Elk (Cervus elaphus) in eastern Kentucky appear to have increased in number since reintroduction in 1997, but rugged landscapes and cryptic elk behavior have precluded use of typical population survey methods to accurately estimate population size. In December 2006, I used forward-looking infrared radiography (FLIR) to survey the elk population in eastern Kentucky. Elk locations identified by FLIR were used to create a landscape based model to estimate the density distribution of elk within a 7,088 km2 core area of the elk restoration zone. FLIR detected 76% of elk groups of < 10 individuals and 100% of elk groups of ≥ 10 individuals. The density of elk was positively associated with the amount of herbaceous area, herbaceous edge, herbaceous area weighted mean patch fractal dimensions, proximity to release sites, the number of elk released at each site and urban core area index, and negatively associated with road density. My model estimated the elk population at 7,001 (SE = 772, 95% CI = 5,488- 8,514) individuals within the core area, 53% of which were < 10 km from release sites. The predicted elk distribution pattern and abundance estimate derived from this model will be important for wildlife managers in successfully managing the Kentucky elk population.

After many decades of being considered useless and often destroyed wetlands have become valued for the many functions they provide. To make informed wetland management decisions biologists have to develop practical, rapid, and inexpensive ways to assess biological conditions and functions. Ideally these assessment methods have to measure more than one attribute of the wetland to represent the overall condition of the biological community. For this project I conducted field assessments at mitigation sites in Pembroke Pines, Florida, to see how the newest method used in the State of Florida, the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM), compared to the older Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), and a Wildlife Survey (WS). The assessments determined at what level the mitigation sites of this study functioned, and were than repeated over a thirteen month period to account for seasonal fluctuations. For each assessment method a worksheet was completed, which along with available background information for the sites, was used to determine the value, and function provided by the wetlands. The three methods were then compared using eleven evaluation criteria I developed. Based on my results UMAM was the best assessment method tested saving the most acreage while integrating risk factors and time lag.