Written Communications - Pember - Received 12_02_2025.pdf — Chula Vista City Council, December 2, 2025

Item 5.2 – Written Communications
Pember – Received 12/ 02/ 2025
From: Alisha C. Pember <>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:59 AM
To: CityClerk < CityClerk@chulavistaca. gov>
Cc: John McCann < jmccann@chulavistaca. gov>; Council District 1 District1@chulavistaca. gov>; Jose Preciado < jpreciado@chulavistaca. gov>; Michael Inzunza <minzunza@chulavistaca. gov>; Cesar Fernandez
cfernandez@chulavistaca. gov>; Andrew J. Graf <
Subject: Comments on Agenda Item No. 5.2 – Rohr Wohl Specific Plan WARNING - This email originated from outside the City of Chula Vista. Do not click any links and do not open attachments unless you can confirm the sender.

PLEASEREPORTSUSPICIOUSEMAILSBYUSING THEPHISH ALERTREPORTBUTTON or to reportphishing@chulavistaca. gov
Good morning,
Please find attachedComments on Agenda Item No. 5.2 – Rohr Wohl Specific Planand Attachment A.

A hard copy of our Comments and Attachment A will go out via U.S. Mail.

If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Graf.

Thank you.

Alisha Pember
Alisha C. Pember
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
Some people who received this message don' t often get email from . Learn why this is important
Item 5.2 – Written Communications
Pember – Received 12/ 02/ 2025
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
This e-mail may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/ or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. 8100-001acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE

ISABEL TAHIR
Of Counsel
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
MARC D. JOSEPH
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4- 6 2 0 9

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 -7 0 3 7 T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9- 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9- 5 0 6 2
printed on recycled paper
December2, 2025
VIA E-Mail and U.S. Mail
JohnMcCann, Mayor
c/oKerry K. Bigelow, City Clerk
City ofChulaVista
276FourthAvenue
ChulaVista, California
[email protected]
Re: Comments on Agenda Item No. 5.2 – Rohr Wohl Specific Plan DearMayorMcCann, HonorableCouncilmembers, andMs. Bigelow:

Wewrite onbehalfofSanDiegansfor ResponsibleDevelopment (“San Diegans”) to informtheCity ofChulaVista (“City”) that it lacksevidenceto make therequiredfindingsto adoptanOrdinanceapprovingtheRohrWohlSpecificPlan andincorporatingtheassociatedzoningchangesto theChulaVistaBayfrontLocal CoastalProgram, whichis beingconsideredbytheCity CouncilunderAgendaItem No. 5.2 at its December2, 2025meeting. Specifically, theCity lackssubstantial evidenceto supportthefindingthat thepublicnecessity, convenience, general welfare, andgoodplanningandzoningpracticesupporttheCity’sadoptionofthe Ordinance. SanDiegansrespectfullyurgestheCity Councilto removethis item fromtheconsentcalendar, delayadoptionoftheordinance, andreconsiderits prior actionstakenwith respectto theSpecificPlanat theNovember18, 2025meeting, sothat theCity canaddresstheseconcernsandsupportthefindingsrequiredby theCity’sMunicipalCodeandapplicablestatelaw.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
SanDiegansfor ResponsibleDevelopmentis anunincorporatedassociation ofindividualsandlabororganizationsformedto ensurethat theconstructionof majorurbanprojectsin theSanDiegoregionproceedsin a mannerthat minimizespublicandworkerhealthandsafetyrisks, avoidsor mitigates environmentalandpublicserviceimpacts, andfosterslong-term sustainable December2, 2025
Page2
8100-001acp
printed on recycled paper
constructionanddevelopmentopportunities. Theassociationincludesthe InternationalBrotherhoodofElectricalWorkersLocal569, alongwith its members, their families, andotherindividualswholive, work, recreateandraise their familiesin theSanDiegoregion, includingtheCountyofSanDiegoandthe City ofChulaVista. Accordingly, theywouldbedirectlyaffectedbytheSpecific Plan’senvironmentalandhealthandsafetyimpacts.

SanDieganshasaninterestin enforcingenvironmentallawsthat encourage sustainabledevelopmentandensurea safeworkingenvironmentfor its members.

Environmentallydetrimentalprojectscanjeopardizefuture jobsbymakingit more difficult andmoreexpensivefor businessandindustryto expandin theregion, and bymakingthearealessdesirablefor newbusinessesandnewresidents. Continued environmentaldegradationcan, andhas, causedconstructionmoratoriumsand otherrestrictionsongrowththat, in turn, reducefuture employmentopportunities.

Onlybymaintainingthehigheststandardscancommercialdevelopmenttruly be sustainable.

II. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
TheSpecificPlanidentifiesa developmentframeworkfor 44.87acresin the City, locatedwithin theChulaVistaLocalCoastalProgram, north ofH Street, southofF Street, eastofMarinaParkway, andwestoftheI-5 andBayBoulevard.1 ThePlanwouldamendtheexistingIndustrial Generallandusedistrictsto three newlandusedistricts: PlanningArea (“PA”) A, PAB-1, andPAB-2.2 Thenew districtsprovidefor permitted, conditionallypermitted, andprohibitsuseswithin six landusecategories: commercialretail, commercialvisitor, commercialoffice, light industrial, regionaltechnologypark, andbusinesspark flex.3 Mostusesare eitherallowedby-right or prohibited, with onlyreligiousfacilitiesandlive entertainmentrequiringa conditionalusepermits.4
TheCity Councilcannotmaketherequiredfindingsin theChulaVista MunicipalCodefor adoptionoftheordinanceadoptingtheSpecificPlan. Chula VistaMunicipalCodeSection19.12.020authorizestheCity Councilto adoptan ordinanceto create, amend, supplementor changetheusesandregulationsin the 1 CityofChulaVista, Rohr > WohlSpecificPlan (Oct. 15, 2025) (hereinafter “SpecificPlan”) p. 9, available at https://pub-chulavista.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=56683. 2 Id. at p. 23.
3 Ibid.
4 Id. at p. 23-30, table2.

December2, 2025
Page3
8100-001acp
printed on recycled paper
City’szoninglaw onlywhen “publicnecessity, convenience, generalwelfareor good zoningpracticejustifiessuchaction, andin substantialconformancewith the GeneralplanoftheCity.” In addition, ChulaVistaMunicipalCodeSection

19.07.010requiresa specificplanto beadoptedconsistentwith statelaw requirements, includingtheGovernmentCodeSection65454requirementthat a specificplanbeconsistentwith thegeneralplan.

Asdemonstratedbelow, andin theaccompanyingcommentsbybiological resourcesexpert, ScottCashen, M.S.,5 theOrdinanceis detrimentalto thegeneral welfareandwouldimplementpoorzoningpracticesbecausetheSpecificPlan’s Final EnvironmentalImpactReport (“FEIR”) fails to complywith severalcritical CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct (“CEQA”) requirements.6 First, theSpecific Planauthorizesa broadrangeofusesthat werenotanalyzedin theFEIR, which insteadreliesona conceptual, hypotheticaldevelopmentscenariowithout requiring anyfuture environmentalreview. Second, theFEIRinconsistentlydescribesthe SpecificPlan, preventingmeaningfulanalysisofits environmentalimpacts. Third, theFEIRfails to adequatelydescribetheenvironmentalsettingbyexcludingthe nearbyF&GStreetMarshfromthestudyareaandfailing to analyzeindirect impactsto this protectedarea. Fourth, theFEIR’s conclusionthat theSpecificPlan is consistentwith theCity’sMultiple SpeciesConservationProgram (“MSCP”) is unsupportedbysubstantialevidencebecausenighttimelighting duringbuildout andoperationoftheSpecificPlancouldcreatea significantindirectimpactto nearbybiologicalresources.

TheCity Councilcannotmaketherequiredfindingsfor approvalofthe OrdinanceadoptingtheSpecificPlanbecausetheseunresolvedenvironmental deficienciesevidencethat theOrdinanceis detrimentalto thegeneralwelfareand wouldimplementpoorzoningpractices.7 Therefore, theCity’smunicipalcodeand statelaw prohibitadoptionoftheordinance.

ChulaVistaMunicipalCodeSection2.04.570authorizestheCity Councilto rescindprior Councilactionat anymeeting. TheCity shoulddelayconsiderationof theordinanceadoptingtheSpecificPlanandincorporatingthezoningchangesinto 5 Attachment A, Letterto AndrewJ. Graf, AdmasBroadwellJoseph & CardozofromScottCashen re: CommentsontheFinalEnvironmentalImpactReportfortheRohrWohlSpecificPlanProject ( Dec. 1, 2025) (hereinafter “CashenComments”).
6 CityofChulaVista, FinalEnvironmentalImpactReport: RohrWohlSpecificPlan (July 2025) ( hereinafter “FEIR”), available at https://pub-
chulavista.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=56557. 7 ChulaVistaMunicipalCode § 19.12.020.

December2, 2025
Page4
8100-001acp
printed on recycled paper
theChulaVistaBayfrontLocalCoastalProgram, reconsidertheprior actionstaken with respectto theSpecificPlanat its November18, 2025meeting, anddirectStaff to addressthedeficienciesthat makeadoptionoftheOrdinancedetrimentalto the generalwelfareandpoorzoning. OnlythencantheCity Councilmaketherequired findingsthat theSpecificPlanis consistentwith theCity’sGeneralPlan, Local CoastalProgram, andapplicableplans, andthat publicnecessity, convenience, generalwelfare, andgoodzoningpracticejustifiessuchaction.

III. THE ORDINANCE IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE GENERAL WELFARE

AND WOULD IMPLEMENT POOR ZONING PRACTICES BECAUSE

THE SPECIFIC PLAN RELIES ON AN FEIR THAT CONTAINS AN

INADEQUATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Theordinanceis detrimentalto thegeneralwelfareandwouldimplement poorzoningpracticesbecauseit authorizesdevelopmentbeyondwhatwasanalyzed in theFEIR. Here, theFEIR’sprojectdescriptionimpermissiblyreliesona hypotheticaldevelopmentscenarioandis internally inconsistent. Asa result, the draft ordinanceis detrimentalto thegeneralwelfareandwouldimplementpoor zoningpractices.

