Opinion ID: 586835
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Swimming and Recreation.

Text: 32 Vermont next argues that FERC clearly erred in finding that swimming opportunities would not be significantly curtailed. We conclude that although the swimming hole will be lost, FERC's finding that overall recreational swimming will not suffer significantly is supported by substantial evidence. 33 The license granted to Balagur not only requires access to the site where safety permits, but also requires Balagur to study potential sites both upstream and downstream of the project, and, after consulting with the Thetford Planning Commission, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and the Corps of Engineers, to prepare a plan for the development of swimming and wading opportunities in the project area. Vermont nevertheless contends that a license should not have been granted until the outcome of the studies and plans were reviewed, i.e., there is no basis yet to say that adequate swimming will continue. FERC has, however, demonstrated commendable concern regarding the replacement of the swimming hole. Indeed, we view Balagur's obligation to develop plans for alternative swimming sites as entailing a further obligation to implement such plans if feasible, after consultation with the above named agencies. FERC assured this court at oral argument that since Balagur's license depended on fulfillment of that condition, FERC would assure Balagur's good faith compliance. Under these circumstances, we conclude there is a rational basis for FERC's finding that the envisaged measures will compensate adequately, though perhaps not completely, for the loss of one swimming hole. 34