May 2021 - Parks & Recreation - 32

L AW R EV I EW

The federal appeals court considered
whether the district court had erred in
determining that the defendant should
have analyzed whether the Project could
cause trees to suffer more frequent
collisions with trucks.

sider the State Parks handbook and
the impact of construction in the
structural root zones of old-growth
redwoods. "

Traffic Noise and Volume
administrative record may contain
contradictory and conflicting opinions, expert and otherwise, and
does not require an agency to follow all recommendations made by
commentators, other agencies, or
experts. " As a result, " to the extent
that the recommendation in State
Parks' handbook is relevant here, "
the federal appeals court found
" Caltrans could (and did) reasonably refuse to follow it, especially
when Caltrans relied upon evidence
specifically pertaining to the effects
of construction on redwoods, in
general, and the redwoods in the
Project area, in particular. " The
federal appeals court, therefore,
concluded the federal district court
had also " erred when it decided that
Caltrans failed to sufficiently con32	 Parks & Recreation

| M AY 2 02 1 | PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N .O R G

The federal appeals court then addressed the claim that the EA had
inadequately considered the environmental impacts traffic volume
and noise associated with widening
the highway. The Caltrans EA had
concluded that truck traffic would
not increase as a result of the Project. In the opinion of the court,
Caltrans had " properly relied upon
record evidence to do so, including:
a survey of regional business owners, traffic studies in nearby areas
suggesting little latent demand for
the route, and the fact that highway
capacity would be unchanged. "
Pursuant to appropriate judicial
review under the APA, the appeals
court conceded " Caltrans' conclusion that traffic would not increase
is entitled to deference. " Similarly,

in light of the conclusion in the EA
that truck traffic would not increase,
the court found " Caltrans also reasonably concluded that traffic noise
would not appreciably increase. "
In making this determination, the
federal appeals court noted " the district court had stated that it believed
STAA trucks would be noisier than
California Legal trucks because their
tractor units are bigger and heavier. "
In making this statement, the federal
appeals court found the district court
had " cited no evidence for its assumptions about the size and weight
of STAA tractor units, or its belief
about their noise in comparison to
California Legal trucks. "
In conducting APA review of
agency action, the federal appeals
court cautioned: " A district court
has no more license to act as 'a panel of scientists' than we have.' " Accordingly, the federal appeals court
held: " the district court erred when
it decided that Caltrans failed to adequately consider how the visitor
experience to the Grove would be
affected by the presence of STAA
trucks, particularly with regard to
whether they would be more numerous or generate more noise. "

Collisions With Trees
The federal appeals court also considered whether the district court
had erred in determining that Caltrans should have analyzed whether
the Project could cause trees to suffer
more frequent collisions with trucks.
Because STAA trucks are longer and
more difficult to maneuver, the federal district court had found the trees
could potentially " sustain more damage from collisions because STAA
trucks are heavier and their engine
compartments more protruding than
California Legal trucks. "
May 2021 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of May 2021 - Parks & Recreation