A. The Ordinance Authorizes a Broad Range of Uses That Were Not Analyzed in the FEIR Without Requiring Further Environmental Review of Specific Development Proposals
TheFEIRdoesnotdescribetheactualdevelopmentpatternauthorizedbythe SpecificPlan. Courtshaveheldthat anEIR is inadequatewhenit describesonly abstractor conceptualdevelopmentscenarios, rather than theconcreteproject beingapproved, becausesuchvaguenessdeprivesthepublicofa meaningful opportunityto understandandevaluatetheproposal.8 Thisis preciselythedefect identifiedin Stopthemilleniumhollyood.comv. City of Los Angeles, wherethecourt rejectedtheuseofconceptual “impactenvelopes” in lieu ofa realprojectdescription andheldthat deferringcritical projectdetailsunlawfullyimpairsinformedpublic participation.9
8 Stopmilleniumhollywood.comv. City of LosAngeles (2019) 39Cal.App.5th1. 9 Id. at p. 18-20.

December2, 2025
Page5
8100-001acp
printed on recycled paper
Here, theFEIRsimilarly inadequatelyreliesonan illustrative, hypothetical buildoutscenariothat is expresslynonbinding.10 Forexample, theFEIRclaimsto evaluatea 254,100-squarefoothoteland36,000-squarefootrestaurantin PAB-2.11 However, theSpecificPlanimposesnohotelsizeor roomlimitations, nordoesit restrict theareato this specificconfiguration.

AlthoughtheSpecificPlanincludessomedevelopmentstandardsfor PAB-2, suchasa 0.5 maximumlot coverage, a 2.0 floorarearatio, anda 60-footheight limit, 12 theFEIRdoesnotdemonstratethat the254,100-squarefoothoteland 36,000-squrefootrestaurantreflectthemaximumdevelopmentachievableunder thosestandards. With a 2.0 floorarearatio appliedto the9.36-acresite,13 the SpecificPlancouldaccommodateup to approximately814,627squarefeetof commercialdevelopment – morethan threetimesthesizeanalyzedin theFEIR.

NordoestheFEIRanalyzethefull rangeofotherpermitteduses.14 Asa result, the FEIR’s analysisrestsonillustrative assumptionsrather than theforeseeable physicalchangesenabledbythePlan. Asa result, adoptionoftheSpecificPlan wouldbedetrimentalto thegeneralwelfareandwouldimplementpoorzoning becausetheSpecificPlanwouldauthorizedevelopmentbeyondwhatwasanalyzed in theFEIR.

TheFEIRstatesthat that [a]ssumptionsonsiteplanning, numberofhotel rooms, constructiontimelines, andotherspecificswereassumedin orderto demonstratethemostimpactfulscenario,”15 andfurther assertsthat future developmentwill beevaluatedonlyif it “exceeds” theimpactsanalyzedin the FEIR.16 Thisworst-case-scenariomethodologyhasbeenrepeatedlyrejectedbythe courts, asCEQArequiresananalysisofreasonablyforeseeableimpacts, notmerely 10 FEIRat p. RTC-52 (“Specificdetailsregardingfuturedevelopmentin theplanningareaswere unknownanda SpecificPlanwaspreparedforthis reason. Assumptionsonsiteplanning, numberof hotelrooms, constructiontimelines, andotherspecificswereassumedin ordertodemonstratea most impactfulscenario.”), p. RTC-53 (“Thesiteplansareconceptuallayoutsratherthandetailed descriptionsoffutureuses.”).
11 FEIRat p. 4-4, table4-2.
12 SpecificPlanat p. 31, table3.
13 FEIRat p. 2-3.
14Seee.g., SpecificPlanat pp. 23-30.
15FEIRat p. RTC-52.
16 Stopmilleniumhollywood.comv. City of LosAngeles (2019) 39Cal.App.5th1, 18-19.

December2, 2025
Page6
8100-001acp
printed on recycled paper
theoreticalor hypotheticalones.17 TheFEIR’sconditionaldisclaimerdoesnotcure this defect. It simplydefersmeaningfulenvironmentalreview.

Althoughanenvelope-basedanalysismaybeappropriatefor a first-tier or program-levelEIR,18 theleadagencymustclearlydescribethefull range, scale, and intensityofdevelopmentbeingapprovedandcommitto conductingproject-level environmentalreviewwhenspecificdevelopmentproposalsarebroughtforward.19 TheFEIRdoesneither. Instead, it statesthat “[f]uture projectsimplementedas part oftheSpecificPlanwill notundergoadditionalCEQAanalysis, unless proposedplansaresubstantiallydifferentthan whatwasassumedin theEIR and SpecificPlan.”20 In practice, nearlyall projectswithin theplanareaare ministeriallypermittedandthereforecategoricallyexemptfromfurther environmentalreview.21
In short, theCity cannothaveit bothways. It cannotlabeltheFEIRa project-levelanalysiswhilerefusingto definea finite project, norcanit characterize theFEIRasa first-tier documentwithout committingto further environmental review. TheFEIRfails to satisfyCEQA’smostbasicinformationalrequirements andpreventsthepublicanddecisionmakersfromunderstandingtheactual environmentalconsequencesofadoptingtheSpecificPlan. Asa result, adoptionof theSpecificPlanwouldbedetrimentalto thegeneralwelfareandwouldimplement poorzoningbecausetheSpecificPlanwouldauthorizedevelopmentbeyondwhat wasanalyzedin theFEIR.
17SeeStopmilleniumhollywood.comv. City of LosAngeles (2019) 39Cal.App.5th1, 18; Countyof Inyo v. City of LosAngeles (1977) 71Cal.App.3d185; WashoeMeadowsCommunityv. Departmentof Parks & Recreation (2017) 17Cal.App.5th277.
18 Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b)(1); In re Bay-Delta ProgrammaticEnvt’l Impact ReportCoordinated Proceedings (2008) 43Cal.4th 1143, 1173; Kostka & Zischke, PracticeUndertheCalifornia EnvironmentalQualityAct § 10.5D.
19 In re Bay-Delta ProgrammaticEnvt’l Impact ReportCoordinatedProceedings (2008) 43Cal.4th 1143, 1173-74; Stopmilleniumhollywood.comv. City of LosAngeles (2019) 39Cal.App.5th1, 18-20; seealsoSierra Club v. Countyof Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th1307, 1320-21. 20FEIRat p. RTC-68, 2-4 (“TheEIRis organizedto providea tieredproject-levelanalysisofthe potentiallysignificantenvironmentalimpacts, mitigationmeasures, andalternativesforthe proposedproject.”).
21 14Cal. CodeRegs. § 15268.

December2, 2025
Page7
8100-001acp
printed on recycled paper
B. The Ordinance Would Authorize a Specific Plan with an Unstable and Inconsistent Project Description
TheCity failedto usea consistentprojectdescription, andtheanalysisbased onit, throughouttheFEIR.22 SincedifferentsectionsoftheFEIRdescribethe projectin differentways, thepubliccannotclearlyunderstandwhatis proposedor howits impactsareevaluated.23 Althougha projectdescriptionmayallowsome flexibility for future changes, it mustprovideenoughdetailfor thepublicand decisionmakersto assesstheproject’simpacts.24
TheFEIRpresentsaninternally inconsistentdescriptionoftheproject.

WhiletheFEIRidentifiesa 254,100-squarefoothoteland36,000-squarefoot restaurantfor PAB-2,25 thewaterreportassumestheareawill contain4 retail buildingstotaling52,210squarefeet, a 7,3897-squarefootofficebuilding, andan 83,600-squarefoothotel.26 Likewise, thetransportationreportassumesthearea will includea 175roomhotel,27 yettheFEIRdoesnotexplainhowthis roomcount correspondsto thesquarefootageidentifiedelsewhere.

Anotherexampleofinternal inconsistencyis theFEIR’sdescriptionof nighttimeconstructionlighting.28 Ononehand, theFEIRstatesthat construction activitieswill belimited to daylighthours.29 Ontheother, it expressly acknowledgesthat duringwinter monthscontractorsareexpectedto workuntil 7:00p.m., well after sunset, whichwouldrequiretheuseofmobileconstruction lighting.30 Thesetwostatementscannotbereconciled. CEQAobligatesanEIR to beinternally consistentandto discloseall reasonablyforeseeableenvironmental impactsassociatedwith theactualconstructionschedule.31 By presenting conflictingdescriptionsofanticipatedconstructionactivitiesandassociated lighting, theFEIRfails this basicstandard.
22 Countyof Inyo v. City of LosAngeles (1977) 71Cal.App.3d185, 197. 23 Ibid.
24 Citizensfor a SustainableTreasureIsland v. City & Countyof San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th1036, 1055.
25 FEIRat p. 4-4, table4-2.
26 FEIR, appen. L at p. 7.
27 FEIRat pp. RTC-54, RTC-67, 5.15-13.
28 CashenCommentsat p. 2.
29FEIRat p. 5.3-19.
30Id. at p. 5.1-12.
31 Countyof Inyo v. City of LosAngeles (1977) 71Cal.App.3d185, 197.

December2, 2025
Page8
8100-001acp
printed on recycled paper
In sum, theFEIR’sshifting projectdescriptionpreventsmeaningfulpublic participationandminimizestheSpecificPlan’spotentialenvironmentalimpacts.

Asa result, adoptionoftheSpecificPlanwouldbedetrimentalto thegeneral welfareandwouldimplementpoorzoningbecausetheSpecificPlanwould authorizedevelopmentdifferentthan whatwasanalyzedin theFEIR.

