A Collaborative Adaptive
Management Plan
for the
CLEMSON EXPERIMENTAL FOREST
TRAIL SYSTEM
August 2000
School of
Natural Resources
Clemson
University
Clemson, South
Carolina
This document may be cited
as:
Wood, G. W., S. K. Cox, and
S. E. Perry. 2000. A collaborative adaptive management plan for the Clemson
Experimental Forest Trail System. Clemson Univ., School of Natural Resources,
Clemson, S.C. 71 pp. plus appendices.
CHAPTER 1. PHILOSOPHY,
ISSUE, and GOAL
.. 1
Historical Development
. 10
Users and Uses 10
Trail Development
.. 11
CHAPTER 4. THE CUEF TRAIL SYSTEM
PART II. TRAIL
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
20
CHAPTER
5. TRAIL DESIGN / RE-DESIGN
.. 20
Design
With Inherent Values
22
Design/Re-design Considerations for
Ecosystem Protection
. 24
Issaqueena Area
..
25
Plant Communities .
27
Effects on Snags
.. 28
General
. 28
State or Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered
Species . 29
Highway Situations . 30
Trail Hazards .. 30
Trail Traffic . 30
Trailhead Location and
Design
. 31
Fants Grove Area 31
Issaqueena Area .. 32
Todds Creek 33
Event Permits
.. 41
Annual Family and Individual User Permits
41
CHAPTER 7. TRAIL MAINTENANCE . 43
Determination of Maintenance Needs
. 43
Accomplishing Trail Maintenance 44
CEF Management Crew .. 44
Volunteer Groups 44
University Student Labor 44
Trail
Tread
45
Stream
Crossings
. 46
Signage .. 47
Litter Control 47
CHAPTER 8. GUIDELINES FOR VOLUNTEER ASSISTANCE IN
TRAIL
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE
.. 49
PART III. TRAIL
SYSTEM MONITORING
51
CHAPTER 9. ECOSYSTEM
RESPONSES
. 51
Generalized Annual Surveys . 52
Water Bar Functionality 54
Site Specific Surveys 54
Page
Monitoring for Sediment Loading . 57
Monitoring for Potentially Pathogenic Organisms .. 58
CHAPTER
10. MONITORING TRAIL USE AND
Monitoring Trail Use and Use Intensities .. 60
Windshield-Distributed Questionnaires 60
Personal Interviews .. 61
Trail Use and Users .. 61
PART IV. TRAIL SYSTEM
RESEARCH
. 63
CHAPTER 11. ECOSYSTEM RESPONSE STUDIES . 63
Trail Tread and Stream Crossings
.. 64
CHAPTER 12. STUDIES OF
TRAIL SYSTEM USERS
Trail System Uses and Use Intensities ... 66
PART V. IMPLEMENTATION OF COLLABORATIVE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 67
CHAPTER 13. ORGANISING AND INITIATING THE PROCESS .. 67
Page
Management, Monitoring, and Research Committee 68
Interdisciplinary Team of Scientists . 69
Legislative mandates for public involvement may have constituted the most dramatic shift that has occurred in natural resource management paradigms in this century. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 required all federal agencies to inform the public and accept public review comment on every proposed federal action that might significantly affect the environment. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 simply enlarged on these requirements for the management of the national forests and rangelands.
These legislative mandates originated in the philosophical heart of democracy. A democracy is a group of people with a deep, abiding fear of being overwhelmed by its government. For the past three decades, American government agencies have assumed that information freely given to the citizenry would result in an informed consent to proceed. In matters of natural resource management, that assumption rarely has been true, and the road to implementation never has been smooth.
The process for developing
the Clemson Experimental Forest Trails Plan has taken a different approach to
planning. Three principles have guided this approach. First, in a democracy, the citizens need to be empowered to participate in the decision-making
process. Citizens are the owners of the public lands, and they are the
clients of the managers and scientists whom they have employed to manage and
study these lands[1]. On the
other hand, as owners, employers and land-users, the citizens have an incumbent
responsibility for informed decision-making.
Second, intelligent conservation planning and implementation can be performed
only by informed people. Therefore, the communications among citizens,
managers, and scientists must result in each group learning from all the
others. Citizens can only begin making good decisions when they are objectively
informed. Scientists and managers only can intelligently guide that
decision-making when they understand the perspectives and values of the
citizens. Scientists and managers simply dictating to the citizens what is best
is not democratic process. Recent history has demonstrated the kinds of revolts
that occur when this approach is used. Conversely, conservation decision-making
based largely on emotion and loudness of outcry by the citizens has flirted
with disasters in both conservation and economics.
