A hearings officers has recommended Coos County deny an application to build a marine terminal on the Coos Bay North Spit.

If Coos County commissioners agree with the officer’s opinion, it would be the first serious stumbling block for a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal.

But the recommendation is somewhat ambivalent. Hearings officer Anne Corcoran Briggs said the application did not satisfy her concerns about the potential impacts of a marine terminal on commercial fishermen and recreational users. Yet in her conclusion, she argued against her own opinion.

“However, I realize that reasonable minds can differ about both the interpretations of applicable standards and the evidence used to show that the standards have or have not been justified,” she wrote.

In turn, she offered 10 conditions of approval for the commissioners if they chose to approve the application.

The commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss the matter today at 1:30 p.m. in the commissioners’ courtroom at the Coos County Courthouse in Coquille.

The public record for the application has been closed, so neither opponents nor the applicant, Oregon International Port of Coos Bay, can provide further testimony.

But Jeffrey Bishop, executive director of the port, shared his sentiments about the opinion Monday.

“We respectfully disagree with her conclusions and hopefully the commissioners will carefully consider her conclusion and will come to a different conclusion,” he said.

In her opinion, Corcoran Briggs said the port failed to meet the county’s criteria for dredging the estuary. According to its proposal, the port plans to dredge about 5.6 million cubic yards of materials from 12 acres of intertidal land. It would then be deposited in designated locations around the North Spit. The excavated area would make way for a port slip that would provide berth for LNG tankers as well as other vessels.

In the Coos County Zoning and Development Ordinance, applicants must demonstrate their projects will provide a public benefit and won’t “unreasonably interfere with public trust rights.”

At the Sept. 17 public hearing, opponents argued the need for a dock does not warrant the costs of the proposal. They also said LNG tankers coming to port would disrupt commercial fishermen and scare away tourists. On these items, Corcoran Briggs agreed. She also argued that a prior configuration for the ship dock would pose less damage to the area.

“As opponents note, an earlier alternative that creates docking facilities parallel to the shoreline requires considerably less dredging, has a much smaller impact on the estuary and provides similar benefits to the Port,” she wrote.

“The fact that the proposed slip will generate some generic economic benefits over an unspecified time frame is not enough to show that there is a need for this terminal configuration.”

Bishop said the current configuration is necessary because otherwise the port would not have sufficient land to construct a container terminal.

“We think the (proposed) slip is the least invasive option,” he said. “The earlier proposal would have required more dredging for an access channel.”

Aside from design matters, Corcoran Briggs wrote that the dredging and disturbance of eel grass beds in the area could adversely affect local fisheries.

“Until that impact is better quantified and analyzed, I cannot say that the applicant has met its burden of demonstrating the Public Trust rights have not been unreasonably affected,” she wrote.

On other concerns raised by opponents, however, Corcoran Briggs found less common ground. Many opponents argued the project would destabilize dunes and create further environmental degradation when dredging spoils had to be deposited elsewhere.

Corcoran Briggs dismissed these arguments, however, noting that the areas the port planned to remove spoils to were approved by the county.

She also found little reason to be concerned about storm water drainage from the slip and the LNG terminal adversely impacting the local ecosystem.

Although the two projects are not directly related, one of the conditions the commissioners have preliminary included requires the construction of a ship dock suitable for handling LNG tankers. If the port’s application is turned down, that would possibly put in jeopardy the Jordan Cove application.

But Project Manager Bob Braddock did not seem concerned.

“The verdict was surprising, but in the end, I think the (project’s) facts will stand any scrutiny,” he said. “I do believe it will be positively resolved.”