WILDLIFE MOVEMENT STUDY This study was undertaken by Neil Gilson and Lois Pittway of the University of Calgary in 1996. Complete copies of the study including maps are available for $15 each. Contact info@crossconservation.org. The primary purpose of the Ann and Sandy Cross Conservation Area is to conserve wildlife and wildlife habitat in perpetuity. As the City of Calgary continues to grow and the pressure for country residential development increases, the ability of the Conservation Area to achieve this purpose as a protected area will be diminished. Many wildlife species using the Conservation Area have ranges that extend beyond the Conservation Area boundaries. These wildlife species cannot be sustained on, or by, the Conservation Area alone. Neighboring habitat may become too small and too isolated to sustain populations of wildlife or to allow safe travel to and from the Conservation Area. In order to contribute to wildlife viability and to provide for preservation in the future it is necessary for the Conservation Area to identify and protect important travel routes and habitat for wildlife. The existence of established wildlife movement patterns in the study area was verified through a track count survey and wildlife habitat analysis, and supported by a historical perspective through personal communication with local sources. Suggestions for a network of protected spaces and buffer zones linked by wildlife corridors are justified through reference to ecological planning theory and are exemplified by the existing network of movement and habitat found within the study region. Wildlife movements were concentrated along riparian corridors and between areas of undeveloped habitat. Most movement during the course of this study was found to the north and west of the Area. A historical perspective of wildlife movement suggests that migration to the south-southeast is also important. Protected buffer zones around the Conservation Area will help prevent the negative influences of development from encroaching onto the Area, and protected wildlife corridors will allow the long-term flow of native animal and plant species to and from the Area. Human use within protected buffer zones and corridors should be limited to the current type and level of use. This appears to be sufficient to sustain wildlife populations at the present time. Buffer zones and corridors could possibly be used as green spaces surrounding residential developments and feature sensitively placed trails for non-motorized recreational use as well as serving as protected spaces. This multiple use concept would require careful planning and ample space to minimize human-wildlife disturbances. Options exist for country residential development that address planning for wildlife and green spaces before development is approved. The use of policies and planning concepts such as perpetual easements, transfer of development rights, bonusing, clustering, and bareland condominiums are ways to achieve more environmentally sensitive development patterns around the Conservation Area. The protected buffer zones and wildlife corridors proposed by this study are based on an analysis of optimal wildlife habitat for ungulates and existing wildlife movement patterns. Buffer zones are recommended for all four sides of the Conservation Area and a network of corridors is proposed linking to habitat regions to the north, west and south of the Area. Many corridors follow riparian valleys and all are linked to other potentially important areas of habitat including sources of water and areas of roadless and primarily undeveloped tracts of land. Large areas of grassland may fall outside of the habitat parameters used by this study but may be valuable to other wildlife species or in their own right. These areas should be evaluated separately as to their ecological importance. The network of wild areas described in this study cannot be sustained without a regional planning context that supports a similar network. The methodology followed in this study would be simple and economical to apply to the greater region to serve as a basis for ecological planning. Action taken towards this goal in the near future is likely the only way to avoid a similar fate to that of Nose Hill and Fish Creek Parks where attempts to protect wildlife movement and environmental integrity were not considered until after these areas were surrounded by urban development.