Finally, all conservation planning has to be guided
by a land ethic. In the social context, ethics are aimed at harmonizing the
behaviors among people so that interactions do not destabilize relationships
and place the future in jeopardy. A land ethic guides human behaviors toward
the land so that current use of natural resources does not place in jeopardy
the future health of the ecosystems upon which we depend.
Land ethicist Aldo Leopold
wrote in his environmental cornerstone essay The Land Ethic[2]:
Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. A land ethic is not
possible without an ecological conscience,
and an ecological conscience is not possible without ecological awareness. Objective, grassroots planning for
conservation raises awareness, informs the conscience, and seeks harmony
between the land and those who use it, as well as among the users.
The demands for recreational
opportunities on public forestlands have grown rapidly throughout the nation
for the past half-century. That demand was traditionally dominated by hunting
and fishing interests. Tourism and non-consumptive uses were primarily
concentrated on public parklands, most of which prohibited hunting. Whereas in
the earliest days of park establishment, these parklands were seen as the
pleasuring grounds for the citizenry, today, almost all public lands are to
some extent viewed in this context. Not only do non-consumptive users outnumber
consumptive users, also the array of users has increased substantially.
Recreational trail-users compose one of the groups that has increased the most
in size and array of uses.
The need for the preservation of trails of historical significance, and the establishment and maintenance of other trails for recreation, as well as utilitarian purposes, has always been recognized as important by most land management agencies. However, in the last two decades, demands for trails for hiking, biking, off-highway vehicles, skiing, and horseback riding have grown dramatically. This growth has resulted in increasingly intensified user conflicts, and in many cases, in inappropriate impacts on the land.
The most fundamental issue is the need to create
and manage trail systems that fit use to the capacity of the land to
accommodate that use, thus harmonizing users with the land. Furthermore, the
design and management of trail systems of the future must seek harmony among
trail-users as most trails will have to accommodate shared-use.
The specific issue for the Clemson Experimental Forest (CEF) is that it
has not been immune to the dramatic increase in demands for recreational
trails. One of the provisions in the deeds that Clemson University holds on
these lands is that they be managed for public purposes which has since been
construed to mean multiple-use. Until the late-1980s, recreational trails were
not considered to be a significant part of the array of uses. However, it is
possible, even probable, that trail-use by horse and mountain bike enthusiasts
has dominated the recreational use of the CEF in the 1990s.
This change has paralleled
similar changes on state and federal forestlands throughout South Carolina. As
South Carolinas land grant university, it seems incumbent upon Clemson to lead
the way in developing methods for the integration of goals for recreational
trails into the management of forests and their wide array of uses.
Furthermore, implementation of a trails management strategy that inseparably
integrates management, monitoring and research should serve the education and
research purposes of the CEF.
1. Provide educational and research opportunities for the study of recreational trail management on the CEF.
6. Provide a conceptual model for design, maintenance, and regulation of a recreational trail system that might be applied to other public lands.
Three documents have
provided the basis for this brief account of the background on the CEF. In
1983, the Land-Utilization Committee of Clemson University[3]
published Clemson Experimental Forest
Present Use and Best Use. In 1984, The
Clemson Experimental Forest - Its First
Fifty Years was prepared by Robert T. Sorrells[4].
The third document was the Long-Range
Plan for the Clemson Experimental Forest[5]
as approved by the faculty of the Department of Forestry in 1990.
Sorrells account of the origins and development of the CEF impresses the reader with how callous it would be for anyone to take for granted the existence and availability of this forest. Unquestionably, without the fathering by Dr. George Aull, the CEF would not exist. Dr. Aull was a visionary, and a man of missionary zeal.
In the early 1930s, the New Deal of the Roosevelt Administration devised a host of natural and agricultural resource based agencies to improve the state of the national economy. In this national program, Aull saw the opportunity to improve the state of the impoverished people and degraded lands surrounding Clemson College. Against the odds of bureaucrats and bureaucratic red tape, and the waxing and waning support of college administrators and state politicians, Aull was steadfast in his commitment to a vision of what could be. A land economist himself, he saw clearly the relationship between poor people and poor land. He understood that intervention was required to heal and restore soils degraded by over-cropping with cotton. He understood that the relationship between people and land had to be redefined.
