ROS Mapping
NATIONAL
ROS INVENTORY MAPPING PROTOCOL
****** 7/01/2003 ******
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
ROS – DEFINITION…………………………………………………………3
NEED AND BENEFITS OF USING ROS……………………......…………3
GENERAL GUIDELINES………………………………………...…………5
ROS INVENTORY MAPPING STEPS…………………………..………..10
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………..19
A: ROS SETTING CHARACTERISTICS …..20
B: “PRIMITIVE ROAD” DETERMINATION
ROS LINK WITH ROADS (OMLs and INFRA DATA BASE) …..24
C: MAPPING EXAMPLE .....26
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS) MAPPING PROTOCOL
7/01/2003
ROS - What is it?……………………………………………….
Since the early 1980’s, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) has been used as a framework for identifying, classifying, planning, and managing a range of recreation settings. Six distinct settings: urban, rural, roaded natural, semi-primitive motorized, semi-primitive non-motorized, and primitive are defined using specific physical, managerial, and social criteria. For detailed information on ROS categories and criteria refer to the ROS User Guide, 1982 USDA Handbook, and the ROS Primer and Field Guide, 1990 USDA, R6-REC-021-90. For additional information on applications, refer to FSM 2311 and FSM 2330.
NEED AND BENIFITS…………………………………….
National Forests across the country are in various stages of Plan revision. While some have completed their revisions, others are in the process, and the remaining Forests will be starting within the next five years. It is timely to develop National guidance for ROS inventory and mapping.
Although the basic framework and definitions have been in place for over 20 years, the system has not been integrated with recent technological advances in mapping and analysis procedures. Forests and Regions have developed processes independently, leading to inconsistencies within and across Regional boundaries. Specifically:
• The number and type of ROS categories vary among Forests and Regions.
• ROS polygons within Wilderness are defined and mapped differently.
• The process and layers used in deriving a ROS layer vary.
• Naming conventions vary.
• Seasonal distinctions for ROS layers are not consistently defined.
It is important to utilize consistent definitions and methodologies for mapping a nationally recognized classification system. Not only will the agency be more effective in communicating recreation settings and programs to the public, we will be able to look beyond one FS unit’s boundaries to make comparisons and analyze implications of proposed management decisions at a variety of scales.
Used as a zoning tool, ROS within a GIS framework is one of the tools available in which social considerations and the biophysical components of a landscape are integrated to achieve multiple social and natural resource objectives. Used in conjunction with Sense of Place (SOP), the Scenery Management System (SMS), and Benefits Based Management (BBM), ROS will enable the agency to display human values, meaning and attachment to the landscape, as well as ecological impressions and serve as an important consideration in defining existing and desired conditions. A detailed discussion on linkages (inventory – analysis – desired conditions) to SOP, BBM, and SMS can be found in the 2003 National RHWR Technical Guide for Integrating Recreation with Plan Revision.
ROS has applications throughout the planning process. Regardless of what “Needs for Change” are identified; ROS is a valuable tool in integrating recreation with other resources values. Planning steps in which ROS can be utilized include:
• Defining Existing Conditions
• Assessments of current management direction
• Defining Desired Conditions
• Developing Alternatives
• Analyzing Effects of Alternatives
• Defining the Preferred Alternative
• Determining actions necessary to move from existing to desired (Implementation)
• Measuring effects of actions / implementation (Monitoring)
ROS is also valuable in addressing key issues. Motorized versus non-motorized recreation uses continue to be an important issue in most Regions. ROS can be used as a zoning tool, establishing programmatic access direction from which subsequent site-specific, travel management decisions can tier to. ROS maps will assist the public in understanding and identifying with:
• the type of settings (landscapes) provided,
• the types of transportation permitted,
• the social setting to expect;
• and the level of management and infrastructure.
GENERAL MAPPING GUIDELINES…………………………...
It is understood that ROS mapping is not an exact science and some flexibility is necessary at the ground level to deal with site-specific conditions and anomalies that are not exact matches with specific ROS class criteria and definitions. Site-specific situations that may require field expertise and judgment are too numerous to list and impossible to address within the context of a National protocol. Listed below are process-related sideboards and guidelines to follow when conditions on the ground don’t quite reflect definitions outlined in the ROS User Guide.
Refining criteria within primary ROS classes to better distinguish differences between
the six primary classes (Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive
Motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban) is encouraged, as long as the result is not
a shift in the national ROS “characterizations” as described in Chapter 10 of the ROS
Users Guide. The ability to refine criteria will depend on the level of information
available at local units. The information can range from natural resource information, to
use and user data. Documentation of any local refinements is critical and should be
included in the attribute table for the specific ROS polygon, as well as in the planning
record.
Creating subclasses within any of the six primary ROS classes is allowed as long as
aggregations can be made back to the six primary classes. Subclasses can be utilized to
better reflect physical, social and/or managerial settings, where distinct differences exist
and are repeated in the unit’s landscape. Conferring with neighboring forests and the
Regional office is important to coordinate the distinctions being made and the criteria
used in categorizing them.
