I'll respond to the part of the question where you asked about whether there had been any improvement that we could see.
First, we've now been discussing for some time the considerable apparent reluctance to identify critical habitat and recovery strategies. Whether this is growing pains or whether it's a more consistent policy is something that I could speculate on, but it would only be speculation.
As far as improvement is concerned, after the Nooksack dace case judgment, we're seeing at least the Department of Fisheries begin to pull up its socks in relation to recognizing that describing critical habitat is not optional--it's in the act.
The reason that has been used in many cases, that of insufficient evidence, is not supported by the scientists and not supported, in many cases, by the recovery teams. We are seeing more progress being made in this area and new draft recovery strategies coming out with critical habitat in them.