Aulls initial proposal for federal funding in 1933 was titled Clemson College Community Conservation Project, an appropriate title as it addressed the problems of both people and land. Initial work began in 1934 with the hiring of a work force of 20 men, but it would eventually grow to include 1500 men. The Land Use Area stretched eight miles to the north and eight miles to the south of the campus and eventually combined 300 purchased parcels that totaled 29,665 ac. The purchase price was $13.00 per acre.
Project workers cleared stands of low-grade timber, built fire lanes, and planted pine and hardwood seedlings. Two Clemson College engineers were employed to design and build the dam to create Lake Issaqueena. In the period of the mid- to late 1930s, 15,000 ac of mostly worn out farmland were planted in trees. In addition, a fish hatchery was established and Lake Issaqueena was stocked with fish. Two fire towers, a number of recreational facilities, roads, and bridges also were constructed on the Forest.
Through these years, the Land Use Area was federally owned and administered. In 1939, Clemson entered into a lease agreement with the federal government that designated the College as administratively responsible for the project.
World War II diverted the attention of people from land reclamation and conservation to the immediate needs of a nation embedded in global warfare. Young men were leaving Clemson College, a military school, to go to war. Clemson also contributed a 135-acre area and Lake Issaqueena to be used as a practice bombing range in support of the war effort. The Forest that had been the object of so much attention went unattended during the war years.
In 1946, and with the War over, Mr. Norbert Goebel, was named by the president of Clemson to be the first forest manager of the Land Use Area. Dr. Koloman Lehotsky, a European- and American-educated forester, joined the Clemson faculty as a professor of forestry in 1947. Goebel and Lehotsky took the Land Use Area on to a management and policy path that lead to the Clemson Experimental Forest.
Through the efforts of U.S. senators Charles Daniel and Strom Thurmond, the Land Use Area was deeded to Clemson College in 1954. This was a major stroke for the
University even though some of the administrative strokers showed significant timidity in the process.
While the deed acquisition was a major policy event in the 1950s, the proposal by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build Lake Hartwell would reshape, not only the boundaries of the Forest, but also its values. A large portion of the Forest fell within the project boundaries as surveyed by the Corps. About this time Mr. Marlin Bruner was hired to assist Goebel in the new management challenge. The Corps allowed the managers to sell as much timber as they could get harvested before clearing for the lake began. The College was compensated for the unharvested timber. Over $167,000 worth of timber was sold, and the Corps compensated Clemson for an additional $73,000.
In 1956, the complexion of forestry at Clemson changed to the direction that it still follows today. The Department of Forestry was formed in the College of Agriculture with Dr. Lehotsky as the department head. The position of forest manager of the Land Use Area was passed to Mr. Bruner. The Forest became a primary feature of the natural resource education and research processes at Clemson.
In late 1976, Dr. Bob Allen, who had succeeded Dr. Lehotsky as department head, expanded the vision of the Forest as an educational and research resource. He requested that the Land Utilization Committee explore the possibility of how to best develop the overall management of the Forest in such a way that management is a research project in itself. The response to this request was the Management Alternatives Research Project (MARP) developed under the leadership of Mr. Larry Reamer, Forest Director. It was completed in 1978 and remains the primary guideline for the management of the Forest.
The MARP objectives are:
(1) to measure the biological, economic, and social responses to the effects of forest cultural practices;
(2) to interpret those responses in terms of the impacts on the environment, commerce, and society;
(3) to develop norms against which regional forest management can measure itself; and
(4) to maintain diverse forest conditions for the Universitys teaching and research programs.
The image of the Forest that is sometimes derived from descriptions of MARP as dividing the Forest into three forests may not be accurate. MARP has three management scenarios: a) maximized profits from timber production, b) multiple-use where revenues are one of many returns from the forest, and c) protection of aesthetic, environmental and cultural values where no immediate economic return is realized. These treatment areas are each about 1000 ac in size. There are two areas of each treatment (six areas) on the North Forest and two areas of each treatment (six areas) on the South Forest.
According to the Long-Range
Plan5 for the CEF, the forest contains 17,482 acres. Research and
teaching are the primary uses of 61% and 7%, respectively, of this acreage.
However, the secondary uses of these acreages must also be considered when
picturing the complex use of these lands. For example, 41% of the primarily
research acreage is also used for teaching as one of the secondary uses.
Noteworthy is that while only 290 ac (1.6%) of the forest are devoted to
recreation as primary use, 93% of the forest is available for recreation as a secondary
use. The Long-Range Plan reveals 14 categories of uses and their complex
interactions on the Forest. The cross-tabulation of these uses is shown in
Table 1.
