Yes, I think I understand that. I simply don't know how to draw conclusions on what we should think the ecological consequences could be if we're not able to draw some assumptions or estimates on what that surviving established population might be.
I found a couple of things interesting in the report itself. The report says that on the 20-year timeline the ecological consequences for the Great Lakes—all, perhaps, other than Lake Superior—are moderate. Somehow I think it's going to be more than moderate. I know in the 50-year timeline you're saying high, perhaps high. Do you have any further comments on that?