In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)) civil rights regulations and 

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA 

programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, 

in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and 

complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, 

large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 

Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a 

letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a 

copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the Revised Land Management Plan

Rio Grande, Puerto Rico

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Sharon Wallace, Forest Supervisor

HC-01, Box 13490

Rio Grande, PR 00745-9625

For Information Contact: Pedro Rios, Project Leader

HC-01, Box 13490

Rio Grande, PR 00745-9625

Phone: (787) 888-1880

Abstract: Three alternatives for revision of the 1997 El Yunque National Forest Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) are described, compared, and analyzed in detail in this final

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Alternative 1 represents no change from the current Forest Plan. 

Alternative 2 is the proposed action for the final revised Forest Plan and the alternative preferred by the 

Forest Service. Alternative 3 is a variation of alternative 2. 

El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

i 

Table of Contents 

List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... ix

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................................... 1

Public Involvement ................................................................................................................................... 2

Issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

Significant Issues ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Alternative 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Alternative 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................................................. 4

Custodial (no recreation management, special uses, or research management) ................................... 4

Intensive recovery of the Puerto Rican parrot....................................................................................... 4

Recommending designation of all eligible wild and scenic rivers ........................................................ 4

Summary of Effects and Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................. 5

Ecological Sustainability....................................................................................................................... 5

Social and Economic Sustainability ...................................................................................................... 5

Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 6

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action .......................................................................................... 9

1.1 Location ...................................................................................................................................... 11

1.2 Background ................................................................................................................................. 11

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................................................... 13

1.4 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 14

1.5 Decision Framework ................................................................................................................... 14

1.6 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 15

1.7 Issues ........................................................................................................................................... 15

1. What is the best approach to provide sustainable recreation opportunities that minimize impacts to 

the Forest while meeting current and future needs and demands of users and surrounding 

communities? ...................................................................................................................................... 16

2. What is the best approach to respond to the potential effects of climate change on Forest resources 

and ecosystem services?...................................................................................................................... 16

3. How, where, and to what extent can the Forest provide opportunities that contribute to and/or 

enhance social and economic conditions in the region? ..................................................................... 17

1.8 Other Related Efforts .................................................................................................................. 17

1.9 Changes from Draft EIS to Final EIS ......................................................................................... 18

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action .................................................................... 19

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 19

2.2 Alternative Development ............................................................................................................ 19

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................... 19

2.3.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) ................................................................................................. 19

2.3.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ....................................................................................... 20

2.3.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................................... 27

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .................................................... 31

Custodial (no recreation management, special uses or research management) .................................. 31

Intensive recovery of the Puerto Rican parrot..................................................................................... 31

Recommending designation of all eligible wild and scenic rivers ...................................................... 31
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

ii

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 31

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ............................................... 35

3.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................ 36

3.2 Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................................... 37

3.3 Physical Environment ................................................................................................................. 37

3.3.1 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 37

3.3.2 Geology ............................................................................................................................. 43

3.3.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 46

3.3.4 Climate Change, Climate Trends, and Extreme Weather Events ..................................... 47

3.3.5 Water and Watersheds ...................................................................................................... 50

3.4 Biological Environment .............................................................................................................. 77

3.4.1 Ecological Systems ........................................................................................................... 77

3.4.2 Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................................ 102

3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species/Species of Conservation Concern ........................ 104

3.4.4 Forest Health ................................................................................................................... 142

3.5 Economic and Social Environment ........................................................................................... 147

3.5.1 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................................. 147

3.5.2 Land Use and Ownership ................................................................................................ 166

3.5.3 Forest Products ............................................................................................................... 169

3.5.4 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 174

3.5.5 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 182

3.5.6 Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas ................................................................... 196

3.5.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................................................... 200

3.5.8 Special Uses .................................................................................................................... 202

3.5.9 Scenery............................................................................................................................ 207

3.5.10 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 212

3.6 Other Required Disclosures ...................................................................................................... 216

3.6.1 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 216

3.6.2 Relationship of Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity ...................................... 220

3.6.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects .............................................................................. 221

3.6.4 Effects on Wetlands and Floodplains ............................................................................. 222

3.6.5 Unavailable or Incomplete Information .......................................................................... 222