IV. THE ORDINANCE IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE GENERAL WELFARE

AND WOULD IMPLEMENT POOR ZONING PRACTICES BECAUSE

IT AUTHORIZES DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT ADEQUATELY

DISCLOSING AND ANALYZING IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
A. The Ordinance Would Authorize Development Without Adequately Describing Potentially Affected Species, Habitats, and Hydrology of the Adjacent F& G Marsh
An EIR mustdescribetheenvironmentalsettingfor theproject, definedas the “physicalconditionsin thevicinity oftheproject” viewedfrombothlocaland regionalperspectives.”32 It mustalsoidentify “theareain whichsignificanteffects wouldoccur, eitherdirectlyor indirectly, a resultoftheproject.33 Thisdescription functionsasthebaselineagainstwhichenvironmentalchangesaremeasuredand significancedeterminationsaremade.34
TheFEIRreliesona biologicalresourcesstudythat limited its surveyfor special-statusspeciesto a 100-footbufferaroundtheSpecificPlanarea.35 This narrowsurveyboundaryexcludedtheadjacentF&GStreetMarsh,36 whichis a designatedconservationareaundertheMSCP.37 Consequently, theFEIRprovides virtually noinformationregardingthesensitivebiologicalresourcespresentin the marsh.38
32 14Cal. CodeRegs. § 15125(a), (c).
33 14Cal. CodeRegs. § 15460.
34 Id. § 15125(a); seeNeighborsfor Smart Rail v. ExpositionMetroLine Constr. Auth. (2013) 57 Cal.4th439, 448.
35CashenCommentsat p. 1; FEIRat p. 5.3-6.
36CashenCommentsat p. 2.
37CityofChulaVista, MSCPSubareaPlan (Feb. 2003) p. 2-6. 38 CashenCommentsat p. 2.

December2, 2025
Page9
8100-001acp
printed on recycled paper
TheFEIRalsofails to identifyor describethehydrologicalprocessesthat maintainthemarshecosystem.39 Thereis noanalysisofhowtheSpecificPlan’s anticipatedreductionin post-projectflowrateswouldaffectthemarshor its associatedplant andanimalcommunities.40 Hydrologicalconditionsarea foundationalcomponentofmarshfunction, influencingspeciescomposition, water quality, sedimentprocesses, andhabitatavailability.41
Developmentwithin theSpecificPlanareacouldcausesignificantindirect impactsonmarshresourcesbyelevatingnoise, dust, lighting andpollutionlevels; alteringhydrology; degradingwaterquality, increasinghumanactivity; andthe introductionofinvasivespecies.42 Theseeffectsarenotconfinedto a 100-foot radiusandcanreadilyextendinto themarshecosystem.43
By omittinganymeaningfuldescriptionor analysisofspecial-statusspecies within themarsh, andbyfailing to identify thehydrologicalprocessesthat sustain it or analyzehowreducedflowrateswouldaffectmarshresources, theOrdinance wouldauthorizedevelopmentwithout adequatelydisclosingandanalyzingimpacts to biologicalresources.

B. The Ordinance Would Authorize Development Without Substantial Evidence to Conclude That Nighttime Lighting Impacts on Biological Resources Are Less than Significant
Light pollutionhasdemonstrableeffectsonbiologicalresources.44 However, theFEIRomitsa meaningfulanalysisofnighttimelighting impactsonbiological resources, despiteacknowledgingthat suchlighting might occur.45 It providesno assessmentofintensity, luminance, height, duration, frequency, or geographic reachofnighttimeconstrucitonlighting, nordoesit evaluatepotentialeffectson sensitivebiologicalresourceswithin theadjacentF&GStreetMarsh.46 39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 Id. at p. 1; FEIRat p. 5.3-15.
43CashenCommentsat p. 1.
44CashenCommentsat p. 2.
45FEIRat p. 5.1-12.
46 CashenCommentsat p. 2.

December2, 2025
Page10
8100-001acp
printed on recycled paper
In addition, theFEIRdoesnotdemonstratethat nighttimeconstruction lighting wouldcomplywith theSpecificPlan’sadjacencymanagementguidelines,47 whichrequirelighting to bedirectedawayfromtheF&GStreetMarsh, shielded, andminimized.48 Mobileconstructionlighting, whichis typicallyelevated, unshielded, andomnidirectional, is inherentlyincompatiblewith these requirements. YettheFEIRprovidesnoanalysis, mitigation, or evidence demonstratinghowsuchlighting couldconformto theadoptedguidelinesor avoid adverseeffectsonthemarshandits sensitivespecies.49 Thisfailure also constitutesa conflictwith applicableplansandpolicies.50 Forthesereasons, adoptionoftheSpecificPlanwouldbedetrimentalto the generalwelfareandwouldimplementpoorzoningbecausetheSpecificPlanwould authorizedevelopmentwithout accuratelydescribingtheproject’sforeseeable constructionactivitiesandprovidinga legallysufficientanalysisor mitigationfor nighttimelighting impacts. TheCity mustensurethat nighttimelighting impacts areproperlyidentified, analyzed, andmitigated
V. CONCLUSION
TheCity lackssubstantialevidenceto supportthefindingthat theSpecific Planis consistentwith theGeneralPlan, LocalCoastalProgram, andapplicable, or thefindingthat publicnecessity, convenience, generalwelfareor goodzoning practicejustifiesadoptionofthePlan. SanDiegansrespectfullyurgestheCity Councilto delayadoptionoftheordinance, reconsiderits prior actions, andprepare a EIR that fully discloses, analyzes, andmitigatestheProject’ssignificant environmentalimpacts.

Thankyoufor yourconsiderationofthesecomments.

Sincerely,
AndrewJ. Graf
Attachments
AJG:acp
47 Ibid.
48MSCPSubareaPlanat p. 7-26.
49CashenCommentsat p. 2.
50 CEQAGuidelines § 15125(d).

December2, 2025
Page11
8100-001acp
printed on recycled paper
Cc: JohnMcCann, [email protected]
CarolinaChavez, [email protected]
JosePreciado, [email protected]
MichaelInzuza, [email protected]
CesarFernandez, [email protected]

ATTACHMENT A
ScottCashen, M.S.— IndependentBiologicalResourcesConsultant December1, 2025
Mr. AndrewJ. Graf
AdamsBroadwellJoseph & Cardozo
601GatewayBoulevard, Suite1000
SouthSanFrancisco, CA 94080
Subject: Commentson the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rohr Wohl SpecificPlan Project
DearMr. Graf:

This lettercontainsmy commentsontheFinalEnvironmentalImpactReport (“FEIR”) prepared by theCity of ChulaVistafor theRohrWohl SpecificPlanProject (“Project”). I aman environmentalbiologistwith 32yearsof professionalexperiencein wildlife biologyandnatural resourcesmanagement. I haveservedasa biologicalresourcesexpertfor over200projects, the majority of which havebeendevelopmentprojectsin California. My experienceandscopeof work in this regardhasincludedassistingvariousclientswith evaluationsof biologicalresource issues; preparationandpeerreviewof environmentalcompliancedocumentspreparedpursuant to theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act (“CEQA”) andtheNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act (“NEPA”); andpreparationof writtencommentsthataddressdeficiencieswith CEQA and NEPAdocuments. My work hasincludedwrittenandoraltestimonyfor theCaliforniaEnergy Commission (“CEC”), CaliforniaPublicUtilities Commission, andFederalcourts. My educationalbackgroundincludesa B.S. in ResourceManagementfrom theUniversityof CaliforniaatBerkeley, anda M.S. in Wildlife andFisheriesSciencefrom thePennsylvaniaState University. A copyof my currentcurriculumvitaeis attachedhereto.

Thecommentshereinarebasedonmy reviewof theenvironmentaldocumentspreparedfor the Project, a reviewof scientificliteraturepertainingto biologicalresourcesknownto occurin the Projectarea, my work on otherprojectsin SanDiegoCounty, andtheknowledgeandexperience I haveacquiredduringmy 32-yearcareerin thefield of naturalresourcesmanagement.

The FEIR’s Determination That Indirect Impacts Would BeLess-Than-Significant Is Unsupported Dueto Application of an Inappropriately Small Study Area TheApplicant’s biologicalresourcesconsultantassessedhabitatandanalyzedpotentialProject impactsonbiologicalresourceswithin the “Projectstudyarea,” which wasdefinedastheProject siteandsurrounding100-foot buffer.1 This studyareawasinsufficientfor analyzingtheProject’s potentiallysignificantindirectimpacts.

TheProjecthasthepotentialto causesignificantindirectimpactsonbiologicalresourcesby elevatingnoise, dust, lighting andpollutionlevels; alteringhydrology; degradingwaterquality; increasinghumanactivity; andintroducinginvasiveplantsandanimals.2 Theseindirectimpacts canextendwell beyondtheProjectstudyarea. For example, Projectimpactsto hydrologyand 1 FEIR, p. 5.3-6 andAppendixD (BiologicalResourcesReport), pp. 4 and6. 2 FEIR, p. 5.3-15andAppendixD (BiologicalResourcesReport), p. 17. waterqualitywould affectall runoff pathways, andtheyhavethepotentialto extendto all downstreamreceivingwaters. Theserunoff pathwaysandreceivingwatersoccuroutsideof the Projectstudyarea.3
TheFEIR statesthat “apreservearea” occursapproximately500feetnorthof theProjectsite,4 andthattheF&G StreetMarshis locatedapproximately310feetfrom thenearestpropertyline of theProjectsite.5 However, theFEIRprovidesalmostnoinformationonthesensitive biologicalresourcesthatoccurat themarsh/preserve. In addition, theFEIRfails to identify the hydrologicalprocessesthatmaintainthemarsh, andthereis noanalysisof howthedecreasein post-Projectflow rateswouldaffectthemarsh, andits associatedplantsandanimals.6 These deficienciesprecludetheability to validatetheFEIR’s impactassessmentsanddetermination thatall of theProject’sindirectimpactsonbiologicalresourceswouldbeless-than-significant.

The FEIR’s Determination That the Project Would Comply with Lighting Requirementsin the City’s MSCP SubareaPlan Is Unsupported
Light pollutionhasdemonstrableeffectson thebehavioralandpopulationecologyof organisms, with seriousimplicationsoncommunityecology.7 Accordingto theFEIR:
theprojectmustcomplywith theguidelinessetforth in the ‘Adjacency ManagementIssues’ discussionin Section7.5 of theCity’s MSCPSubareaPlan, which requiresimplementationof BMPsto ensurethatadjacencyissuesdo not arisedueto projectactivities. Thesepracticesinclude, butarenotlimited to … restrictionof constructionactivitiesto daylighthours …”8 Mitigation MeasureBIO-6 furtherrequiresthatProjectconstructionactivitiesbeconfinedto daylighthours.9 However, this mitigationis inconsistentwith theFEIR’s statementthat duringwintermonthsandassumingconstructioncontractorselectto work beyondsunsetand till 7:00p.m., theuseof mobile lighting may be required.”10 With respectto lighting duringoperationof theProject, theMSCPSubareaPlanrequiresthe following:

Lighting of all developedareasadjacentto thePreserveshouldbedirectedaway from thePreservewhereverfeasibleandconsistentwith publicsafety. Where necessary, developmentshouldprovideadequateshieldingwith non-invasive plantmaterials (preferablynative), berming, and/or othermethodsto protectthe Preserveandsensitivespeciesfrom nightlighting. Considerationshouldbegiven to theuseof low-pressuresodiumlighting.”11
3 FEIR, AppendixI1 (PreliminaryDrainageReport) andAppendixI3 (UpdatedDrainageMemorandum). 4 FEIR, p. 5.3-17.
5 FEIR, p. RTC-56.
6 FEIR, AppendixI3 (UpdatedDrainageMemorandum).
7 LongcoreT, RichC. 2004. EcologicalLight Pollution. Frontiersin EcologyandtheEnvironment2:191-198. 8 FEIR, p. 5.3-16.
9 FEIR, p. 5.3-19.
10 FEIR, p. 5.1-12. [emphasisadded].
11 FEIR, p. 5.3-5.

Accordingto theProject’s DesignGuidelines, theProjectwouldinvolve asubstantialamountof night lighting, includinglighting to “accentuatebuildingentrances, siteentrances, landscapeand building volumes.”12 However, theFEIRdoesnotincorporatemitigationthatwouldensurelight pollution generatedby operationof theProjectdoesnotpenetratethePreserve. For these reasons, theFEIR’s determinationthattheProjectwould complywith theMSCPSubareaPlanis unsupported.

Sincerely,
ScottCashen, M.S.

SeniorBiologist
12 Rohr>Wohl DesignGuidelines, p. 63. (Attachment4 to theCity CouncilAgendaPacket).

Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 1
Scott Cashen, M. S.

Senior Wildlife Biologist
Scott Cashen has 32 years of professional experience in natural resources management. During that time he has worked as a field biologist, forester, environmental consultant, and instructor of Wildlife Management. Mr. Cashenfocuseson CEQA/ NEPA compliance issues, endangered species, scientific field studies, and other topics that require a high level of scientific expertise.

Mr. Cashen has knowledge and experience with numerous taxa, ecoregions, biological resource issues, and environmental regulations. As a biological resources expert, Mr.

Cashenis knowledgeable of the various agency-promulgated guidelines for field surveys, impact assessments, and mitigation. Mr. Cashenhasled field investigations on several special- status species, including ones focusing on the yellow - legged frog, red- legged frog, deserttortoise, steelhead, burrowing owl, California spottedowl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn sheep, red panda, and various forest carnivores.

Mr. Cashenis a recognized expert on the environmental impacts of renewableenergy development. He hasbeeninvolved in the environmental review processof over 100 solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy projects. Mr. Cashen’s role in this capacity hasencompassedall stagesof the environmental review process, from initial document review through litigation support. Mr. Cashenprovided expert witness testimony on several of the Department of the Interior’ s “fast- tracked” renewable energy projects. His testimony on those projects helped lead agencies develop project alternatives and mitigation measuresto reduceenvironmental impacts associatedwith the projects.

Mr. Cashen was a member of the independent scientific review panel for the Quincy Library Group project, the largest community forestry project in the United States. As a member of the panel, Mr. Cashen was responsible for advising the U. S. Forest Service on its scientific monitoring program, and for preparing a final report to Congress describing the effectivenessof the Herger-Feinstein ForestRecovery Act of 1998.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
CEQA, NEPA, and EndangeredSpeciesAct compliance issues
Comprehensive biological resource assessments
Endangeredspeciesmanagement
Renewable energy development
Scientific field studies, grant writing and technical editing

EDUCATION
M.S. Wildlife and FisheriesScience - The Pennsylvania StateUniversity ( 1998) Thesis: Avian Use of RestoredWetlands in Pennsylvania
B. S. Resource Management - The University of California, Berkeley ( 1992) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 2

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Litigation Support / Expert Witness
Mr. Cashenhasservedasa biological resourcesexpert for over 125 projects subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) and/or the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ). As a biological resources expert, Mr.

Cashen reviews CEQA/ NEPA documents and provides his clients with an assessment of biological resourceissues. He then submits formal comments on the scientific and legal adequacy of the project’ s environ mental documents ( e.g., Environmental Impact Report).

If needed, Mr. Cashen conducts field studies to generate evidence for legal testimony, or he can obtain supplemental testimony from his deepnetwork of species-specific experts.

Mr. Cashen has provided written and oral testimony to the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and U. S. district courts. His clients have included law firms, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Solar Energy Geothermal Energy
Abengoa Mojave Solar Project • Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Project • Avenal Energy Power Plant • EastBrawley Geothermal Development • Beacon Solar Energy Project • Mammoth Pacific 1 Replacement Facility • Blythe Solar Power Project • Orni 21 Geothermal Project ff
Steamfield
Calico Solar Project • Western GeoPower Plant
California Flats Solar Project Wind Energy
Calipatria Solar Farm II • Catalina Renewable Energy
Project • Carrizo Energy Solar Farm • Ocotillo Wind Energy Project Catalina RenewableEnergy
Project
SD County Wind Energy
Ordinance • Fink Road Solar Farm • Searchlight Wind Project GenesisSolar Energy Project • Shu’luuk Wind Project
Heber Solar Energy Facility • Tres Vaqueros Repowering Project Imperial Valley Solar Project • Tule Wind Project
Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating
System
Vasco Winds Relicensing Project
Maricopa Sun Solar Complex Biomass Facilities
McCoy Solar Project • CA Ethanol Project
Mt. Signal and Calexico Solar
Projects
Colusa Biomass Project
PanocheValley Solar • Tracy GreenEnergy Project
San Joaquin Solar I & II Other Development Projects
SanLuis Solar Project • Cal-Am Desalination Project
Stateline Solar Project • CarnegieSVRA Expansion Project Solar Gen II Projects • Lakeview Substation Project
SR Solis Oro Loma • Monterey Bay ShoresEcoresort
Vestal Solar Facilities • Phillips 66 Rail Spur
Victorville 2 Power Project • Valero Benecia Crude By Rail Willow Springs Solar • Pacheco Dam Expansion Project
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 3
Project Management
Mr. Cashen has managed several large- scale wildlife, forestry, and natural resource managementprojects. Many of the projects have required hiring and training field crews, coordinating with other professionals, and communicating with project stakeholders. Mr.

Cashen’s experience in study design, data collection, and scientific writing make him an effective project manager, and his background in severaldifferent natural resource disciplines enable him to address the many facets of contemporary land manageme nt in a cost- effective manner.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Wildlife Studies
Peninsular Bighorn SheepResourceUse and Behavior Study: (CA StateParks) KV” Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Inventory: ( USFS, Plumas NF) Amphibian Inventory Project: ( USFS, Plumas NF)
San Mateo Creek SteelheadRestoration Project: (Trout Unlimited and CA Coastal Conservancy, Orange County)
Delta Meadows StatePark Special-StatusSpeciesInventory: ( CA StateParks, Locke)
Natural ResourcesManagement
Mather Lake Resource Management Study and Plan – ( Sacramento County) Placer County Vernal Pool Study – (Placer County)
Weidemann Ranch Mitigation Project – ( Toll Brothers, Inc., San Ramon) Ion Communities Biological ResourceAssessments – (Ion Communities, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties)
Del Rio Hills Biological ResourceAssessment – (The Wyro Company, Rio Vista) Forestry
Forest Health Improvement Projects – ( CalFire, SD and Riverside Counties) San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (SDG& E, San Diego Co.) San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (San Diego County/NRCS) Hillslope Monitoring Project – ( CalFire, throughout California) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 4
Biological Resources
Mr. Cashen has a diverse background with biological resources. He has conducted comprehensivebiological resourceassessments, habitat evaluations, speciesinventories, and scientific peer review. Mr. Cashen has led investigations on several special -status species, including ones focusing on the foothill yellow- legged frog, mountain yellow- legged frog, deserttortoise, steelhead, burrowing owl, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn sheep, red panda, and forest carnivores.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Biological Assessments/Biological Evaluations (“ BA/ BE”) Aquatic SpeciesBA/ BE – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC)
Terrestrial SpeciesBA/ BE – Reliable Power Project ( SFPUC) ManagementIndicator SpeciesReport – Reliable Power Project ( SFPUC) Migratory Bird Report – Reliable Power Project ( SFPUC) Terrestrial and Aquatic SpeciesBA – Lower Cherry Aqueduct (SFPUC) Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BE – Lower Cherry Aqueduct ( SFPUC) Terrestrial and Aquatic SpeciesBA/ BE – Public Lands LeaseApplication Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep)
Terrestrial and Aquatic SpeciesBA/ BE – Simon Newman Ranch (The Nature Conservancy)
Draft EIR ( Vegetation and Special- Status Plants) - Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Midpeninsula Regional Open SpaceDistrict)
Avian
Study design and Lead Investigator - Delta Meadows StatePark Special-Status Species Inventory ( CA State Parks: Locke)
Study design and lead bird surveyor - Placer County Vernal Pool Study (Placer County: throughout Placer County)
Surveyor - Willow flycatcher habitat mapping (USFS: Plumas NF) Surveyor - Tolay Creek, Cullinan Ranch, and Guadacanal Village restoration projects ( Ducks Unlimited/ USGS: San Pablo Bay)
Study design and Lead Investigator - Bird useof restoredwetlands research Pennsylvania Game Commission: throughout Pennsylvania)
Study design and surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird speciesat a 400-acresite in Napa County (HCV Associates: Napa)
Surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird abundance following diesel spill ( LFR Levine-Fricke: Suisun Bay)
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 5
Study design and lead bird surveyor - GreenValley Creek Riparian Restoration Site (City of Fairfield: Fairfield, CA)
Surveyor - Burrowing owl relocation and monitoring ( US Navy: Dixon, CA) Surveyor - Pre-construction burrowing owl surveys (various clients: Livermore, San Ramon, Rio Vista, Napa, Victorville, Imperial County, San Diego County) Surveyor - Backcountry bird inventory ( National Park Service: Eagle, Alaska) Lead surveyor - Tidal salt marsh bird surveys ( Point Reyes Bird Observatory:
throughout Bay Area)
Surveyor – Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds (various clients and locations)
Amphibian
Crew Leader - Red- legged frog, foothill yellow- legged frog, and mountain yellow- legged frog surveys (USFS: Plumas NF)
Surveyor - Foothill yellow- legged frog surveys ( PG& E: North Fork Feather River)
Surveyor - Mountain yellow- legged frog surveys (El Dorado Irrigation District:

Desolation Wilderness)
Crew Leader - Bullfrog eradication (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) Fish and Aquatic Resources
Surveyor - Hardheadminnow and other fish surveys (USFS: Plumas NF) Surveyor - Weber Creek aquatic habitat mapping ( El Dorado Irrigation District:

Placerville, CA)
Surveyor - Green Valley Creek aquatic habitat mapping ( City of Fairfield:

Fairfield, CA)
GPS Specialist - Salmonid spawning habitat mapping (CDFG: SacramentoRiver) Surveyor - Fish composition and abundance study ( PG& E: Upper North Fork Feather River and Lake Almanor)
Crew Leader - Surveys of steelhead abundance and habitat use (CA Coastal Conservancy: Gualala River estuary)
Crew Leader - Exotic speciesidentification and eradication (Trout Unlimited:

Cleveland NF)
Mammals
Principal Investigator – Peninsular bighorn sheep resource use and behavior study California StateParks: Freeman Properties)
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 6
Scientific Advisor – Study on red pandaoccupancy and abundancein eastern Nepal (The Red Panda Network: CA and Nepal)
Surveyor - Forest carnivore surveys ( University of CA: Tahoe NF) Surveyor - Relocation and monitoring of salt marsh harvestmice and other small mammals ( US Navy: Skagg’s Island, CA)
Surveyor – Surveys for Monterey dusky-footed woodrat. Relocation of woodrat houses (Touré Associates: Prunedale)
Natural Resource Investigations / Multiple Species Studies Scientific Review Team Member – Member of the scientific review team assessing the effectiveness of the US Forest Service’s implementation of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act.

Lead Consultant - Baseline biological resource assessments and habitat mapping for CDF managementunits (CDF: SanDiego, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties)
Biological Resources Expert – Peer review of CEQA/ NEPA documents ( various law firms, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups) Lead Consultant - Pre- and post- harvest biological resource assessments of tree removal sites ( SDG& E: San Diego County)
Crew Leader - T& E specieshabitat evaluations for Biological Assessmentin support of a steelhead restoration plan ( Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) Lead Investigator - ResourceManagementStudy and Plan for Mather Lake Regional Park ( County of Sacramento: Sacramento, CA)
Lead Investigator - Biological Resources Assessment for 1,070- acre Alfaro Ranch property (Yuba County, CA)
Lead Investigator - Wildlife Strike Hazard Management Plan ( HCV Associates:

Napa)
Lead Investigator - Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment ( The Wyro Company: Rio Vista, CA)
Lead Investigator – Ion Communities project sites (Ion Communities: Riverside and San Bernardino Counties)
Surveyor – Tahoe Pilot Project: Validation of California’s Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Model ( University of California: Tahoe NF) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 7
Forestry
Mr. Cashen has five years of experience working as a consulting forester on projects throughout California. Mr. Cashenhasconsulted with landowners and timber operators on forest management practices; and he has worked on a variety of forestry tasks including selective tree marking, forest inventory, harvest layout, erosion control, and supervision of logging operations. Mr. Cashen’s experiencewith many different natural resources enable him to provide a holistic approach to forest management, rather than just management of timber resources.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Lead Consultant - CalFire fuels treatmentprojects (SD and Riverside Counties) Lead Consultant and supervisor of harvest activities – San Diego Gas and Electric Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project (SanDiego)
Crew Leader - Hillslope Monitoring Program ( CalFire: throughout California) Consulting Forester – Forestinventories and timber harvest projects (various clients throughout California)

PERMITS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit for the Peninsular bighorn sheep

TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Instructor: Wildlife Management - The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, 1998 Teaching Assistant: Ornithology - The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, 1996-1997

PUBLICATIONS
Gutiérrez RJ, AS Cheng, DR Becker, S Cashen, et al. 2015. Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: a case study of the Quincy Library group in California, USA.

Chapter19 in: RedpathSR, et al. (eds). Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.

Cheng AS, Gutiérrez RJ, Cashen S, et al. 2016. Is There a Place for Legislating Place- BasedCollaborative Forestry Proposals?: Examining the Herger -Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project. Journal of Forestry 114(4):494-504 As
diurnal creatures, humans have long sought
methods to illuminate the night. In pre-industrial
times, artificial light was generatedby burning various materials, including wood, oil, and even dried fish.

While these methods of lighting certainly influenced
animal behavior and ecology locally, such effects were
limited. The relatively recent invention and rapid prolif- eration of electric lights, however, have transformedthe nighttime environment over substantial portions of the
Earth’ssurface.

Ecologistshave not entirely ignored the potential dis-
ruption of ecologicalsystemsby artificial night lighting.

Several authors have written reviews of the potential
effectson ecosystemsor taxonomic groups, publishedin
the “gray” literature (Health Council of the Netherlands 2000; Hill 1990), conferenceproceedings (Outen 2002;
Schmiedel 2001), and journal articles ( Frank 1988;
Verheijen 1985; Salmon 2003). This review attempts to
integrate the literature on the topic, and drawson a con- ferenceorganizedby the authorsin 2002 titled Ecological Consequencesof Artificial Night Lighting.We identify the roles that artificial night lighting playsin changing eco- logical interactions acrosstaxa, as opposedto reviewing theseeffectsby taxonomic group. We first discussthe scale and extent of ecologicallight pollution and its relation- ship to astronomicallight pollution, aswell asthe mea-
surementof light for ecologicalresearch. We then address the recordedand potential influences of artificial night lighting within the nested hierarchy of behavioral and
population ecology, community ecology, and ecosystem
ecology. While this hierarchy is somewhatartificial and certainly mutable, it illustrates the breadth of potential consequencesof ecologicallight pollution. The important effectsof light on the physiologyof organisms (seeHealth Council of the Netherlands2000) arenot discussedhere.

Astronomical and ecological light pollution: scale
and extent
The term “light pollution” hasbeen in usefor a number
of years, but in most circumstancesrefersto the degrada- tion of human views of the night sky. We want to clarify that this is “astronomicallight pollution”, wherestarsand other celestial bodies are washed out by light that is
either directed or reflected upward. This is a broad-scale phenomenon, with hundredsof thousandsof light sources
cumulatively contributing to increasednighttime illumi- nation of the sky; the light reflectedback from the skyis called “sky glow” (Figure 1). We describeartificial light that altersthe natural patternsof light anddark in ecosys- tems as “ecological light pollution”. Verheijen ( 1985) proposedthe term “photopollution” to mean “artificial
light having adverseeffects on wildlife”. Becausepho-
topollution literally means “light pollution” and because light pollution is so widely understoodtoday to describe the degradation of the view of the night sky and the
human experienceof the night, we believe that a more
descriptive term is now necessary. Ecologicallight pollu- tion includesdirect glare, chronically increasedillumina- 191
The EcologicalSocietyof America www. frontiersinecology. org

REVIEWS REVIEWS REVIEWS
Ecological light pollution
Travis Longcore and Catherine Rich
Ecologists have long studied the critical role of natural light in regulating species interactions, but, with limited exceptions, have not investigated the consequences of artificial night lighting. In the past century, the extent and intensity of artificial night lighting has increased such that it has substantial effects on the biology and ecology of species in the wild. We distinguish “ astronomical light pollution”, which obscures the view of the night sky, from “ ecological light pollution”, which alters natural light regimes in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Some of the catastrophic consequences of light for certain taxonomic groups are well known, such as the deaths of migratory birds around tall lighted structures, and those of hatchling sea turtles disoriented by lights on their natal beaches. The more subtle influences of artificial night lighting on the behavior and community ecology of species are less well recognized, and constitute a new focus for research in ecology and a pressing conservation challenge.

Front Ecol Environ 2004; 2( 4): 191– 198
The Urban WildlandsGroup, PO Box 24020, Los Angeles, CA 90024-0020 ([email protected])
In a nutshell:

Ecological light pollution includes chronic or periodically increased illumination, unexpected changes in illumination, and direct glare
Animals can experience increased orientation or disorienta- tion from additional illumination and are attracted to or repulsedby glare, which affectsforaging, reproduction, commu- nication, and other critical behaviors
Artificial light disrupts interspecific interactions evolved in natural patterns of light and dark, with seriousimplications for community ecology
Ecological light pollution T Longcore and C Rich
tion, and temporary, unexpected fluctuations in light-
ing. Sources of ecological light pollution include sky
glow, lighted buildings and towers, streetlights, fishing boats, security lights, lights on vehicles, flares on off- shore oil platforms, and even lights on undersea
researchvessels, all of which can disrupt ecosystemsto
varying degrees. The phenomenon therefore involves
potential effects acrossa range of spatial and temporal scales.

The extent of ecological light pollution is global
Elvidge et al. 1997; Figure2). The first atlasof artificial night sky brightness illustrates that astronomical light pollution extendsto everyinhabited continent ( Cinzano
et al. 2001). Cinzano et al. ( 2001) calculate that only 40% of Americans live where it becomessufficiently
dark at night for the human eye to make a complete
transition from cone to rod vision and that 18.7% of the terrestrial surfaceof the Earth is exposedto night sky
brightness that is polluted by astronomical standards.

Ecosystemsmay be affected by these levels of illumina-
tion and lights that do not contribute to sky glow may
still have ecologicalconsequences, ensuringthat ecolog- ical light pollution afflicts an even greaterproportion of the Earth. Lighted fishing fleets, offshore oil platforms, and cruise ships bring the disruption of artificial night lighting to the world’soceans.

