A new cruise port proposal is emerging near Tampa Bay, sparking early debate. The developers say the privately funded terminal would support tourism and accommodate larger ships. Environmental advocates, however, warn about potential impacts on nearby waters and wildlife, including manatees, those porky “sea potatoes of Florida.”
SSA Marine, a Seattle-based marine terminal operator, and Tampa-based holding company Slip Knott LLC are exploring plans to build a new multi-berth cruise port on a roughly 328-acre site in Manatee County, on the seaward side of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, according to a project website launched to promote the proposal.
The proposed facility, called the Knott-Cowen Cruise Port, would be built on the Knott-Cowen tract near the mouth of Tampa Bay. Developers say the site would allow the region to accommodate newer, larger cruise ships that cannot pass beneath the Skyway Bridge due to height restrictions, positioning Tampa Bay to compete in a changing cruise industry. The company estimates construction would take three to five years if approved.
SSA Marine says the project would be privately financed, calling it a private investment that would not use taxpayer dollars.
Economic Boom or Environmental Blowback?
Supporters are pitching the plan as an economic boost.
According to the Knott-Cowen Cruise Port website, SSA Marine estimates the construction phase would generate more than 31,000 jobs in industries directly and indirectly connected to the new port and boost labor wages by about $1.6 billion, with the broader investment projected to produce more than $5 billion in total economic impact. The company also projects that once operational, the port could support more than 13,000 jobs and generate $40 million per year in tax revenue for the county and school district.
SSA Marine says the terminal would also act as a long-term economic driver, strengthening West Central Florida’s position in a changing cruise industry while prioritizing environmental stewardship, creating lasting local economic opportunities, and supporting regional tourism.
But opposition is already building.
Even in its early stages, the proposal is drawing sharp attention, with environmental advocates warning it could put one of Tampa Bay’s most sensitive ecosystems at risk.
That pushback is also showing up online, including a petition urging officials to reject the cruise terminal proposal. As of this writing, the petition has gained 5,857 verified signatures.
The Controversy: Location, Environment, and Scale
The flashpoint is the location. The proposed site sits near the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve, widely regarded as one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the Tampa Bay estuary. With an industrial-scale cruise terminal on the table, critics say environmental impacts could dominate the debate, alongside concerns about traffic, noise, congestion, and public shoreline access.
On its website, however, the SSA Marine says early evaluation work has already begun on “traffic, noise, environmental impacts, and public access,” and that those topics would be addressed in greater detail through the formal approval process.
Conservation Purchase Included in Proposal Messaging
As part of its environmental messaging, SSA Marine says its subsidiary, the Rattlesnake Key Preservation Company, acquired the adjacent 710-acre Rattlesnake Key property, describing the purchase as a conservation step meant to prevent private commercialization of the island.
The company states there will be no commercial development or construction on Rattlesnake Key and that the intent is to protect wetlands, wildlife habitat, and the natural character of the property “in perpetuity.”
What Happens Next?
SSA Marine says the project remains in an early planning phase and would require zoning and permitting approvals, including public hearings with the Manatee County Planning Commission and the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners.
The company’s website states that community engagement would begin in early 2026 alongside the county permitting process.
For now, no construction timeline is locked in, and the proposal’s future will depend on regulatory review and the public process that typically accompanies large-scale waterfront development in the region.
This is a developing story. Stay tuned for updates. In the meantime, join the discussion below. Are you pro or against?