Final EIS Appendix 4

APPENDIX 4—AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONCERN CRITERIA 

As part of the process for developing the Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP), Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) planning team members reviewed all BLM-administered public lands in the 

planning area to determine whether any areas should be considered for designation as areas of critical 

environmental concern (ACEC) or whether any existing ACEC designations should be modified or 

terminated. Only BLM-administered public lands can be considered for ACEC designation. 

To be eligible for designation as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria 

described in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613. 

Relevance and importance are defined as follows: 

1. Relevance. There shall be present a significant historic, cultural, or scenic value; a fish or wildlife 

resource or other natural system or process; or natural hazard. 

2. Importance. The above described value, resource, system, process, or hazard shall have 

substantial significance and values. This generally requires qualities of more than local 

significance and special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern. A 

natural hazard can be important if it is a significant threat to life or property. 

An area meets the relevance criterion if it contains one or more of the following: 

1. A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value (including but not limited to rare or sensitive 

archeological resources and religious or cultural resources important to Native Americans). 

2. A fish and wildlife resource (including but not limited to habitat for endangered, sensitive, or 

threatened species or habitat essential for maintaining species diversity). 

3. A natural process or system (including but not limited to endangered, nonsensitive, or threatened 

plan species; rare, endemic, or relic plants or plant communities that are terrestrial, aquatic, or 

riparian; or rare geological features). 

4. Natural hazards (including but not limited to areas of avalanche, dangerous flooding, landslides, 

unstable soils, seismic activity, or dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by human action may meet 

the relevance criteria if it is determined through the resource management planning process that 

it has become part of a natural process. 

An area meets the importance criterion if it further meets one or more of the following: 

1. Has more than locally significant qualities that give it special worth, consequence, meaning, 

distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared with any similar resource. 

2. Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, 

unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change. 

3. Has been recognized as warranting protection to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

the mandates of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 

Pinedale RMP A4-1
Appendix 4 Final EIS

4. Has qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety 

and public welfare. 

5. Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property. 

Table A4-1 shows the areas that were identified in the review and the BLM relevance and importance 

determinations that were made. 

Table A4-1. Evaluation of ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria 

Existing or 

Proposed ACECS 

Relevance 

Criteria 

Importance 

Criteria Recommended Comments 

Beaver Creek 

(existing) 

2 1 Yes Meets the relevance and importance 

criteria for fisheries and wildlife values 

as identified when originally 

designated an ACEC. The ACEC 

designation should be retained. 

Beaver Creek 

Expansion 

(proposed) 

2 No No Expansion areas in the South Beaver, 

North Beaver, and Trail Ridge 

watersheds were proposed. The areas 

meet the relevance criteria for 

fisheries values (Colorado River 

cutthroat trout [CRCT]). The areas did 

not meet the importance criteria. It 

was determined that CRCT habitat 

management actions should apply to 

the planning area as a whole, rather 

than to only special designations and 

management areas. 

Boulder Lake 

(proposed) 

1, 2, 3 No No Meets the relevance criteria for 

cultural, historic, wildlife, and natural 

process values. The area did not meet 

the importance criteria. 

CCC Ponds 

(proposed) 

2, 3 1, 2 Yes Meets the relevance and importance 

criteria for wildlife values. 

Critical Watersheds 

and Recharge 

Areas for the 

Towns of Big Piney, 

Marbleton, and 

LaBarge (proposed) 

3 No No Meets the relevance criteria for natural 

process values. The areas did not 

meet the importance criteria. 

Greater SageGrouse Winter 

Concentration 

Areas (proposed) 

2 No No Meets the relevance criteria for wildlife 

values. The areas did not meet the 

importance criteria. 

LaBarge Elk Winter 

Range (proposed) 

1, 2, 3 No No Meets the relevance criteria for 

historic, wildlife, and natural process 

values. The area did not meet the 

importance criteria. 

Miller Mountain 

(proposed) 

2, 3, 4 No No Meets the relevance criteria for 

fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation 

values and for unstable soils. The 

area did not meet the importance 

criteria. 

Muddy Creek 

(proposed) 

No No No The area did not meet the relevance 

and importance criteria. 

A4-2 Pinedale RMP
Final EIS Appendix 4

Pinedale RMP A4-3

Existing or 

Proposed ACECS 

Relevance 

Criteria 

Importance 

Criteria Recommended Comments 

New Fork Potholes 

(proposed) 

1, 2, 3 1, 2 Yes Meets the relevance and importance 

criteria for scenic, fisheries, wildlife, 

and unique geologic values. The 

values in this area need special 

emphasis to be effectively managed. 

