I'll certainly track down those figures and get them back to you.
I think it's important at one level to look at the boreal forest as a whole resource nationally and use that broader vision to benchmark areas of non-disturbance. But it's also important to look in situ at the planning that's going to happen to the communities. We're planning for the potential impacts on the communities and the irreplaceable ecological values, such as woodland caribou habitat and others.
What we don't want to see is an unnecessary loss of in situ values in trading those off. Some part of that is going to be a fact. But we also need to look at its footprint there and the strategic value to community health from an ecological perspective and an economic perspective, and really take a close look at how best to develop that resource. Then look beyond that resource as well for how we can include offsets. But I think it's a both/and situation that's very important to keep in mind.