Chapter 4. List of Preparers and Distribution ................................................................................... 223

Leadership Team .................................................................................................................................. 224

Email List of Government, Agencies, Organizations, Academic Institutions and Individuals Receiving 

El Yunque Revised Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement ................................................. 225

Municipalities ................................................................................................................................... 225

Non-government Organizations ........................................................................................................ 225

Outfitters and Guide Companies ....................................................................................................... 226

Professors, Students and Organizations from Academic Institutions in Puerto Rico ....................... 227

Professors, Students and Organizations from Academic Institutions Outside of Puerto Rico .......... 227

Puerto Rico Government Agencies ................................................................................................... 227

Federal Government Agencies .......................................................................................................... 227

Elected Officials ................................................................................................................................ 228

Individuals ......................................................................................................................................... 228

Plan Revision EIS Mailing List, Required Federal Agencies ............................................................... 230

References ............................................................................................................................................ 231

Summary, Chapters 1 and 2 .............................................................................................................. 232

Soils................................................................................................................................................... 232

Geology ............................................................................................................................................. 233

Air ..................................................................................................................................................... 233
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

iii

Climate Change ................................................................................................................................. 233

Water and Watersheds ...................................................................................................................... 237

Ecological Resources ........................................................................................................................ 239

Aquatic Ecosystems .......................................................................................................................... 245

Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................................. 245

Forest Health ..................................................................................................................................... 248

Socioeconomic Resources................................................................................................................. 248

Forest Products .................................................................................................................................. 251

Cultural/Historic Resources .............................................................................................................. 252

Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 252

Scenic Resources .............................................................................................................................. 253

Other Required Disclosures .............................................................................................................. 254

Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 254

Appendix A: Public Involvement ............................................................................................................. 255

Ecological Sustainability and Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities ........................................ 259

1. Climate Change Response ........................................................................................................ 259

2. Long-term land management effects ......................................................................................... 259

3. Terrestrial Ecosystem: Vegetation ............................................................................................ 260

4. Invasive species ........................................................................................................................ 261

5. Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................... 262

6. Aquatic Ecosystems .................................................................................................................. 263

7. Water Resources ....................................................................................................................... 263

8. At-risk species: Fauna ............................................................................................................... 263

Social and Economic Sustainability ..................................................................................................... 264

9. Broader Landscape and Lands .................................................................................................. 265

10. Social and Economic ............................................................................................................. 266

Multiple Uses ........................................................................................................................................ 266

11. Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................................... 266

12. Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 267

13. Forest Products ...................................................................................................................... 269

14. Watersheds ............................................................................................................................ 270

15. Special Uses .......................................................................................................................... 271

16. Scenic Character ................................................................................................................... 273

17. Cultural and Historic Resources............................................................................................ 273

18. Facilities and Transportation ................................................................................................. 273

19. Other ..................................................................................................................................... 274

Comment Letters Submitted ................................................................................................................. 275

Appendix B: Ecological Sustainability Evaluation and Species of Conservation Concern ...................... 313

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 313

Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................... 314

Opportunities for the Public to Submit Comments included: ........................................................... 314

Overview of Ecological Sustainability analysis ................................................................................... 314

1. Identify and define ecosystems ..................................................................................................... 315

2. Identify species ............................................................................................................................. 315

3. Identify and define key characteristics of ecosystem sustainability ............................................. 315

4. Link species to the ecosystems and watersheds and identify any additional needs of species ..... 316

5. Develop Forest Plan components .................................................................................................. 316

6. Evaluate Ecological Sustainability Ratings to assess future outcomes at both 10- and 50-year time 

intervals. ............................................................................................................................................ 316

Hurricane María and Hurricane Irma ................................................................................................... 317

Flora ...................................................................................................................................................... 317
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

iv

Fauna .................................................................................................................................................... 317

Watersheds ........................................................................................................................................... 318

Ecological Conditions for At-risk Species ........................................................................................... 319

Overall Ecological Sustainability Ratings ............................................................................................ 324

Forest Plan Components and Strategies ............................................................................................... 326

Appendix C: Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Study Process ........................................................ 353

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 353

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act .......................................................................................................... 353

