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

Heading: State Comprehensive Plans.

Text: 20 Pursuant to the FPA, in developing a comprehensive plan for the Project, FERC shall consider ... the extent to which the project is consistent with a [state] comprehensive plan ... for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway ... affected by the project. See 16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(2)(A)(i) (1988). Petitioners argue that FERC failed to give sufficient consideration to conflicts between the Project and the Vermont state report on the Waterfalls, Cascades, and Gorges of Vermont (Waterfall Study) and the Vermont State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). This argument is unpersuasive. 21 Although FERC must consider inconsistencies with state plans, a license need not be denied merely because a state agency opposes a particular project. See, e.g., National Wildlife Federation, 912 F.2d at 1482 ([FERC's] actions are not subject to the effective veto of every state or federal ... agency....). Rather, the Commission is required to give due consideration to all recommendations from relevant agencies, to reconcile inconsistencies between those agencies' recommendations and the Commission's plans to the extent possible, and to explain its reasons for departing from the agencies' recommendations when it concludes that it must do so in order to fulfill its statutory mandate. Id. at 1482. 22 FERC admitted in its order denying rehearing that the Project conflicted with the Waterfall Study's recommendation against development in the Thetford Falls area. However, after considering the Waterfall Study, FERC reasoned that mitigative measures regarding stream flows and historic preservation would minimize conflicts with the Study and appropriately balance power needs with aesthetic values. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that FERC failed to fulfill its obligations under the FPA. See National Wildlife Federation, 912 F.2d at 1481-82. 23 As to the SCORP, FERC found that no conflict existed between the Project and this state plan. We agree. The purpose of Vermont's SCORP is to guarantee access to recreation. SCORP policy # 9 provides that Vermont's strategy is to increase efforts and programs which maintain and improve the quality of Vermont's lakes, rivers, and streams and which strive to strike a balance between competing uses of these waters. (emphasis added). The SCORP further indicates that more access to swimming is needed in the general area of the Project. While the Project will prevent use of a local swimming hole, we find that FERC's mitigation measures requiring public access to the Project and the development of plans to create other swimming areas strike[s] a balance consistent with Policy # 9. 24