Examples of subclasses with the primary ROS class of Roaded Natural have been developed in several Regions. Below are some examples of RN subclasses. These subclasses are not mandatory, but simply reflect examples developed and utilized by various Regions and Forests.
• Roaded Modified has been used as a subclass of RN by several Forests and Regions for many years. Roaded Modified has typically been defined as areas exhibiting evidence of Forest management activities that are dominant on the landscape. Examples include heavily logged areas, evidence of mining, oil/gas or other minerals extraction activities, etc. No size criteria apply. To assist in identifying these areas, mapping completed to display existing conditions of the scenic resources can be used. Roaded Modified areas would likely coincide with EVC (Existing Visual Condition) polygons rated as EVC 3 or greater or with ESI (Existing Scenic Integrity) polygons rated as “Low” or below.)
• There may also be a need to classify settings that are less developed areas within RN – settings that meet all but the size criteria (2,500 acres) for SPM designation. Some Regions have used a smaller (1,500 acre) minimum for designating these areas and mapping them as subclasses within the RN primary class.
• There may also be a need to classify settings that are predominately non-motorized, exhibiting all of the SPNM characteristics except for 2,500 acreage size criteria. This subclass would essentially show areas that are non-motorized (but not big enough to be mapped as SPNM) within the primary ROS class of RN.
Creating Seasonal ROS maps is allowed. This is consistent with direction in the ROS User Guide, 21.6, page 29. Forests may find it helpful to distinguish between summer and winter (or possibly spring or fall) recreation settings due to drastic changes in the physical, social and/or managerial components of the landscape. Considerations for determining the need for a seasonal ROS layer should include:
• Infrastructure (i.e. roads, trails, structures and other facilities) may not be useable, accessible, or even visible during the winter months due to snow depths. Other seasonal changes (i.e. water levels, etc.) may also change the settings infrastructure.
• Size and remoteness changes due to changes in the presence/extent of roads.
• Managerial changes such as shifts in motorized and non-motorized travel opportunities and restrictions
• Changes in the levels of use – social setting changes
• Etc!
The above list is not inclusive. Forests will need to evaluate the need for developing a seasonal ROS map based on the extent and duration of setting changes, as well as specific issue(s) that seasonal ROS maps may assist in addressing. Where specific issues require a more detailed look at existing ROS settings for a particular season of use, a season-specific ROS map may be warranted. If seasonal ROS maps are developed, the methodology used and the classification criteria will be critical to document.
Although all six ROS classes may not be presented on seasonal maps, it is suggested that at a minimum, differentiations between motorized and non-motorized settings be delineated.
ROS mapping within designated Wilderness has varied across the nation. There are several issues that have caused confusion and resulting inconsistencies.
One of the issues has been that “primitive”, as defined in the ROS User Guide, is not synonymous with the “primitive” typically used within a Wilderness context.
This has not only caused confusion internally, but has also created confusion when communicating with the public.
In addition, “Primitive”, as defined within the ROS context, is an extremely broad category and when applied within Wilderness, does not adequately differentiate the characteristics and attributes of the settings (i.e. those that are more remote and pristine). This has lead to the development of various Forest and Regional classification systems that either link to ROS or are completely separate from the ROS classification system.
The term “Roaded Natural” is also confusing within the context of designated Wilderness. Since Wilderness areas are managed for non-motorized and mechanized use, the term “roaded” seems automatically inappropriate. There are, however, isolated cases where RN actually does describe the existing setting within Wilderness. These areas are typically at/along a Wilderness boundary, often part of a larger RN polygon that originates from roads in adjacent, non-Wilderness landscapes. Motorized settings may also exist due to language contained within enabling legislation, permitting motorized use in specific areas of a Wilderness (i.e. on waterways and airstrips, or limited motorized overland travel to access to private in- holdings).
This protocol establishes ROS inventory mapping procedures for all Forest System Lands, including those within designated Wilderness. The primary objectives of maintaining a consistent inventory system, interior and exterior to Wilderness boundaries, are to:
• Accurately display existing conditions within Wilderness that are consistent with inventory procedures and definitions on other Forest System lands – one system for all Forest System lands.
• Accurately display existing conditions that are inconsistent with Wilderness management objectives.
• Accurately display existing conditions that are consistent with Wilderness management objectives.
• Enable a comparison of differences among various Wilderness Areas.
• Enable comparisons between landscapes within designated Wilderness and those outside designated Wilderness.
Once units move beyond inventory and describe/display desired conditions, the ROS classifications that are not Primitive or Semi-Primitive, can (and should) be delineated to reflect Congressional intent, Wilderness values and management objectives.
ROS inventory mapping protocols pertaining to designated Wilderness are consistent with direction contained in the ROS User Guide, Section 21.1, page 15 and outlined below:
1) Map existing ROS classes within Wilderness by following the ROS Inventory Mapping Steps 1-6 outlined of this document (pages 10-15).
2) Review all polygons initially mapped as motorized (SPM and RN) ROS settings (this is also discussed under ROS Inventory Mapping Steps 7-9, pages 15-18 of this protocol). Carefully scrutinize polygons initially mapped as RN and SPM (often due to their proximity – within ½ mile – of roads) to ensure all ROS class criteria are considered. Since Wilderness areas typically prohibit motorized and mechanized use, do not contain facilities or recreation developments, and are managed for a primitive recreation experience, other physical, social and managerial ROS criteria become critical in refining initial ROS designations. RN and SPM settings within Wilderness should only occur in isolated situations, under very limited circumstances:
• where an adjacent road or development has a profound effect on the wilderness recreation experience,
• where language within the enabling legislation permits motorized transportation and,
• where the motorized use is frequent enough to influence the typical wilderness recreation experience
Motorized ROS designations are typically limited to narrow corridors (i.e. along cherry stem roads and water ways) and small, isolated areas (i.e. air strips). Levels and frequency of motorized use should be considered prior to automatically mapping an area SPM or RN.
In cases where motorized use is infrequent and not a significant impact to the otherwise SPNM or P recreation experience, the area is mapped as P or SPNM. Site-specific departures or inconsistencies (i.e. an airstrip that is used for emergencies or occasional administrative use) to the overall ROS class designation are simply documented in the attribute table of that ROS polygon.
More guidance in resolving inconsistencies is described in step 9 of the ROS Inventory Mapping Steps (page 16-18 of this protocol).
3) Wilderness-specific subclasses are being developed by a National team and, although a separate effort, shall be designed to reside within the primary ROS classes and be consistent with the direction contained in this protocol. The subclasses will better reflect Wilderness attributes, as well as, address management needs. Once established, they shall be incorporated with this National ROS Inventory Mapping Protocol as an addition.
*** It should be noted that when mapping management prescriptions and desired future conditions, the only ROS classes appropriate within Wilderness are Primitive or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (and in isolated instances, Semi-Primitive Motorized). ***
ROS mapping along river corridors, including designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, also presents unique challenges. Due to the nature of rivers, the patterns of use, and the unique physical characteristics, additional guidelines for ROS classification (for both inventory and desired conditions) are being developed nationally. The rivers-specific guidance will not change direction contained in this protocol. It will simply give additional guidance for ROS mapping within river corridors, and show linkages to such tools as Levels of Acceptable Change (LAC), the Scenery Management System (SMS), etc. It will also show the correlation between various wild and scenic designations and ROS classifications. Once finalized, the guidelines shall be incorporated into this protocol as an addition.
ROS INVENTORY MAPPING STEPS …………………………
The following section outlines the steps to map existing ROS classes. The steps were developed using definitions and processes outlined in Chapter 21 - ROS Delineation of the ROS User Guide. Since GIS and many of the corporate data layers that are currently available did not exist at the time the User Guide was developed, the objective of the following outline is to link the User Guide with GIS data and applications.
The first 4 steps describe the process and data layers necessary in producing initial ROS maps using GIS. Because every forest has different information and available layers, it will be necessary to do a “cross-walk” to ensure the information needed for this process is available. GIS Data Dictionary standards or other information found in the National Applications were examined for use during this process. The process is still possible even if a forest layer does not meet the GIS Data Dictionary standards.
Remaining steps (steps 5-9) are the adjustment of initial GIS maps using local expertise about the landscapes and use patterns. Although resource specialists and District personnel should be used throughout the mapping process, their involvement is particularly critical in these last steps to determine where inconsistencies occur, resolve those inconsistencies, and refine computer generated maps that best represent conditions on the ground.
Five mapping criteria are used in defining the physical, social and managerial setting of each landscape:
Physical setting Social setting Managerial Setting
1. Remoteness 4. User Density 5. Managerial regimentation
2. Size
3. Evidence of humans
These criteria, when combined, result in an ROS class designation. Each criterion is discussed in the ROS User Guide, Section 21, pages 14-27, and summarized in tables 3-7. Appendix A displays typical examples of the physical, social and managerial attributes contained in each of the ROS classes.
1.) Develop map showing initial division between motorized and non-
motorized ROS settings
Motorized ROS settings are areas within ½ mile of motorized travel routes. Motorized travel routes include: roads, motorized trails, railroads, and possibly lakes and streams where motorized use is allowed.
Start with GIS maps containing all system roads and trails. In addition to Forest-specific information confined to within the Forest boundary, utilize information available on non-Forest roads, both within and adjacent to, the Forest boundary. It is advisable to include all motorized routes within 3 miles of the Forest boundary. This will ensure consideration of off-Forest influences when mapping on-Forest settings.
Distinguish which routes are motorized and which are non-motorized.
A further refinement of motorized areas will require a roads designation of “better than primitive” or “primitive”. A ROS User Guide definition for “primitive roads” is: are not constructed or maintained, and are used by vehicles not primarily intended for highway use. Refer to Appendix B for information on the designation of “primitive roads” based on information that may be available through INFRA Travel Routes database.
