BSC urges that the permit condition requiring that AGC meet with the Corps and USFWS within three months of permit issuance to identify additional mitigation opportunities shows that the Corps has not fully developed the required mitigation plan for the project. We have not squarely addressed the question of whether plans to develop additional mitigation measures in the future can satisfy the CWA’s mitigation requirements. However, in a related context, we have held that prospective mitigation plans satisfied NEPA’s mitigation requirements where the plans were “developed to a reasonable degree.” Wetlands Action Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105, 1121 (9th Cir.2000); see also Tillamook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 288 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
holding that birdwatchers interest in preventing adverse environmental effects from agency action fell squarely within the zone of interests of nepa holding that the corps was not required under nepa to develop a complete mitigation plan detailing the precise nature of the mitigation measures nor were the measures required to completely compensate for adverse environmental impacts holding eis must be prepared where monitoring and mitigation measures were uncertain holding that eas satisfied nepa where they considered appropriate alternatives including mitigation measures holding that a verdict form specifying the jurys mitigation findings is not required