Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
for
River Management
v. 120803
Introduction
The following Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) characterizations and matrices mirror the presentation in the ROS Primer and Field Guide
(April 1990, R6-REC-021-90), which, in turn, is based on the 1982 ROS Users Guide and 1986 ROS book. It is also referenced in, and consistent
with, the December 2003 National ROS Mapping Protocol. ROS for River Management provides guidelines for using the ROS in the development
of forest plan direction for river areas, including designated wild and scenic rivers. This paper may be used as inventory guidelines for determining
existing conditions in forest plan revision and may also be used to subdivide existing ROS classes during the development of a wild and scenic river
management plan prepared during forest plan revision or through amendment of an existing forest plan. ROS for River Management provides
management guidelines for each river-management ROS class. These classes may be used as opportunity areas under an analysis process such as
Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC). LAC also provides an excellent tool for determining problem statements and detailed setting indicators, goals
and objectives.
In a river setting it may be desirable to subdivide the broad forest plan allocations of ROS to provide more diversity in user experience. Due to the
nature of the river recreation activity, the user’s experience may allow subdivision into areas that have all the attributes of a less developed class
except for size. However, one needs to exercise caution in subdividing a river. Any subdivision into smaller ROS management areas must include
consideration of our ability to manage the discrete segment and the length of time a user experiences the segment.
Due to the nature of river access, it may also be desirable to identify portal areas. Portal areas are areas of concentrated use that have developed
because the locations provide access to a river or river corridor. Generally, portal areas include facilities installed to protect natural resources and
provide for health and sanitation such as toilets. Since many portal areas are located at or near cultural or historic sites, education and interpretation
opportunities may also be provided. Use of portal areas should generally follow the guidelines for on-site development in the setting in which the
area occurs. Refer to the ROS Primer and Field Guide. Occasionally it may be appropriate to establish facilities higher in development level as a
small ―enclave‖ within a less developed ROS setting. For example, a Rural or Urban facility may be appropriate in an otherwise Roaded Natural
setting to meet river management objectives and satisfy the protection requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. However, it is generally
inappropriate to install a facility with a higher development level than the surrounding setting in Primitive or Semi-Primitive classes as it will likely
adversely affect the experience opportunities for users.
1
Terminology of the Matrices Including Inconsistencies
Quoting from the ROS Primer and Field Guide, ―the matrices establish limits of acceptable change for each indicator in a given setting.‖
―Norm‖ describes normal conditions found in the setting.
―Fully compatible‖ describes conditions that meet or exceed the norm.
―Inconsistent‖ represents conditions that are generally not compatible with the norm, but may be necessary under some circumstances to
meet management objectives. For example, jet boat access into a wild and scenic river classified as wild may occur based on the
designating act.
―Unacceptable‖ defines conditions that, under any circumstance, do not permit the creation or maintenance of a given setting.
Resolution of any apparent conflicts and search for compatibilities should begin with the following guidelines for analyzing inconsistencies and
continue through the public involvement process associated with development of river-specific direction.
Analysis of Inconsistencies
Evaluating a potential inconsistency requires a systematic analysis and the exercise of judgment. An inconsistency in one indicator does not
automatically require a change in management or ROS class. Both the intensity of the inconsistency—the severity of the effect on setting, access or
use—and its spatial extent must be considered and weighed. As expressed in the following table, an inconsistency rated high for intensity and
spatial extent or moderate on one scale and high on the other would likely require elimination or a change in ROS class. The potential to make no
change increases with combinations of moderate and/or low ratings, assuming the inconsistency has little or no effect on the area’s character.
2
Important questions to address when evaluating the significance of ROS setting inconsistencies include:
How did the inconsistency occur? Was it intentional in the forest plan direction or unanticipated?
What are the implications of the inconsistency? For example, will the inconsistency be significant enough to create a change in ROS
setting? Will the changes be rapid or slow?
What is the intensity (severity) and spatial extent of the inconsistency? What is the degree of setting alteration or effects of inconsistent
activity or mode of travel? Is the inconsistency activity or mode of travel concentrated in only a small portion of the ROS class or use
season, or are they widespread? Will it be a short or long-term change in the ROS setting?
