The Woodland Caribou has been listed as a threatened species both federally under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and provincially under the Wildlife Act for decades. The federal government released its Scientific Review for the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou, Boreal Populations in 2008 (which was updated in 2011). In 2020, the federal and Alberta governments entered into the Agreement for the conservation and recovery of the woodland caribou in Alberta pursuant to section 11 of SARA (for more on section 11 agreements, see ELC’s blog post here).
The goal of the Section 11 Agreement is to recover Alberta’s caribou populations to a naturally self-sustaining status and to achieve and maintain a minimum of 65% undisturbed caribou habitat. To achieve this goal, the agreement sets out a variety of recovery measures to be taken by both governments. This includes a commitment by the government of Alberta to develop and implement sub-regional plans for eleven identified ranges by 2025. To date, there are sub-regional plans in place for the Cold Lake, Bistcho and Upper Smoky sub-regions (for more detail on these plans, see ELC’s blog posts here and here).In July, the provincial government released draft plans for the Caribou Mountains sub-region and the Red Earth sub-region. In August, the government released a draft plan for the Berland sub-region.
Like the sub-regional plans encompassing caribou ranges developed to date, the draft Caribou Mountains, Red Earth and Berland sub-regional plans are not focused solely on caribou recovery but rather take a multi-use approach to planning within the identified sub-regions where caribou recovery is only one of many considerations. Notably, the government’s goal to double oil and gas production is prominent in all three draft plans. Although each of the plans set out detailed requirements and restrictions on a sector-by-sector basis, it is not clear that all of these are to be incorporated as binding and legally enforceable regulatory details which may undermine the strength and enforceability of the plans. Further, the plans do not identify benchmarks of maintenance of undisturbed habitat, nor model future development scenarios and the undisturbed habitat implications of those scenarios. For ease of discussion, this blog will refer to the draft sub-regional plans as “caribou plans” although it seems a bit of a misnomer given that the draft plans are essentially multi-use planning documents that happen to encompass caribou habitat rather than caribou recovery plans.
The legal framework for caribou plans in Alberta
The development and implementation of caribou plans is being done under the framework provided by the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA). One of the purposes of ALSA is to enable regional planning across private and public lands throughout Alberta. The province is divided into 7 regions and regional plans have been completed for 2 regions: the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP) and the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP).
Once a regional plan is in place, sub-regional plans may be developed for specific portions of a region or to address issue-specific concerns within a region. Recent amendments to ALSA – albeit not yet in force – are set out in Bill 31: Red Tape Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2026. These amendments create new provisions that allow for the development of standalone sub-regional or issue-specific plans in the event that an overarching regional plan has not been developed.
The caribou plans are being created as ALSA sub-regional plans, either under existing regional plans or as standalone plans. The sub-regional plans set out policy guidance for decision-making around land use within the sub-region. As well, portions of the sub-regional plans include regulatory details which are legally enforceable as opposed to merely providing policy guidance. It is important to note that the caribou plans developed to date (as well as the draft Caribou Mountains, Red Earth and Berland sub-regional plans) are not focused solely on caribou recovery but rather take a multi-use approach to planning within the identified caribou sub-regions where caribou recovery is only one of many considerations.
Prior to the enactment of ALSA in 2009, several integrated resource plans (IRPs) were developed for portions of the province (some of which go back decades). Each of the draft sub-regional plans indicate that overlapping IRPs are being reviewed alongside sub-regional plan development, and may be rescinded or incorporated into the sub-regional plans. It is also indicated that, in some instances, direction contained in the IRPs may be addressed through other policy instruments.
The Caribou Mountains, the Red Earth and the Berland sub-regional plans
The Caribou Mountains sub-regional plan (CM Plan), the Red Earth sub-regional plan (RE Plan) and the Berland sub-regional plan (BL Plan) are very similar in structure and content. Each plan has an introduction, a description of the sub-region, and a description of approaches to manage activities within the sub-region. Each plan also has 3 appendices setting out permitted activities, monitoring indicators and caribou biophysical habitat criteria. This blog post reviews the key elements of the plans on a topical basis rather than providing an individual review of each plan. Key differences are highlighted.
Applicability of the Caribou Mountains sub-regional plan
Because there is no applicable regional plan in place, the CM Plan will be a standalone plan until such time a regional plan is in place. The area covered by the CM Plan includes the ranges of the Caribou Mountains and Yates Boreal populations of Woodland Caribou. The application of the CM Plan is limited to Crown lands managed under the Public Lands Act (i.e. it does not direct activities on the white area of the province or private lands).
