If I may, Mr. Jean, if you're nestling that under the current system, it's the same process. Under the proposed amendments--if it's no longer a named work and would necessarily have to trigger a 5.(1)--if it's determined that the replacement bridge poses absolutely no incremental diminishment to the current navigation going under the existing bridge, we would not trigger that environmental assessment under navigable waters protection. We would be provided, by the removal of that named-works clause, with the discretion--based on our officer's knowledge of the area and the navigational traffic in the area--to determine that there was no additional impact to navigation, and we would not trigger it and therefore not have to add that piece to the puzzle box.
On June 3rd, 2008. See this statement in context.