What should be done about the inconsistency?
If an inconsistency has been identified, there are three kinds of possible actions: (1) retain ROS class if inconsistency will have little or no effect on
area’s character and document rationale, (2) eliminate inconsistency through plan direction, (3) acknowledge inconsistency and change ROS class.
3
By considering the intensity and spatial extent of impacts, the actual or potential effects on setting indicators can be evaluated. The following
matrix provides a method for evaluating the intensity and spatial extent of effects on recreation opportunities. This table may also be used for
project-specific analysis.
DEGREE OF EFFECTS OF INCONSISTENCY ON DESIRED ROS SETTING
AND POTENTIAL ACTIONS
INTENSITY
LOW
HIGH
Unacceptable
HIGH
SPATIAL
EXTENT
Eliminate
Change ROS
Unacceptable
MODERATE
Eliminate
Change ROS
Inconsistent
LOW
Retain/Document
Eliminate
Change ROS
MODERATE
Unacceptable
Eliminate
Change ROS
Inconsistent
Retain/Document
Eliminate
Change ROS
Inconsistent
Retain/Document
Eliminate
Inconsistent
Retain/Document
Eliminate
Change ROS
Inconsistent
Retain/Document
Eliminate
Inconsistent
Retain/Document
Retain/document if inconsistency will have little or no effect on area’s character.
Eliminate inconsistency through plan direction or management action.
Acknowledge inconsistency and change ROS class.
4
How to Use This Guide
ROS for River Management provides a set of guidelines for inventorying current recreation settings, making determinations of current setting
experiences, and, potentially, for establishing prescriptive requirements in order to achieve desired setting objectives. Each setting is defined by
seven indicators: Access, Remoteness, Naturalness, Facilities and Site Management, Social Encounters, Visitor Impacts, and Visitor Management.
For each indicator, an ROS Characterization table provides descriptive statements that characterize the river setting and experience within each
ROS class. This table is accompanied by a matrix that displays how these descriptors are the norm, compatible, inconsistent or unacceptable within
each ROS class. For use with a designated wild and scenic river, the matrix also relates river classification (wild, scenic or recreational) to ROS
classes.
Through the descriptors for each ROS class the local manager can compare their current situation with generalized statements for each class. This
allows a manager to inventory the existing situation. As planning for the river occurs the manager can determine the implications of future
management changes on the river setting and experiences by comparing proposed changes against the descriptors. Finally, the river manager can
use the descriptors to develop prescriptions for the corresponding setting.
5
ROS Characterization
Access
Primitive River
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
River
Semi-Primitive
Motorized River
Roaded Natural
River
Rural River
Urban River
- Access sites along the
river are few and
undeveloped.
- Very few trailed
access sites developed
along the river.
- Very few trailed
access sites developed
along the river.
- Moderate number of
access sites provided.
- Easy access to river by roads.
- Roads and road access are
frequent.
- Primitive roads to
access points on edge of
river corridor.
- Primitive roads to
access points within the
river corridor only – do
not parallel river.
- Roads parallel some
portions of the river.
- Some parallel roads, bridges,
and power lines evident.
- Some highway vehicle
and off-road vehicle use
is consistent and may
be seen from the river.
- Highway vehicle and off-road
vehicle use is consistent and may
be seen from the river
- Highway vehicle use is
consistent and is a dominant
feature of the landscape.
- Non-motorized and
motorized watercraft
consistent.
- Non-motorized and motorized
watercraft consistent.
- Non-motorized and motorized
watercraft consistent.
- Traditional nonmotorized watercraft
consistent – motorized
use prohibited.
- Traditional nonmotorized watercraft
consistent – motorized
use prohibited.
- Traditional nonmotorized and
motorized watercraft
consistent.
.