Applicability of the Red Earth sub-regional plan
The RE Plan will be a sub-regional plan under the LARP with its legally binding regulatory details being incorporated into the LARP. The area covered by the RE Plan encompasses almost 92% of the range of the Red Earth Woodland Caribou herd. The application of the RE Plan does not direct activities on private lands (i.e. it only applies to Crown lands managed under the Public Lands Act). The RE Plan is also inapplicable to the area covered by the Moose Lake Access Management Plan and to the Surface Mineable Oilsands Scheme Approvals that are identified in Figure 3 of the RE Plan.
Applicability of the Berland sub-regional plan
Because there is no applicable regional plan in place, the BL Plan will be a standalone plan until such time a regional plan is in place. The area covered by the BL Plan includes the ranges of the À La Pêche and Little Smoky Woodland Caribou populations. The application of the BL Plan is limited to Crown lands managed under the Public Lands Act (i.e. it does not apply to private lands within the sub-region).
Vision and Strategic Outcomes
The vision set out in both the CM Plan and the RE Plan is that the sub-region “allows people, communities and nature to thrive together through a diverse economy and working landscape, while sustaining critical habitats for multiple species” and that the sub-region’s “forests, wetlands and wildlife allow residents to enjoy recreation, cultural activities and traditional land uses for current and future generations” [CM Plan page 1; RE Plan page 1]. The vision set out in the BL Plan is that “through responsible land management, the Berland sub-region supports healthy ecosystems, biodiversity, self-sustaining caribou populations, protects the rights by Indigenous peoples, and facilitates environmentally responsible economic opportunities and vibrant local communities” [page 1].
All three plans state the same three strategic outcomes [page 1 of each plan]:
- supporting economic opportunities that provide benefits to local municipalities, Indigenous peoples, and all Albertans;
- consolidate and manage development over time to support landscape intactness and naturally self-sustaining plant and wildlife populations with a focus on species at risk; and
- support recreational, cultural, and traditional land uses, including the practice of constitutionally recognized rights in the sub-region, for the benefit of local peoples, Indigenous peoples, and all Albertans.
Each of the plans states that there is an ultimate goal of landscape intactness within caribou habitat of 65% at 100 years. The intention is to evaluate and review the plans every 5 and 10 years to adjust management actions or other plan elements to ensure that landscape intactness continues to improve over time.
All three plans also express the intention to manage the sub-regions as working landscapes allowing for continued forestry, agricultural, oil and gas and other activities. As well, all of the plans expressly state the government’s goal to double oil and gas production stating that “approaches in this plan enable growth of the energy industry” and support “a reduction in the total amount of energy-related disturbance by requiring timely restoration of footprint that is no longer in use”.
Go Zones and Nature-First Zones
The three plans adopt a zonation approach to directing activities within the sub-region with a “go zone” and a “nature-first zone”. Existing parks and protected areas are not part of the zones described in the plans. Although the plans do not expressly state the percentage of land dedicated to each zone, each plan includes a planning zone map which indicates that most of each plan area falls into the “go zone” [see planning zone maps at CM Plan page 9; RE Plan page 10; BL Plan page 9].
The go zone is meant to “support a working landscape while minimizing overall footprint” and “existing policy and requirements continue to apply, and a few new requirements are added to support greater integrated land management”. Within the go zone is an area designated as “Compartment A” which has a stated outcome of achieving “the greatest improvement in landscape intactness as soon as possible within habitat for species at risk and other sensitive habitats (caribou range, bison range and key wildlife biodiversity zones)” with requirements “focused on early restoration, footprint management and ensuring development supports landscape intactness”.
The nature first zone is meant to “prioritize conservation and ecosystem services with opportunities for traditional land uses, outdoor recreation, habitat restoration and habitat enhancement” and is intended to help achieve intact landscape within caribou and wood bison ranges. In the nature first zones, specific requirements may apply to new industrial and commercial activities.
In both the CM Plan and RE Plan, it is stated that the nature first areas avoid overlap with existing energy surface tenure agreement and forest management areas. Within the nature first areas, activities under formal dispositions resulting in new surface dispositions will not be permitted (except for roads) and no new surface tenure is to be issued. These restrictions are not applied to the nature first area of the BL Plan.
Activity Management
Details about management of activities are set out in Part 3 of the plans on a sector-by-sector basis: access management, energy (in the BL Plan the sector is described as “well-based energy and minerals”), linear features (i.e. pipelines, transmission lines and seismic lines), forestry, mitigation of wildfire risks, surface material, coal (only in the BL Plan), peat, recreation and tourism, grazing, legacy seismic lines and other disturbances. These are summarised in Appendix A.
