Basically what we've done at DFO is we've actually looked at the projects and determined a risk management type of framework whereby we actually start allocating our resources to where there are significant impacts. Our projects range from a cottager putting in a wharf to a major mine development. In most years we receive over 6,000 referrals. Not all of those end up being environmental assessments, because what we do is look at the proposal and the project, and we work with the proponent and reduce the mitigations where we do not need a Fisheries Act authorization. A Fisheries Act authorization means that we have to do an environmental assessment.
So by looking at the definition of minor works, there may be something you can actually mitigate. I won't pretend I'm an expert in Navigable Waters Protection Act legislation, but if you have a small bridge or something, to that effect there may be ways of mitigating the environmental impacts so that you will not have to issue an authorization for that. For instance, with DFO, if there's a bridge and it's a free-span, it doesn't have an impact on fish and fish habitat. We would let that go.
We work very closely with proponents, so I think it's the same type of philosophy as they're looking at--how to move more towards that approach, so that you're actually looking at things that are very significant and being able to allocate resources and putting them where those significant impacts are.