray light in the eye whereby visibility and visual
performance are reduced. Nuisance glare cannot be quantified presently, but is defined as light
appearing where it does not belong. Nuisance glare is the general type of glare that is affecting
the neighbours of Deltaport, although a certain amount of discomfort glare is introduced when
looking out over the water away from Deltaport, and then turning to view the terminal facility.
Light Trespass is defined essentially as light that is produced for a particular location, but affects
adjacent areas. Generally light trespass falls into two categories: unwanted light and excessive
brightness. Light trespass is somewhat suggestive, as it often relates to immeasurable or
indefinable factors. The complaint of “light shining in my window” is an example of Light
Trespass.
Light Pollution or sky glow is the result of dust, water vapour and other particles in the
atmosphere that reflect light that is emitted into the atmosphere. The result, particularly in urban
areas, is a decrease in the ability to see the night sky. Although sky glow is not injurious, it does
deprive people from enjoying the natural environment.
Brightness is the subjective attribute of any light sensation giving rise to the perception of
luminous magnitude, including the qualities of being bright, light, brilliant, dim and dark.
Reflection is the process whereby part of the light falling on a medium leaves that medium from
the incident side. Reflection can be specular, diffuse, spread or compound in nature, and all of
these effects are generated from the lighting system, depending on the local weather conditions.
For example, on a clear calm night, light is reflected off the smooth water surface, which almost
acts like a mirror. On dark stormy nights, the light from the facility is scattered by reflecting off
raindrops while the water surface is no longer calm, so specular reflectance is now more diffuse
or spread, thereby giving a different visual image.
Cutoff Angle is the angle measured up from Nadir (vertical axis), and the first line of sight at
which the bare source is not visible.
Light Distribution Classification is the intensity distribution produced by the luminaire. There
are four distribution patterns which are classified as: Full Cutoff, Cutoff, Semicutoff and
Noncutoff. Full Cutoff is defined as: zero candela occurs at 90° or more and no more than 10%
of candela output above 80°. Cutoff is defined as: no more than 2.5% candela output occurs
above 90° and no more than 10% above 80°. Semicutoff is defined as: no more than 5% candela
output above 90° and 20% above 80°. Noncutoff is defined as: no candela limitation in the zone
above maximum candela.
-30-
November, 2004
Figure 7 – Illustration of Lighting Terms
8.3
ROBERTS BANK PORT FACILITY LIGHTING DESCRIPTION
The present lighting installations at the Roberts Bank port facility consist of two light sources:
high pressure sodium lamps and metal halide lamps.
High pressure sodium lamps have a higher lumen/watt (light out to power in) ratio than other
light sources, and therefore have a lower operating cost. However, some sacrifice is made in
colour recognition. This is typically not an issue where visual tasks are restricted to general
recognition of shapes and obstructions rather than requiring identification of small items or print.
High pressure sodium lamps on high-mast poles are used to illuminate the container yards at the
Roberts Bank port facility, the intermodal yards and portions of the Roberts Bank causeway.
Metal halide lamps have a slightly lower lumen/watt ratio than high pressure sodium, but colour
recognition is better. This type of lighting is therefore used in areas where critical visual tasks
are required. Metal halide lighting is used on container loading equipment at the facility.
The mixture of these two light sources, i.e. high pressure sodium and metal halide, also has an
effect on the visual presentation from the surrounding residential areas, mainly due to the
perception of brightness of the light source. The human eye sees the blue end of the spectrum
(associated with metal halide light) better at night than the red/yellow end (associated with high
pressure sodium light), and therefore the areas of the port illuminated with the metal halide
lighting appear brighter than the areas illuminated just with high pressure sodium.
Existing Lighting
- Terminal Lighting on Right
- Ship to Shore Crane Lighting on Left
-31-
November, 2004
Existing Terminal Area
Floodlights – High Pressure Sodium
Figure 8 – Illustration of Existing Lighting
Container and Intermodal Yard Lighting
The Roberts Bank port facility is illuminated to an average maintained level of 50 lux with an
average to minimum uniformity ratio of approximately 2.2:1. This basically meets the minimum
requirements set by the Canada Labour Code, which requires a lighting system to 2:1 average to
minimum uniformity ratio, and an average maintained illumination of 50 lux.