ID Team and Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 354

Inventoried Rivers ................................................................................................................................ 354

Eligible Rivers ...................................................................................................................................... 357

Suitability .......................................................................................................................................... 357

Effects Common to all Alternatives .................................................................................................. 358

Appendix D: Roadless Area and Wilderness ............................................................................................ 361

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 361

Inventory ............................................................................................................................................... 361

The Mameyes Inventoried Area ........................................................................................................ 361

Appendix E: Puerto Rico Land Use Plans and Policy .............................................................................. 371

Municipal Land Use Laws and Regulations ......................................................................................... 372

Land Use and Land Ownership in El Yunque Region.......................................................................... 373

Puerto Rico Land Use and El Yunque’s Planning Process ................................................................... 374

Index ......................................................................................................................................................... 375

List of Tables

Table S-1. Comparison of alternatives by significant issues ........................................................................ 7

Table 2-1. Alternative 2, management areas ............................................................................................... 25

Table 2-2. Alternative 3, management areas ............................................................................................... 29

Table 2-3. Comparison of alternatives by significant issues ....................................................................... 32

Table 2-4. Comparison of alternatives by management area (acres) .......................................................... 33

Table 2-5. Comparison of acres suitable for timber production and estimated 10-year timber volume by 

alternative ............................................................................................................................................ 34

Table 2-6. Summary of proposed wilderness by alternative ....................................................................... 34

Table 3-1. Acres of activities with potential soil impacts ........................................................................... 43

Table 3-2. Climate model projections for increases in temperature at end of century ............................... 48

Table 3-3. Climate model projections for changes in precipitation at end of century ................................ 48

Table 3-4. Conditions and trends of the current land management plan toward the established desired 

future conditions ................................................................................................................................. 51

Table 3-5. Hydrologic units within the project area ................................................................................... 52

Table 3-6. Watershed condition framework parameters analyzed in this Plan ........................................... 55

Table 3-7. River buffer zones in the planning area ..................................................................................... 59

Table 3-8. El Yunque watershed condition classification supplemental guidance classification for the Rio 

Blanco Watershed ............................................................................................................................... 64

Table 3-9. Summary of effects by alternative and watershed ..................................................................... 66

Table 3-10. Element composite scores by alternative as for El Yunque Planning Area calculated by the 

ecological sustainability evaluation tool ............................................................................................. 74

Table 3-11. Vegetation classification, El Yunque National Forest ............................................................. 79

Table 3-12. Vegetation types and acreage in the functional montane wetland ........................................... 80

Table 3-13. Vegetation types of the mature forest below 600 meters of elevation ..................................... 82
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

v 

Table 3-14. Vegetation types of the montane wet secondary forest ........................................................... 84

Table 3-15. Vegetation types of the Riparian zones at El Yunque ............................................................. 86

Table 3-16. Vegetation types inside the montane rain forest ...................................................................... 90

Table 3-17. Determination of effects for all alternatives .......................................................................... 101

Table 3-18. List of federally listed threatened, endangered and candidate species (fauna) on El Yunque

 .......................................................................................................................................................... 105

Table 3-19. Present observation trend of the Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk (Delannoy 1992) .......... 109

Table 3-20. Average density and estimated population of the Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk (Delannoy 

1992) ................................................................................................................................................. 111

Table 3-21. Species of conservation concern (fauna – 23 species) ........................................................... 115

Table 3-22. Species group and associated ecological/vegetation system groups from the ecological 

sustainability evaluation tool ............................................................................................................ 116

Table 3-23. Group weight and description ................................................................................................ 117

Table 3-24. Freshwater crustaceans .......................................................................................................... 118

Table 3-25. Rio Mameyes associates ........................................................................................................ 118

Table 3-26. Mature Tabebuia/Eugenia (Elfin) woodland associates ........................................................ 119

Table 3-27. Palo Colorado associates ....................................................................................................... 120

Table 3-28. Tabonuco associates .............................................................................................................. 120

Table 3-29. List of federally listed threatened and endangered species (flora) on El Yunque ................. 121

Table 3-30. Species of conservation concern (flora) ................................................................................ 134

Table 3-31. Invasive faunal species (for management responses) ............................................................ 145

