That's a great question. The law list meant that you used to do thousands and thousands of screenings each year. Those screening-level projects, other than in federal lands, have been largely eliminated. In my view, if the trade-off for not doing all those screenings is that you actually do a number of good-quality regional assessments, I think it will be a better outcome environmentally and economically.
These used to be mostly box-ticking exercises that didn't really look at the context of a project. If you took a whole watershed and looked at overall thresholds in that watershed, instead of every little bridge and jetty that went into it, and you did it well, you would get a better outcome for both the environment and the economy. That's why I say that ensuring these regional assessments get done is really important and that all the cost savings from not doing all the screenings should be rolled back into doing regional assessments.