Santa Barbara Audubon Society supports renewable energy production, including wind energy. However, wind farms that are not properly planned, sited, and operated can have a devastating effect on the environment, especially on birds. A recent opinion piece in the Independent by a consultant on projects like this one gives a false and misleading impression of the environmental impact of the Strauss Wind Energy Project (SEP). In fact, the impacts of the Strauss project to birds and trees would be significant and would be substantially greater than the previously approved Lompoc Wind Energy Project (LWEP).
The impacts
are greater because of choices that the developer made in the project design. The
Strauss project was not designed to reduce bird strikes, as required by state
and federal guidelines. The applicant chose to not consider the impact on birds
whatsoever in locating the wind
turbines. As a result, the project will have a Class I impact on bird
mortality, including to the fully protected golden eagle, which is regularly
seen on the site. We have recommended that the county change the wind-farm
design with the advice of an expert on the placement of the wind turbines to
reduce bird mortality. Most wind farms that have been designed in the United
States in the last several years have sited their turbines in a way that
reduces avian mortality. Why should Strauss be any different?
The earlier op-ed touts the fact that the Strauss project will have fewer wind turbines than the earlier Lompoc project and claims that it is “significantly safer for birds and raptors.” But according to the county’s draft EIR, “Although the SWEP would have fewer WTGs [wind turbine generators] than the LWEP (30 compared with 65), the WTGs would be larger and taller (up to 492 feet tall compared with 397 feet tall), and therefore, may place the rotor-swept area into the flight paths of birds that would have flown over the LWEP. Therefore, the overall risk of the [Strauss] Project to birds and bats is considered similar to that presented by the LWEP.” This directly refutes the claims made in the op-ed.