Table 3-32. Total area and national forest area in El Yunque Region ...................................................... 148

Table 3-33. Total population and population change in the municipalities in El Yunque Region and Puerto 

Rico, 1970–2014, select years ........................................................................................................... 149

Table 3-34. Population density in El Yunque Region and Puerto Rico, 1970–2014, select years ........... 150

Table 3-35. Population classified as urban by the U.S. Census Bureau in the region surrounding El 

Yunque National Forest, select years 1970 to 2010 .......................................................................... 152

Table 3-36. Educational level of the population aged 25 years or more in the region surrounding El 

Yunque National Forest and Puerto Rico, 1990, 2000, and 2010 ..................................................... 154

Table 3-37. Per capita and median family income in current dollars (not adjusted for inflation) of Puerto 

Rico and the municipalities surrounding El Yunque National Forest, select years 1970 to 2010 .... 155

Table 3-38. Industry by occupation for civilian employed population 16 years and older of the 

municipalities surrounding El Yunque National Forest and Puerto Rico, 2010 (five year estimate 

2006–2010) ....................................................................................................................................... 160

Table 3-39. Seven broad types of socioeconomic and cultural values and interests associated with El 

Yunque National Forest .................................................................................................................... 161

Table 3-40. Timber production suitability classification for alternatives 2 and 3 .................................... 169

Table 3-41. Timber production suitability classification for alternative 1 ................................................ 170

Table 3-42. Diameter at breast height (1.4 meters) periodic annual increments by Holdridge life zone with 

number of trees measured, standard error of the mean, standard deviation of the mean, and maximum 

observed periodic annual increments increase from Puerto Rico forest inventory data in cm/year . 171

Table 3-43. Projected wood sale quantity, and projected acres treated by alternative.............................. 172

Table 3-44. Approximate vehicles and users per level of use ................................................................... 185

Table 3-45. Demand per trail system based on total visitors during low through excessive use .............. 189

Table 3-46. Total daily visitors per trail system (based on total use per day) .......................................... 190

Table 3-47. Existing designated wilderness areas..................................................................................... 196

Table 3-48. Inventoried roadless areas, approximate GIS acreages ......................................................... 197

Table 3-49. Areas on El Yunque that may be suitable for wilderness designation ................................... 197

Table 3-50. Summary recommendations by alternative ........................................................................... 197

Table 3-51. Rivers studied for national wild and scenic river system ...................................................... 200

Table 3-52. Summary of special use categories ........................................................................................ 202
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

vi

Table 3-53. Management area visual quality objective ratings ................................................................. 209

Table A- 1. Public participation planning activities by date ..................................................................... 256

Table A- 2. Total of comments per category ............................................................................................ 258

Table A- 3. Individuals/organizations that sent comment letters .............................................................. 258

Table B- 1. Measurement criteria for watershed attributes ....................................................................... 319

Table B- 2. At-risk species groups and associated ecosystems, El Yunque National Forest .................... 319

Table B- 3. At-risk species, mature Tabebuia/Eugenia woodland associate ............................................ 319

Table B- 4. At-risk species, secondary forest associates .......................................................................... 320

Table B- 5. At-risk species, Palo Colorado associates .............................................................................. 321

Table B- 6. At-risk species, Sierra palm associates .................................................................................. 323

Table B- 7. At-risk species, Tabonuco associates ..................................................................................... 323

Table B- 8. At-risk species, riparian associates ........................................................................................ 324

Table B- 9. Overall ecological sustainability ratings ................................................................................ 325

Table B- 10. At-risk species and associated ecological conditions, key characteristics, and forest plan 

components, El Yunque National Forest. Ecological conditions refer to the different forest types: 

Secondary-all plantation/secondary forest types, tabonuco-all tabonuco types, sierra palm-all Sierra 

palm forest types, palo colorado-all palo colorado forest types and Tabebuia/Eugenia-all 

Tabebuia/Eugenia forest types. ......................................................................................................... 327

Table C- 1. Wild, scenic, and recreation rivers (designated December 2002) .......................................... 354

Table C- 2. El Yunque National Forest rivers analyzed ........................................................................... 355