In 1990, the Department of
Forestry envisioned a CEF that would be committed to education, research, and
management demonstration. This vision was guided by MARP. Under the MARP plan 12,250 ac were devoted
to long-term (>10 years to <300 years) teaching, research, and
demonstration projects. In this area, timber rotations ranged from 35 to 100
years in length. This acreage also included areas of primary ecological or
historical significance (752ac).
An additional 2,760 ac were
blocked for short-term (<10 years) use for teaching, research, and
demonstration. The remaining 2,422acres were unassigned for a priority use in
1990, but remained listed as reserve lands for future teaching and research
projects.
The goals for the CEF as
stated in the Long-Range Plan were clearly aimed at education, research and demonstration
in the multiple-use management of forest systems. These goals were in alignment
with all of the legislative policy on the management of the federal forest and
rangelands of the nation. Furthermore, they clearly served the primary mandates
for all land grant universities: education, research, and extension.
Historical Development[6]
Users and Uses
The CEF trial system began
with the use of horses for recreational trail riding in the early 1960s. In
1961, local riders established a horse camp at Twin Lakes. It remained at that
location until 1965 when it was moved to Locust Point, and later abandoned
under orders by the Army Corps of Engineers. During this time, University
students taking courses in horse production began to use the old logging roads
in the Fants Grove Area for laboratory exercises. By the early 1970s, local 4-H
clubs were occasionally using the Fants Grove trails for trail rides.
At Issaqueena and Todds
Creek, trail use in the 1960s and 1970s was essentially all horse traffic and
almost completely by residents living in the vicinity of the North Forest.
Furthermore, even the horse traffic was very light. One exception to this
pattern of use was the beginning of University student competition rides.
Competition rides were sponsored by the Clemson University Pre-Vet Club. The
first event was held at Issaqueena in 1967. The ride location was later changed
to Fants Grove. It was held annually from 1967 through 1992.
The CEF Trail System under
went fairly minor changes in user numbers, intensity of use, and use patterns
from 1960 through 1980. However, in the 1980s, particularly in the mid-1980s,
major changes began. On both portions of the Forest, horse use increased
substantially and boomed after 1990. While establishment of the T. Ed Garrison
Arena has been blamed for much of the increase in horse use of the Fants Grove
trails, that is an unlikely explanation. First, trail use on the North Forest
under went about the same relative change as did the South Forest. And second,
trail use throughout the southeastern U.S. underwent major increases in use
during this same time period.
Even given the dramatic
increases in horse use of the CEF Trail System over the past decade, its
magnitude lagged far behind that of the change in use by mountain bike
enthusiasts, particularly competitive mountain bike interests. The increase in
interest in mountain biking in the Clemson area seems to be well demonstrated
by a report from a local retailer, the Sunshine Bike Company. The storeowner
estimated that mountain bikes accounted for about 10 percent of his total stock
from 1980-1985, 40 percent from 1986-1990, 50 percent from 1991-1995, and 90
percent from 1996 to the present (personal communication from owner Jeff
McAleer to Ian Davidson). This change,
possibly made more intensive by the first Olympic mountain bike competition,
which was held at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, has generally paralleled the
increased interest in mountain biking in the nation.
The current premier mountain
bike enthusiast in the Clemson area is Mr. Ian Davidson. He averages at least
16 hours of event practice riding on the CEF trails each week throughout the
year. While he rides entirely on the Issaqueena trails, he estimates that he encounters
about three bikes for every horse seen during his riding. Based on these and
other observations, in addition to the Universitys preliminary user survey
information, it is reasonable to conjecture that mountain bike use currently
dominates the use of the Issaqueena trails, and perhaps accounts for most of
the use of the CEF Trail System as a whole.
The CEF Trail System developed from several origins. The first recreational trails were established on the Issaqueena Area during its early development under Dr. George Aull in the 1930s. Some of these are still in place. The most notable is the Lake Trail that is in close proximity to and parallels much of the Lake Issaqueena shoreline.
The second origin was
abandoned logging roads that could be traversed by horses. Logging activity
associated with the clearing for Lake Hartwell as well as that carried on as
silviculture for the remaining forest left numerous skid trails and roads
suitable for horseback riding. Most of the current trails on the Todds Creek
Area are also of this origin.
