The ELC announces its Newest Publication: Regulatory Evaluation of Alberta’s Wetland Policy Implementation

Alberta’s wetlands are biodiverse ecosystems that provide immense ecological benefits such as improved water quality, flood and drought protection, and wildlife habitat, including for many species at risk.  Despite their value, wetlands have suffered significant historic and ongoing loss. The Government of Alberta adopted the Wetland Policy in 2013, which took full effect in 2015, to address this loss of wetlands. 

As it has been over 10 years since its adoption, a substantive review of the Wetland Policy is due.  The ELC undertook a regulatory evaluation of the Wetland Policy. The overall purpose of this evaluation is to ultimately achieve a regulatory regime that meets Wetland Policy goals, ensuring effective regulation and policy for the management and conservation of Alberta’s wetlands.  The ELC evaluated the key regulatory system components identified in the Wetland Policy, as well as decision-making related to wetland disturbance approvals issued under the Water Act.  The ELC found that many of the key regulatory system components identified in the policy either remain undeveloped or are in need of improvement.  We also found that decision-making could be improved to better implement the mitigation hierarchy, a key principle of the Wetland Policy.  Some highlights of our evaluation are provided below.

We have published the results of our regulatory evaluation, along with our law and policy recommendations, in our newest report entitled Regulatory Evaluation of Alberta’s Wetland Policy Implementation.  There is also a companion document which provides more detail about the Wetland Policy and its regulatory context.

ELC’s Regulatory Evaluation of the Wetland Policy

In order to conduct our regulatory evaluation, the ELC collected information related to the key regulatory system requirements identified in the Wetland Policy.  As well, we gathered application and approval information for regulatory decisions made by Alberta Environment and Protected Areas (AEPA) and the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) in respect of wetland disturbance approval applications pursuant to the Water Act (for the period from January 1 to June 30, 2025).  The ELC also received information around in-lieu fee payments for the period ranging from January 2023 to June 2025 from AEPA.

Key Wetland Policy Principles

The Wetland Policy applies to natural wetlands including bogs, fens, swamps, marshes and shallow open water, and all restored natural wetlands and wetlands constructed for the purposes of wetland replacement.  While ephemeral water bodies are not covered by the policy, they are still subject to the Water Act. There are also indications that the Wetland Policy will no longer be applied to wetlands located on agricultural lands (see Joel Dryden, “Alberta lays out new wetlands rules after months of ‘divisive’ consultation” (December 15, 2025) CBC News online).

The stated goal of the Wetland Policy is to “conserve, restore, protect and manage Alberta’s wetlands to sustain the benefits they provide to the environment, society and economy”. To achieve this goal, the policy identifies four outcomes:

1. Wetlands of the highest value are protected for the long-term benefit of all Albertans.
2. Wetlands and their benefits are conserved and restored in areas where losses have been high.
3. Wetlands are managed by avoiding, minimizing, and if necessary, replacing lost wetland value.
4. Wetland management considers regional context.

Several principles and concepts are adopted in the Wetlands Policy as a means to achieve these goals and outcomes.  Foundational to regulatory decision-making are the concepts of relative wetland value and the mitigation hierarchy.  Relative wetland value provides a tool to assess the value of a wetland looking at its biophysical state and the surrounding context of historic and ongoing wetland loss (rather than just looking at the surface area of a wetland).  The mitigation hierarchy is designed to guide decisions about impacts on wetlands.  The first step of the mitigation hierarchy is wetland avoidance, followed by minimization measures, with replacement as a last resort. The Wetland Policy provides guiding principles around each step of the mitigation hierarchy.

The Wetland Policy also identifies key regulatory system components which are needed for an effective wetland management system.  These are:

1. several knowledge and information systems;
2. performance measures, monitoring and reporting; and
3. stewardship.

ELC’s Evaluation of Regulatory System Components

In order to evaluate the regulatory system components identified in the Wetland Policy, the ELC determined the current status of each requirement and highlighted any areas for improvement. It is noted that limited information is provided about these systems in the Wetland Policy.Rather they are highlighted as system needs for effective wetland management.

The first regulatory system components pertain to knowledge and information needs and include:

• a provincial wetland inventory,
• a provincial wetland value assessment system and tool,
• a certification system for assessment specialists and restoration agencies,
• a wetland database and reporting tool,
• an inventory of wetland restoration opportunities,
• a repository of research priorities and needs, and
• an education and outreach program. 