Table D- 1. Summary of proposed wilderness by alternative1

 .................................................................. 370

List of Figures 

Figure 3-1. Spatial patterns of average annual temperature (a) and precipitation (b) from 1963–1995 based 

on historic observations ...................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 3-2. Expected outcomes by alternative for the Rio Espiritu Santo Watershed ................................ 58

Figure 3-3. Graphic representation by watershed of the ecological sustainability evaluation for El Yunque 

National Forest Watersheds ................................................................................................................ 76

Figure 3-4. Pre-breeding population indices of wild flock of Puerto Rican parrots on El Yunque 2009 to 

2017................................................................................................................................................... 107

Figure 3-5. Population trend of a wild Puerto Rican parrots on El Yunque 1973 to 2006 (USFWS 2013)

 .......................................................................................................................................................... 107

Figure 3-6. Desired Elfin woodlands (mature Tabebuia/Eugenia woodland montane wet cloud forest) 

(left); desired Palo Colorado forest type (right) ................................................................................ 113

Figure 3-7. Total population in the municipalities surrounding El Yunque, 1970 to 2014 ...................... 150

Figure 3-8. Total population of El Yunque Region in 2000 and 2014 by age and gender ....................... 153

Figure 3-9. Real median family income (adjusted for inflation to the value of a U.S. dollar in 2010) of 

Puerto Rico and of the municipalities surrounding El Yunque National Forest, select years 1970 to 

2010................................................................................................................................................... 156

Figure 3-10. 2013 five year estimate (2009–2013) of poverty levels for the total population and persons 

less than 18 years of age and the percent of the total population less than 18 years of age in the 

region surrounding El Yunque National Forest, Puerto Rico, and the United States ....................... 157

Figure 3-11. Industry by occupation for civilian employed population 16 years and older of El Yunque 

Region, 2010 five-year estimate (2006–2010) .................................................................................. 158

Figure 3-12. Vehicle use counts on PR Road 191 corridor ....................................................................... 186
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

vii

List of Maps 

Map 1-1. El Yunque National Forest and vicinity ...................................................................................... 10

Map 2-1. Alternative 2 geographic areas .................................................................................................... 23

Map 2-2. Alternative 2 management areas ................................................................................................. 26

Map 2-3. Alternative 3 geographic areas .................................................................................................... 28

Map 2-4. Alternative 3 management areas ................................................................................................. 30

Map 3-1. Vegetation change in El Yunque National Forest after hurricanes Irma and María based on 

MODIS ................................................................................................................................................ 36

Map 3-2. Soils on El Yunque National Forest ............................................................................................ 38

Map 3-3. Hydric soils, El Yunque National Forest (developed by Maya Quiñones) ................................. 40

Map 3-4. Map of northeastern Puerto Rico, showing major tectonic structures and approximate locations 

for damaging earthquakes in recent history ........................................................................................ 45

Map 3-5. Spatial relationship among watersheds, El Yunque .................................................................... 53

Map 3-6. El Yunque National Forest impaired and non-impaired waterbodies ......................................... 54

Map 3-7. Watershed condition classification .............................................................................................. 65

Map 3-8. El Yunque National Forest vegetation map................................................................................. 78

Map 3-9. Watershed wetland map .............................................................................................................. 81

Map 3-10. Mature forest types below 600 meters....................................................................................... 83

Map 3-11. Montane wet secondary forest ................................................................................................... 85

Map 3-12. Riparian zones ........................................................................................................................... 87

Map 3-13. El Yunque National Forest rivers .............................................................................................. 88

Map 3-14. Montane rain forest ................................................................................................................... 91

Map 3-15. Alternative 1 management areas (1997 Land Management Plan) ............................................. 93

Map 3-16. Alternative 2 management areas ............................................................................................... 97

Map 3-17. Alternative 3 management areas ............................................................................................... 99

Map 3-18. El Yunque National Forest vegetation .................................................................................... 105

Map 3-19. El Yunque National Forest infrastructure and vegetation ....................................................... 184

Map C- 1. Congressionally designated wild and scenic rivers on El Yunque National Forest ................. 359

Map D- 1. Designated areas, El Yunque National Forest ......................................................................... 362

Map D- 2. El Toro and Mameyes inventoried area ................................................................................... 364