High pressure sodium lamps (1000W floodlights) mounted on 35 m poles are used to illuminate
the container and intermodal yards at the Roberts Bank port facility. Red aviation warning lights
and surveillance cameras are also mounted on floodlights at the facility. Typically there are 12 to
16 luminaires on each pole, with aiming angles set at various angles up to a maximum of
approximately 68°. As defined by the manufacturer, the existing luminaires have a cutoff
distribution when the aiming angle is set to less than 62.5°, with semi-cutoff and non-cutoff
distribution above 63°. The use of floodlights which are aimed at angles greater than the
published cutoff angle can cause visual disturbance (light trespass, excessive brightness and
glare) to surrounding properties.
The existing lighting systems at the Roberts Bank port facility gives rise to complaints (due
mainly to nuisance glare, brightness, and light pollution) from the closest neighbours
approximately 3 km away and as far away as Saturna Island, approximately 26 km to the
southwest of the port facility.
Terminal Systems Incorporation (TSI) has agreed to conduct a lighting study in 2005 to
determine the feasibility to re-aim the lights at the cut-off angle. Adjusting the existing lighting
downward to the cutoff angle may leave darkened areas on the site which would be unacceptable
from a safety and security aspect.
The ship-to-shore gantry cranes, which are used to load and unload the containers, have their
own lighting system mounted on the gantry arms that provides the additional lighting needed by
-32-
November, 2004
the crane operator to view the immediate work area. The luminaires are mounted along the
length of the arm and when the arms are raised or lowered, the view of the facility changes as
seen by the local residents, causing visual disturbance. The gantry arms are also outfitted with
red aviation lights, as well as white flashing warning lights, for day use.
TSI has installed a lighting control system on the arms of the ship-to-shore gantry cranes to
automatically shut the lighting off after 15 minutes when the arm is raised, however, it would
appear that these controls may have been overridden as field observations have not been able to
confirm the automatic shut-off is working. This issue has been reviewed with TSI and TSI has
been advised and asked to correct it.
Lighting on the gantry crane superstructure (main support column) is used to raise the
illumination level around the perimeter of the crane for worker and vehicle safety. This lighting
is of a floodlight nature, which spills light around the crane and also reflects off the white paint
of the equipment, compounding the brightness effects on the surrounding residents.
Figure 9 –Crane Lighting
Causeway and Rail Yard Lighting
The Roberts Bank causeway consists of a 2 lane undivided road (Deltaport Way) and is for the
most part un-illuminated. The exception is at intersections where localized lighting and traffic
signals are installed, and at the overpass structure, which takes road traffic above the railroad.
The marshalling yards for the railroad are illuminated using low level pole-mounted low pressure
sodium luminaires to provide lighting for safety of rail yard workers and security. The causeway
is continuously illuminated by high pressure sodium lamps, from the intersection of Deltaport
Way and Westshore Way into the facility. This lighting does not add significantly to the overall
lighting levels, as the area floodlighting overpowers the low level roadway and marshalling yard
lighting.
-33-
November, 2004
Figure 10 – Causeway and Railyard Lighting from TFN Longhouse
8.4
REPRESENTATIVE VIEWPOINTS
In order to assess the potential lighting impacts of the Deltaport Third Berth Project, four
representative viewpoints based on community and public use areas, and on distance and angle
from the proposed development, were identified (see Table 10 and Figure 4). These viewpoints
were selected to coincide with the daytime visual viewpoints where possible for consistency.
Daytime Viewpoints
North Dyke
TFN Village (Band Office)
BC Ferries Causeway (second pull-out)
Fred Gingell Park
Night-time Viewpoints
TFN Village (Longhouse)
BC Ferries Causeway (first pull-out)
Fred Gingell Park (High English Bluff)
Low English Bluff
Table 10 Comparison of Daytime and Night-time Viewpoints
No night assessment was made from the dyke at the end of 34th Street (North Dyke daytime
viewpoint) as this area is not used at night. Instead an assessment was made from Low English
Bluff. The BC Ferries Causeway night assessment was made from the first traffic pullout rather
than the second, to more closely coincide with the view from the Tatsu Shores development.
The lighting impact of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project was assessed at each of the
above viewpoints and is described in Section 9 – Assessment of Impact.
TFN Village
The TFN village is a small community including homes, small businesses, the TFN Band Office,
Longhouse and Youth Centre, among others. The marine area and the Roberts Bank port facility
are most visible during the day from the Band Office and Youth Centre located on the west side
of the road through the village. The night time view of the port from the Longhouse seemed to be
-34-
November, 2004
more representative of the effects the lighting system has on the Village than the Band Office.
