Boreal and mountain caribou 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 industry.

• How do boreal and mountain caribou, predators and alternate prey respond to restoration treatments over various time periods?
• How do site types affect treatment success and long-term population response?
• Which ecological communities do not regenerate naturally at an acceptable rate?
• Which long term treatments will provide the most benefit to caribou, while allowing responsible development to occur?
• What site types have been seen to support the best long-term success?
• 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 Bird Regulations requiring 36 months of monitoring to declare a pileated woodpecker cavity is not being used by itself or another animal before the tree which the cavity is found in can be removed for development. The supporting science for this proposal was not provided and remains inconclusive. If implemented as proposed, this amendment could impose significant delays and costs to operators in the scale of years and millions of dollars. Research could illuminate the relationships between pileated woodpecker cavities and secondary cavity nesters to inform more appropriate monitoring measures.

• What is the frequency and duration of reuse of the nesting cavities by migratory birds?
• What are the main migratory bird species that reuse the nesting cavities?
• Are the cavities reused by migratory bird species (year after year)?
• How important are the cavities based on the species and frequency of use?
• How does the success of artificially created nesting cavities compare to PIWO created nesting cavities?

Restoration and reclamation of legacy and current oil and gas footprint is an integral component to the recovery of habitat, and the species that inhabit them. Restoration of caribou range habitat is of particular importance to achieve the objectives set forth in the Federal Recovery Strategy for Boreal Caribou. With vast amount of footprint on the landscape and limited funding available, restoration activities need to be both efficient and effective in order to achieve the greatest return of ecological productivity on investment.

• What are the carbon and biodiversity benefits of restoration/reclamation activities?
• What impacts does climate change have on restoration/reclamation treatments?
• Effectiveness of restoration/reclamation treatments:
  • When is a disturbance (e.g., seismic line) no longer a disturbance? Prioritization of areas where to work
  • Natural recovery vs. treatment of disturbances of various widths, types, and habitats.
  • Ecological value of reclamation (function, habitat, and hydrology) of different reclamation treatments (e.g., natural recovery, progressive reclamation, mounding, full/partial pad removal) compared to pre-/un-disturbed habitats.
• How do we ensure funds are being efficiently spent on targeting ecologically stagnant linear features?
• How do we deviate from the typical reclamation standards and practices to maximize use for caribou?
• What restoration methods provide opportunities for carbon capture and potential operational credits?
• Development of tools/indicators to inform on prioritization of restoration on areas of higher importance in caribou ranges.
• Outline of reclamation techniques that are best suited for specific sites. E.g. BMPs for industry.
• Do small pockets of restored native grasslands create value for biodiversity? (i.e. conversion back to native landscape from impacted landscape).

Oil and gas operations and legacy footprints often overlap with habitat associated with SARA listed wildlife. Recovery strategies and management plans set the strategic direction to arrest or reverse the decline of the species, including the identification of critical habitat to the extent possible and the knowledge gaps to recovery. The significance of oil and gas activity impacts varies across the various species’ geographical range. An understanding of how at-risk species use disturbed, reclaimed and undisturbed habitats can influence industry’s role in species recovery by informing management for and mitigation of  impacts to habitat.

• Responses of select at-risk species found in Alberta to oil and gas activities and footprint, including reclaimed and restored sites.
• Techniques and practices to minimize impacts to select at risk species.
• Determine, within operating regions, which species at risk require the most mitigation and management practices. Create BMPs for operators to use in landscape settings.
• 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, rather than a species-specific plan?).
• Are there land disturbances/reclamation treatments that select 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 more common (e.g. across geopolitical borders), what mitigation and management plans in those locations allow for work to continue while minimizing impacts to those species, and can those methods be applied in areas where they may be more at risk?
• 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. in relation to habitat features, across geographies within their range?

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 to watercourses (appropriate size of waterway buffers from activities).
• Can Family groups have same management/mitigation approaches taken to result in beneficial outcomes (i.e. management for toads, snakes, fish be applied to benefit all from each group).
• Are there models from reclamation/early successional programs that can be applied across operational areas for determination of multispecies targets?