We found that the first three system needs do exist.  Alberta has a provincial wetland inventory called the Alberta Merged Wetland Inventory (available on GeoDiscover) which is suitable for policy-level decisions but not individual regulatory decisions. The wetland value assessment system and tool have been established (see the Wetland Mitigation Directive and the Wetland Rapid Evaluation Tool, actual and desktop) which we note have not gone uncriticized.  As well, there is a certification system in place for professionals signing off on approval applications as set out in the Professional Practice Standard. 

At least in a public-facing manner, there is not an inventory of wetland restoration opportunities or repository of research priorities and needs.  Nor is there a clearly discernable education and outreach program run by the government (aside from a grade 5 teacher’s guide and some fact sheets).  We note that many non-governmental organizations have taken up the mantle of public education and outreach. 

In terms of a wetland database and reporting tool as described in the Wetland Policy, this does not exist.  Information can be obtained via GeoDiscover, the AER ‘s OneStop Application Query System, the Digital Regulatory Assurance System, the Authorization Viewer, and the Environmental Records Viewer.  However, despite these information sources, much wetland information is not available or difficult to access.  There is an overall lack of accessibility which impedes accountability and transparency around wetland management and decision-making in the province.

The next set of regulatory system components identified in the Wetland Policy are needs for performance measures, monitoring and reporting.  The policy goal to “conserve, restore, protect and manage” is not inherently measurable (unlike a “no net loss” or “net gain” goal).  Thus, there needs to be thresholds and targets set so that progress towards the policy goal can be measured.  While the stated outcomes of the Wetland Policy lend themselves to measurement, there are currently no targets established for these outcomes.  Without the establishment of performance measures, accompanied by monitoring, it is not possible to assess policy efficacy in meeting its goals.  The ELC also found that there has not been regular reporting by the Government of Alberta on the state of our wetlands.

The last regulatory system component identified in the Wetland Policy is stewardship.  We note that there are wetland stewardship activities happening in Alberta.  However, as with education and outreach programs, much of this work is being conducted by non-governmental organizations and the level of governmental support is not clear.  In addition, while a variety of stewardship tools have been enabled by the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA), these lack proper regulatory and policy support for effective implementation.

ELC’s Evaluation of Decision-making and the Mitigation Hierarchy

The key wetland management and decision-making tool in the Wetland Policy is the mitigation hierarchy.  To evaluate the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy in decision-making, we gathered application and approval materials for wetland disturbance applications made to the AER and the AEPA.  We also obtained information about in-lieu fee payments from AEPA.  The ELC reviewed and assessed all these materials with the mitigation hierarchy in mind. 

For evaluating the materials in relation to the avoidance and minimization steps of the mitigation hierarchy, we applied a ranking system.  A ranking of 0 meant that minimal information around the mitigation hierarchy step was provided. A ranking of 2 meant that detailed information was provided.  A ranking of 1 fell between the two. When considering the replacement step of the mitigation hierarchy, we determined whether there a commitment to 100% reclamation, payment of an in-lieu fee or a commitment to permittee-led replacement.

On the avoidance step of the mitigation hierarchy, we found that some applications did discuss alternative siting options and provided detailed justification for why they were unable to avoid a a wetland.  However, most applications essentially indicated that project parameters meant that complete avoidance was not possible (some applications mentioned efforts to move the project footprint or to use existing disturbances).  But overall, there seems to be a tendency to default to minimization and replacement measures rather than avoidance.

To assess what a decision-maker required in terms of evidence of avoidance prior to an approval, the ELC looked to things that might suggest higher scrutiny where there are higher value wetlands involved. For instance, a longer time to decision might suggest higher scrutiny.  However, we found no clear relationship between higher value wetlands and the time to decision for either AER or AEPA. 

We did find that in the AER applications that were received, 42% of decisions had a timeline of zero days to decision and most of those involved D-value wetlands with only a few involving A-value wetlands.  On the other hand, we found no clear relationship between the wetland value and the ELC ranking on avoidance (we would expect better information to be required where there are higher value wetlands involved). Overall, we did find a tendency that applications impacted lower value rather than higher value wetlands.  For example, on the AEPA side the number of D-value wetlands impacted was more than double all other-value wetlands combined.

On the minimization step of the mitigation hierarchy, the ELC looked to information provided around wetland effects, minimization measures and monitoring.  We found that the minimization measures proposed by applicants to both the AEPA and the AER to be very similar.  Typically, the minimization measures were incorporated into approval documents by referencing specific documents provided in the application.  It was also common to see some specific conditions around minimization measures such as sedimentation and erosion control, and wildlife sweeps.  Monitoring requirements were not typically seen in the approvals, and if the application materials discussed monitoring at all, it was typically in the context of post-reclamation.  Based on the application and approval materials, it seems there is an underlying assumption that minimization measures work. However, the ELC’s position is that regular monitoring and reporting requirements should be standard approval conditions in order to test this assumption. 