Most of the other homes and businesses on the east side of the road are lower in elevation. The
Roberts Bank port facility is most visible from the second storey of these structures.
BC Ferries Causeway
The BC Ferries causeway accommodates high levels of vehicle traffic destined for the BC
Ferries terminal. The speed of traffic is typically high and there are open views to the north and
south. The Roberts Bank port facility is a dominant feature to the north. There are two pullouts
along the causeway; one near the shore and another just prior to the port facility. These are
seldom used and mainly serve emergency purposes.
Fred Gingell Park (High English Bluff – Hillside)
The High English Bluff area includes single family residences along Pacific Drive and English
Bluff Road, as well as Fred Gingell Park. This area is on the western edge of a large community;
the remainder of the community does not have views to the west due to the flat topography of the
area. Views of the Roberts Bank port facility vary from home to home at High English Bluff
based on siting and foreground vegetation. Fred Gingell Park is small and has a low level of use
at night. Recently a pathway has been constructed between the park and Tsawwassen Beach to
allow public access to the beach.
Low English Bluff
There are several pockets of development along Tsawwassen Beach at the foot of English Bluff,
including the Tsatsu Shores condominium complex, and housing developments along the various
portions of Tsawwassen Beach Road. These areas have views of the Roberts Bank port facility,
which are comparable to the view from the BC Ferries causeway. The fact that the residential
development is significantly lower than the High English Bluff does give a different perspective
than views from the High Bluffs.
-35-
November, 2004
View from TFN Village (Longhouse)
View from BC Ferries Causeway (Westshore Coal Terminal is on the extreme left)
Figure 11 – Existing Night Views
-36-
View from Fred Gingell Park -High English Bluff
(BC Ferries Terminal and Causeway in Foreground)
View from Low English Bluff (Tsawwassen Beach Road)
Figure 11 – Existing Night Views (cont’d)
November, 2004
-37-
November, 2004
9.0 LIGHTING IMPACT ASSESSMENT
9.1
CONSTRUCTION
Night-time visual impacts would be created by the following elements during construction of the
proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project:
•
•
lighting associated with dredging in the berth, terminal and shipping channel areas; and
lighting associated with terminal construction activities, which would vary depending on
the time of day and season, as well as the construction schedule milestones.
Dredging
The dredging operations would be undertaken 24 hours/day, seven days a week for a period of
approximately nine months, proposed to start in August 2005, and would be undertaken within
the allowable dredging windows established by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).
Typically the fisheries window at Roberts Bank is from August 15 to March 1, with some
possible variation to these times depending on the dredging operation. This timeframe would
require dredging equipment and ancillary vessels to be illuminated for longer periods of the day
due to shorter daylight hours during these months.
During hours of darkness, the ship would be illuminated to meet industry standards for
occupational health and safety. Accordingly, equipment such as dredge masts and booms (which
would be raised and lowered as needed to perform their duties) would be illuminated. The dredge
would be set up in the water south and east of the existing facility and would therefore be closer
to the Tsawwassen residential area than any of the present operations at the Roberts Bank port
facility. As the dredge is mobile, it would be constantly relocating on a regular basis, which
would present a changing lighting scenario to the surrounding residences.
Large Scale Dredging Equipment The Marco Polo - 3rd Largest in World
Typical Cutter Suction Dredging Equipment
Figure 12 – Dredging Equipment
-38-
November, 2004
The dredging vessel, Marco Polo, which is approximately 116m long, 20m wide and 20m tall, or
other equipment of a similar size, would likely be used on this project (see Figure 12).
Modifications to the dredge lighting systems would be specified to shield light from spilling
outside the basic working footprint of the dredge.
Terminal Yard Construction
Lighting for terminal yard construction, proposed to start in January 2007 with completion by
spring 2008, would typically be low level, portable floodlighting until such time as the
permanent high mast yard lighting used for operations is available. Other sources of light during
construction activities would result from vehicle lights and equipment lighting. The majority of
construction of the terminal facilities would likely take place during normal construction hours
(7am to 4pm) with additional construction activities occasionally during other hours to meet
project milestones and to lessen operational impacts on the existing port facilities. These lights
would likely have minimal impact on the surrounding environment, mainly due to their relatively
low intensity and height. Moreover, the effects of the terminal yard construction lighting would
be lessened because of the overall effects of the existing high mast lighting at the facility.