North Cottonwood 

Creek (proposed) 

2 No No Meets relevance criteria for fisheries 

values (CRCT). The area did not meet 

the importance criteria. It was 

determined that CRCT habitat 

management actions should apply to 

the planning area as a whole, rather 

than to only special designations and 

management areas. 

Rock Creek 

(existing) 

1, 2, 3 1, 2 Yes Meets the relevance and importance 

criteria for scenic, fisheries, and 

wildlife values as identified when 

originally designated an ACEC. The 

ACEC designation should be retained. 

Rock Creek 

Expansion 

(proposed) 

2 No No It was proposed to expand the Rock 

Creek ACEC to include the LaBarge 

Creek watershed. Meets relevance 

criteria for fisheries values (CRCT). 

The area did not meet the importance 

criteria. It was determined that CRCT 

habitat management actions should 

apply to the planning area as a whole, 

rather than to only special 

designations and management areas. 

Ross Butte 

(proposed) 

2, 3 2 Yes Meets the relevance and importance 

criteria for wildlife and sensitive plant 

association values. 

Soap Holes 

(proposed) 

1, 2, 4 No No Meets the relevance criteria for 

cultural, historic, and wildlife values 

and for hazardous sinkholes. The area 

did not meet the importance criteria. 

South Beaver 

Watershed 

(proposed) 

2 No No Meets relevance criteria for fisheries 

values (CRCT). The area did not meet 

the importance criteria. It was 

determined that CRCT habitat 

management actions should apply to 

the planning area as a whole, rather 

than to only special designations and 

management areas. 

South Cottonwood 

Creek (proposed) 

2 No No Meets relevance criteria for fisheries 

values (CRCT). The area did not meet 

the importance criteria. It was 

determined that CRCT habitat 

management actions should apply to 

the planning area as a whole, rather 

than to only special designations and 

management areas. 
Appendix 4 Final EIS

A4-4 Pinedale RMP

Existing or 

Proposed ACECS 

Relevance 

Criteria 

Importance 

Criteria Recommended Comments 

The Mesa 

(proposed) 

2, 3 No No Meets relevance criteria for wildlife 

values (big game migration and 

greater sage-grouse habitat). The 

area did not meet the importance 

criteria. It was determined that wildlife 

habitat management actions should 

apply to the planning area as a whole, 

rather than to only very large special 

designations and management areas. 

Tip Top Watershed 

(proposed) 

3, 4 No No Meets the relevance criteria for natural 

process values and for hazardous 

landslides. The area did not meet the 

importance criteria. 

Trapper’s Point 

(proposed) 

1, 2, 3 1, 2, 4 Yes Meets the relevance and importance 

criteria for cultural, historic, and 

wildlife values. The area is a big game 

migration bottleneck. The values in 

this area need special emphasis to be 

effectively managed. 

Upper Green River 

(proposed) 

1, 2, 3 1, 2 Yes Meets the relevance and importance 

criteria for scenic, wildlife, and natural 

process values. 

5 Miles Either Side 

of the Green River 

(proposed) 

1, 2, 3 No No Meets the relevance criteria for 

cultural, historic, wildlife, fisheries, and 

paleontological values. The area did 

not meet the importance criteria. 

White-Tailed Prairie 

Dog (proposed) 

2 1, 2 Yes Meets the relevance and importance 

criteria for wildlife values (white-tailed 

prairie dog habitat). 

Wind River Front 

(proposed) 

1, 2, 3 1 No The area meets relevance criteria for 

scenic and recreation values, fish and 

wildlife habitat values, and geologic 

values. It was determined that 

management actions other than 

ACEC designation are more 

appropriate to protect the values. 

Wyoming Range 

Front (proposed) 

No No No The area was proposed by 

cooperators during the alternative 

formulation process. It was 

determined that wildlife habitat 

management actions should apply to 

the planning area as a whole, rather 

than to only very large special 

designations and management areas. 

The Pinedale RMP Interdisciplinary Team identified two existing ACECs, a potential expansion to one of 

the existing ACECs, and seven potentially new ACECs to be addressed during the Pinedale RMP 

planning effort. 

Of the areas and expansions reviewed, the BLM-administered lands in 16 areas were found to not meet 

the criteria and were dropped from further consideration. The BLM-administered lands on the two 

existing ACECs were found to meet the criteria and were retained. Two of the seven potential new 

ACECs were also found to meet the criteria and were recommended in the proposed RMP of the final 

environmental impact statement. Further information on each area’s qualifications under the relevance 

and importance criteria is available at the Pinedale Field Office and on the project website at 

www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/pinedale.