t''"' rr  ..  ..-     A
I"   "  ... r.
LJ1e,..,r    _
,.... _,  J cf f@(\)4<;11-o
February 11, 2020
Port of Seattle Commissioners
Commissioner Felleman
Commissioner Bowman
Commissioner Stelnbrueck
Commissioner Calkins
Commissioner Cho
Executive Director Metruck
Maritime Director Stephanie Jones Stebbins
PO Box 1209 I Seattle, WA 98111
Dear Commissioners, Thank you for taking time to listen and reflect on public comment
regarding the cruise expansion project at T46. I have heard one Commissioner express that
because nothing has been decided yet, concerned individuals should just wait for the EIS, with a
subtle implication being we shouldn't bother to show up at meetings or register public
comments until then. I really hope that isn't what I'm hearing from this Commission. I think
that the vast majority of individuals who have spoken out against T46 have done so with great
respect for the integrity and public service of the Commissioners. As someone with Board
experience, I know that it can be uncomfortable when one's plans on how to achieve goals are
challenged, but that's the price of democracy, and as we can see on the national stage now, it's
a slippery slope when we start discouraging public input and responding impatiently to public
scrutiny.
Since our last meeting two weeks ago, the
Southern resident killer whale (SRKW) area
named Mega, L-41 was declared "presumed
dead". In a letter to the Orea Stakeholder
Taskforce, Orea Conservancy President Shari
Tarantino points out that while starvation due
to collapse of the salmon population is the
main cause of orca decline, with the breaching
of the Snake River dams the best solution, she
also acknowledges the adverse impact of ship
noise and toxins.1 As a side note here, I offer
my sincere and deep appreciation to
Commissioner Felleman for his past and present leadership at the Orea Conservancy.

1 https://www.orcaconservancy.org/oc-makes-comment-on-draft-lsrd-report/

There are two separate, but Inter-related issues here - runaway atmospheric heating due to
human caused emissions, and the critically endangered SRKW population. Cruise ships are a
factor in both. Ships create noise from their propellers and engines which Interfere with areas'
ability to echolocate their prey. Data also suggests that ship traffic and consequent noise also
elevates stress, affecting metabolism and the viability of newborn whales. However, not
enough studies on this have been done to date, and given the critical survival situation for the
SRKW, the precautionary princlple dictates that further study is warranted before blindly
proceeding with expansion of the cruise industry.2 Even if cruise ships reduce speed upon
being alerted that an orca pod is in the area (a purported solution being discussed by the orca
task force), reducing noise by slowing vessel speed only prolongs the duration of that noise, as
Dr. Scott Veirs, a UW oceanographer points out.3 In other words, cruise ship traffic still has an
adverse impact. While it may be true that Washington state ferries create more noise in
specific locations throughout the year, that does not excuse the significant impact of cruise ship
noise.4 Cruise ships are nonessential leisure vessels and their impact cannot be rationalized
away by comparing them to the ferry system or container shipping.
The Port cites the logic that a new terminal is needed in order to meet demand. Recently, on his
Facebook page, acknowledging that while he is "not a cruise ship booster", Commisioner
Felleman stated that he is "committed to minimizing their environmental impact" and that "the
idea of building another cruise ship terminal came about as a way to afford to rebuild TS into a
'big ship ready' container terminal, a prerequisite to staying in the container business." In
confessing that he is not a fan of cruise ships, and promising to commit himself to minimize the
impact, he clearly acknowledges that there are problems with the cruise ship business worth
scrutinizing.  The wider impacts are much larger than the Port seems willing to acknowledge.
Cruise emissions are estimated at 1 million tons of GHG per yearl Small scale mitigation
efforts such as dockside plug ins, solar panels, eel grass pilot projects, cannot even begin to
offset the flight emissions associated with current cruise ship passengers, or ship emissions
once leaving port. Public statements about environmental stewardship and commitment are of
little value if the full scope of the problem isn't even acknowledged.
The Port is operating under an economic philosophy belonging to a previous era, that the only
response to consumer demand is to increase production. There is no ethical justification for
promoting an expansion of non-essential travel at this moment in planetary history. The bold
and courageous action here would be to stop cruise expansion, not to reflexively meet
consumer demand. This would help slow air travel and give a significant boost to the societal
commitment to decarbonizing the economy.

2 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00606/fuII
3 https://www.kuow.org/stories/electric-ferries-reduce-pollution-benefit-to-orcas-less-clear
http://www.orcasound.net/2019/05/09/kingS-story-orcasound-ship-noise/
5 Based on 2019 Port data, analysis available upon request.
--
Even if none of these reasons, move your conscience, it is worth considering that the fortunes
of the cruise business will not continue to expand indefinitely and could suddenly decline
markedly for any one of a number of reasons. The coronavirus represents another global health
challenge that could substantially change how the public thinks about going on a leisure cruise.
With at least two vessels locked down on quarantine, it's obvious that the cruise industry is
weathering some extremely negative publicity at present. Let us pray that the current epidemic
ends quickly. However, to simply assume that the demand for cruise travel will continue to
grow and that the T46 facility addition will result in an automatic increase in passenger revenue
is a gamble on many future unknowns.
Instead of building infrastructure for a fossil fuel dependent industry which sends the wrong
message to the American public now, why not be climate heroes instead? Why not make
Seattle the leader in inspiring a US and global effort to actually meet IPCC 2030 targets? As for
alternatives to cruise expansion at T46, there are many. A climate museum could be an
extension of the new waterfront park that could include a beach restoration, with a long house
built in cooperation with the descendants of the Duwamish who once had a village at that very
spot. There are many possibilities if we use our imagination and act boldly. Sincerely,
Jordan Van Voast, M.Ac.
Iris Antman
Peggy J. Printz