I'll start with sage grouse, and I'll leave the aquatic cases to my colleague from DFO.
The sage grouse is an interesting case. The decision really was clarifying. I think we already had a sense that this was where it was. But regardless of where critical habitat occurs, it should be identified, based on best available information. So we may not know a lot about where a species occurs, but when we know where it occurs we are to identify it, presuming the habitat has the required features that species need to survive and recover.
In the case of sage grouse, it was clear we had to identify critical habitat beyond the boundaries of the park. We did so. What that meant was we went out and engaged with a lot of private landowners, held public meetings, sent out lots of letters, and so on, just to make those private landowners aware of the fact that their lands had some of the key habitat for sage grouse.
In part of our communications certainly what resonated with the agricultural sector was that what they were doing was clearly compatible or very likely compatible with the needs of that species, because it existed there. So as long as the farmers continued to farm as they had been, it would be very compatible for the sage grouse. They could persist in that landscape while agricultural activity was being undertaken.
Kevin, do you want to...?