The tropics maybeespeciallysensitiveto alterations in
natural diel ( ie over a 24-hour period) patterns of light and dark becauseof the year-round constancy of daily
cycles (Gliwicz 1999). A shortenedor brighter night is
more likely to affect tropical speciesadaptedto diel pat- terns with minimal seasonalvariation than extratropical species adapted to substantial seasonal variation. Of
course, temperateand polar zonespeciesactive only dur-
ing a portion of the yearwould beexcludedfrom this gen- eralization. Speciesin temperate zoneswill
also be susceptible to disruptions if they
dependon seasonalday length cuesto trigger
critical behaviors.

Measurements and units
Measurement of ecological light pollution
often involves determination of illumination
at a given place. Illumination is the amount
of light incident per unit area – not the only
measurementrelevant to ecologicallight pol-
lution, but the most common. Light variesin
intensity ( the number of photons per unit
area) and spectral content ( expressedby
wavelength). Ideally, ecologistsshould mea-
sureillumination in photonsper squaremeter
per secondwith associatedmeasurementsof
the wavelengthsof light present. More often,
illumination is measuredin lux ( or footcan-
dles, the non-SI unit), which expressesthe
brightnessof light asperceivedby the human
eye. The lux measurement places more emphasis on
wavelengthsof light that the human eyedetectsbestand
lesson thosethat humansperceivepoorly. Becauseother
organismsperceive light differently – including wave-
lengthsnot visible to humans – future researchon ecolog- ical light pollution should identify these responsesand measurelight accordingly. For example, Gal et al. (1999) calculated the responsecurve of mysid shrimp to light
and reportedillumination in lux adjustedfor the spectral sensitivity of the species.

Ecologistsare faced with a practical difficulty when
communicating information about light conditions. Lux
is the standardusedby nearly all lighting designers, light- ing engineers, and environmental regulators; communi-
cation with them requiresreporting in this unit. Yet the useof lux ignoresbiologically relevant information. High- pressuresodium lights, for instance, will attract moths becauseof the presenceof ultraviolet wavelengths, while low-pressuresodiumlights of the sameintensity, but not
producing ultraviolet light, will not ( Rydell 1992).

Nevertheless, we uselux here, both becauseof the need
to communicate with applied professionals, and because
of its current and pastwidespreadusage. As this research field develops, however, measurementsof radiation and
spectrumrelevant to the organismsin questionshouldbe
used, even though lux will probably continue to be the
preferred unit for communication with professionalsin
other disciplines.

Ecologistsalso measureaspectsof the light environ-
ment other than absoluteillumination levels. A sudden
change in illumination is disruptive for some species
Buchanan 1993), so percent change in illumination,
rate, or similar measuresmay be relevant. Ecologistsmay also measureluminance (ie brightness) of light sources
that arevisible to organisms.
192
www. frontiersinecology. org © The EcologicalSocietyof America Figure1. Diagram of ecologicaland astronomicallight pollution.

Astronomical light pollution reduces the
number of visible stars
Unshielded lights can cause both
astronomical and ecological light
pollution
Tall, lighted structures
are collision hazards
Shielded lights
reduce astronomical
light pollution but
may still cause
ecological light
pollution
Sky glow from cities
disrupts distant
ecosystems
T Longcore and C Rich Ecological light pollution
Behavioral and population ecology
Ecologicallight pollution has demonstrableeffectson the behavioraland populationecologyof organismsin natural
settings. As awhole, theseeffectsderivefromchangesin ori- entation, disorientation, or misorientation, andattractionor repulsionfromthe alteredlight environment, which in turn mayaffectforaging, reproduction, migration, andcommuni- cation.

Orientation/ disorientation and attraction/ repulsion
Orientation and disorientation are responsesto ambient
illumination ( ie the amountof light incident on objectsin an environment). In contrast, attraction and repulsion
occur in responseto the light sourcesthemselvesand are
thereforeresponsesto luminance or the brightnessof the
sourceof light (Health Council of the Netherlands2000).

Increasedillumination mayextenddiurnal or crepuscular
behaviorsinto the nighttime environmentbyimprovingan
animal’s ability to orient itself. Many usuallydiurnal birds Hill 1990) and reptiles (Schwartzand Henderson1991),
for example, forageunder artificial lights. This has been termedthe “night light niche” for reptilesandseemsbenefi- cial for thosespeciesthat can exploit it, but not for their prey (SchwartzandHenderson1991).

In addition to foraging, orientation underartificial illumi- nation may induce other behaviors, such as territorial
singingin birds (Bergenand Abs 1997). For the northern
mockingbird (Mimuspolyglottos), malessingat night before mating, but once mated only sing at night in artificially lighted areas (Derrickson 1988) or during the full moon.

The effect of these light-induced behaviorson fitnessis unknown.

Constant artificial night lighting may also disorient
organismsaccustomedto navigatingin adarkenvironment.

The best-known exampleof this is the disorientation of
hatchling seaturtlesemergingfrom nestson sandybeaches.

Under normal circumstances, hatchlingsmove awayfrom
low, dark silhouettes (historically, those of dune vegeta- tion), allowing them to crawl quickly to the ocean. With beachfrontlighting, the silhouettesthat would have cued movementareno longerperceived, resultingin disorienta-
tion (Salmonetal. 1995). Lighting alsoaffectsthe egg-lay- ing behaviorof femaleseaturtles. (Forreviewsof effectson seaturtles, seeSalmon2003andWitherington 1997).

Changesin light level maydisruptorientation in noctur-
nal animals. The rangeof anatomicaladaptationsto allow
night vision is broad (Park 1940), and rapid increasesin light canblind animals. Forfrogs, aquickincreasein illumi- nation causesa reduction in visual capability from which the recoverytime may be minutes to hours (Buchanan
1993). After becomingadjustedto a light, frogsmay be
attractedto it aswell (JaegerandHailman 1973; Figure3).

Birdscanbedisorientedandentrappedby lights at night
Ogden 1996). Once a bird is within a lighted zone at
night, it may become “trapped” and will not leave the
lighted area. Largenumbersof nocturnally migrating birds are therefore affected when meteorological conditions
bring them closeto lights, for instance, during inclement weather or late at night when they tend to fly lower.
193
The EcologicalSocietyof America www. frontiersinecology. org Figure 2. Distribution of artificial lightsvisiblefrom space. Producedusingcloud-free portionsof low-light imagingdata acquiredby the US Air Force DefenseMeteorologicalSatelliteProgram Operational LinescanSystem. Four typesof lights are identified: (1) human settlements – cities, towns, and villages (white), ( 2) fires – definedasephemerallightson land (red), ( 3) gasflares (green), and (4) heavily lit fishing boats (blue). SeeElvidge et al.( 2001) for details. Image, data processing, and descriptivetext by the National Oceanicand AtmosphericAdministration’s National GeophysicalData Center.

Ecological light pollution T Longcore and C Rich
Within the sphereof lights, birds may collide with each other or a structure, becomeexhausted, or be taken by
predators. Birds that are waylaid by buildings in urban areasat night often die in collisionswith windowsasthey try to escapeduring the day. Artificial lighting has
attracted birds to smokestacks, lighthouses (Squiresand Hanson 1918), broadcast towers
Ogden 1996), boats ( Dick and
Donaldson 1978), greenhouses, oil
platforms (Wiese et al. 2001), and
other structuresat night, resulting
in direct mortality, and thus inter-
fering with migration routes.

Many groupsof insects, of which
mothsareonewell-known example
Frank 1988), are attracted to
lights. Other taxa showing the
sameattraction include lacewings,
beetles, bugs, caddisflies, craneflies,
midges, hoverflies, wasps, and bush
crickets ( Eisenbeis and Hassel
2000; Kolligs 2000; Figure 4).

Attraction depends on the spec-
trum of light – insect collectorsuse
ultraviolet light because of its
attractive qualities – and the char-
acteristics of other lights in the
vicinity.

Nonflying arthropodsvary in their reaction to lights.

Some nocturnal spiders are negatively phototactic ( ie
repelledby light), whereasotherswill exploit light if avail- able (Nakamuraand Yamashita1997). Some insectsare
alwayspositivelyphototactic asan adaptivebehaviorand
others alwaysphotonegative (Summers1997). In arthro-
pods, theseresponsesmayalsobeinfluencedbythe frequent
correlationsbetweenlight, humidity, andtemperature.

Natural resourcemanagerscan exploit the responsesof
animalsto lights. Lights aresometimesusedto attract fish to ladders, allowing them to bypassdamsandpowerplants
Haymeset al. 1984). Similarly, lights can attract larval fish to coral reefs (Munday et al. 1998). In the terrestrial realm, dispersingmountain lions avoid lighted areasto
suchadegreethat Beier (1995) suggestsinstalling lights to deter them from entering habitats dead-ending in areas
wherehumanslive.

Reproduction
Reproductivebehaviorsmaybe alteredby artificial night
lighting. FemalePhysalaemuspustulosusfrogs, for exam-
ple, arelessselectiveaboutmatechoice when light levels
are increased, presumablypreferring to mate quickly and avoid the increased predation risk of mating activity
Rand et al. 1997). Night lighting may also inhibit
amphibian movementto andfrom breedingareasby stim-
ulating phototactic behavior. Bryant Buchanan ( pers
comm) reports that frogs in an experimental enclosure
stopped mating activity during night football games,
when lights from a nearby stadium increasedsky glow.

Mating chorusesresumedonly when the enclosurewas
coveredto shield the frogsfrom the light.

In birds, some evidence suggeststhat artificial night
lighting affectsthe choice of nestsite. De Molenaar et al. 194
www. frontiersinecology. org © The EcologicalSocietyof America Figure 4. Thousandsof mayfliescarpetthe groundaround a securitylight at Millecoquins Point in Naubinway on theUpper Peninsulaof Michigan.

Co
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
P
J
D
e
V
r
i
e
s
Figure 3. Attraction of frogsto a candlesetout on a smallraft.

Illustration by Charles Copeland of an experimentin northern Maine or Canada describedby William J Long (1901). Twelve or fifteen bullfrogs (Ranacatesbeiana) climbedon to the small raft beforeit flippedover.