9.2
OPERATION
The proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would require expansion of the existing Roberts
Bank port facility lighting system. This expansion would be to the east and north of the existing
lighting to accommodate the expanded container yard, new wharf, and tug moorage facility.
There would also be three new gantry cranes along the waterfront to facilitate the loading of
ships. These crane units would have their own lighting, similar to the existing cranes.
The preliminary design parameters for the container yard lighting and area around the cranes are
the same as for the existing facility (i.e. an average maintained level of 50 lux, with an average to
minimum uniformity ratio of 2:1). Typical poles would be unpainted, galvanized steel
approximately 36 m tall. Luminaires would be either 1000 or 400 watt high pressure sodium
depending on the location.
9.3
ANALYSIS OF LIGHTING IMPACTS
The proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would not involve an increase in the overall lighting
levels at the facility or as viewed from off site, however, as the lighting would be extended over
a larger area, there will be a perception that the overall brightness of the facility is greater. The
effect that the new facility lighting would have on the local residential areas would have more to
do with light trespass, brightness and nuisance glare than with the additional light contribution.
Photometric measurements were taken from each of the representative viewpoints, however no
measurable readings were attainable, due to the very low level of light at each location and its
distance from the source. Extraneous local lighting at each location was all that could be
recorded with the instrumentation used.
Photometric models were created based on using both the existing floodlight style with cutoff
optic luminaires as well as using downlight style cutoff luminaires. The photometric models
-39-
November, 2004
indicated that the use of downlight cutoff luminaires, which direct the vast percentage of light
output downward toward the work area, rather than outward and upward, as is partly the case
with the existing installation, would minimize sky glow and light trespass. Noting the many
reflective surfaces at the facility, it would be virtually impossible to substantially reduce the sky
glow and light reflected upward and outward off of these surfaces.
Existing Luminaire Widelite Aktra 1000
Watt High Pressure Sodium
Alternate Downlight Style Cutoff
Luminaire
Luminaire with Non or Semi
Cutoff Optics
Luminaire with Cutoff Optics
Figure 13 – Comparison of Luminaire Effects
The expanded lighting system at the facility would have different effects on the night-time visual
environment from each of the representative viewpoints as described below:
TFN Village: The TFN is likely to experience the most impact from the Deltaport Third Berth
Project, however the overall additional impact should be low to moderate, depending on the
lighting design and equipment chosen during detailed design. The village is low in relation to the
lighting system, and is located the closest to the facility. The expanded lighting system would
bring the lighted facility even closer to the village than it is at present. The low viewing angle
and the height of the proposed poles may afford some vision of the luminaire face, which is the
main cause of glare. These issues may be difficult to resolve given present technology, however
it is predicted that any glare would mainly be nuisance glare.
BC Ferries Causeway and Low English Bluff: The view from the BC Ferries Causeway and
the Low English Bluff area would see an enlarged lighting area, extending eastward from the
existing facility. The lighting system would not come any closer to these viewpoints and the
-40-
November, 2004
overall lighting level would not increase, therefore it is predicted the impact of the expanded
lighting system on this area would be low.
Fred Gingell Park (High English Bluff – Hillside): The view from High English Bluff area
would likely be the least affected by the Deltaport Third Berth Project lighting if downlight style
cutoff luminaires were employed. Overall, this area looks down on the Roberts Bank port
facility, and as the light source would not generally be visible from this vantage point, most
issues with the lighting, except perhaps certain reflective glare issues, should be minimized.
This viewpoint will also see an enlarged lighting area, but no overall increase in lighting levels,
and as a result, it is predicted the impact of the expanded lighting system on this area would be
low.
9.4
EFFECTS ON FLORA AND FAUNA
Much research has been conducted on the effects that an introduction of area lighting has on
local plant and animal life, with the conclusions being that night lighting does affect the life
cycle and habits of local plant and animal life. The precise effects on the native species are
difficult to determine as each species is affected differently. Although the addition of lighting to
the facility affects the local environment and its inhabitants, sound engineering judgement in
lighting design, coupled with the Vancouver Port Authority (VPA)’s desire to minimize impacts
while maintaining a viable operation would go a long way to minimizing the overall long term
effects on local plant and animal life.
Additional discussion on lighting impacts on flora and fauna is contained in the Terrestrial
Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment and the Coastal Seabird and Waterfowl Resources Impact
Assessment.
