By Dan Bacher

In late December, two environmental organizations, the California Native Plant Society and the Environmental Council of Sacramento, filed a lawsuit against the County of Sacramento for its recent approval of the Coyote Creek Agrivoltaic Ranch project. That initiative, also known as the CCAR, is slated for the rolling hills and grazing lands of eastern Sacramento County between Prairie City SVRA and the Deer Creek Hills Preserve.

The environmental groups cited “numerous deficiencies” in the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (final EIR), including failure to sufficiently address the potential impacts to two streams that flow into Deer Creek, a tributary of the Cosumnes River and the last Sierra Nevada watershed river without a major storage dam on it. The plaintiffs also pointed to the loss of 3,493 trees from the project that will be incurred from “industrial-level repurposing” of the land.

DESRI, the ownership behind the proposal, describes the Coyote Creek Agrivoltaic Ranch as a “renewable energy project” that will “deliver significant economic and environmental benefits to Sacramento County and the greater region.” DESRI is an  investor and operator of renewable energy projects across the United States. 

In a statement, DESRI argued that “independent economic modeling” by Economic and Planning Systems has projected that construction activities and related purchases of local goods and services for the agrivoltaic ranch will inject more than $365 million into the Sacramento economy.

“A major share of these benefits will come from the project’s commitment to employ highly trained union labor,” the company stated. “Construction of the solar and battery energy storage system is expected to create up to 350 good-paying jobs during the buildout period.”

William Risse, Director of Development at DESRI, weighed in directly.

“This project represents a significant investment in Sacramento County’s economy,” Risse asserted. “It will support new job creation and a resilient, skilled workforce while generating cost-effective and reliable power for the community.”

The Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce is backing the project, with Robert Heidt, the group’s President and CEO, insisting that initiatives like Coyote Creek “deliver lasting value for Sacramento County by generating millions in local investment and supporting hundreds of good-paying jobs.” 

However, the environmental plaintiffs had warned county officials ahead of a Sacramento Board of Supervisors vote on Nov. 18 that the project that its final EIR “is so deeply flawed that it is insufficient to support informed decision-making.”

CNPS Conservation Program Director Nick Jensen stands behind that assessment.

“We’re talking about trees dating back to the time of Ghengis Khan and the Middle Ages—destroyed without appropriate due diligence and in conflict with the county’s own plans,” Jensen said, referencing the multiple ways the project is out of compliance with the Sacramento County General Plan.

Environmental Council Policy Analyst Luz Lim echoed Jensen’s concerns.

“This is not a choice between clean energy or irreplaceable habitat,” Luz contended. “We all want and need appropriately planned clean energy for our county, but thanks to other projects underway, SMUD is already on track to fulfill its 2030 Zero Net Carbon Plan. Instead, and ironically, we’re potentially destroying thousands of oaks, which are one of nature’s most powerful tools to trap and sequester carbon.”

Luz added that a single oak can sequester vast amounts of carbon each year and support as many as 300 different types of wildlife, making these native trees a “nature-based solution” to the impacts of climate change.

Some ecologists also use the term “keystone species” to describe oaks, because of their disproportionately large impact on ecosystems.

Critics say that one example of the final EIR’s deficiencies can be found in how it accounts for a 1:1 replacement of oak saplings for each mature oak removed. In contrast, the Sacramento County General Plan calls for one tree seedling for each inch of trunk diameter removed—a total 79,126.40 inches, according to the Arborist’s report for the project.

In a November Sacramento Bee article, U.C. Berkeley integrative biology professor Todd Dawson, said the mitigation is “severely misaligned with the timescale to reestablish ‘mature’ trees and the woodlands they would compose,” and explained that blue oak acorns are hard to grow successfully, and that young trees often die from heat, drought or being eaten by wildlife.

“The project also represents potential and significant ecological impacts to two perennial streams feeding into Deer Creek and ultimately the Cosumnes River; multiple sensitive or endangered species, such as tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, and American badger,” the plaintiffs argued, “and 25% of the entire known occurrences of the rare western spiked rosinweed.”

Environmental advocates note that concern over the Coyote Creek project has “generated an outpouring” of local activism, including hundreds of people showing up for the November Board of Supervisors vote. More than 150 people spoke at the meeting, and more than 900 provided written comments, with 95% of them opposed to the project.”

“Destroying high quality intact habitat that is home to some of the highest biodiversity and highest capacity for carbon sequestration in the county is unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent for future development,” said Carol Witham, an ecologist and representative of the local CNPS Sacramento Valley Chapter. “One of the largest threats to biodiversity is climate change, the approval of projects like this makes efforts to reduce this threat a threat of its own.”