So therefore it might be possible.... I understand your recommendations apply to both, but the conservation covenant certainly on the southern, larger block, you're arguing for that and for the application of section 58 of the Species at Risk Act, critical habitat, certainly on the southern block.
The selenium loading issue, though, is probably more pertinent to the northern block since it's surrounded by coal land anyway and would likely be the more likely of the two to be developed. Am I right about that?