9.5
SAFETY AND SECURITY
The main function of lighting is to provide a safe operating environment for workers who have to
perform their duties when natural light is not present or sufficient. Lighting is also required for
security of both the public and of property. Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on
September 11, 2001, the security of ports has become of leading importance to not only
governments, but also to business, industry and the public.
Regulations have been enacted that require port facilities to institute stronger security measures
to attempt to prevent the entry of materials and persons that may threaten the security of society.
Video surveillance and lighting are two of the forms of security enhancements. Transport Canada
has issued a Code Compliant certificate to TSI, the operator of Deltaport, to certify they meet the
requirements of the International Ship and Port Requirements (ISPS), which came into effect
July 1, 2004.
9.6
-41-
November, 2004
CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION
Dredging Activities
Dredging operations will take place 24 hours a day for nine months and may present some rather
major issues for the surrounding population. The equipment lighting will be used during
darkness, with the type of lights dependent on the type of dredging equipment that is ultimately
selected. As the dredging equipment is mobile, it will likely be relocating on a very regular basis
throughout the work shift, which will present a constantly changing lighting scenario to the
surrounding residences. Modifications to the dredge lighting systems would be specified to
shield light from spilling outside the basic working footprint of the dredge. It should be noted
that the effectiveness of any such shielding would not be guaranteed due to the constantly
changing working environment.
Terminal Yard Construction
Lighting during construction would likely have a minor impact on the neighbouring
communities. The following mitigation measures would, however, be adopted to minimize
lighting impacts during terminal yard construction:
•
•
•
9.7
ensure lighting equipment is pointed north and west as much as possible (to reduce
impacts to residents who are typically located east and south of the Roberts Bank port
facility);
implement shielding on construction lighting; and,
develop a 24 hour environmental helpline for lighting events so that terminal personnel
can identify what operations are causing the most disturbance in the community.
OPERATIONAL MITIGATION
The most important consideration for the new permanent lighting system is to design the system
to minimize the effect on the surrounding neighbours. It is strongly recommended that an
engineering report for the lighting of the Deltaport Third Berth Project be conducted as part of
the final design. This study would identify several different lighting systems and light sources
and thoroughly examines the pros and cons for each. This report would also take into account
such aspects as light trespass and dark sky principles, in order to make the lighting system work
not only for the safety and security of the Port, but also for the local residents who must live with
the system nightly. The use of metal halide luminaires exclusively for the Deltaport Third Berth
Project area (wharf and container yard) should be considered in order to take advantage of the
human eye’s mesopic range, which may allow for better vision at night with less light required.
As well, the models should take into account that the light source or face of the luminaire should
not be visible over a variety of distances and elevations.
Merely continuing the “status quo” for the lighting system would only increase the existing level
of dissatisfaction the residents have for the system, and by extension for the Port. The expansion
-42-
November, 2004
required for Deltaport Third Berth Project would bring the lighting systems even closer to the
TFN, and increased levels of visual disruption likely would not be acceptable to the community
at large, without a sound engineering report justifying the selected system.
Operationally there are options, which should be considered for the lighting system in order to
minimize the effects of the lighting system on the local environment. Keeping in mind that safety
and security are paramount to the facility operation, the lighting control system should be
designed to permit the reduction in the amount of lighting used during off-peak times. Lighting
cannot be totally shut down, as minimal lighting levels are required for surveillance cameras and
security personnel manoeuvring around the site. Careful planning of the lighting needs for
particular areas and tasks should be undertaken to avoid cycling the lights on and off, as this can
be more disruptive to the neighbours than leaving the lights on. It should be kept in mind that
high pressure sodium lights need between 5 and 10 minutes to restart and come up to full light
output, while metal halide lights can require up to 15 minutes to produce full output. Where
localized areas of disruptive lighting are encountered the addition of shields to the luminaires
may reduce the interference, but care must be taken not to disrupt the required illuminance
requirements on the work site.
Another potential mitigation option is to paint the cranes and other permanent equipment with
low reflectance paint in order to reduce the reflections and brightness of the lighting system.
Refer to the day-time visual assessment section for additional discussion.
