The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has concluded the liquefied natural gas terminal on Coos Bay’s North Spit would have “limited” negative environmental impacts, but they can be substantially reduced.

A draft Environmental Impact Statement for both Jordan Cove Energy Project’s terminal and the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline was released this morning by FERC. It said the terminal facilities would not directly affect wetlands and do not have a significant impact on air quality. Dredging a slip and access channel would have limited temporary impacts on water quality in Coos Bay, the report said. The project would likely harm at least nine species or their designated critical habitat.

It also considered the area’s risk of earthquakes, tsunamis and landslides. It said engineering designs appeared to mitigate the impacts of earthquakes at the terminal, and landslides and other geological hazards on the pipeline route were being addressed. It also examined possible risks from terrorist threats or accidental spills, which it determined are “highly unlikely.”

“While the risks associated with the transportation of any hazardous cargo can never be entirely eliminated, they can be managed,” the draft EIS said.

Jordan Cove Project Manager Bob Braddock said he hadn’t had time to read the draft EIS, though he was encouraged the report’s issuance would allow the FERC to meet its deadlines of making a final verdict in May 2009.

“By issuing at this point, they should be able to have it conform to the schedule they issued in July,” he said.

Jeffrey Bishop, executive director of the Coos Bay port, said he hadn’t had a chance to read the document either, and commenting  would be premature.

“We are anxious to read it.” Bishop said.

He said the minimal environmental impact may not make a difference if the project doesn’t prove to be financially feasible. The bad economy has left fuel markets, with the exception of oil, in a slump, he said.

Braddock said such concerns do not factor into considerations when viewing the energy needs for the next 25 years.

“Near-term ups and downs don’t alter the approach when you are looking at such a distant time horizon,” he said.

A local opponent of the plan, Steve Jones, said he hadn’t seen the draft yet. But he said Jordan Cove is being deceptive in describing a proposed protective barrier around the tank. A containment berm surrounds every LNG tank, and Jordan Cove is mislabeling its containment berms as tsunami containment berms.

“If you look at Jordan Cove Energy Projects’ drawings, there is no tsunami berm,” Jones said.

There is no way Jordan Cove — or FERC, for that matter — could predict the size or inundation of a potential tsunami, let alone its effect on an LNG plant, he said.

FERC’s draft report also looked at alternatives to the North Spit location.

“We do not consider either the Bradwood Landing nor the Oregon LNG Project to be preferable alternatives to the proposed (Jordan Cove) project because neither could meet one of its main objectives, to serve markets in southern Oregon, northern Nevada, and northern California.” it said.

It provided a caveat, however, saying it does not choose between competing projects and it said the market would ultimately determine which project was viable.

FERC is scheduled to release its final EIS in February.

-Staff writers Jolene Guzman and Susan Chambers contributed to this story