Appendix A for both the CM Plan and the RE Plan is:
For the BL Plan, Appendix A is:
Restoration
All three plans indicate that “restoration of the human footprint is central to achieving the plan’s outcomes” and, as such, the plans include requirements to manage the pace, scale and outcome of restoration. Three levels of restoration are identified in the plans:
- Level 1: applies to temporary disturbances – restoration requires re-establishment of vegetation to pre-disturbance, ecosystem or wetland;
- Level 2: applies to formal dispositions – restoration requires same as Level 1 but with limited flexibility on wetland restoration; and
- Level 3: applies to most surface material and surface mining dispositions -restoration requires re-establishment of site to a plant community found in the natural sub-region, end pit lakes are permitted with approval.
According to the plans, Restoration Level 1 is the most common requirement because that is the most common type of disturbance whereas Restoration Levels 2 and 3 apply to disturbances with larger impacts that require additional flexibility to achieve restoration and to support landscape intactness. More detail about restoration is found in Part 3 of the CM Plan, the RE Plan and the BL Plan. The stated outcomes of restoration are to “support ongoing resource development opportunities enabled by a restored landscape” and to “promote caribou habitat intactness for healthy caribou herds”.
For all restoration levels, if caribou biophysical habitat existed at a site before disturbance, then restoration treatments must ensure the site can provide caribou biophysical habitat in the future. Caribou biophysical habitat is defined in the plans as:
Habitat containing characteristics required by boreal caribou (Rangifer tarandus) to carry out life processes necessary for survival and recovery within caribou ranges in Alberta as identified through the methodology and classification system published by the relevant Department, as amended, or replaced from time to time.
Appendix C of the CM Plan, the RE Plan and the BL Plan set out a bit more detail about caribou biophysical habitat criteria. As per Appendix C of the plans, caribou biophysical habitat includes mature to old-growth forests, muskegs and peatlands that provide essential, nutritional lichen forage, security from predators and favourable snow conditions. It is noted that Appendix C of all three plans indicate that caribou biophysical habitat criteria are currently being used to guide decisions about restoration in caribou range and that these criteria will be published by Alberta Environment and Protected Areas and be included in other existing standards. There is no indication as to when these detailed caribou biophysical habitat criteria will be published.
Regulatory Details
As mentioned, ALSA regional and sub-regional plans primarily set regional goals and provide policy guidance to Alberta’s decision-makers. However, the portions of the plans set out as regulatory details are legally binding.
The regulatory details for the CM Plan, RE Plan and the BL Plan have not been released. However, we note that each of the draft plans identify via footnotes “requirements that will be directly applied in decision-making, is intended to be implemented as a binding rule, and used by decision-makers to approve or deny activities”, as “binding rule[s] implemented through the Regulator” or similar language. We presume that these are the only requirements that are meant to form the regulatory details but that intention is not expressly stated in the draft plans. Those requirements that are expressly identified as being intended as binding are summarized below:
- Access management
- Class I roads are permitted except when needed for a provincial highway. A proposed primary road may only be a Class II to Class IV road, and must not result in the primary road network exceeding the road length thresholds established for each zone. [see section 3: CM Plan page 14, RE Plan page 15, BL Plan page 14]
- Road dispositions can only be renewed if there is an existing/active disposition that requires the road to be maintained. At the end of life of a disposition for an activity, its associated access must be removed. [see section 5: CM Plan page 14, RE Plan page 15, BL Plan page 14]
- Opportunities for new primary roads can be created through restoration of existing formal dispositions or other footprint. [see section 6: CM Plan page 15, RE Plan pages 15 to 16, BL Plan pages 14 to 15]
- Minimize the impact of proposed roads in caribou range. Proposed formal disposition roads and future highways should be located outside caribou range if a suitable alternate route exists; and proposed primary roads and provincial highways should avoid bisecting a caribou range. If these cannot be met, then a proposed road within caribou range may be a Class III to Class IV road. [see section 8: CM Plan page 16, RE Plan page 17, BL Plan page 16]
- Energy [CM Plan and RE Plan only]
- Surface disturbance for activities within the nature first zone will only be permitted for projects areas associated with Crown mineral agreements issued prior to the plan coming into force. There are exemptions for access roads to an approved project area, and for activities directly related for operations of a project area related to the existing tenure agreements. [see section 9: CM Plan page 19, RE Plan pages 19 to 20]
- Targets for area of inactive well pads to be restored are set for Compartment A and nature first zones [Table 3: CM Plan page 22, RE Plan page 22]
- Well-based energy and minerals [BL Plan only]
- No new surface disturbance will be permitted to access Crown mineral agreements issued after the plan comes into effect on lands identified as nature first zones where all subsurface mineral rights were previously undisposed. [see section 9: pages 18 to 19]
