Woodland caribou (boreal and southern mountain populations) are federally listed as a Threatened species under the Species at Risk Act and face declining populations and local extirpation of herds across Alberta. Impacts from anthropogenic features are cited as a leading cause of the decline, with a large focus on oil and gas related linear disturbances. The relationships between oil and gas footprint and caribou, their predators, and alternate prey species require further evidence to support protective or restorative measures taken by the industry.

• Which restoration treatments will provide the most benefit to caribou, while allowing responsible development to occur?
• How do boreal and mountain caribou, predators, and alternate prey respond to restoration treatments over time?
• Which systems do not regenerate at acceptable rates naturally and how can this be improved
• What techniques allow for greater caribou usage in reclaimed areas, while reducing predator use?

In July 2022, the federal government amended the Migratory Birds Regulations and identified pileated woodpecker (PIWO) nesting cavities as having conservation value to secondary cavity nesting migratory birds. Along with this classification is a requirement for a period of 36 months of inactivity to be recorded, through monitoring, before the tree in which the PIWO nesting cavity is found can be removed without requiring a permit to do so. As implemented, the amendment has the potential to impose significant delays and costs to operators. The supporting science, to justify the conservation value assigned to PIWO nesting cavities, was not provided and remains inconclusive. Research is required to better understand the relationships between PIWO nesting cavities and secondary cavity nesters to inform appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures.

• What is the frequency and duration of reuse, by migratory birds, of PIWO nesting cavities
• What migratory bird species reuse PIWO nesting cavities?
• How important is the availability of PIWO nesting cavities to migratory birds, based on the species reusing them and the frequency of use?
• How does the use of artificially created nesting cavities by migratory birds compare to the reuse of PIWO nesting cavities by those species?
• Are the current cavity buffers, monitoring period, and RAP timing appropriate to achieve the desired outcome, while allowing responsible development to occur?

Restoration and reclamation of oil and gas footprint are integral components to the recovery of habitats, and to the species that inhabit them. Given the vast extent of footprint on the landscape and that there are limits to funding available, restoration and reclamation activities need to be both efficient and effective. An increased understanding of the co-benefits and limitations of restoration and reclamation activities will help to achieve the greatest return of ecological productivity on investment.

• When is a disturbance (e.g., seismic line) no longer a disturbance?
• How does the habitat that results from restoration of disturbances (of various widths and types) compared to habitat gained through natural recovery.
• What is the ecological value of reclaimed habitat (function and hydrology) resulting from application of different reclamation treatments (e.g., natural recovery, progressive reclamation, mounding, full/partial pad removal, small-clustered areas) compared to pre-/un-disturbed habitats?
• What are the carbon and biodiversity benefits of restoration/reclamation activities?
• At what scale (e.g., local/site or landscape) is restoration and reclamation required to be conducted to realize these benefits?
• What impact does climate change have on effectiveness of restoration/reclamation treatments?

Oil and gas operations and legacy foot- prints often overlap with habitat of SARA listed wildlife. The significance of oil and gas activity impacts varies across the various species’ geographical ranges and so an understanding of how at-risk species use disturbed, re-claimed, and undisturbed habitats can influence the industry’s role in species recovery by informing management for and mitigation of impacts to habitat.

• Determine the response of priority at-risk species, found in Alberta, to oil and gas activities including disturbance footprint, reclaimed areas and restored sites.
• Identify techniques and practices to minimize impacts to priority at-risk species.
• Create BMPs for operators to use in landscape settings.
• Are there land disturbances/reclamation treatments that priority species at risk have been shown to utilize more frequently than natural surrounding areas, and can these areas be used as habitat improvements for those select species?
• Where species at risk are more common than they are in Alberta (e.g. across geo-political borders), what mitigation and management plans in those locations allow for work to continue while minimizing impacts to those species? Can those methods be applied in areas where oil and gas operations are undertaken, and they may be more at risk?
• How much data is needed for an evaluation/revaluation of a species? To what extent can proponent data be included in these assessments?

Greater Sage-Grouse are listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act and an emergency order for their protection (EPO) came into force in 2014.

• What are the best reclamation management practices, mitigation, and treatments for reclaiming areas to maximize usability for sage grouse?
• What low-disturbance operational practices allow for minimal impact to sage grouse in continued operational areas, with opportunities for additional development?
• Are the same mitigation measures required in all sage grouse EPO areas? E.g. about habitat features, across geographies within their range?

• To what extent are anthropogenic disturbances (cleared, open areas) having on enhancement of life history?
• Are the current lek buffers and mitigation timing appropriate to achieve the desired outcomes, while allowing responsible development to occur?

Increasingly governments and land managers are proposing and/or applying multispecies approaches to achieve environmental and cultural objectives in complex environments.

• What meaningful and constructive multispecies approaches are being applied successfully in Canada, in terrestrial and aquatic environments?
• What management, monitoring, measurement, and evaluation features and tools are critical to a successful multispecies approach?
• What is the magnitude and extent of offsite impacts on watercourses (appropriate size of waterway buffers from activities)?
• Can mitigation and management plans be implemented across Families, rather than at a species-specific level, and remain effective? (e.g., can a general snake or toad mitigation and management plan be used and be just as effective species-specific plans for each?)
• Are there models from reclamation/early successional programs that can be applied across operational areas for the determination of multispecies targets?

There are likely to be opportunities to leverage existing research and create tools for easier deployment and implementation that can improve practices for oil and gas operators.

• Can long-term management of data and analysis show meta-observations?
• Can a review and assessment of tools and approaches, used to monitor the effects of interventions, identify the best opportunities to be incorporated and leveraged by oil and gas operators?