Largely lost in the oil-soaked hullabaloo of the county’s current energy debates, the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lompoc wind farm was released last week, setting the stage for a Santa Barbara County Planning Commission hearing later this month. With the potential to power as many as 50,000 homes via several dozen turbines in the wind-rich agricultural land of Miguelito Canyon, the project, if approved, would be the first of its kind in the county.
Since early 2006, international wind power firm Acciona has been angling to put as many as 65 turbines — each about 400 feet high — on some 3,000 acres of privately owned land south of Lompoc, adjacent to Vandenberg Air Force Base. While the forecasted energy returns — 285 million kilowatt-hours a year — have renewable resource advocates drooling, the project is not without an environmental downside, according to the several-hundred-page document released on Monday, September 15.
According to the report by the Aspen Environmental Group, the wind harvesting farm would have Class I (i.e. “significant and unavoidable”) impacts on views, and on bird and bat populations in the area. As to the former, the bulk of the eyesores would be seen from Jalama County Park. With its coastal location fewer than five miles from the farm, the park would offer views of as many as 13 of the turbines: three along the base of Tranquillon Mountain and 10 more atop the ridge. Additionally, travelers on San Miguelito Canyon Road would be able to see a handful more of the modern-day windmills, while people using nearby Highway 1 would be reportedly inundated with the sight of new power lines and poles associated with the project as it transfers power to PG&E’s Cabrillo substation. (It should be noted, however, that the applicant has offered to re-route the Highway 1 infrastructure through the land it is leasing for the project, such that it won’t be in plain public sight until the edge of Lompoc City proper, according to Acciona’s Harley McDonald.)
courtesy Acciona Energy
There Will Be Wind: If all goes according to plan, dozens of wind turbines will be harvesting wind south of Lompoc by the end of 2009.
Viewsheds aside, it is the potentially deadly implication of adding dozens of rotating fans, with blades 126 feet long, to the open air of the North County coastal area that has given the most pause to environmentalists. As the EIR puts it, during the estimated 30-year lifespan of the project, “unknown numbers of protected bird and bat populations may be killed.” While Acciona has promised, among other precautionary measures, to site each turbine such that it is at least 500 feet away from known critical habitat areas, the undeniable fact of animal mortality has groups like the California Department of Fish & Game, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Audubon Society, and the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center raising an eyebrow of concern. The Environmental Defense Center’s Brian Trautwein explained earlier this week that the center is still reviewing the EIR and expects to have an official take on it before the Planning Commission hearing.
Acciona spokesperson McDonald explained this week that the company is “very happy” with the current incarnation of the EIR and remains hopeful that its late 2009 target date for getting underway in Lompoc can become a reality. Admitting that the farm is a “fairly large industrial project,” McDonald took pride in pointing out that all of the seven families offering to lease their agriculturally zoned land in turn for payments akin to oil royalties won’t have to change their line of work. “We will actually only use just over one percent of the land we are leasing,” said McDonald before adding, “[Lompoc’s] quiet. It’s agriculture. It’s rural and we want to keep it that way.”
Alluding to the controversial pro-oil vote by the county supes late last month, which has been decried at both the local and national level, McDonald called the wind farm “the right project in the right place at the right time.”
The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission will be considering the final EIR for approval on September 30.
Related Links
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
The wind farm can provide for our transportation needs as well if we build this electrically powered transportation system to accompany it. www.unimodal.net
LasBrisas (anonymous profile)
September 18, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Before anyone takes a harsh look at this project and even begins to consider the drawbacks stated in the ERI, let us consider the alternative to this project and the impact made by drilling off our coast by big oil companies. There is no comparison. The unknown numbers of protected bird and bat populations which may be killed could easily be deterred with an electronic device such as a High Frequency Sonic Repeller. Let this project begin.
SSolano (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So offshore drilling would be better with small oil companies?
Wind farms are ugly.
Let there be more offshore oil and gas production!!
osotoh (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Having grown up in Goleta and lived through the huge negative economic as well as environmental impact of the rig disaster in the 60's it is incomprehensible that anyone would advocate more drilling here. Especially in light of the shipping lanes location, not to mention the huge number of negatives.
I know we tend to be a community of NIMBY's, but who would advocate channel drilling as a positive solution for the idiocy of our current national and global positions?
Ever see photos of what our coast looked like when OIl was allowed free reign? Right, more drilling.
Wind farms? May be ugly to some, but the alternative is far worse. Bird strike can easily be mitigated. Build it.
david3 (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This debate is so typical of SB. If everyone is right and no one will compromise we'll never make any progress toward energy independence. We need oil. We need gas. We can develop wind power, solar power, and nuclear power. They all have their pros and cons. None are beautiful. All have environmental impacts. And please, let's learn from history (i.e. the Great Oil Spill of 1969) to do things smarter and better and not just as an excuse to do nothing or push the problems off to "the other guy" or "the other state". There should be a special, supersize word far beyond NIMBY for what goes on in SB. And yes, I love the beauty here and think it should be preserved within the scope of the big picture. But I also like shelter, food, heat, etc. And rational, big picture thinking. Not so much emotional rant.
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Ever see photos of what our coast looked like when OIl was allowed free reign?" - david3
Yes, I believe they were taken in Summerland around the turn of the century- and I mean when it turned from 1899 to 1900, not when it turned from 1999 to 2000. Welcome to the next turn of the century and slant drilling.
AShaw (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes I worked at a place that purchased one of those "ultra sonic bat and bird repellers", hoping to keep their pond sanitary. I mean if they work so well, why do they still use scare crows and tinsel in local vineyards? The birds just laughed at them while enjoying a dip in the pond...the only thing that might help here is a loudspeaker that yells "BLADE" upon every repetition of the bird blender.
It's funny how people are concerned about how Santa Barbara looked with Oil Derricks covering it, but these wind farm things all over the scenic valleys are so awesome because they are NOT OIL.
Face it, you can't run everything on electricity (electric airplanes? factories? ships? submarines? Big Rigs? Trains? well maybe trains locally - hell of a job rigging the entire country with electric trains powered by windmills...but keep dreaming, maybe some day... meanwhile, we need oil, k?
AShaw (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So ... how fast do these wind turbines spin? Do they spin so fast that a bird/bat can't avoid them? Dutch windmills are very near the sea, do they harm seabirds? If you can generate enough torque, perhaps you don't need so much RPM?
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It doesn't really matter much how fast it spins - the bird's own momentum under it's own power against a solid object is enough to kill it. Some birds fly pretty fast. Have you ever seen a bird fly into a window? Dead bird. The problem is the enormity of the blade and the unexpectedness of it coming into it's flight path. Look at the size of the blades in the photos on Wikipedia "wind turbine design" - they are the size of a speedboat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbin...
AShaw (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By that logic, putting up any large structure like a power tower would also kill birds?
Well, I don't have any dogs in this race, just looking for some solid info to form an opinion. The Wiki link says wind turbines typcially rotate at 5 to 20 RPM and optimally operate in winds around 30mph.
I've found all kinds of web pages about "avian mortality" vis a vis wind power. Some claim its a problem, others claim not so much. Its interesting to see data put up by some people indicating causes of bird deaths are comparatively huge in other areas, and that the studies at Altamont Pass indicate its got a unique set of features that predispose the site to avian mortality. Still undecided however.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Read again -"the unexpectedness of it coming into it's flight path." The blades move, towers don't.
AShaw (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment