NR 416 Final Study Guide Actual Exam Questions and Answers A+ Graded

NR 416 Final Study Guide Actual Exam Questions and Answers A+ Graded




What .are .the .three .possible .initial .study .conclusions? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-No
.significant .environmental .impacts .--> .Negative .Declaration .(ND)

Significant .environmental .effects .can .be .mitigated .below .thresholds .of
.significance .--> .Mitigated .Negative .Declaration .(MND)

Potential .for .significant .environmental .effects .--> .Environmental .Impact .Report
.(EIR)

What .is .the .basis .for .a .MND? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Initial .Study .shows
.potentially .significant .impacts .but:

1. .Revisions .in .project .plans .agreed .to .by .applicant .before .public .review .would
.mitigate .to .below .level .of .significance

2. .No .substantial .evidence .in .record .of .a .significant .effect .of .mitigated .project

What .are .the .required .contents .of .ND's .and .MND's? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-- Project
.description
-Project .location
-Identification .of .project .proponent
-Proposed .finding .of .no .significant .effect
-Attached .copy .of .Initial .Study .justifying .finding

*For .MNDs, .mitigation .measures .included .in .the .project .description .to .avoid
.significant .effects

What .is .a .key .point .of .the .ND/MND .process .overview? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-30
.days .of .public .review .is .necessary, .but .you .do .not .need .to .explicitly
.acknowledge .comments .from .the .public .in .any .documents.

Detail .the .recirculation .of .ND's .and .MND's. .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-Recirculation
.is .needed .if: .
-New, .avoidable .(mitigable) .significant .effect .is .identified
-Proposed .mitigation .measures .not .sufficient .or .feasible

,NR 416 Final Study Guide Actual Exam Questions and Answers A+ Graded




Recirculation .is .not .necessarily .needed .for .mitigation .measure .substitution, .if:
-New .measure .is .equivalent .or .more .effective
-Agency .considers .the .matter .in .a .public .meeting
-The .new .measure .will .not .cause .a .significant .effect
-"Findings" .must .be .documented

If .the .answer .is ."yes" .to .any .of .the .following .questions .after .completion .of .an
.initial .study, .what .is .the .recommended .CEQA .document? .

-What .if .there .is .uncertainty? .
-What .if .a .project .is .highly .controversial?
-What .if .there .is .the .remote .possibility .of .a .significant .impact? .- .CORRECT
.ANSWER-Prepare .an .EIR.

A .MND .is .permitted .only ."if: .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-1. .The .initial .study .identified
.potentially .significant .effects .on .the .environment, .but .revisions .in .the .project
.plans ."would .avoid .or .mitigate .the .effects .to .a .point .where .clearly .no
.significant .effect .on .the .environment .would .occur" .

AND

2. .there .is .no .substantial .evidence .that .the .project .as .revised .may .have .a
.significant .effect .on .the .environment ........... "

What .is .the ."Fair .Argument .Standard"? .- .CORRECT .ANSWER-An .EIR .must .be
.prepared .when .it .can .be: .fairly .argued, .based .on .substantial .evidence, .in .light
.of .the .whole .record, .that .a .project .MAY .have .a .significant .environmental .effect.

If .the .courts .can .identify .that .a .Fair .Argument .has .been .made, .then .the .project
.must .be .addressed .in .an .EIR.

What .IS .substantial .evidence? .What .IS .NOT .substantial .evidence? .- .CORRECT
.ANSWER-Substantial .evidence .is:
-facts
-fact-related .reasonable .assumption .(predicated .on .facts)
--> .factual .testimony .about .existing .environmental .conditions .can .form .the
.basis .for .substantial .evidence
-expert .opinion .supported .by .facts
-relevant .personal .observations .of .area .residents .on .nontechnical .subjects .may
.qualify .as .substantial .evidence

Substantial .evidence .is .not:
-argument

,NR 416 Final Study Guide Actual Exam Questions and Answers A+ Graded




-speculation
-unsubstantiated .opinion .or .narrative
-clearly .inaccurate .or .erroneous .information
-economic .impact .not .linked .to .physical .environmental .impact

, NR 416 Final Study Guide Actual Exam Questions and Answers A+ Graded




Give .an .example .of .precedent .for .the .Fair .Argument .Standard. .- .CORRECT
.ANSWER-Recent .case .law: .Keep .Our .Mountains .Quiet .v. .County .of .Santa .Clara
.

Project .details
-Santa .Cruz .mountains; .adjacent .to .Open .Space .Preserve
-History .of .unpermitted .special .events .onsite; .neighbor .complaints .regarding
.noise .and .traffic
-Applied .for .permit .to .allow .for .wedding .and .special .events .on .14.5-acre .site
.(up .to .100 .people .per .event)

CEQA .Process:
1. .MND .Prepared
-Noise .study .used ."mock" .event .to .determine .impacts; .Noise .impacts .did .not
.exceed .noise .ordinance .standards
-Traffic .report .prepared- .acceptable .levels .of .service .on .local .roadways

2. .Three .conditions .of .project .approval:
-Orienting .speakers .away .from .neighboring .residences;
-Posting .a .noise .complaint .phone .number; .and
-Conducting .an .annual .report .assessing .compliance .with .the .conditions .in .the
.first .year.

3. .Land .Use .permit .issued

4. .County .sued .by .local .NGO
-Noise .study .flawed
-Traffic .hazards .(roadways .design) .not .adequately .considered
-Biological .resources .impacts .section .flawed- .no .consideration .of .noise
.impacts .on .species
-Recreational .impacts .section .flawed- .no .consideration .of .noise .impacts .on
.future .trail .users
-Potential .for .significant .impacts- .EIR .needed

5. .Court .Findings
-Neighbors' .comments .about .the .discrepancy .in .noise .levels .between .the .mock
.event .and .actual .events .constituted .substantial .evidence .supporting .a .fair
.argument .that .the .project .may .have .unmitigated .noise .impacts.
-Substantial .evidence .that .the .project .may .have .significant .traffic .impacts.
--> .The .testimony .the .court .cited .related .facts .about .road .conditions .based
.upon .personal .knowledge.
--> .The .court .agreed .increased .traffic .from .the .project .may .substantially
.increase .existing .design .feature-related .hazards.

6. .Evidence .supported .a .reasonable .inference .that .the .project .may .have