6
Access
WSR
Classification
ROS Class
Wild
Primitive
Wild – Scenic
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
Semi-Primitive
Motorized
Roaded Natural
Scenic
Scenic –
Recreational
Recreational
Recreational
Rural
Cross-Country
Travel
Norm
Non-motorized
Trails and
Waterways
Motorized Trails
Controlled TSL –
and Primitive
B&C Roads
Roads (TSL-D) (2)
and Motorized
Waterways
Full Access
Norm
Norm
Inconsistent
Norm
Unacceptable
Inconsistent
Norm (1)
Fully Compatible
Urban
Norm
Norm
Norm
(1) Roaded Natural may be prescribed in certain circumstances with roads partially or fully closed.
(2) TSL = Traffic Service Level.
7
ROS Characterization
Remoteness
Primitive River
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
River
Semi-Primitive
Motorized River
Roaded Natural
River
Rural River
Urban River
- Highest expectation of
experiencing isolation
from the sights and
sounds of humans.
- Fairly high
expectation of
experiencing isolation
from the sights and
sounds of humans.
- Fairly high
expectation of
experiencing isolation
from the sights and
sounds of others.
- Moderate evidence of
the sights and sounds of
humans.
- Evidence of sights and sounds
of humans common from other
river users and from people off
the river.
- High concentration of users
and large number of people are
within the area and nearby with
evidence of other users being
dominant.
- Highest sense of
remoteness.
- Fairly high sense of
remoteness.
- Fairly high sense of
remoteness.
- Self-reliance through
application of outdoor
skills in an environment
that offers a high degree
of challenge and risk.
- Self-reliance through
application of outdoor
skills in an environment
that offers a high to
moderate degree of
challenge and risk.
- Self-reliance through
application of outdoor
skills in an environment
that offers a moderate
degree of challenge and
risk.
- Opportunities for
challenge in a natural
environment but less
expectation of risk.
8
Remoteness
WSR
Classification
ROS Class
Wild
Primitive
Wild – Scenic
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
Semi-Primitive
Motorized
Roaded Natural
Scenic
Scenic –
Recreational
Recreational
Recreational
Rural
Urban
Out of sight and
sound of human
activity. Sense of
commitment to
river trip and
perception of no
return.
Norm
Distant sight
and/or sound of
human activity.
Sense of
commitment to
river trip and
perception of a
difficult return.
Inconsistent
Norm
Distant sight
and/or sound of
human activity.
Opportunity to
leave river trip at
limited access
points.
Remoteness of little relevance.
Inconsistent
Norm
Unacceptable
Inconsistent
Norm
Fully Compatible
Norm
Norm
Norm
9
ROS Characterization
Naturalness
Primitive River
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
River
Semi-Primitive
Motorized River
Roaded Natural
River
Rural River
Urban River
- Unmodified natural
environment.
- Largely undisturbed
natural environment.
- Largely undisturbed
natural environment.
- Alterations to the
landscape are subtle.
Natural characteristics
remain dominant.
- Substantially modified
landscape having both humanmade and natural features.
- Landscape may be dominated
by roads, towns, small cities or
by recreation facilities.
- Very little evidence of
human development.
- Little evidence of
human development.
- Little evidence of
human development.
- Moderate evidence of
human development.
- Evidence of human
development prevalent.
- Evidence of human
development prevalent.
- No impoundments,
diversions or channel
modifications.
- No impoundments,
diversions or channel
modifications.
- No impoundments,
diversions or channel
modifications.
- Impoundments,
diversions or channel
modifications may be
evident.
- Impoundments, diversions or
channel modifications may be
evident.
- Impoundments, diversions or
channel modifications are
common.
10
Naturalness or Scenic Integrity Objectives (1)
WSR
Classification
Wild
ROS Class
Wild – Scenic
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
Semi-Primitive
Motorized
Roaded Natural
Scenic
Scenic –
Recreational
Recreational
Recreational
Primitive
Rural
Urban
Very High
Norm
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Inconsistent
Norm
Inconsistent
Norm (2)
Unacceptable
Inconsistent
(2)
(2)
Norm (3)
Inconsistent (4)
Fully Compatible
(2)
Norm (3)
Inconsistent (4)
Norm
(1) See Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management; USDA Handbook 701. Scenic integrity objectives refer to all resource
activities.
