“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
holding eis must be prepared where monitoring and mitigation measures were uncertain holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate holding that appellant satisfied exception holding that eas satisfied nepa where they considered appropriate alternatives including mitigation measures holding that nsf must comply with procedural requirements of nepa when considering incineration of food waste in antarctica because 1 the presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply because nepa is designed to regulate conduct occurring within the territory of the united states 2 the united states exercises legislative control over antarctica 3 any concerns about nepa interference with foreign policy were overstated because when foreign policy interests outweighed benefits of nepa compliance nepas requirements must yield and 4 broad language of the statute supports broad application of nepa requirements