 

El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

ix

List of Acronyms

CCC Civil Conservation Corps 

CIRMA Community Interface Resource Management Area

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ESE Ecological Sustainability Evaluation

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

GA Geographic Area

MA Management Area

MCF Million Cubic Feet 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NF National Forest

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI Notice of Intent 

NVC National Vegetation Classification

RNA Research Natural Area

ROD Record of Decision

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

SCC Species of conservation concern

T&E Threatened and Endangered

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of Interior

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey

WCF Watershed Condition Framework

El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

1 

Summary

This final environmental impact statement (FEIS), prepared by the U.S. Forest Service, describes and 

analyzes in detail the three alternatives for managing the land and resources of El Yunque National Forest. 

It describes the affected environment and discloses environmental effects of the alternatives. The planning 

record is available on our public website at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/elyunque/landmanagement/planning. 

Proposed Action 

El Yunque National Forest proposes to revise the 1997 Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

Caribbean National Forest and Luquillo Experimental Forest, as amended (hereafter referred to as the 

1997 Forest Plan or 1997 Plan), in compliance with the 2012 planning rule (36 CFR 219.17(3)(b)(1)). The 

proposed action addresses the planning, collaborative, sustainability, social, economic, and ecological 

needs that have been identified for the final revised Plan. The Forest Plan guides all-natural resource 

management activities on El Yunque National Forest to meet the objectives of Federal law, regulations, 

and policy. The area affected by the proposal includes about 29,000 acres of El Yunque National Forest 

(see map 1-1). 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The need to revise the current Forest Plan includes the following: 

The existing Forest Plan is more than 20 years old and has been amended three times.

There is a need to meet the legal requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and 

the current planning regulations, 36 CFR 219. 

Since the Forest Plan was approved in March 1997, there have been changes in economic, social, and 

ecological conditions, new policies and priorities, and new information based on monitoring and 

scientific research; there is a need for these changes to be reflected in the Plan. 

Extensive public and employee involvement, along with science-based evaluations, have helped to 

further identify the areas of the existing Forest Plan that need to be changed. 

From 2012 through 2016, El Yunque National Forest developed the Plan Assessment (USDA Forest 

Service 2014), the Need for Change (USDA Forest Service 2014, 2015) and the Proposed 

Management Strategies (USDA Forest Service 2015, 2016). The purpose of these documents was to 

assess new information, changes in technology, the 2012 Planning Rule, land uses, and to identify 

what did and did not work well in the 1997 Forest Plan. These assessments and public comments and 

recommendations were summarized into five areas where a change from current Forest Plan direction 

is needed: 

1. Incorporate collaborative adaptive management at the Plan and site-specific levels. 

2. Define a new recreation, access, and tourism system.

3. Promote a stronger regional identity in and around the Forest using an “all-lands” policy. 

4. Increase regional environmental literacy and educating local communities. 

5. Provide for healthy ecosystems. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

2 

Public Involvement 

The notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 

2014 (79 FR, pages 56050-56054). The legal notice was published in the two newspapers of record, 

Nuevo Dia and San Juan Daily Star on September 14, 2015. The public was asked to comment on the 

proposed action by November 3, 2014. From 2014 to 2015, approximately 28 outreach activities and 

meetings were hosted (see planning record or appendix A). Planning outreach activities included meetings 

with different communities and the public in general in locations that were accessible to the different 

municipalities located to the north, east and southwest of the Forest. Meetings were held with 

stakeholders including recreation outfitters, protected area land managers, municipality planners, the 

scientific and academic community, and the Center for Landscape Conservation (CCP for its acronym in 

Spanish). The meetings were designed to describe and discuss the existing forest and resource conditions 

being used to develop the proposed action, and to collect information and comments from the public on 

land use for the Forest, and to consider suggestions for new alternatives for managing the Forest. 

Information and recommendations from these planning outreach activities were used to develop the 

proposed action for the final revised Plan. The proposed action was shared with the public through a 

series of community meetings and interest group meetings to validate its content. The public outreach 

process spanned almost 2 years and the complete public involvement process can be found in the planning 

record. 

