The opponents of a marine terminal on Coos Bay’s North Spit outlined their arguments against its land-use application in a brief to the Land Use Board of Appeals.

And later this week, the LUBA also will hear oral arguments in a case involving the adjacent liquefied natural gas terminal project.

Concerns regarding the marine terminal focused on environmental impacts as well as the potential disruption caused by LNG tankers using the facility.

Both issues were raised by the hearings officer who reviewed the application for the Coos County Board of Commissioners. In her review, Anne Corcoran Briggs advised denying the application because of the project’s possible adverse impacts on fishermen and recreational users. She also questioned the amount of dredging required to create the terminal.

Instead of adopting this position, the board approved an analysis provided by Planning Director Patty Evernden. In it, she noted the county’s estuary plan does not require the board to disqualify a project unless it “unreasonably” interferes with public use. She also said the hearings officer exaggerated the amount of materials that would be dredged from the bay.

The appellants, which include Southern Oregon Pipeline Information Project, Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, Knute Nemeth, Citizens Against LNG and Jody McCaffree, expanded on the hearings officer’s concerns. They noted the terminal will serve LNG tankers, which have security requirements that restrict the passage of other craft within a security zone. While not a permanent restriction on public access to the waterway, the appellants contend the tankers would transit across the bar during high tides, competing with recreational crabbers and commercial fishermen.

“Given the admission that the exact dimensions of the security zone are currently unknown, there is not substantial evidence in the record on which the Commissioners can make a finding on what the impact on public trust rights will be,” the brief reads. “Without that, there is not substantial evidence on which to conclude those impacts will be minimal.”

Dredging was another issue the appellants raised, though not for the same reason as Corcoran Briggs. Instead of focusing on the removal of materials from the bay, the appellants targeted the plans to deposit dredge spoils in areas that serve as snowy plover habitats. They also claimed information about the depositing of dredge spoils was changed too close to the hearing to allow public comments on the issue.

They are asking that the county add conditions requiring the creation of replacement habitat for plover displaced by the work and approval of the depositing from federal and state environmental agencies.

The brief also argues the construction is too close to Henderson Marsh, located 50 feet to the west of the proposed terminal, another area of concern for Corcoran Briggs.

The last issue also was raised in an appeal filed against the LNG terminal proposed by Jordan Cove Energy Project. Briefs have been filed on both sides and oral arguments will be heard at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday in Salem.