T Longcore and C Rich Ecological light pollution
2000) investigated the effects of roadway
lighting on black-tailed godwits (Limosal.
limosa) in wet grasslandhabitats. Breeding
densities of godwits were recorded over 2
years, comparinglighted and unlighted con-
ditions near a roadwayand near light poles
installed in a wet grasslandaway from the
road influence. When all other habitat fac-
tors were taken into account, the density of
nestswasslightly but statistically lower up to
300 m awayfrom the lighting at roadwayand
control sites. The researchersalsonoted that
birds nesting earlier in the year chose sites
farther away from the lighting, while those
nestinglater filled in sitescloserto the lights.

Communication
Visual communication within and between
speciesmay be influenced by artificial night
lighting. Somespeciesuselight to communi-
cate, and are therefore especiallysusceptible
to disruption. Female glow-worms attract males up to
45 m awaywith bioluminescent flashes; the presenceof
artificial lighting reducesthe visibility of thesecommuni- cations. Similarly, the complex visual communication
systemof fireflies could be impaired by straylight ( Lloyd 1994).

Artificial night lighting could alsoalter communication patterns as a secondaryeffect. Coyotes (Canis latrans)
group howl and group yip-howl more during the new
moon, when it is darkest. Communication is necessary
either to reducetrespassingfrom other packs, or to assem- ble packs to hunt larger prey during dark conditions
Benderetal. 1996). Skyglowcouldincreaseambient illu-
mination to eliminate this pattern in affectedareas.

Becauseof the central role of vision in orientation and behaviorof mostanimals, it is not surprisingthat artificial lighting altersbehavior. This causesan immediateconser- vation concern for somespecies, while for other species the influence may seemto be positive. Such “positive”
effects, however, mayhave negativeconsequenceswithin
the context of community ecology.

Community ecology
The behaviors exhibited by individual animals in
responseto ambient illumination ( orientation, disorien- tation) and to luminance ( attraction, repulsion) influ- encecommunity interactions, of which competition and
predation areexamples.

Competition
Artificial night lighting could disrupt the interactions of groupsof speciesthat show resourcepartitioning across
illumination gradients. For example, in natural commu-
nities, someforagingtimes arepartitioned amongspecies
that prefer different levels of lighting. The squirrel
treefrog (Hyla squirrela) is able to orient and forage at lighting levelsaslow as10-5 lux and under natural condi- tions typically will stop foraging at illuminations above 10-3 lux ( Buchanan 1998). The western toad ( Bufo
boreas) foragesonly at illuminations between10-1 and 10-5 lux, while the tailed frog ( Ascaphustruei) foragesonly during the darkest part of the night at below 10-5 lux
Hailman 1984). While thesethree speciesarenot neces-
sarily sympatric (ie inhabiting the samearea), and differ in other niche dimensions, they illustrate the division of the light gradient by foragers.

Many bat speciesare attracted to insectsthat congre-
gate around light sources (Frank 1988). Although it
may seem that this is a positive effect, the increased
food concentration benefits only those species that
exploit light sources and could therefore result in
altered community structure. Faster-flying species of
bats congregate around lights to feed on insects, but
other, slower-flying speciesavoid lights ( Blake et al. 1994; Rydell and Baagøe1996).

Changesin competitive communities occur as diurnal
speciesmove into the “night light niche” (Schwartzand
Henderson1991). This concept, as originally described,
appliesto reptiles, but easilyextendsto other taxa, suchas spiders (Frankperscomm) andbirds (Hill 1990; Figure5).

Predation
Although it may seembeneficial for diurnal speciesto be ableto foragelongerunderartificial lights, any gainsfrom increasedactivity time can be offset by increasedpreda- tion risk ( Gotthard 2000). The balance between gains
from extendedforagingtime and risk of increasedpreda-
195
The EcologicalSocietyof America www. frontiersinecology. org Figure 5. Crowned hornbill ( Tockus alboterminatus) hawking insectsat a light at theKibaleForestNational Park, Uganda.

Co
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
P
J
D
e
V
r
i
e
s
Ecological light pollution T Longcore and C Rich
tion is a central topic for researchon smallmammals, rep- tiles, and birds (Kotler 1984; Lima 1998). Small rodents foragelessat high illumination levels (Lima 1998), a ten- dency also exhibited by some lagomorphs (Gilbert and
Boutin 1991), marsupials ( Laferrier 1997), snakes
Klauber 1939), bats (Rydell 1992), fish (Gibson 1978),
aquaticinvertebrates (Moore etal. 2000), and other taxa.

Unexpected changesin light conditions may disrupt
predator–prey relationships. Gliwicz ( 1986, 1999) des- cribeshigh predationby fish on zooplanktonduring nights when the full moon rosehoursafter sunset. Zooplankton
had migratedto the surfaceto forageundercover of dark-
ness, only to be illuminated by the rising moon and sub- jected to intense predation. This “ lunar light trap”
Gliwicz 1986) illustratesa natural occurrence, but unex- pected illumination from human sourcescould disrupt
predator–prey interactions in a similar manner, often to the benefit of the predator.

Available researchshowsthat artificial night lighting
disrupts predator–prey relationships, which is consistent with the documentedimportance of natural light regimes
in mediating such interactions. In one example, harbor
seals (Phocavitulina) congregatedunder artificial lights to eatjuvenile salmonidsasthey migrateddownstream; turn-
ing the lights off reducedpredationlevels (Yurk andTrites 2000). Nighttime illumination at urban crow roostswas
higher than at control sites, presumablybecausethis helps the crows avoid predation from owls ( Gorenzel and
Salmon 1995). Desert rodents reducedforaging activity
when exposedto the light of a singlecamplantern (Kotler 1984). Frank ( 1988) reviews predation by bats, birds,
skunks, toads, and spiderson moths attracted to artificial lights. Mercury vapor lights, in particular, disrupt the interaction betweenbatsand tympanatemoths by inter-
fering with moth detection of ultrasonic chirps usedby
bats in echolocation, leaving moths unable to take their normal evasiveaction (Svenssonand Rydell 1998).

From theseexamples, it follows that community struc-
ture will be alteredwherelight affectsinterspecific inter- actions. A “perpetualfull moon” from artificial lights will favorlight-tolerant speciesandexcludeothers. If the dark- estnatural conditions neveroccur, thosespeciesthat max- imize foragingduring the new moon could eventually be
compromised, at risk of failing to meet monthly energy
budgets. The resultingcommunity structurewould besim-
plified, and thesechangescould in turn affect ecosystem characteristics.

Ecosystem effects
The cumulative effectsof behavioral changesinduced by
artificial night lighting on competition and predation
have the potential to disrupt key ecosystemfunctions.

The spillover effects from ecological light pollution on aquatic invertebratesillustrates this point. Many aquatic invertebrates, such as zooplankton, move up and down
within the water column during a 24-hour period, in a
behavior known as “diel vertical migration”. Diel vertical migration presumablyresultsfrom a needto avoid preda-
tion during lighted conditions, somany zooplankton for- age near water surfacesonly during dark conditions
Gliwicz 1986). Light dimmer than that of a half moon
10-1 lux) is sufficient to influence the vertical distribu- tion of someaquaticinvertebrates, and indeedpatternsof
diel vertical migration change with the lunar cycle
Dodson1990).

Moore et al. (2000) documentedthe effect of artificial
light on the diel migration of the zooplanktonDaphniain the wild. Artificial illumination decreasedthe magnitude of diel migrations, both in the rangeof vertical movement and the numberof individuals migrating. The researchers hypothesizethat this disruption of diel vertical migration may have substantial detrimental effects on ecosystem
health. With fewer zooplanktonmigrating to the surface
to graze, algae populations may increase. Such algal
blooms would then have a seriesof adverseeffects on
waterquality (Moore etal. 2000).

The reverberatingeffectsof community changescaused
by artificial night lighting could influence other ecosys- tem functions. Although the outcomesare not yet pre-
dictable, and redundancywill buffer changes, indications are that light- influenced ecosystemswill suffer from
important changesattributable to artificial light alone and in combination with other disturbances. Even
remote areasmay be exposedto increasedillumination
from sky glow, but the most noticeable effectswill occur in those areaswhere lights are closeto natural habitats.

This may be in wildernesswhere summer getawaysare
built, along the expandingfront of suburbanization, near the wetlands and estuariesthat are often the last open
spacesin cities, or on the openocean, wherecruiseships, squidboats, and oil derrickslight the night.

Conclusions
Our understandingof the full rangeof ecological conse-
quencesof artificial night lighting is still limited, and the field holds many opportunities for basic and applied
research. Studiesof natural populations are necessaryto investigate hypothesesgeneratedin the laboratory, evi-
denceof lunar cyclesin wild populations, andnatural his- tory observations. If current trends continue, the influ- ence of stray light on ecosystems will expand in
geographicscopeand intensity. Today, 20% of the areaof
the coterminousUS lies within 125 m of a road (Riiters
and Wickham 2003). Lights follow roads, and the propor- tion of ecosystemsuninfluenced by altered light regimes is decreasing. We believe that many ecologists have
neglectedto considerartificial night lighting asa relevant environmental factor, while conservationists have cer-
tainly neglectedto include the nighttime environment in reserveand corridor design.

Successfulinvestigation of ecological light pollution
will require collaboration with physical scientists and 196
www. frontiersinecology. org © The EcologicalSocietyof America T Longcore and C Rich Ecological light pollution
engineersto improve equipment to measurelight charac-
teristics at ecologicallyrelevant levelsunder diversefield conditions. Researchersshould give special considera-
tion to the tropics, where the constancy of day–night
lighting patterns has probably resulted in narrow niche breadths relative to illumination. Aquatic ecosystems
deserveincreasedattention aswell, becausedespitethe
central importance of light to freshwater and marine
ecology, consideration of artificial lighting has so far been limited. Researchon the effects of artificial night lighting will enhanceunderstandingof urban ecosystems
the two National Science Foundation ( NSF) urban
Long Term Ecological Researchsitesare ideal locations
for suchefforts.

Carefulresearchfocusingon artificial night lighting will probablyrevealit to be a powerful force structuring local communitiesby disruptingcompetition andpredator–prey
interactions. Researcherswill facethe challengeof disen- tangling the confounding and cumulative effectsof other facets of human disturbancewith which artificial night
lighting will often be correlated, such as roads, urban development, noise, exotic species, animal harvest, and resourceextraction. To do so, measurementsof light dis- turbanceshouldbe included routinely aspart of environ-
mental monitoring protocols, suchasthe NSF’s National
Ecological Observatory Network ( NEON). Future
researchis likely to revealartificial night lighting to bean important, independent, andcumulative factor in the dis- ruption of natural ecosystems, and a major challengefor their preservation.