The following summarizes the more important mitigation measures recommended to reduce the
potential lighting impacts during operation of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project; these
would be detailed in the lighting design plan as part of the final Project design:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the use of downlight style cut-off luminaries for the wharf and container yard areas;
the exclusive use of metal halide luminaries for wharf and container yard areas;
the use of lighting control systems to reduce the amount of lighting in selected areas
during periods of low activity;
incorporate the automatic light shutdown system when the boom is raised and inactive for
longer than 15 minutes for the new ship to shore gantry cranes;
evaluate the use of innovative mounting systems for the lighting on the ship-to-shore
gantry cranes to minimize light throw during raising and lowering of the equipment. This
would include examining options for mounting luminaries on the arms of the gantry
cranes to prevent them from rotating when the arms are raised and lowered;
the use of downlighting rather than floodlighting on the gantry crane superstructure; and
develop a 24 hour environmental helpline for lighting events so that terminal personnel
can identify what operations are causing the most disturbance in the community.
In addition, VPA and TSI have reviewed a number of lighting concerns raised by local residents
with respect to the existing terminal. In response to these concerns, TSI has agreed to implement
the following in 2005:
• a review of the existing lighting equipment and sources (based on reusing the existing
pole locations if viable);
• the feasibility of incorporating shielding, if appropriate;
•
•
-43-
November, 2004
the feasibility of adding supplementary localized lighting to enhance areas which may be
adversely affected by changing lighting equipment; and
review of the existing lighting control system for ship-to shore gantry cranes to ensure
that the automatic shutdown of the gantry arm lighting system is operating, and that the
crane operators are familiar with the system and are aware of the importance of ensuring
the arm lights are off when the arm is up and lights are not required.
If the above review were to recommend replacing the existing lighting system with downlight
style luminaires, the existing luminaires to be replaced could potentially be used on the proposed
Terminal 2 project, which is being considered for the north side of the Roberts Bank port facility.
There is less development (i.e., residential communities) located north of Deltaport Way than on
the south side. With careful design, the existing luminaires could be very effective for lighting
the proposed Terminal 2 area without negatively affecting the environment. This would offer a
cost saving to Terminal 2 construction, as new luminaires would not need to be purchased for
that project.
The VPA should also require the supplier of the ship-to-shore cranes to design their lighting
systems to minimize any wasted light that affects the surrounding environment. The use of
downlighting on the superstructure rather than floodlighting should be considered. As well,
innovative mounting details for luminaires on the arms to prevent them from rotating when the
arms are being raised or lowered would go a long way to mitigating the neighbours’ concerns.
10.0 RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
The residual effects of the lighting system on the local area surrounding the port should be
minimal providing the mitigation measures outlined herein are implemented for the Deltaport
Third Berth Project. Implementation of some or all of the mitigation measures recommended for
the existing lighting at the Roberts Bank port facility should provide an overall reduction of the
residual effect that lighting has on the surrounding communities, and provide some measure of
relief to the outstanding concerns of the neighbours.
The levels of glare would be reduced, except perhaps nuisance glare caused primarily from
reflectance. The lighting as observed from the communities at High English Bluff and Low
English Bluff would be restricted to the Roberts Bank port facility, with little direct light
observed. Although these viewpoints would see an enlarged lighting area, there would not be an
increase in overall lighting levels. The downlight style cutoff luminaires would further reduce the
lighting impact, especially at Low English Bluff.
Given that the TFN Village is closer to the Port than both High English Bluff and Low English
Bluff, viewing angles would be greater and therefore more of the light source may be visible.
With the implementation of downlight style cutoff luminaries for the Deltaport Third Berth
Project and by re-aiming the existing Roberts bank port facility lights, there would, however, be
an improvement over the existing lighting conditions.
-44-
November, 2004
11.0 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING LIGHTING IMPACT
The impact of the proposed Deltaport Third Berth Project would be low at all representative
viewpoints, however, the effect on the TFN Village may be slightly higher than for the other
areas given its low elevation and close proximity to the facility. The impact of the lighting on
the surrounding environment would be minimized by the introduction of certain measures.
These include, but are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
use of downlight style cutoff luminaires;
re-aiming of existing luminaries at the Roberts Bank port facility;
use of light sources which take advantage of the night vision abilities of the eye;
lighting control systems which permit the reduction of the amount of lighting during
periods of low activity;
innovative mounting systems for the lighting on the ship-to-shore cranes to minimize the
light throw during raising and lowering of the equipment (keep the lights pointed down,
no matter what the position of the gantry arm); and,
activation of existing automatic lighting controls on the crane arms to extinguish the arm
lights when the arm has been raised for 15 minutes.
Local plant and animal life will continue to be affected, however as the existing facility has been
in place for a number of years, and the native wildlife has adapted to the situation, the effects of
Deltaport Third Berth Project construction should not adversely affect their present situation.