Concurrent with the release of the draft EIS, a notice of availability (NOA), published in the Federal 

Register initiated the formal 90-day comment period on the draft EIS and proposed Forest Plan as 

required by Forest Service NFMA regulations at 36 CFR 219. Only those individuals and entities who 

submitted substantive formal comments related to this plan revision are eligible to file an objection (36 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219.53(a)). 

Comments made by the public on El Yunque National Forest DEIS and Proposed Forest Plan addressed a 

wide range of concerns but were largely focused on recreation opportunities and wildlife. A total of 14 

comment letters were received from the public, agencies, and public interest groups. 

Issues 

Significant issues are those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. These 

issues drive the range of alternatives and effects analysis. Alternatives were developed around those 

issues that involved unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. See the 

“Alternatives” section in chapter 2. No areas of scientific controversy were identified. 

Significant Issues 

Based on comments and analysis from Forest Service personnel, the public, other agencies and 

nongovernmental organizations, the following significant issues were identified:

1. What is the best approach to provide sustainable recreation opportunities that minimize impacts to the 

forest while meeting current and future needs and demands of users and surrounding communities? 

2. What is the best approach to respond to the potential effects of climate change on Forest resources 

and ecosystem services?

3. How, where, and to what extent can the Forest provide opportunities that contribute to and enhance 

social and economic conditions in the region?
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

3 

Alternatives 

Three alternatives are described, compared, and analyzed in detail. 

Alternative 1 

The “no action” alternative would continue management under the 1997 Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Caribbean National Forest and Luquillo Experimental Forest, as amended. The 

alternative retains the 1997 Forest Plan goals and objectives, standards and guidelines and nine 

management area prescriptions (as amended). Management would continue to be focused on four forest 

types and would retain direction for managing species as management indicator species. Recreation 

would continue to be promoted in functional wetlands that are above 600 meters in elevation. One area 

suitable for wilderness designation (the Baño de Oro Inventoried Roadless area) would continue to be 

managed as part of the proposed expansion to the Baño de Oro Research Natural Area, which would 

continue to provide for long-term watershed research and studies and which is also a National Natural 

Landmark. Three rivers would remain eligible for wild and scenic river designation. This alternative does 

not address sustainable forest recreation or include management areas that would improve social and 

economic development at a broader landscape scale. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is the proposed action and the preferred alternative for the final revised Forest Plan. It 

addresses public desire to access the forest for recreation, but recognizes carrying capacities and the need 

to maintain sufficient infrastructure to support visitation. It addresses climate change by shifting 

recreational opportunities at the lower elevations of the Forest, which are better suited for recreational 

use. Alternative 2 would: 

Propose a new planning system based on ecological, social, and economic sustainability. 

Recognize the need to protect and restore the functional wetlands that occur over 600 meters in 

elevation and increase forest types from 4 to 15 to reflect the new vegetation classification system and 

the Forest’s most recent findings. 

Promote recreation sustainability, and address increased demands and needs by promoting recreation 

at lower elevations in a setting closer to local communities. 

Introduce plan components for environmental education, collaboration, and ecosystem services.

Establish nine management areas including a new scenic byway corridor for PR 186. 

Establish three geographic areas (El Norte, El Este and El Oeste and Sur) to increase community 

interactions and an “all-lands” approach to planning. 

Establish a Community Interface Resource Management Area (CIRMA).

Recommend expansion of the Baño de Oro Research Natural Area to 6,441 acres, for the purpose of 

research and long-term watershed studies. Remove direction for managing species as management 

indicator species and replace it with species of conservation concern. 

Provide additional management direction for priority watersheds using the national watershed 

condition framework. 

Alternative 2 would retain existing Forest Plan direction for research on wilderness and wild and scenic 

rivers on the Forest. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

4 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 was developed to respond to concerns related to sustainability. It would reduce the number 

of maintained trail miles. This alternative would expand wilderness, and would not create a scenic byway 

management area. This alternative is based on alternative 2 with the following changes: 

Recommend designation of the Baño de Oro Research Natural Area as wilderness. 

Provide additional plan components to address invasive species management in areas of road rightsof-way, recreation areas, and threatened and endangered habitats. 

Address some sustainable recreation concerns by reducing the trail system to a level that can be 

maintained.