The third origin was that of
trail-user installation. Mr. S.W. Butch Kennedy, retired Clemson University
Horse and Sheep Herdsman, was one of the first people responsible for the installation
of significant amounts of new trail mileage on the CEF. Working with the
Clemson Experimental Forest Director, Mr. Larry Reamer, he was responsible for
establishing at least 75 percent of the 44 miles of trails in the Fants Grove
Area between 1970 and 1985. Most of these trails were put in for teaching
laboratory sessions of the University horse management course. They were used
subsequently by students and the general public for pleasure riding. Of course,
those trails with a view of the Lake Hartwell shoreline received the heaviest
use then and continue to do so.
The third group of trail installers was that of the mountain bikers. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the existing trail system was generally adequate for the level of interest and level of intensity of use for this emerging group of users. However, by the mid-1990s there was a strong perception of need for more bike trail mileage.
While a significant amount
of biking was being done on the Fants Grove Area during this period, the
existing trail system apparently offered sufficient accommodations. However, the Issaqueena area became a much
different scenario. The Issaqueena was popular with the bike interests from the
beginning of this type of use. Given the factors of a follow the leader
tendency, the convenience of location, and a terrain that best suited the
sport, Issaqueena quickly evolved into the center of mountain bike activity in
the South Carolina Upstate region.
There are currently
approximately 47 miles of trail on the Issaqueena Area. Of this mileage, Mr.
Ian Davidson estimated that mountain bikers had installed about 30 miles since
1996 (personal communication). He further estimated that about 75 percent of
this mileage was on old logging roads and skid trails. By his measurements
(presumably for event purposes) 28.5 miles of these trails were located on the
south side of East Dam Road. The installation of these trails was done with the
cooperation of Mr. Knight Cox, CEF Research Specialist.
The Todds Creek Area with about 18.5 miles of trails is the only area that remains primarily in horse use. As on the other areas, these trails primarily originated on old abandoned farm and logging roads. Mr. Melvin Maw whose family for generations has lived in, owned, and farmed substantial portions of the area surrounding the Todds Creek Area of the CEF was responsible for the installation of much of this mileage and continues to be a primary user of these trails.
The currently existing trail system was entirely remapped during the period from late November 1999 through February 2000. The remapping was done by Dr. Gene Wood using current Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. Field data were then plotted on existing Geographic Information Maps (GIS) of the CEF. These maps had color infrared aerial photo backgrounds that had been digitized and rectified by CEF personnel. These photos were produced under the National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP) under the supervision of the U.S. Geological Survey in 1994. This work was done by Mr. Knight Cox or personnel under his supervision. (See accompanying trail maps of Fants Grove, Issaqueena, and Todds Creek areas.)
Based on the most recent mapping efforts, it is estimated that there are approximately 109 miles of trails in the CEF Trail System. The Fants Grove Area contains 43 miles of shared-use (foot, bike, and horse traffic) and about one mile of foot traffic only. The foot-traffic only trails are at Treaty Oak and the George Aull Natural Area. Some trails in the northeast corner of the Fants Grove Area have been closed because of concerns for trail user safety during the hunting season on trails along or in close proximity to private property boundaries. An additional reason for these closures is the prevention of trespass by CEF trail users that might stray on to neighboring private property. Further, some trails were either closed or re-routed for conservation purposes; the principal purpose being erosion control. However, in the final trail system on the Fants Grove Area, more trail mileage has been added than has been closed for any purpose.
The primary trailhead for
the Fants Grove Trails is the Butch Kennedy Trailhead located on Woodburn Road
and southeast of the T. Ed Garrison Arena.
Additional trailheads with small parking areas are located along Fants
Grove Road approximately 0.5 miles southeast of Fants Grove Church and at the
intersection of Ridge and Fants Grove roads.
The Todds Creek Area
contains approximately 18.5 miles of trails that are all currently shared-use.
There is no existing trailhead for this area. This situation alone likely has
tended to suppress its use except by neighboring property owners.
The Issaqueena Area contains
approximately 47 miles of trails. All of these trails are currently shared use
except for the 2.7 miles of Lake Trail that is currently restricted to foot and
bike traffic only.
The entire CEF Trail System
has numerous sites of historical and landscape aesthetic significance. In
addition, some trail signage for educational purposes has been attempted in the
past decade, but vandalism has foiled most of these efforts.
In the U.S. Forest Services
forthcoming book, Ecological Stewardship,
the co-authors of the Adaptive Management chapter[7]
began with an appeal for partnerships for learning. Adaptive
management is primarily about designing one or more management strategies that
use currently existing knowledge (science) to move management into the future
while reserving the option to change strategies as the accumulation of
knowledge in the future suggests a need for change, and how to change
appropriately. Adaptive management recognizes that there are large amounts of
uncertainty in ecosystems because ecological conditions are constantly
changing. In addition, adaptive management recognizes that social values and
economic values for ecosystems change, and that knowledge of ecosystems
(ecological science) is constantly changing.
