A study of Passamaquoddy Bay commissioned by a local group opposed to the construction of liquefied natural gas terminals on the bay indicates that such development likely would have an overall harmful effect on the area’s economy.

A report from the study, conducted by Yellow Wood Associates of St. Albans, Vt., was posted Thursday on the Web site of Save Passamaquoddy Bay, the group that commissioned the $55,000 study.

The study was being released as members of the anti-LNG group met privately Thursday afternoon with state officials in Augusta to discuss the contents of the 131-page document.

Yellow Wood Associates is the same firm that conducted a similar study in 2004 on the possible impact of an LNG terminal in Harpswell. The Harpswell proposal has since been scrapped.

A seven-page summary of the Passamaquoddy Bay report, also available on the group’s Web site, indicates that LNG activity on the bay will suppress other indigenous economic activities such as fishing and tourism, offer relatively little direct economic opportunities to area residents, reduce property values and increase expenses for local municipalities.

Linda Godfrey, spokeswoman for Save Passamaquoddy Bay, indicated in a written statement issued Thursday that the study counters claims by developers that Washington County would benefit from the construction of LNG facilities.

“The developers who are proposing these LNG operations in Passamaquoddy [Bay] have not presented the public with a full range of information,” Godfrey wrote. “This is a very deep issue, one that could change life as we know it around Passamaquoddy Bay. It is not something to take lightly, and this is why we felt a report of this magnitude is needed.”

The report suggests that most of the jobs directly associated with an LNG terminal, which can cost $500 million or more to construct, would have to go to people from outside Maine because of a lack of qualified workers in the state.

Though developers have forecast terminal construction would directly create hundreds of jobs, only 35 local people are likely to get jobs associated with the construction and operation of an LNG terminal on the bay, the report indicated.

Another conclusion: Although towns with LNG facilities would receive high property tax payments from terminal operators, communities on the bay could face as much as $3 million to $5 million in additional expenses because of increased public safety and administrative costs.

Dean Girdis, president of Downeast LNG, acknowledged Thursday that LNG development in the bay area would require a higher level of local public safety precautions. But his company has indicated all along, he said, that it will pay any such costs associated with its proposed terminal in Robbinston.

“I really question the objectivity of the study,” Girdis said. “I’m not surprised that the study results were negative.”

He accused Yellow Wood Associates of asking leading questions and of spreading “fear and misinformation” in its report.

On the issue of jobs, Girdis said, he already has received 40 resumes from native Mainers who are qualified for specialized industrial jobs. Downeast LNG would train locals who have base qualifications for specific duties that LNG terminal construction and operations would require.

The report also concludes that property values would be hurt because of safety, security and waterfront access concerns posed by the presence of LNG tankers in the bay. The land value of nearly 2,000 properties on the U.S. side of the proposed tanker route, which also goes through Canadian waters, would be affected, according to the report.

Depending on the length of the shipping route, which would be determined by where along the bay LNG development occurs, $2.8 million to $7.8 million could be lost in total property value, the report asserts.

Girdis questioned whether the terminal would hurt surrounding property values but said Downeast LNG has offered to compensate neighboring property owners who are worried about the impact the development may have on their land.

Property values in Cove Point, Md., where there is an LNG terminal, and in Wiscasset, which was home to the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant, have been higher than those in surrounding towns without industrial development, he said.

According to George Finch, city manager of Eastport, properties in Eastport and other municipalities along the tanker route likely would be affected, but to what degree is unknown.

Some properties are situated on the water where ships would pass, others are within easy eyesight of the proposed terminal locations, and still others either do not have a water view or face away from where the ships and terminals would be seen. How frequently ships might pass in front of some properties depends on the scope of the terminal proposals, which vary in size.

“It’s just too subjective,” Finch said. “It’s not just dollar value, it’s a question of what you personally value.”

Brian Smith, manager for Quoddy Bay’s proposed terminal and storage facility in Pleasant Point and Perry, indicated in a statement Thursday that he could not comment on the report because he had not had a chance to review it. He did indicate that Quoddy Bay supports preserving the environment and economy of the bay area, however.

“We have the goal of not only preserving the environment and economy but improving them,” Smith wrote.

Complete published results of the study are available for viewing online at Save Passamaquoddy Bay’s Web site, www.savepassamaquoddybay.org.