Ecologistshave studied diel and lunar patterns in the
behaviorof organismsfor the greaterpart of a century (see Park1940andreferencestherein), and the deathsof birds
from lights for nearly aslong (Squiresand Hanson1918).

Humanshave now soalteredthe natural patternsof light
and dark that these new conditions must be afforded a
more central role in researchon speciesand ecosystems
beyondthe instancesthat leavecarcasseson the ground.

Acknowledgements
We thank PJDeVriesfor his photographs, and B Tuttle
and C Elvidge for the satellite image. Researchwassup-
ported in part by the Conservation and Research
Foundation. We are grateful for constructive comments
and advicefrom W Briggs, BW Buchanan, KD Frank, JE
Lloyd, JR Longcore, MV Moore, WA Montevecchi, G
Perry, andM Salmon.

References
Beier P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougarsin fragmented habitat. J Wildlife Manage59: 228–37.

Bender DJ, Bayne EM, and Brigham RM. 1996. Lunar condition influences coyote ( Canis latrans) howling. Am Midl Nat 136:
413–17.

Bergen F and Abs M. 1997. Etho- ecological study of the singing activity of the blue tit ( Paruscaeruleus), great tit ( Parusmajor) andchaffinch (Fringilla coelebs). J Ornithol 138: 451–67.

Blake D, Hutson AM, Racey PA, et al. 1994. Use of lamplit roads by foraging bats in southern England. J Zool 234: 453–62.

Buchanan BW. 1993. Effects of enhanced lighting on the behav- iour of nocturnal frogs. Anim Behav45: 893–99.

Buchanan BW. 1998. Low- illumination prey detection by squirrel treefrogs. J Herpetol 32: 270–74.

Cinzano P, Falchi F, and Elvidge CD. 2001. The first world atlas of the artificial night sky brightness. Mon Not R Astron Soc328:
689–707.

DeMolenaarJG, JonkersDA, andSandersME. 2000. Roadillumi- nation and nature. III. Local influence of road lights on a black- tailed godwit ( Limosal. limosa) population. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Alterra.

Derrickson KC. 1988. Variation in repertoire presentation in northern mockingbirds. Condor 90: 592–606.

Dick MH and DonaldsonW. 1978. Fishingvesselendangeredby crested auklet landings. Condor 80: 235–36.

Dodson S. 1990. Predicting diel vertical migration of zooplankton.

Limnol and Oceanogr35: 1195–1200.

Eisenbeis G and Hassel F. 2000. Zur Anziehung nachtaktiver Insekten durch Straßenlaternen – eine Studie kommunaler Beleuchtungseinrichtungen in der Agrarlandschaft Rein-
hessens [Attraction of nocturnal insects to street lights – a study of municipal lighting systems in a rural area of
Rheinhessen (Germany)]. Natur und Landschaft75: 145–56.

Elvidge C, Baugh KE, Kihn EA, and Davis ER. 1997. Mapping city lights with nighttime data from the DMSP Operational
LinescanSystem. PhotogrammEng RemS 63: 727–34.

Elvidge CD, Imhoff ML, Baugh KE, et al. 2001. Nighttime lights of the world: 1994–95. ISPRS J PhotogrammRemS 56: 81–99.

FrankKD. 1988. Impact of outdoorlighting on moths: an assess- ment. J LepidopSoc42: 63–93.

Gal G, Loew ER, Rudstam LG, and Mohammadian AM. 1999.

Light and diel vertical migration: spectralsensitivityandlight avoidance by Mysis relicta. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56: 311–22.

Gibson RN. 1978. Lunar and tidal rhythms in fish. In: Thorpe JE Ed). Rhythmicactivity of fishes. London: AcademicPress.

Gilbert BS and Boutin S. 1991. Effect of moonlight on winter activity of snowshoe hares. Arctic Alpine Res23: 61–65.

Gliwicz ZM. 1986. A lunar cycle in zooplankton. Ecology 67:
883–97.

Gliwicz ZM. 1999. Predictability of seasonal and diel events in tropical and temperatelakesand reservoirs. In: Tundisi JG, Straskraba M ( Eds). Theoretical reservoir ecology and its appli- cations. São Carlos: International Institute of Ecology.

GorenzelWP and SalmonTP. 1995. Characteristicsof American Crow urban roosts in California. J Wildlife Manage59: 638–45.

Gotthard K. 2000. Increased risk of predation as a cost of high growthrate: anexperimentaltestin abutterfly. JAnim Ecol 69:
896–902.

Hailman JP. 1984. Bimodal nocturnal activity of the western toad Bufo boreas) in relationto ambientillumination. Copeia1984:
283–90.

Haymes GT, Patrick PH, and Onisto LJ. 1984. Attraction of fish to mercuryvaporlight andits applicationin a generatingstation forebay. Int Rev Hydrobiol 69: 867–76.

Health Council of the Netherlands. 2000. Impact of outdoor light- ing on man and nature. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands. Publication No. 2000/25E.

Hill D. 1990. The impact of noise and artificial light on waterfowl behaviour: a review and synthesisof the availableliterature.

Norfolk, United Kingdom: British Trust for Ornithology
Report No. 61.

JaegerRG andHailmanJP. 1973. Effectsof intensityon the photo- tactic responsesof adult anuran amphibians: a comparative sur- vey. Z Tierpsychol33: 352–407.

Klauber LM. 1939. Rattlesnakes: their habits, life histories, and influence on mankind. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
197
The EcologicalSocietyof America www. frontiersinecology. org Ecological light pollution T Longcore and C Rich
Kolligs D. 2000. Ökologische Auswirkungen künstlicher Lichtquellen auf nachtaktive Insekten, insbesondere Schmetterlinge
Lepidoptera) [Ecological effectsof artificial light sourceson noc- turnally active insects, in particular on moths ( Lepidoptera)].

Faunistisch-ÖkologischeMitteilungenSuppl28: 1–136.

Kotler BP. 1984. Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities. Ecology65: 689–701.

Laferrier J. 1997. The influence of moonlight on activity of wooly opossums (Caluromys philander). J Mammal 78: 251–55.

LimaSL. 1998. Stressanddecision-makingunderthe riskof preda- tion: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Stud Behav27: 215–90.

Lloyd JE. 1994. Where arethe lightningbugs? Fireflyer Companion 1: 1, 2, 5, 10.

Long WJ. 1901. Wilderness ways. Boston, MA: Ginn and
Company.

Moore MV, Pierce SM, Walsh HM, et al. 2000. Urban light pollu- tion alters the diel vertical migration of Daphnia. Verh Internat Verein Limnol 27: 779–82.

Munday PL, Jones GP, Ohman MC, and Kaly UL. 1998.

Enhancement of recruitment to coral reefs using light- attrac- tors. B Mar Sci 63: 581–88.

Nakamura T and Yamashita S. 1997. Phototactic behavior of noc- turnal and diurnal spiders: negative and positive phototaxes.

Zool Sci 14: 199–203.

Ogden LJE. 1996. Collision course: the hazardsof lighted structures and windows to migrating birds. Toronto, Canada: World
Wildlife FundCanadaandFatalLight AwarenessProgram.

Outen AR. 2002. The ecological effects of road lighting. In:

Sherwood B, Culter D, and Burton JA (Eds). Wildlife and roads:
the ecologicalimpact. London, UK: ImperialCollegePress.

Park O. 1940. Nocturnalism — the development of a problem. Ecol Monogr 10: 485–536.

RandAS, Bridarolli ME, DriesL, andRyanMJ. 1997. Light levels influence female choice in Tungara frogs: predation risk assess- ment? Copeia1997: 447–50.

Riiters KH and Wickham JD. 2003. How far to the nearestroad? Front Ecol Environ 1: 125–29.

Rydell J. 1992. Exploitation of insects around streetlamps by bats in Sweden. Funct Ecol 6: 744–50.

Rydell Jand BaagøeHJ. 1996. Gatlampor ökar fladdermössenspre- dation på fjärilar [ Streetlamps increase bat predation on moths]. Entomol Tidskr 117: 129–35.

Salmon M. 2003. Artificial night lighting and seaturtles. Biologist 50: 163–68.

Salmon M, Tolbert MG, Painter DP, et al. 1995. Behavior of logger- head seaturtles on an urban beach. II. Hatchling orientation. J Herpetol 29: 568–76.

Schmiedel J. 2001. Auswirkungen künstlicher Beleuchtung auf die Tierwelt – ein Überblick [ Effects of artificial lighting on the animalworld – anoverview]. SchriftenreiheLandschaftspflegeund Naturschutz 67: 19–51.

Schwartz A and Henderson RW. 1991. Amphibians and reptiles of the WestIndies: descriptions, distributions, andnaturalhistory.

Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.

Squires WA and Hanson HE. 1918. The destruction of birds at the lighthouseson the coastof California. Condor 20: 6–10.

Summers CG. 1997. Phototactic behavior of Bemisia argentifolii Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) crawlers. Ann Entomol SocAm 90:
372–79.

Svensson AM and Rydell J. 1998. Mercury vapour lamps interfere with the bat defence of tympanate moths ( Operophtera spp; Geometridae). Anim Behav55: 223–26.

Verheijen FJ. 1985. Photopollution: artificial light optic spatial control systemsfail to cope with. Incidents, causations, reme- dies. Exp Biol 44: 1–18.

Wiese FK, Montevecchi WA, Davoren GK, et al. 2001. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the North- west Atlantic.

Mar Pollut Bull 42: 1285–90.

Witherington BE. 1997. The problem of photopollution for seatur- tles and other nocturnal animals. In: Clemmons JR and
BuchholzR (Eds). Behavioralapproachesto conservationin
the wild. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Yurk H and Trites AW. 2000. Experimental attempts to reduce pre- dation by harbor sealson out-migrating juvenile salmonids.

Chula Vista City CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Chula Vista City Council
December 2, 2025