With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “if, however, a proposal is modified prior to implementation by adding specific mitigation measures which completely compensate for any possible adverse environmental impacts stemming from the original proposal, the statutory threshold of significant environmental effects is not crossed and an EIS is not required.” Other circuits have concurred with this result. See, e.g., C.A.R.E. Now, Inc. v. FAA, 844 F.2d 1569 (11th Cir.1988); Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir.1992); Roanoke River Basin Ass’n v. Hudson, 940 F.2d 58 (4th Cir.1991); Audubon Soc’y of Cent. Arkansas v. Dailey, 977 F.2d 428 (8th Cir.1992). While we have never explicitly upheld the use of a mitigated FON-SI, we have implicitly endorsed their use in Sierra Club v. Espy, 38 F.3d 792, 803 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), and Louisiana v. Lee, 758 F.2d 1081, 1083

A: holding eis must be prepared where monitoring and mitigation measures were uncertain
B: holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate
C: holding that appellant satisfied exception
D: holding that eas satisfied nepa where they considered appropriate alternatives including mitigation measures
D.