Large, infrequent disturbances (LIDs) can have significant impacts yet seld
om are included in management plans. Although this neglect may stem from re
lative unfamiliarity with a kind of event that rarely occurs in the experie
nce or jurisdiction of individual managers, it may also reflect the assumpt
ion that LIDs are so large and powerful as to be beyond the ability of mana
gers to affect. However, some LIDs can be affected by management, and for m
any of those that cannot be affected, the resilience or recovery of the sys
tem disrupted by the disturbance can be influenced to meet management goals
. Such results can be achieved through advanced planning that allows for LI
Ds, whether caused by natural events, human activities, or a combination of
the two. Management plans for LIDs may adopt a variety of goals, depending
on the nature of the system and the nature of the anticipated disturbance
regime. Managers can choose to influence (a) the system prior to the distur
bance, (b) the disturbance itself, (c) the system after the disturbance, or
(d) the recovery process. Prior to the disturbance, the system can be mana
ged in ways that alter its vulnerability or change how it will respond to a
disturbance. The disturbance can be managed through no action, preventive
measures, or manipulations that can affect the intensity or frequency of th
e disturbance. Recovery efforts can focus on either managing the state of t
he system immediately after the disturbance or managing the ongoing process
of recovery. This review of the management implications of LIDs suggests t
hat management actions should be tailored to particular disturbance charact
eristics and management goals. Management actions should foster survival of
residuals and spatial heterogeneity that promote the desired recovery patt
ern and process. Most importantly, however, management plans need to recogn
ize LIDs and include the potential for such disturbances to occur.