I'll try to clarify.
When an area is monitored in a consistent fashion and is normally open, and let's say there is a storm and we close it because emergency runoff pollutes the area, we know it would typically happen that way owing to the pollution source work I mentioned, in which we understand where the sources are in a particular sector.
We model it numerically to understand where the pollution will go, and we have a fairly good idea of how long it will take to clean itself. This is an area that is being managed or monitored in a consistent fashion and would be opened and closed due to an emergency.
Those areas are opened fairly quickly after the events occur. My colleague can correct me, but I believe that in areas where we have consistent monitoring, they can open as soon as seven days after the event or 21 days after the event.
The areas that remain closed for extended periods of time—some of them have been closed for years—are the ones where we would have to go back in and re-evaluate the pollution sources, because they may have changed within that period of time. We would do additional work to understand the flow of the pollution when it comes in and we would resume a monitoring routine. It takes a while for the monitoring routine to build up a sufficient dataset, again, to be able to statistically say with confidence that we understand what is going on in the area.
There is a difference between those.
Thank you.