It is recommended that “primitive” and “better than primitive” roads are identified during this initial step and buffered separately. Further refinement of motorized areas occurs in Steps 3 and 6.
If Operational Maintenance Levels (OMLs) are identified on the roads layer, separate layers for buffering based on the following delineations:
Buffer Primitive Roads:
For “primitive roads” select OML = 1. In addition OML 2 roads should be examined. Using the information in Appendix B, select OML 2 roads that meet the “primitive road” criteria.
Motorized Trails can be left separate for buffering purposes but are included in the definition of “primitive roads”. Motorized trails can be identified in the Trails view of the Infra database. If “motorized prohibited” is blank, the trail is inventoried as a motorized trail.
The Travel Routes Data Dictionary includes an optional field entry for Template Slope Code (housing various cross section characteristics of the travel way). One of the code options is “P”, indicating “primitive”. The description for that code is “no constructed cross section – wheel track”. This is consistent with the ROS User Guide definition for a “primitive road”.
Buffer Better than Primitive Roads:
For “Better than Primitive Roads”, select OML = 3, 4, and 5 and apply the buffer. Further division of roaded polygons shall be completed in steps 6 and 7.
Buffer all motorized routes by ½ and 3 miles and overlay all resulting motorized corridors (i.e. waterways-river corridors and lakes, airstrips, etc). Add the forest boundary to the buffer overlay. Select areas which fall in ½ mile of motorized travel and identify them as “motorized”. All areas outside will be identified as “non-motorized”.
Overlay current management information (i.e. local travel plans) to verify that current management is consistent with the OML of the road and to also compare area management with initially mapped polygons. Make necessary adjustments. For example, areas initially mapped as “motorized” because of the presence of roads but are closed according to the travel management plans, may be identified as Semi-Primitive non-motorized (SPNM) due to the closure. Other changes may be made based on the resource specialist knowledge of the area and other management criteria. Steps 5-9 discuss the types of information and considerations for further map refinement.
At this point, the draft map will display a rough division between motorized and non-motorized ROS settings.
2.) Classify non-motorized lands as either Primitive or semi-primitive
non-motorized
Areas 3 miles or greater away from motorized routes are initially mapped as Primitive.
Areas less than 3 miles and more than ½ mile from all roads, railroads, motorized trails and water-ways are initially mapped as semi-primitive non-motorized.
At this point, the draft map will display a rough division between primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized ROS settings.
3.) Map initial Semi-Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural ROS
settings.
Using the resulting coverage from previous steps, further delineate motorized ROS settings as either Semi-primitive Motorized or Roaded Natural.
Select and code the polygons within the ½ mile buffers of routes designated as primitive roads and motorized trails to semi-primitive motorized (SPM). Areas within ½ mile buffers for “Better than Primitive” roads and other motorized travel corridors become roaded natural.
SPM areas and preliminary RN areas are now delineated.
4.) Apply size criteria to Primitive and Semi-Primitive polygons.
This step identifies areas meeting the various size criteria as well as identifying (flagging and coding) areas that don’t meet the size criteria. The flagged areas shall be analyzed in subsequent steps to ensure other criteria are fully considered before eliminating the area due strictly to remoteness and size.
Select areas identified as primitive with a size greater than or equal to 5,000 acres. These areas meet all criteria for Primitive. Those that don’t meet the 5,000 are flagged as “smallP”.
Select areas identified as SPNM with a size greater than or equal to 2,500 acres. These areas meet all criteria for SPNM and shall be labeled as such. Areas not meeting the size criteria should be flagged and coded as “smallSPNM” to allow for further analysis.
Select the “SPM” polygons greater than or equal to 2,500 acres. These polygons meet the definition of “SPM”. Remaining “SPM” polygons smaller than the 2,500 acres will be flagged and coded as “smallSPM”. These areas will be further analyzed in steps 8 and 9. If analysis does not support a SPM setting, they shall be coded RN.
5.) Conduct adjacency assessment to refine P and SPNM settings:
For those areas initially mapped as Primitive but are smaller than 5,000 acres, look at adjacent ROS settings. There may be areas contiguous to semi-primitive non-motorized areas, yet still provide a primitive experience, they should be flagged for further assessment by local specialists. The decision requires local knowledge of the area and its features (i.e. topography, etc.).
For SPNM areas that do not meet the 2,500 acre size criteria, consider adjacent ROS designations. If adjacent lands are P, the polygon may still provide a SPNM experience and be mapped as such. In addition, if the area is isolated due to topography or other permanent landscape features, the area, even though not 2,500 acres, may be mapped as SPNM. Local expertise and judgment will be necessary in considering individual area designations. If none of these conditions occur, the area would be mapped as RN. This is consistent with direction in the ROS User Guide, 21.22, page 20.
There may also be instances where a small SPNM setting is engulfed by a SPM setting. In this case, the SPNM setting would become part of the SPM polygon. Although motorized use is not allowed in this portion of the setting, it contributes to the semi-primitive character.