The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) sought certainty in assurance that environmental
quality would not be degraded as a consequence of any action of the federal
government. The Act required all federal agencies to prepare either an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement whenever an
agency planned any action that might affect the human environment. Environmental
effects included all aspects of impacts on natural resources. These evaluations
had to review a reasonable array of alternative approaches that might be used
to achieve some management goal, the predicted impacts of each alternative, and
a defense of why a particular alternative was chosen. All predicted adverse
environmental effects had to be avoided or minimized and mitigated.
Almost 30 years of
experience with NEPA in natural resource management has clearly demonstrated
that, while well intended, the Act required a level of certainty that simply
could not be attained within the realm of practicability for most of the
national landscape. In addition, NEPA has provided enormous opportunities for
litigation against federal land management agencies when they chose to
implement some strategy that some citizen or citizens group adamantly opposed.
This approach to natural resource management which has entailed having agency
officials prepare a plan, and then, as required by law, ask the citizens to
find fault with that plan has not worked well. The citizens have always found a
great deal of fault. To the extent that it has worked, the process has been
referred to as a zero sum game, i.e., some interests have won big while the
rest have lost big.
Adaptive management begins
by inverting the traditional NEPA approach. Stakeholders
(citizens and citizen groups) come to the table with the managers and scientists
and actively and meaningfully participate in the management planning process.
They bring a vision of what they want the public lands and resources to be now
and into the future. Managers and scientists learn from the vast array of
values, ideas, and experiences (knowledge) of these stakeholders who in fact own the public lands and employ the
managers and scientists. Managers
share with the citizens and scientists their organizational skills,
a knowledge of the legislative mandates for their agencies, and their knowledge
of the current technology for implementing management strategies. Scientists inform citizens and managers of
the best currently available knowledge. They also identify needs for new
knowledge and how to obtain and transfer that information.
This approach to natural
resource conservation is grassroots
conservation a completely democratic, bottom-up process. By inverting
NEPAs traditional top-down scenario, which frequently ended in disharmony at
best, and litigation at worst, now all parties are a part of creating the plan,
therefore, all parties share the responsibility for whatever plan is created.
********************
There are many variants of
adaptive management. These can be grouped into three primary categories: a)
reactive, b) active and c) passive. Adaptive management in the reactive mode has been the traditional
approach to most natural resource management. That is, do not fix it until it
breaks. It involved no efforts to predict an oncoming break or nor any
accumulation of knowledge of how to take evasive or preventive actions. Most
management was crisis management. Crises could be composed of actual ecological
breakdowns (e.g. endangerment of species), or economic or political crises. In
the reactive mode, natural resource management increasingly became management
by the judicial system.
Adaptive management in the active mode is heavily based on the
scientific approach to management. Stakeholders and mangers have some inputs,
but in effect, scientists run the show. The value in this mode lies primarily
in the fact that it accumulates scientific knowledge at a very rapid rate, and
it might quickly implement the newest science. The CEF MARP is an example of an
active adaptive management paradigm.
In order to carry out active
mode adaptive management, several strategies aimed at reaching a common goal are
pursued as experiments. The strategy that achieves the goal with the least
costs in time, money and natural resources is taken to be the preferred
strategy. The downside is that such experiments require large landscapes to
accommodate more than one experimental approach, and these various approaches
should be replicated. In addition, this approach tends to minimize citizen
inputs.
The passive mode of adaptive management maximizes citizen inputs and
does not require large landscapes. It is a more customized approach to
management in that the focus is on one particular area and the socioeconomic
and ecological forces surrounding that area. This approach begins by assembling
the currently available scientific and management information. Based on that
body of knowledge, two things are done: a) information needs for the planning
process are identified, and b) a management strategy is devised as a first
approximation of how things should be done. Included in the management strategy
are: a) management processes, b) resource monitoring processes, and c)
anticipatory research needs.
The management processes are based on the currently available scientific knowledge and management technology. Monitoring schemes are based on scientific knowledge and experience in working with the resource(s). Anticipatory research targets points where, if the management strategy is not working, failure is most likely. This research seeks to identify the problem before adverse changes are significant, and they contribute information for an adaptive change in the management process. By following this process, the highest assurances against adverse environmental impacts of a management action can be attained in a practicable manner.
Changing the management stra