Although reclamation is considered a minimization measure, we assessed reclamation and replacement together.  Reclamation is required where there is a “temporary” loss of wetland.  Replacement, the last resort in the mitigation hierarchy, is required where there is a permanent loss of wetlands.  We found that the majority of the applications made to the AER considered any loss of wetlands to be temporary, even where that loss is projected to last for several decades.  This begs the question if a loss is projected to last decades, is that truly wetland reclamation or is it in practical terms wetland replacement?  This is important because the Wetland Policy sets replacement ratios which are meant to address the fact that replacement usually results in a lower value wetland and that there is a time lag between the loss and replacement.

In the instances where permanent wetland loss was projected, we found that all the applicants chose in-lieu fee payments rather than permittee-led replacement.  While we were able to obtain information about in-lieu fee payments made, it was more difficult to track what happened to those payments (which can be used for wetland restoration or for non-restorative activities such as research).  We did find that the permanent losses caused by different sectors varied by year but were usually highest from residential, infrastructure, and the oil and gas sectors.

ELC’s Recommendations on Regulatory System Components

The ELC makes several recommendations to address shortcomings in the regulatory system components (further detail is provided in the report).

Knowledge and Information System Needs

1. Complete development of all knowledge and information systems identified in the policy.
2. Review and update existing knowledge and information systems.
3. Establish a Wetland Policy Registry to enhance transparency and accessibility of wetland information.

Performance Measures, Monitoring and Reporting

1. Establish measurable goals for the Wetlands Policy such as “net gain” or “no net loss” of wetlands.
2. Establish performance measures and thresholds for the stated Wetland Policy outcomes.
3. Enhance monitoring and compliance assurance activities. This improves transparency, accountability and compliance with regulatory requirements and alignment with the Wetlands Policy. This must be accompanied by adequate dedication of resources.
4. Annual State of the Wetland Reports which provide public reports on the performance measures and progress toward the policy goal.

Stewardship

1. Support wetland stewardship activities with a government-supported education and outreach program, and sufficient regulatory, policy and funding support to implement the ALSA stewardship tools.

ELC’s Recommendations on Decision-Making and the Mitigation Hierarchy

The ELC also makes several recommendations to improve implementation of the mitigation hierarchy into the regulatory decision-making process (further detail is provided in the report).

1. Integrate wetland management goals, thresholds and targets into regional, municipal and water management planning.
2. Provide clear definitions and guidance on the mitigation hierarchy steps of avoidance, minimization and replacement to establish a primary focus on avoidance (rather than the current tendency toward minimization and replacement).
   • Avoidance: clearly delineate factors to be considered in assessing whether there is sufficient justification for not avoiding wetland impacts. Factors for consideration should include an option to not proceed with the project.
   • Minimization: codify best management practices for minimization measures. Monitor and periodically update to reflect improved scientific and technical knowledge.  
   • Replacement: clearly delineate that replacement is a last resort and not just the most practicable option for allowing the proposed project to proceed.
3. All wetland approvals should be subject to conditions outlining monitoring and reporting requirements throughout the project lifecycle including for a period of time after the commencement of wetland reclamation or proponent-led replacement activities.
4. Replacement activities supported by in-lieu fee payments should only be restorative in nature.
5. Information pertaining to in-lieu fee payments and replacement activities should be publicly accessible as part of the recommended Wetland Policy Registry.
6. Impacts on wetlands that are projected to exceed 10 years should not be categorized as temporary. Impacts of 10 or more years should be considered losses and subject to replacement requirements.  Without a change to this practice, improvements to tracking reclamation commitments are recommended:
   • Reclamation commitments should be clearly identified and outlined in approval documents.
   • The parameters for reclamation – area, relative value, vegetation, soil composition, mapping and so on – should be appended to the approval document rather than incorporating a reclamation plan by reference. There may be a significant passage of time between approval and eventual reclamation requiring careful tracking of original conditions and commitments.
   • The reclamation certificate process must incorporate identification and tracking of wetland reclamation commitments. Develop reclamation criteria for various classes of wetlands and incorporate them into reclamation criteria tools used in the reclamation certificate process. We note that there are reclamation criteria for peatlands, forested lands, native grasslands, and cultivated lands.
7. Establish a wetland bank using the legislative tools provided by ALSA.

---

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT

Your support is vital for stronger environmental legislation. As Alberta’s leading environmental charity, the Environmental Law Centre has served our community for over 40 years, providing objective guidance on crucial legislative changes. Your contribution helps protect our environment for future generations. 

Please support our work: Share, engage and donate to the ELC

Cover Photo by Tyler Butler on Unsplash