(2) Norm from sensitive waterways, roads and trails.
(3) Norm only in middleground-concern level 2 (Mg-2) where a Roaded Modified subclass is used.
(4) Unacceptable in Roaded Natural Appearing and Rural where a Roaded Modified subclass is used. It may be the norm in a Roaded Modified
subclass.
.
11
ROS Characterization
Facilities and Site Management
Primitive River
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
River
Semi-Primitive
Motorized River
Roaded Natural
River
Rural River
Urban River
- No facility
development for user
comfort.
- Minimal facility
development primarily
for resource protection.
- Minimal facility
development primarily
for resource protection.
- Rustic facilities,
developed for resource
protection and to
accommodate visitor
use.
- Some facility development for
resource protection and to
accommodate visitor comfort.
- Intensive facility development
for visitor comfort.
- Facilities developed to
manage/aid greater number of
visitors.
- Highly developed facilities for
more intensive and specialized
recreation activities.
- Specific sites developed to
provide health/sanitation
facilities and recreation
convenience.
- Specific sites developed to
provide health/sanitation
facilities and recreation
convenience.
- Land-based recreation facility
development more prevalent.
- Land-based facility
development very prevalent.
- Parties on river
responsible for human
waste disposal and
leave no trace camping
practices.
- Parties on river
responsible for human
waste disposal and
leave no trace camping
practices.
- Parties on river
responsible for human
waste disposal and
leave no trace camping
practices.
12
Facilities and On-site Development
WSR
Classification
ROS Class
Wild
Primitive
Wild – Scenic
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
Semi-Primitive
Motorized
Roaded Natural
Scenic
Scenic –
Recreational
Recreational
Recreational
Rural
Urban
No facilities for
user comfort.
Rustic and
rudimentary ones
for site protection
only. Use nondimensional native
material only.
Rustic and
rudimentary
facilities primarily
for site protection.
No evidence of
synthetic
materials. Use
non-dimensional
native materials.
Norm
Inconsistent
Rustic facilities
providing some
comfort for the
user as well as site
protection. Use
native materials
but with more
refinement in
design. Synthetic
materials should
not be evident.
Norm
Inconsistent
Norm
Inconsistent
Norm
Fully Compatible
Some facilities
designed primarily
for user comfort
and convenience.
Some synthetic but
harmonious
materials may be
incorporated.
Design may be
more complex and
refined.
Facilities mostly
designed for user
comfort and
convenience.
Synthetic materials
are commonly
used. Facility
design may be
highly complex
and refined but in
harmony or
complimentary to
the site.
Unacceptable
Inconsistent
Norm
Inconsistent
Norm
13
ROS Characterization
Social Encounters
Primitive River
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
River
Semi-Primitive
Motorized River
Roaded Natural
River
Rural River
Urban River
- Very few contacts
with other users.
- Few contacts with
other users primarily at
rapids and access
points.
- Few contacts with
other users primarily at
rapids and access
points.
- Moderate use occurs –
contact with others is
expected and
occasionally continual,
some chance for
isolation.
- Contact with others expected,
including frequent interface
between river users and shore
users.
- Frequent interface between
river users and shore users.
- None to little evidence
of other users.
- Little but some
evidence of other users.
- Little but some
evidence of other users.
- Some evidence of
other users.
- Frequent evidence of other
users.
- Evidence of other users.
- Very small party size.
- Small party size.
- Small party size.
14
Social Encounters
WSR
Classification
ROS Class
Wild
Primitive
Wild – Scenic
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
Semi-Primitive
Motorized
Roaded Natural
Scenic
Scenic –
Recreational
Recreational
Recreational
Rural
Urban
Very few contacts,
while on the river.
Few contacts while
on the river.
No more than one
other party within
sight or sound of a
campsite.
Three or less parties
within sight or
sound of a
campsite.
Norm
Moderate to high
contact with other
river users,
particularly at rapids
and access points.
Moderate to high
contact on access
roads. Moderate to
low contact on trails
and at developed
sites.