Another source of information potentially useful in verifying these settings is the Forest’s Wild and Scenic River mapping. For example, as a general rule (based on the 6/02/2003 Draft ROS for River Management), most Wild Rivers will correlate with Primitive settings, Wild-Scenic Rivers are typically in SPNM settings, and Scenic Rivers are typically in SPM settings.
The map now depicts Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized and Semi-Primitive Motorized areas.
6.) Distinguish between Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban ROS classes.
No size criteria apply to roaded natural, rural, or urban ROS classes. Remaining buffered areas within ½ mile of “better than primitive roads” should be identified as “RN”. This includes those classified operational maintenance levels 3-5, and those that are maintenance level 2 but not included in the primitive roads for SPM mapping.
No real distinction between roaded natural, rural and urban classes can be derived from operational maintenance levels 3, 4, and 5. All three ROS classes are feasible. Refer to table 2 in Appendix B for linkages between operational maintenance levels and ROS class distinctions.
The primary indicator or criteria useful in differentiating between these three ROS classes is the level of development. Potential information to assist in determining the level of development may be available from existing GIS layers or other maps. Information that may be useful includes:
• administrative site boundaries (i.e. office complexes, visitor center sites, work compounds, maintenance yards, housing areas, etc, may exhibit rural or even urban ROS class characteristics)
• developed recreation sites (highly developed sites such as ski areas, marinas, etc. may exhibit rural or even urban ROS class characteristics). ROS classes are identified in Infra within the Develop Recreation Sites module.
• Wild and Scenic Rivers - the type of River designation can be helpful in differentiating between RN, Rural and Urban. For example, as a general rule (based on the 6/02/2003 Draft ROS for River Management), most Scenic-Recreational Rivers will correlate with Roaded Natural settings, and Recreational Rivers will likely be either Rural or Urban settings).
• permit boundaries (lodges, dude ranches, ski areas, marinas, and highly developed recreation complexes, may constitute a rural or urban ROS classification)
• EVC (Existing Visual Condition) maps. – Those areas designated as EVC 4 or 5 may contain features that would qualify as either Rural or Urban.
• ESI (Existing Scenic Integrity) maps – Those areas mapped as “low” or “very low” there may be features on the landscape that would qualify as either Rural or Urban.
• Management Prescription maps (displaying existing conditions) may coincide with development levels.
• DOQs (digital ortho-photo quadrangles) can be viewed to verify levels of development.
• Etc.
Where official boundaries of the above information (surveys, an polygon coverage in GIS, etc.), they should be used. In cases where boundaries are not be mapped or surveyed, field judgment will be necessary in delineating the polygon.
If available, information regarding the social and managerial setting should also be referenced and utilized in refining ROS classifications. Refer to Table 6 (Social setting Criteria) and Table 7 (Managerial Setting Criteria) of the ROS User Guide for attributes appropriate under each ROS class.
Social setting information may not be available, or where available, not displayed geographically. One source of social setting information resides in the INFRA database for GFAs (General Forest Areas). CUAs (concentrated use areas) are identified and can used in identifying those areas that are undeveloped but receive high levels of use. Although CUAs and social setting criteria in general, do not drive the designation of one ROS class over another, they can be helpful in later phases of planning where they are an inconsistency within the overall ROS setting being managed.
Management setting information is also not likely mapped. Perhaps the best source of managerial information is District and Forest Travel Management Plans, combined with local knowledge of the area. On-site regimentation can either be visible (barriers, signs, etc.) or invisible (such as permits, etc.). Appendix A displays physical, managerial and social attributes typically found in each of the ROS classes.
7.) Apply Wilderness Criteria
Overlay designated Wilderness boundaries (where applicable).
Review all polygons initially mapped as motorized (SPM and RN) ROS settings. Carefully scrutinize polygons initially mapped as RN and SPM (often due to their proximity – within ½ mile – of roads) to ensure all ROS class criteria are considered. Since Wilderness areas typically prohibit motorized and mechanized use, do not contain facilities or recreation developments, and are managed for a primitive recreation experience, other physical, social and managerial ROS criteria become critical in refining initial ROS designations. RN and SPM settings within Wilderness should only occur in isolated situations, under very limited circumstances:
• where an adjacent road or development has a profound effect on the wilderness recreation experience,
• where language within the enabling legislation permits motorized transportation and,
• where the motorized use is frequent enough to influence the typical wilderness recreation experience
Motorized ROS designations are typically limited to narrow corridors (i.e. along cherry stem roads and water ways) and small, isolated areas (i.e. air strips). Levels and frequency of motorized use should be considered prior to automatically mapping an area SPM or RN.
In cases where motorized use is infrequent and not a significant impact to the otherwise SPNM or P recreation experience, the area is mapped as P or SPNM. Site-specific departures or inconsistencies (i.e. an airstrip that is used for emergencies or occasional administrative use) to the overall ROS class designation are simply documented in the attribute table of that ROS polygon.
Wilderness-specific subclasses are being developed by a National team and, although a separate effort, shall be designed to reside within the primary ROS classes and be consistent with the direction contained in this protocol. The subclasses will better reflect Wilderness attributes, as well as, address management needs. Once established, they shall be incorporated with this National ROS Inventory Mapping Protocol as an addition.
