properly omitted high speed ferries from detailed study. See Webster, 685 F.3d at 427-28 (finding that it was proper for the agency to eliminate alternatives from detailed study for reasons such as technical feasibility, costs and effectiveness in achieving the purposes of the action complied with NEPA). Plaintiffs further argue that because the high speed ferry alternative was a “significant alternative” suggested during the comment period, it must undergo detailed study. See Roosevelt Campobello Int’l Park Comm’n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 684 F.2d 1041, 1047 (1st Cir.1982). However, a high speed ferry system was found to be unreasonable by the agencies, and thus may properly be eliminated from detailed study. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a); N.C. Wildlife Fed’n, 677 F.3d at 602 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). B. Section
recognizing that agencies have discretion to identify the range of reasonable alternatives holding that where complaint regarding alternatives analysis was that it was merely perfunctory court could review the whole record to assess the sufficiency of the range of alternatives in the eir recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence holding that consultation with counsel and consideration of available alternatives are consistent with exercise of sound discretion recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge