PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA  STAFF BRIEFING 
Item No.            7b 
Date of Meeting     November 2, 2010 

DATE:      October 26, 2010 
TO:       Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:     Stephanie Jones Stebbins, Director Seaport Environmental Programs 
Mike McLaughlin, Director Cruise and Industrial Properties 
SUBJECT:   Cruise Ship Lines Memorandum of Understanding 
Proposed Options for an MOU Amendment Process 
BACKGROUND: 
The Department of Ecology, the Port of Seattle, and Northwest Cruise Ship Association
negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2004 to establish voluntary
actions aimed at improving the treatment of waste discharges from cruise ships operating
in Washington waters. The waters subject to the MOU include the Puget Sound and the
Strait of Juan de Fuca south of the international boundary with Canada; and along
Washington's Pacific Coast extending for three miles seaward.   The  original
Memorandum was signed on April 20, 2004, and has been amended four times. The last
amendment was signed on May 19, 2008. At the January 20, 2010, annual Cruise MOU
meeting, three amendments were proposed by outside parties.  Because there was not
unanimous support of any of these amendments by the signatories, none of them were
adopted.
The MOU does not describe or define a process for amendments.  Until this year, all
amendments have been proposed by the MOU signatories.  The process this year was
different in several ways.  Three amendments were proposed by outside parties, and one
of the amendments was brought up  in the meeting itself.  Given the lack of time to
consider at least two of the three amendments, a decision was made during the meeting to
post the proposed amendments for a 60 day public comment period.   The MOU
participants then reconvened. None of the amendments were agreed to unanimously, and
none were adopted. The process which occurred this year makes it most certain that a
more clear and defined formal process is needed to propose and adopt amendments to the
MOU.
The goal is to establish an amendment process that provides clarity and is supported by
both the public and the MOU signatories. The proposed procedures would couple a more

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
October 25, 2010 
Page 2 of 3 
robust public process with less frequent consideration of amendments.  The process
proposed is more time consuming and while the signatories agree that a more robust
public process is appropriate, none of the parties are currently staffed to handle a process
like this annually. 
BRIEFING OUTLINE 
Following are two options for the MOU amendment process. Both o ptions include a
public hearing and both define criteria for amendments.  Any amendment requires all
three parties to agree to it.  That would not change.  One of the options defines a process
for the public to propose amendments. 
Option One: Amendments can only be introduced by one of the three MOU signatories. 
Unless there is a specific urgent need, determined by the MOU signatories, amendments
will be considered every three years.  If a member of the public wanted to propose an
amendment, they would need to propose it to one of the three MOU signatory
organizations and ask them to carry it forward for consideration of all of the signatories. 
Option Two:  As the two public agencies signatory to the MOU, the Port and the
Department of Ecology would post a 21-day call for proposed amendments. Proposed
amendments must then be submitted within three weeks of the posted request for
amendments. The three MOU signatory organizations would then review any proposed
amendments submitted and determine whether any of the MOU participants would
sponsor the proposed amendment. The sponsored amendments would then be posted for
a public review/comment period prior to being voted on by the signatories. Unless there
is a specific urgent need, determined by the MOU signatories, amendments will be
considered every three years.
Option two is the approach tentatively agreed upon by the MOU partners earlier this year,
except that the proposed frequency of amendments was modified.  Staff recommends a
commitment to presenting the proposed amendments to the Port Commission, following
the public review/comment period, to determine the Port's official position by a formal
vote of the Commission. Port staff would present the results of the vote to the MO U
group as our Port position on the amendment 
Criteria for Proposed Amendments 
Under either option, the proposed amendments must comply with certain requirements.
Both options include the following evaluation criteria, which must be met in order for the
proposed amendment to be considered: 
All proposed amendments meeting the following criteria will be advanced for further
review and comment:

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
October 25, 2010 
Page 3 of 3 
Proposed amendments shall only concern cruise ship activity applicable to the MOU 
or within MOU boundaries.. 
Proposed amendments shall not duplicate or replace existing regulations that govern
cruise ships; however, they may be more stringent. 
Proposed amendments must address the following, in detail: 
The reason for the proposed amendment (e.g., what environmental concern it
addresses). 
How the amendment is applicable to or compatible to the MOU. 
The anticipated benefits of the amendment. 
Include scientific data that supports the proposed amendment. 
In order for an amendment to be adopted, it must receive the unanimous approval
of the MOU signatories. 
MOU signatories reserve the right to address emergency issues as they arise and amend
the MOU accordingly, outside of the cycle proposed here. 
OTHER DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BRIEFING: 
PowerPoint presentation. 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS: 
April 6, 2010 - Briefing on the Cruise Ship Lines Memorandum of Understanding.