No, I don't think so. As I've explained and as you've commented, appropriately, in my opinion, this is about managing risk, and we do have to take into consideration the benefits of these projects versus the risk to the environment. But in the end we have a responsibility as an environmental organization to adhere to these policies. And these policies do require us to address issues of eel grass. So we would take into consideration the biological implications of removing this eel grass. What is our assessment of that? And we would take into consideration to what extent reasonable compensation is required to accommodate the loss of that particular location or that particular site.
This does require us to look at the issue of risk. That's what we would employ in this particular instance. The challenge, though, is that we are guided by policy constraints and so forth. I can't pretend otherwise.