The map now depicts motorized versus non-motorized ROS setting plus a refinement of areas where specific management actions and wilderness designations affect the ROS designation.
8.) Apply other criteria and local knowledge:
Other available information (topography, vegetation, etc.) may be used to further refine polygons. Where roads are contained within steep canyons or surrounded by dense vegetation, the “influence” zone of those routes may be less than ½ mile. Where routes are on flat terrain with sparse vegetation, the sights and sounds of humans may carry beyond the ½ buffer. These types of adjustments will require local knowledge and judgment to determine. This step is critical in finalizing the designation of all polygons, including those initially mapped as “smallP”, “smallSPNM” and “smallSPM”.
9.) Resolve inconsistencies:
When the physical, social and/or managerial settings are inconsistent with one another, an ROS category must be selected that best represents current conditions. Resolution of any apparent conflicts and search for compatibilities should begin with the following guidelines for analyzing inconsistencies. For additional guidance in resolving site-specific inconsistencies, refer to the ROS User Guide, page 29.
1) Determine the significance of inconsistencies on the recreation setting. This analysis requires judgments about possible short or long-term consequences and cumulative effects. 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?
2) Determine the course of action necessary in resolving inconsistency. There are three possible actions:
a. Retain the ROS classification and document the inconsistency that occurs.
b. Eliminate inconsistency through plan direction
c. Acknowledge inconsistency and change ROS class.
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.
DEGREE OF INCONSISTENCIES AND POTENTIAL ACTIONS TO ADDRESS
| INTENSITY |
| | | | | LOW |
| | |HIGH |MODERATE | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|SPATIAL | | | | |
|EXTENT | | | | |
| | |Unacceptable |Unacceptable |Inconsistent |
| | | | | |
| |HIGH |Eliminate |Eliminate |Retain & document |
| | |Change ROS |Change ROS |Eliminate |
| | | | |Change ROS |
| | |Unacceptable |Inconsistent |Inconsistent |
| | | | | |
| |MODERATE |Eliminate |Retain & document |Retain & document |
| | |Change ROS |Eliminate |Eliminate |
| | | |Change ROS | |
| | |Inconsistent |Inconsistent |Inconsistent |
| | | | | |
| |LOW |Retain & document |Retain & document |Retain & document |
| | |Eliminate |Eliminate | |
| | |Change ROS | | |
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 the ROS designation. 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 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. Since the physical setting is often the most influential factor in defining a setting, this criteria is often weighed heavier when deciding on the 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.
Units may determine that the physical, managerial and social settings are best mapped as separate layers. This protocol allows for that flexibility. As a minimum standard, however, each unit must produce a compiled ROS map. This is necessary for National consistency in data layers, and will allow for comparisons and analysis at a variety of scales.
An example of how the maps progress through the above steps is included in Appendix C.
APPENDICES
A. ROS SETTING CHARACTERISTICS
B. PRIMITIVE ROAD DETERMINATION AND
LINK TO INFRA
C. MAPPING EXAMPLE
Appendix A:
SUMMARY OF ROS SETTING CHARACTERISTICS
|Primitive |DESCRIPTION |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |Setting |Setting |
| |Physical |Theme: Remote (3 miles from motorized use), |
| | |predominately unmodified, naturally evolving |
| | |Size*: 5,000 + acres |
| | |Infrastructure**: |
| | |Access - Non-motorized trails are present. |
| | |Fishing sites –rivers and lakes; |
| | |Camp/Picnic sites – not developed or defined, leave no trace; |
| | |Sanitation – no facilities, leave no trace; |
| | |Water supply – undeveloped natural; |
| | |Signing – minimal, constructed of rustic, natural materials; |
| | |Interpretation - through self discovery and at trailheads; |
| | |Water crossing – minimal, some bridges made of natural |
| | |materials (wood) may exist but are rare. |
| | |Vegetation: Natural, no treatments except for fire use. |
| |Managerial |Few signs, few encounters with rangers, Travel on foot and horse, no motorized |
| | |travel allowed. |
| |Social*** |Very high probability of solitude; closeness to nature; self-reliance, high |
| | |challenge and risk; little evidence of people. |
|Semi-Primitive |Physical |Theme: Predominately natural/natural appearing; rustic improvements to protect |
|Non-Motorized | |resources. |
| | |Size*: 2,500 + acres (No size criteria apply within designated Wilderness |
| | |boundaries). |
| | |Infrastructure**: |
| | |Access - Non-motorized trails are present. |
| | |Closed and temporary Roads may be present but not |
| | |dominant on the landscape. |
| | |Fishing sites – rivers, lakes and reservoirs; |
| | |Camp/Picnic sites – not developed, leave no trace |
| | |Sanitation – no facilities, leave no trace |
| | |Water supply – undeveloped natural |
| | |Signing – rustic constructed of natural materials. |
| | |Interpretation - through self discovery, at trailheads |
| | |Water crossing – rustic structures or bridges made of natural |
| | |materials. |
| | |Vegetation: Predominately natural, treatment areas exist to enhance forest health |
| | |but are few and widely dispersed; |
| |Managerial |Minimum or subtle signing and regulations, some encounters with rangers. Motorized |
| | |travel prohibited. |
| |Social*** |High probability of solitude, closeness to nature, self-reliance high to moderate |
| | |challenge and risk; some evidence of others. |
|Semi-Primitive |Physical |Theme: Predominately Natural, Natural Appearing |
