I have a question for Mr. Fox.
Thank you for the thoughtful, knowledgeable testimony you gave in your opening statement on habitat, because when the original act was being discussed, there was a lot of push-back that habitat restoration had to occur right within the site or as close as possible. This was an area that caused a lot of concern.
Could you briefly tell the committee why the government would get push-back on ensuring that habitat that was destroyed or interfered with should be replaced right at the site versus the option you put forward, which I agree with? You're the second one to give similar testimony on that. It seems to be a very practical way of dealing with it that would not harm any fish species overall.
Could you answer briefly? I have a question for Mr. German.