-45-
November, 2004
12.0 REFERENCES
1.
2
3
4
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 2000. IESNA Lighting Handbook
Ninth Edition.
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 1999. RP-33-99 Lighting for Exterior
Environments.
Dark Sky Society, 2004. http://www.darksky.org/links/enviro.html
Dr. Ian Lewin, Lighting Sciences Inc., 1999. Should Vision Influence Roadway Lighting
Design?
November, 2004
-46-
APPENDIX A: LANDSCAPE UNIT DATABASE
Number Name/Location
Landform Landform Topographic Land Cover Land
Level of Type of
Slope
Height
Variety
Cover
Alteration Alteration
Diversity
Low
Low
Low
Grassland Low
Moderate Service
Road
Expressed or Potential Concerns
Comments
Accessible for public use, construction noise and visual impact
could be a concern
Use is currently low, trail not publicized or signed for pubic use
1
Dyke
2
Outer Dyke
Low
Low
Low
Grassland
Low
Moderate Service
Road
RB terminal has significant impact on this area due to proximity and Most of outer dyke is on TFN land, use unknown, appears low,
combination with BCF terminal, use and concerns unknown
public use discouraged by signs
3
Upper Tidal Grassland
Low
Low
Low
Grassland
Low
Low
Minimal use of this area due to occasional flooding, wet ground
4
TFN Village
Low
Low
Low
Residential
Moderate Moderate Residential, Significant concerns expressed by TFN about visual impacts on
Recreational their homes and public gathering spaces
5
North Tidal Flat
Low
Low
Low
Mudflat
Low
None
None anticipated - tidal flat users are limited and can go elsewhere
6
Centre Tidal Flat
Low
Low
Low
Mudflat
Low
None
None anticipated - tidal flat users are limited and can go elsewhere
7
South Tidal Flat
Low
Low
Low
Mudflat
Low
None
None anticipated - significant recreational use of tidal flat, but users
are buffered from RB terminal by the BCF causeway and terminal
8
Roberts Bank Causeway Low
Low
Low
Industrial
Low
High
9
Roberts Bank Terminal
Low
Low
Low
Industrial
Low
Very High Industrial
None anticipated - limited to industrial users
10
BC Ferries Causeway
Low
Low
Low
Industrial
Low
High
Road
High traffic by BC Ferries users, RB terminal is an accepted part of
the landscape - of interest to some
11
BC Ferries Terminal
Low
Low
Low
Industrial
Low
High
Industrial
Views within the ferry terminal are mostly internal, RB terminal not
likely of concern
12
Tsatsu Shores
Low
Low
Low
Residential
Low
High
Residential, Focus of view is mostly straight out to ocean or BC Ferries, some
Recreational residents could be concerned about the expansion
13
Low English Bluff
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Forest,
Residential
Moderate Moderate Residential
Focus of view is mostly straight out to ocean or BC Ferries, some
residents could be concerned about the expansion
View of RB terminal varies depending on the residence
14
High English Bluff
High
Moderate
Moderate
Forest,
Residential
Moderate Moderate Residential
Focus of view is mostly straight out to ocean or BC Ferries, some
residents could be concerned about the expansion, more of RB
terminal is visible from this height on bluff
View of RB terminal varies depending on the residence
15
Agricultural Land
Low
Low
Moderate
Agricultural Moderate Moderate Agricultural
Grading
Road, Rail
Unit combined with outer dyke provides a visual buffer between
TFN village and marine facilities
View of RB terminal varies within the village
None anticipated - primarily industrial users
None anticipated - terminal is visible in background from some
locations, not prominent
-47-
November, 2004
LANDSCAPE UNIT DATABASE CRITERIA
Landform Slope
Low – under 10%
Moderate – 10 – 30%
High – over 30%
Landform Height
Low – under 10 m
Moderate – 10 – 30 m
High – over 30 m
Topographic Variety
Low – minimal horizontal or vertical variety of landform
Moderate – horizontal or vertical variety of landform
High – high horizontal and vertical variety of landform
Land Cover Diversity
Low – one dominant type of land cover, e.g. tidal flat, agricultural land, industrial plant
Moderate – generally two land cover types, e.g., houses, vegetation
High – diverse land cover types, e.g., forest, meadow, buildings
Level of Alteration
None – no major alteration has ever occurred
Low – alteration may have occurred in the past but is not discernable to the casual visitor
Moderate – obvious alteration with some natural features, e.g., housing subdivision, agricultural
land
High – alteration is dominant, e.g., causeway, high density development
Very High – extreme level of alteration, e.g. heavy industry
Number of Viewers
Low – under 200 people average per day
Moderate – 200 to 1000 people average per day
High – over 1000 people average per day
Low – under 5 minutes
Moderate – 5 minutes to one hour
High – over one hour
November, 2004
-48-
APPENDIX B: VIEWPOINT DATABASE
Number Location
Distance to Number
Terminal
of
Viewers
3.87 km
Low
Type of
Viewers
Typ
Duration
of View
Other Public Moderate
Space
View
Angle
Terminal Description of Viewing Condition
% of
View
9%
Service road along top of dyke,
supports small amount of public use walking, cycling; view of terminal
changes gradually as one moves along
the dyke
Description of View
Existing Visual Conditions
360˚ panorama; landward view
agricultural - fields, hedgerows,
structures; marine view NW to SE:
dyke road/trees/homes (8%);
mudflat/ocean/Vancouver Island
(39%); mudflat/terminal (9%);
mudflat/RB causeway with rail cars
(24%); mudflat/rail cars/English Bluff
(11%); dyke/bridge to RB terminal
(9%) [Note: %s are of marine
portion.]