Frequent interface
between river
users and shore
users.
Very frequent
interface between
river users and
shore users
Moderate to high
contact with other
river users.
Large numbers of
users on-site and in
nearby areas.
Inconsistent
Norm
Inconsistent
Norm
Inconsistent
Norm
Fully Compatible
Unacceptable
Inconsistent
Norm
Inconsistent
Norm
15
ROS Characterization
Visitor Impacts
Primitive River
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
River
Semi-Primitive
Motorized River
Roaded Natural
River
Rural River
Urban River
- Natural
ecosystems operate
freely.
- Natural
ecosystems operate
freely.
- Natural
ecosystems
dominate.
- Natural
ecosystems may be
modified by human
use.
- Ecosystems are modified
by human use.
- Ecosystems are
substantially modified by
human use.
- Human impacts
are generally
limited to welldispersed campsites
of small size.
- Human impacts
are generally
limited to campsites
of small to
moderate size.
- Human impacts
- Human impacts
obvious but
are generally
limited to campsites subordinate.
of moderate to large
size.
- Human impacts obvious.
- Human impacts
predominate.
16
Visitor Impacts
WSR
Classification
ROS Class
Wild
Primitive
Wild – Scenic
Semi-Primitive
Non-Motorized
Semi-Primitive
Motorized
Roaded Natural
Scenic
Scenic –
Recreation
Recreation
Recreation
Rural
Unnoticeable
impacts, no site
hardening nor
modification of
camp areas.
Norm
Subordinate
impacts, minor
modification of
camp areas.
Sites may be
subtly hardened to
accommodate
motorized use.
Site hardening
provided to
minimize impacts
and to provide for
user convenience.
Site hardening
may be dominant
but in harmony.
Inconsistent
Norm
Inconsistent
Norm
Unacceptable
Inconsistent
Norm
Fully Compatible
Norm
Norm
Urban
17
ROS Characterization
Visitor Management
Primitive River
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
River
Semi-Primitive
Motorized River
Roaded Natural
River
Rural River
Urban River
- No or few on-site
visitor management
controls or regulations
apparent.
- Only a few subtle onsite visitor management
controls or regulations
are apparent.
- Only a few subtle onsite visitor management
controls or regulations
are apparent.
- A few on-site visitor
management controls or
regulations may be
expected.
- Visitor management controls
are visible and expected.
- Numerous visitor management
controls and regulations are in
effect.
- Contact with
management personnel
is rare.
- Contact with
management personnel
is occasional.
- Contact with
management personnel
is occasional.
- Contact with
management personnel
is frequent.
- Contact with management
personnel is frequent.
- Contact with management
personnel and law enforcement
officers occurs often.
- On guided trips,
visitors perceive a high
degree of challenge and
risk.
- On guided trips
visitors perceive a high
to moderate degree of
challenge and risk.
- On guided trips
visitors perceive a high
to moderate degree of
challenge and risk.
- On guided trips
visitors perceive a
moderate to low degree
of challenge and risk.
- On guided trips visitors
perceive a low degree of
challenge and risk.
- On guided trips visitors
perceive a low degree of
challenge and risk.
18
Visitor Management
WSR
Classification
ROS Class
Wild
Primitive
Wild – Scenic
Semi-Primitive
Non-motorized
Semi-Primitive
Motorized
Roaded Natural
Scenic
Scenic –
Recreational
Recreational
Recreational
Rural
Urban
Low
regimentation. No
on-site controls or
information
facilities.
Subtle on-site
regimentation and
controls. Very
limited
information
facilities.
Norm
Inconsistent
On-site
regimentation and
controls are
noticeable but
harmonize with
the natural
environment.
Simple
information
facilities.
Norm
Inconsistent
Norm
Inconsistent
Norm
Fully Compatible
Regimentation and
controls obvious
and numerous, but
harmonize. More
complex
information
facilities.
Regimentation and
controls obvious
and numerous.
Sophisticated
information
exhibits.
Unacceptable
Inconsistent
Norm
Inconsistent
Norm
19