I'll be very quick.
I think my colleague has summed it up. Start from the best available science, and then focus on the ecosystem feature, the objectives for an area that you want to protect, and then work from there on identify the gear types that have a direct impact or that don't have a direct impact.
That was the case for areas across the country, such as the area in the Pacific that my colleague mentioned where we were protecting hydrothermal vents and seamounts in deep water. Bottom-contact fishing was the focus, but allowing fishing gear that does not have a direct impact to continue, and that's based on the best available science.
That's a key part of our other effective area-based measures tool: the ecological component of interest is effectively protected.
You have the gulf coral and sponge areas as well, where a series of areas were closed to bottom-contact fishing. Again, that's based on protecting coral, so the last thing we want to do is to have fishing activity that will move through that and have a direct impact on that area, but other activities that are known not to have an impact can continue.