RB terminal is large but quite
far away, many other things to
view, low use though this could
increase with promotion of dyke
trail by Delta, cranes are the
most obvious feature
Focal
10%
Offices and boardroom used by staff
and their visitors, similar to views from
some residences (residences are
slightly more distant and lower in
elevation)
180˚ panorama; view NW to SE:
buildings along shore including
longhouse, pumphouse, homes and
trees (16%); grassland/RB causeway
bridge (7%); grassland/RB railcars/
Vancouver Island (23%);
grassland/RB terminal/Vancouver
Island (10%); grassland/Gulf Islands
(11%); grassland/BCF terminal/Gulf
Islands (3%); grassland/BCF
causeway/Gulf Islands (10%);
grassland/English Bluff (13 %); Youth
Centre/shoreline (7%)
Users are senstive to the
intrusion of the Roberts Bank
terminal, focal view, significant
duration of viewing, cranes are
the most obvious feature
1
North Dyke
2
TFN
Administration
Building
4.21 km
Moderate
Institutional
Building
3
BC Ferries
Causeway
Pullout
1.99 km
High
Road Traffic Short
to BC Ferries
Obtuse
14%
Vehicular traffic to BCF terminal, fastmoving, similar to view from BCF
terminal but the focus there is mostly
internal to the terminal, low use of the
pullout
180˚ panorama; view SW to NE:
BCF causeway and terminal (13%);
mudflat/ocean/islands (11%);
mudflat/RB terminal (14%);
mudflat/RB causeway (25%);
mudflat/RB causeway/shoreline
(13%); mudflat/TFN village/shoreline
(16%); BCF causeway (8%)
RB terminal is a very dominant
visual feature from the
causeway, but viewing time is
short, typical focus is on getting
to the ferry terminal and arriving
on time
4
Fred Gingell
Park
4.61 km
Low
Park Users,
Residential
Obtuse
21%
Small public park with viewing deck,
trees obscure portion of RB terminal
view especially in summer, similar to
view from residences - visibility of RB
terminal varies
120˚ panorama NW to SE: trees/tidal
flats/both causeways/Vancouver
Island (43%); trees/tidal flats/BCF
causeway/ RB terminal (13%);
trees/mudflats/BCF and RB
terminals/Vancouver Island (8%);
mudflats/BCF
terminal/ocean/Vancouver Island
(12%); trees/ocean/Gulf Islands
(24%)
Developed area, park is small,
many other features to view,
outlook mostly to ocean and
Vancouver Island, coal and
ships more obvious compared
to other viewpoints due to the
elevation
High
Moderate
Obtuse

VISUAL AND LIGHTING IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE ROBERTS

Transcription

Similar documents

BevMo! - Bill Brown Sales

Alfredo De Vido Architects Kate`s Paperie

COOLUX specifications

A Powerpoint Presentation by Astronomer Robert Gillette

Let there be... LED

Residence Hall Renewal Plan - University of Wisconsin

Relaxing - Homeworks Builders

Eros Ramazzotti

thecompany - TECNOGEN Spa.

Making Progress - Theatrecrafts.com