Hearings Officer Anne Corcoran Briggs asks a question of one of those speaking during the liquefied natural gas terminal application hearing Tuesday afternoon, in the Coquille Community Center. - World Photo by Lou Sennick

COQUILLE — More than 200 people crammed into the Coquille Community Building on Tuesday to debate the merits of a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal. As the audience tested the room’s maximum occupancy limit — 236 — and heated the room to sweltering levels, speaker after speaker expounded at length on issues of safety, the environment and potential impacts on the economy and property owners.

Some were in favor of Jordan Cove’s project. Many more were against.

Some participants methodically outlined their concerns, specifically citing section’s of the Coos County planning code. Others resorted to name-calling.

A few expressed their point succinctly and returned to their seats. Many more rambled off onto tangents, repeating testimony that was already presented.

Anne Corcoran Briggs, the Coos County hearings officer, was reportedly hired because of her knowledge of land use issues. At Tuesday’s public hearing, her ability to remain cool in a heated environment was perhaps even more impressive.

By the conclusion of the hearing, more than six hours after it began, Corcoran Briggs had heard from 45 speakers, six speaking in favor of the project, four neutral parties and 35 in opposition. The task now falls to her to produce a recommendation for the Board of Commissioners. That panel has tentatively scheduled a meeting on Nov. 7 to make a ruling as to whether the project abides by the county’s zoning and land development ordinance.

With the curtains drawn and lights turned low in an unsuccessful effort to keep the temperature at a reasonable level, Corcoran Briggs began the meeting promptly at 4 p.m. by explaining the format of the hearing.

Despite her request that speakers focus on the land development issues, few did. After the applicant, Jordan Cove Energy Project, completed its opening remarks, the supporters spoke, including Mark Wall, chief forester of Roseburg Forest Products’ Smith River operations; Dr. Judith Hansen, president of Southwestern Oregon Community College; and Ron Opitz, executive director of South Coast Development Council. They talked about the project’s potential for improving the local economy by creating more jobs, increasing the likelihood of infrastructure improvements and spurring more development.

Many opponents’ arguments were colored by images of exploding LNG tankers and eroded shorelines. Quite a few complained that the county was not considering the terminal along with its slip and the Pacific Connector natural gas pipeline. (The former will be considered with the conditional use application for the Oregon Gateway Marine Terminal in September.)

But some did focus their comments, directing Corcoran Briggs to specific sections of the county code.

Robin Hartmann, a representative of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, argued that Jordan Cove had failed to adequately explain how it will protect wetlands on its property. She also suggested the company’s plans to excavate a dune along the eastern edge of the construction site would make the land unstable.

“The professionals hired by the permittee assure us that they plan to restabilize the dune, but do not provide adequate details and a timeline that can be properly evaluated and that would insure adequate oversight,” she said.

Timothy Singler, of Reedsport, said the county’s highest priority for coastal shorelands is projects that “promote uses which maintain the integrity of estuaries and coastal waters.”

“This (application) doesn’t address that at all,” he said.

The second-highest priority is providing for water-dependent users.

Dan Serres, program coordinator of Friends of Living Oregon Waters, argued that not all the components of the project are water dependent. Corcoran Briggs had asked Bob Braddock, Jordan Cove’s project manager, about this issue.

“You need (all the components) adjacent to each other,” Braddock said. “If you remove one and locate it remotely, you effectively create a process conflict that is not logical, unsafe and nonstandard. There is no other facility in the world that does that.”

Serres was one of several opponents who recommended the county consider adding more conditions of approval.

He recommended the county require Jordan Cove to produce an emergency response plan.

“It is important to have one because if there was an accident, it would suck services — fire, police, ambulances — all these things away from other areas of the county, which would be vulnerable.”

He noted a similar requirement was made of a comparable project in Clatsop County.

Dave Lohman, one of about 13 opposition speakers from outside Coos County, also wanted Jordan Cove to have to pay independent experts to address issues regarding archeological and vegetation impacts caused by the project.

Two doctors, Nicole Jackson and Joseph Morgan, requested a study be performed to determine what kinds of air quality impacts could result from the project. Morgan said he saw a large decrease in cases of asthma and sinus allergy reactions following the closure of timber mills and fears new industry will bring back those problems, with children and retirees the hardest hit.

There also were concerns about the possibility of a tsunami wreaking havoc on the LNG facility and the possibility that worldwide natural gas supplies would dry up within the next 20 years, leaving the area with a terminal, pipeline and little tax revenue.

Many of these testimonials were concluded by hearty cheers and clapping. Initially, Corcoran Briggs responded by asking audience members to limit their applause. When this proved fruitless, she simply cut through the noise by reading out the name of the next scheduled speaker.

Several comments elicited particularly strong responses from the crowd.

Camby Collier, of Coos Bay, said that an LNG terminal did not necessarily need to be located in an estuary area.

“In can be offshore, like in the Gulf. They could build one off the coast here — with a pipeline to San Francisco,” she said.

Others called the project Oregon’s equivalent of the Bridge to Nowhere. Others chose animal references, with it compared to a camel, a white elephant and a scorpion.

Dean Byers, the chairman of the Douglas County Democrats, was one of several opponents to try to tie the discussion of the terminal to the pipeline project. Informed the pipeline was not under discussion, Byers made one final comment.

“Well, it should be!” he said, the crowd cheering their agreement.

Brian Hudgins, of Coos Bay, also represented several speakers’ sentiments when he suggested it was foolhardy to approve a project that deals in fossil fuels.

“LNG is a fossil fuel, which means it comes from dinosaurs. In case you haven’t noticed, they don’t make those anymore, unless you consider the kinds of communities that accept a project like this one,” he said, eliciting gasps of amazement at the comment.

When it was time for Jordan Cove’s rebuttal, at around 9:30 p.m., the room’s temperature had fallen precipitously, as had the size of the audience.

Only about 50 people remained to hear Braddock argue his case. He said many of the issues people had complained about there being a lack of evidence have been addressed in resource reports produced as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission process and are available for inspection. He said that while the terminal and pipeline are not being considered together at the county level, they will be joined during the FERC process. He also noted that an emergency response plan must be in place with each of the agencies that would respond before work can begin.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Corcoran Briggs said that she would continue to accept written testimony for another two weeks, ending at 5 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 11. She said she would tentatively schedule to have her opinion for the Board of Commissioners, all three members of whom were in attendance Tuesday, completed by Oct. 31. Included in this report will be a summary of the testimony received, her opinion on the testimony and a recommendation either to request more information or, approve the application, potentially with more conditions of approval.