I'm happy to take a stab at that one.
I think there's a hierarchical approach to offsetting. First you look to avoid, offset and mitigate. Once you get to your offsetting measures, I think some of the evolution in our thinking around fish habitat management is the prioritization of fisheries management objectives in a particular watershed. Regardless of the impact you may be having, I think that when you're going to those compensation or offsetting measures, you're looking to prioritize in accordance with fisheries management objectives. That would come through consultation with the regulator, with DFO.
As we saw with the example of the Big Island wetland, alewife were the species that were potentially being harmed as part of our operations at Darlington, but they weren't necessarily seen as a critical species for protection on Lake Ontario. They were seen as a productivity loss, however, and therefore we needed to compensate or offset for that productivity loss in accordance with the management objectives for Lake Ontario. That's what drove us towards that decision-making. It's the loss of coastal wetlands, and these are the big productivity drivers on the Great Lakes. That's what took our focus in that direction.