|Motorized | |Size: 2,500 + acres (no minimum size within designated |
| | |Wilderness) |
| | |Infrastructure**: |
| | |Access - Motorized trails exist |
| | |Fishing sites – rivers, lakes, and reservoirs w/ some trails & |
| | |primitive roads (motorized trails); |
| | |Camp/Picnic sites – not developed, leave no trace, some |
| | |identified dispersed areas |
| | |Sanitation – limited facilities, rustic, may have rustic |
| | |outhouses available. |
| | |Water supply - undeveloped natural, rustic |
| | |developments; |
| | |Signing – rustic, made of natural materials; |
| | |Interpretation – self discovery, some located on site or |
| | |at trailheads; |
| | |Water crossing - rustic structures or bridges made of natural |
| | |material, some designed for motorized use. |
| | |Vegetation: treatment areas are very small in number, |
| | |widely disbursed, and consistent with natural |
| | |vegetation patterns. |
| |Managerial |Minimum or subtle on-site controls with some restrictions; Motorized off-highway |
| | |vehicles allowed. |
| |Social*** |Moderate probability of solitude, closeness to nature, high degree of challenge and |
| | |risk using motorized equipment; motorized use visible and audible. |
|Roaded Natural |Physical |Theme: Natural Appearing with nodes and corridors of |
| | |Development such as campgrounds, trailheads, boat |
| | |launches, and rustic, small-scale resorts. |
| | |Size: n/a |
| | |Infrastructure**: |
| | |Access – Classified Road System for highway vehicle use |
| | |Fishing sites – rivers, lakes, reservoirs with some facilities; |
| | |Camp/picnic sites – identified dispersed and developed sites; |
| | |Sanitation – developed outhouses that blend with setting |
| | |Water supply – often developed |
| | |Signing – rustic with natural materials to more refined using a |
| | |variety of materials such as fiberglass, metal, etc.; |
| | |Interpretation – simple roadside signs, some interpretive displays |
| | |Water crossing – bridges constructed of natural materials. |
| | |Vegetation: Changes (treatments) to the natural vegetation |
| | |patterns are evident but in harmony with natural setting. |
| |Managerial |Opportunity to be with other users in developed sites; some obvious signs |
| | |(information and regulation) and low to moderate likelihood of meeting Forest |
| | |Service rangers. |
| |Social*** |Moderate evidence of human sights and sounds; moderate concentration of users at |
| | |campsites; little challenge or risk. |
|Rural |Physical |Theme: Altered Landscapes with natural appearing backdrop. Ranches, administrative |
| | |sites, and moderately developed resorts are sometimes in this ROS class. |
| | |Size: n/a |
| | |Infrastructure**: |
| | |Access - Travel routes highly developed, classified roads |
| | |Trails are constructed for ease of movement. Majority of |
| | |routes are concrete, paved or graveled. |
| | |Camp/Picnic sites – developed and designed for user comfort, |
| | |variety of construction materials used that blend with setting. |
| | |May have hookup amenities such as hot water, electricity, and |
| | |sewage disposal. |
| | |Sanitation – developed and designed for user comfort |
| | |Water supply – developed and designed for user comfort |
| | |Signing – natural and synthetic materials appropriate |
| | |Interpretation –roadside exhibits, interp. Programs, etc; |
| | |Water crossing bridges constructed of a variety of materials, |
| | |In harmony with landscape |
| | |Vegetation: dominate treatments that blend with landscape. |
| |Managerial |Obvious signing (regulation and information), education and law enforcement staff |
| | |available. Motorized and mechanized travel common and often separated. |
| |Social*** |High interaction among users is common. Little challenge or risk associated with |
| | |being outdoors. |
|Urban |Physical |Theme: Heavy site modifications and facilities. Backdrop is |
| | |often natural appearing. Highly developed Ski areas and |
| | |resorts are examples of urban nodes within NF System lands. |
| | |Size: n/a but typically small nodes |
| | |Infrastructure**: |
| | |Access - Travel routes highly developed (typically maintenance |
| | |levels 4 and 5) for motorized use often with mass transit |
| | |available. Majority of routes are concrete, paved or |
| | |graveled. |
| | |Camp/Picnic sites – developed and designed for user comfort, |
| | |variety of construction materials used, campsites in close |
| | |proximity to each other, nearby café’s and restaurants. |
| | |Sanitation – developed and designed for user comfort, most |
| | |have running water. |
| | |Water supply – developed and designed for user comfort, |
| | |many have hot water available. |
| | |Signing – natural and synthetic materials appropriate |
| | |Interpretation –exhibits in staffed visitor centers, highly |
| | |developed and formalized exhibits, etc; |
| | |Water crossing bridges constructed of a variety of materials, |
| | |designed for user convenience and safety. |
| | |Vegetation: often planted, manicured and maintained |
| |Managerial |Intensive on-site management, obvious signs, and staffing, education and law |
| | |enforcement available. Motorized and mechanized travel restricted to designated |
| | |routes. No motorized or mechanized travel allowed off designated travel routes. |
| |Social*** |Opportunity to be with others - high degree of interaction with people. Challenge |
| | |and risk are unimportant except for competitive sports. |
* Size of Primitive areas may be smaller if contiguous to a SPNM area(s)
Size of SPNM areas may be smaller if contiguous to Primitive area(s)
** Levels of development for infrastructure should be consistent with definitions for development scales (Appendix A, Meaningful Measures User Guide 2000). New and/or reconstructed facilities should follow BEIG (Built Environment Image Guide) principles and concepts.
