The organizations and individuals who filed the appeal to the port of Coos Bay’s land-use application included the Southern Oregon Pipeline Information Project, Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, Citizens Against LNG, and individuals Knute Nemeth and Jody McCaffree.

Here is a breakdown of their arguments and the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals’ responses.

Opponents detailed their appeal on four points.

Point 1

Opponents contended the port didn’t file amendments to its land use application within the proper timeline.

LUBA denied the claim. While the amendments weren’t necessarily filed more than 45 days before the county land use hearing, the actual application did meet the deadline, the decision said.

The appellants also contended they weren’t able quickly enough to get an electronic copy of a 976-page joint permit application seeking a federal OK for a fill and removal permit. There wasn’t enough time to read it, they argued.

LUBA’s decision said the paperwork was available in the county planning department (in Coquille), so they could have traveled there to read it sooner.

Point 2

Opponents suggested liquefied natural gas tankers moving through the bay would interfere with commercial fishing boats and recreational boaters. They contended the county didn’t prove otherwise.

The LUBA decision explained that while no boats can get within two miles of the bow and 1 mile of the stern while the LNG ship is in transit, the restriction would cause only a 20-minute delay for fishermen and crabbers. The ruling went on to say that at this point there’s not an exclusion zone on either side of the LNG vessel outside of the shipping channel.

LUBA added that boats already must get out of the shipping channel to make way for wood chip ships.

Point 3

The appeal singled out potential impacts to Henderson Marsh, arguing the county was wrong to rely “on the fact” that all development would be set back at least 50 feet from the marsh.

LUBA denied that claim, saying the estuary management plan does not say the plan should be used to deny or limit uses on property near a marsh.

Point 4

Opponents contended the county failed to establish legal requirements for where dredge material could be disposed.

LUBA denied it that contention, saying there won’t be dredge material.

The project would excavate the ship berth but leave a tiny strip of land separating it from the bay. This initial excavation wouldn’t be classified as dredging. Later, the remaining strip would be dredged away, but that step would be governed by a federal permit process — not the state.