- Targets for area of inactive well pads to be restored are set for Compartment A and nature first zones [Table 3: page 20]
- Linear features
- New pipeline dispositions must meet Restoration Level 1 requirements within 5 years of completing construction [see section 12: CM Plan page 24, RE Plan page 23, not identified in BL Plan as binding]
- An active pipeline disposition must meet Restoration Level 1 requirements within 20 years of the sub-regional plan coming into force [see section 12: CM Plan page 24, RE Plan page 23, not identified in BL Plan as binding]
- Where two or more adjacent pipeline dispositions occur in Compartment A, disposition holders must coordinate to restore one kilometer of the vegetation corridor every 10-kilometer length of the pipeline disposition areas. [see section 13: CM Plan page 24, RE Plan 2, BL Plan page 23]
- Forestry
- Forest management plans without an approved Harvest Timing Series must be updated within 3 years of the plan coming into force. Note that the Harvest Timing Series is part of an overall approach to consolidating harvest areas in caribou range via aggregated harvesting in defined areas over time. [see section 17: CM Plan page 27, RE Plan page 27; and see section 16: BL Plan page 26]
- Surface materials
- New surface material dispositions may be permitted within Compartment A if in alignment with footprint thresholds. [see section 27: CM Plan page 36, RE Plan page 36, BL Plan page 35]
There are many detailed requirements addressing activities on a sector-by-sector basis within each of the three plans that are not expressly identified as intended to be binding and, as such, it is not clear whether or not all of these details will form part of the regulatory details once the plans are approved and implemented. This includes significant aspects of the plans such as Appendix A which lists the activities which are or are not permitted in each zone; requirements to minimize disturbance from seismic exploration (section 15 CM Plan, RE Plan and BL Plan); requirements around harvest timing series implementation and restoration of temporary forestry footprint (sections 18 and 20 CM Plan and RE Plan; sections 17 and 19 BL Plan); and requirements for restoration levels and certainty of restoration outcomes (sections 25 and 26 CM Plan, RE Plan and BL Plan).
ELC’s comments on the sub-regional plans
Although the sub-regional plans have been developed as a means of fulfilling caribou recovery planning requirements, the focus is more on managing the sub-regions as working landscapes allowing for continued industrial activities. The government’s goal to double oil and gas production is prominent within each of the plans. While each plan states an ultimate goal of landscape intactness within caribou habitat of 65% at 100 years, that goal features much less prominently than the economic goals. It leads one to wonder whether this is merely more of the same? Are the processes and decision-making that led to loss and fragmentation of caribou habitat just being further entrenched with these plans?
The federal government has provided suggested range plan content in its Woodland caribou, boreal population: range plan guidance document (and which Alberta agreed to follow in developing sub-regional plans in the Section 11 Agreement) . Suggested content includes performance indicators for implementation to maintain and restore caribou habitat to a minimum of 65 of the range. The draft sub-regional plans fail to identify benchmarks for habitat maintenance and restoration. There is merely an assertion of the goal of landscape intactness within caribou habitat of 65% at 100 years. There is no modeling of future development scenarios and the undisturbed habitat implications of those scenarios. This is not surprising as the range plans, through “go-zones”, grandfathered developments and various sector-based exemptions in “nature first” zones, appear to have little intention of maintaining undisturbed habitat for the foreseeable future.
Although each of the plans set out detailed requirements and restrictions on a sector-by-sector basis, it seems that many of these requirements are not destined to be incorporated as regulatory details. This includes many provisions restricting activities within the sub-region and requiring restoration activities. As discussed, the plans only specifically highlight a few provisions as being intended to be binding. If this is the case, then the bulk of the sub-regional plan requirements will not be strictly legally binding and this will significantly undermine the strength and enforceability of the sub-regional plans. However, one would hope that the requirements will still be followed closely by decision-makers and incorporated as conditions into statutory authorizations and as part of the Master Schedule of Standards and Conditions even if not strictly legally binding. It is the ELC’s recommendation that all the sector-by-sector requirements set out in the plans, as well as Appendix A of each plan, be adopted as regulatory details rather than having these be discretionary. To be fair, we do not have a draft of the regulatory details and perhaps this is the intention (although based on the draft plans, it does not seem to be the case).
There are opportunities to attend virtual presentations in September, as well as opportunities to submit written feedback on the draft plans until October 26th (register or submit for Caribou Mountains here and for Red Earth here). For the Berland sub-region, there are virtual presentations scheduled for September and October and written feedback may be submitted until November 12th (register or submit here).
Cover Photo: “Woodland Caribou” by Just a Prairie Boy, Flickr, March 13, 2010. Used under Creative Commons licence.