My question remains unanswered.

And DNR is not responsible for decisions concerning orcas or other marine mammals. That jurisdiction belongs solely to the federal government – under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) has responsibility for saying “Yea” or “Nay” to projects that may interfere with marine mammals in any way.

So, given what you have stated, I must ask, what new information came to light to show that the whale winter feeding grounds were put at risk, and why did the proper authorities not review it? In this case, the proper authorities would not be DNR – it would be the federal government.

Thank you for responding, anon.
It is interesting to note the determination and speed by Sutherland to push it through before he left office.
Will this act turn out to become as notorious as the Bolt decision or ruinous to our waterways?
The health of our waterways count, nothing else should at this time.

“Saying “no” ….t’s a pretty cost-effective way to avoid making things worse.

… naïve to think that …responsible decision-makers would say no to a project that puts one of the whales’ favorite winter fishing grounds at risk.”
Sharon O’Hara

Of course not – IF it is substantial and significant. So, what new information was revealed that was substantial enough to warrant amendment to one or more of the permits? And why weren’t the permits amended?The SEPA and NEPA would also have to be revised to reflect the new, substantial and signficant, information.

Once they were amended, given the new regulatory information, DNR would have considered the new information when making their decision.