With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We should also note that we find nothing objectionable about the fact that the issuance of the FONSI was predicated on Longhorn agreeing to certain mitigation measures. This Court has never explicitly upheld the issuance of a so-called “mitigated FONSI.” This situation occurs when an agency or an involved third party agrees to employ certain mitigation measures that will lower the otherwise significant impacts of an activity on the environment to a level of insignificance. In this way, a FONSI could be issued for an activity that otherwise would require the preparation of a full-blown EIS. Other circuits have endorsed such a practice. For example, in Cabinet Mountains Wilderness v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678 (D.C.Cir.1982), the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals held Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we find no basis for objecting

A: holding that when an administrative agencys decision was a mixed question of fact and law a reviewing court should apply a clearly erroneous standard of review
B: holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress
C: holding that it was proper to consider restrictions placed on dredging permits in reviewing the agencys decision not to file an eis and citing cabinet mountains 685 f2d at 682
D: holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable
C.