*** Use figures, where available, should be included as part of defining existing conditions of the Social setting. Sources of information include: INFRA, NVUM, Infra/CUAs, traffic counts, local surveys and use monitoring, etc.
Appendix B:
Determining Primitive Roads using the INFRA Travel Routes:
The Travel Routes Data Dictionary includes an optional field entry for Template Slope Code (housing various cross section characteristics of the travel way). One of the code options is “P”, indicating “primitive”. The description for that code is “no constructed cross section – wheel track”. This is consistent with the ROS User Guide definition for a “primitive road”.
Use Infra Travel Routes database to identify all motorized trails and Operational Maintenance Level 2 travel routes.
Verify which maintenance level 2 routes are consistent with the ROS User Guide definition for “primitive roads”: are not constructed or maintained, and are used by vehicles not primarily intended for highway use.”
In some cases, roads (i.e logging roads built to accommodate large logging trucks: wide, graveled, gentle grades, and meet standards for highway vehicles) may be classified as maintenance level 2 roads but not be consistent with a “primitive” road definition. These would likely be more indicative of a RN, as opposed to SPM setting. Use other available information contained in the Infra Travel Routes module to further refine which maintenance level 2 routes meet the “primitive road” definition. The following table show applicable fields and values that are consistent with “primitive road” definitions in the ROS Guide.
Table 1:
“Primitive Road” (roads within SPM settings) Characteristics:
|Infra data fields within the Travel |Route characteristics meeting ROS User Guide definition for “Primitive” route and |
|Routes Module |consistent within the context of a SPM setting: |
| | |
|Service life |Constant Service or Intermittent Service-Open Status |
|Traffic Type |Administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, specialized |
|Vehicle Type |High clearance, ATV, etc. |
|Traffic Volume |Low Traffic volume |
|Typical surface |None, Native |
|Travel speed |Low Travel speed |
|User comfort and convenience |Not a consideration |
|Functional Classification |Local Collector |
|Traffic Service |D |
|Traffic Management Strategy |Discourage or Prohibit cars. Accept high clearance vehicles. |
Appendix B (continued):
Table 2:
ROS Spectrum
Link to Transportation Maintenance Levels
| |Maintenance Levels |
|Criteria | |
| |1 |2 |
| |Open for non-motorized |Administrative use |All National Forest Traffic – General Use, Commercial |
|Traffic Type |uses. Closed to |permitted, dispersed |Haul |
| |motorized uses. |recreation, specialized| |
| | |commercial haul | |
| |Closed-N/A |High clearance, |All types – passenger cars to large commercial vehicles|
|Vehicle Type | |pick-up, 4X4, log | |
| | |trucks, ATV, etc. | |
|Traffic Volume |Closed-N/A |Traffic volume increases with maintenance level |
|Typical surface |All types |None, Native, or Aggregate-may be dust |Aggregate – usually dust abated; |
| | |abated |paved |
|Travel speed |Closed-N/A |Travel speed increases with maintenance level |
|User comfort and |Closed-N/A |Not a consideration |Low priority |Moderate priority |High Priority |
|convenience | | | | | |
|Functional | | |Local Collector |Local Collector |Local Collector |
|Classification |All types |Local Collector |Arterial |Arterial |Arterial |
|Traffic Service |All types |D |A,B,C – Traffic service level increases with |
| | | |maintenance level |
| | |Discourage or Prohibit | | |
|Traffic Management |Prohibit or Eliminate |cars. |Encourage, accept |Encourage |
|Strategy | |Accept/Discourage high | | |
| | |clearance vehicles. | | |
| | | | | |
| |SPNM |SPM - RN |RN |RN, R or U |
| |ROS CLASS |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- crm with mapping capabilities
- crm mapping software
- microsoft sales territory mapping software
- salesforce mapping software
- sales territory mapping software reviews
- territory mapping programs
- territory mapping tool
- business process mapping software comparison
- microsoft mapping programs
- mapping personal support system handout
- microsoft mapping software free
- free customer mapping tool