Create two geographic areas, North and South, to connect with communities on both sides of the 

Forest. 

Exclude the scenic byway management area for PR 186, due to the amount of use this would produce 

on the western side of the Forest.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative 

methods of achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope 

of what can be included in the final, revised El Yunque Forest Plan, duplicative of the alternatives 

considered in detail or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. 

Three alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized 

below. 

Custodial (no recreation management, special uses, or research 

management) 

This alternative was not considered in detail because it does not meet law or policy requirements to 

provide multiple uses. This alternative would not comply with the dual designation of El Yunque National 

Forest as also the Luquillo Experimental Forest. 

Intensive recovery of the Puerto Rican parrot 

This alternative was not considered in detail because in the 1997 Forest Plan it was accepted, but not 

scientifically supported, that El Yunque was potentially prime habitat that would support a viable parrot 

population. Since then, interagency recovery research has found El Yunque National Forest is not optimal 

habitat for the Puerto Rican parrot, and is focusing recovery efforts in better habitats to the west of the 

Forest (White et al. 2014). Therefore, the new plan will keep Puerto Rican parrot recovery as an important 

management objective and continue to be in compliance with all relevant Federal and State land 

management regulations, but will not continue to manage the Forest as habitat vital to the recovery of the 

species. 

Recommending designation of all eligible wild and scenic rivers 

This alternative was not considered in detail for the following reasons:

There is little public interest in wild and scenic river designation for six rivers;

Additional areas would increase management complexity; and, 

People would still like to have access to these areas.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

5 

Summary of Effects and Comparison of Alternatives 

Ecological Sustainability 

All native ecosystems and native species, including at-risk species, would be protected in all alternatives. 

Each alternative includes the Forest Plan components for ecosystem diversity necessary to provide the 

ecological conditions to conserve threatened and endangered species. Alternative 1 emphasizes the 

acquisition and conservation of key land units connected to the Forest, addressing some interests in 

landscape connectivity. However, Forest Plan (proposed action) components that promote landscape 

connectivity and an “all-lands” approach to Forest management and conservation is a key in alternative 2 

through the development of a new Community Interface Resource Management Area (CIRMA) and the 

identification of three geographic areas. The geographic areas target conservation initiatives that may be 

developed, including stream corridors and riparian zones. The new management and geographic areas 

provide plan components that connect the Forest to other public lands and protected areas. In alternative 2 

these areas provide direction that would identify and protect critical connections and developments at the 

sub-regional level. 

Soil, water and air quality would be maintained in all alternatives. Alternative 2 would include watershed 

priority management to improve watershed conditions in specific areas. 

The changing climate is expected to create impacts, such as sea-level rise, increases in temperature, and 

greater variation in precipitation. Management direction in all alternatives focuses on creating diverse, 

functioning ecosystems that are resilient to these changes. The final revised plan (alternative 2) proposes 

aligning management areas, enhancing landscape connectivity, and maintaining wetland conditions to 

promote amphibian habitat. 

The Forest Plan components for the experimental forest designation would be retained in all alternatives. 

Alternative 2 would include a management area designated for ongoing, long-term research (Bisley, El 

Verde, Baño de Oro) and emphasize Forest monitoring as a fundamental element of adaptive 

management. 

Social and Economic Sustainability 

In all alternatives the Forest would continue to provide open space and natural settings, as well as an array 

of goods and services that are important to nearby residents and various communities of interest. 

However, alternative 1 (current plan) does not include components oriented toward sustainable recreation 

opportunities and settings. In the long term, this direction would lead to adverse impacts from increased, 

unsustainable recreation across the Forest. Alternative 1 does not address opportunities for increasing 

environmental education and literacy at a regional level or with specific groups (e.g., schools, university 

groups); nor does it provide direction for using research and knowledge development within the context 

of adaptive forest management. Alternative 2 and 3 are designed to address these needs. 

Alternative 2 (proposed action) differs from alternative 1 and alternative 3 in its development of a 

recreation corridor along PR Road 191, a scenic byway along PR Road 186, and a community interface 

resource management area (CIRMA) where multiple sustainable uses, including passive and active 

recreation can be developed and carried out in collaboration with nearby communities and governments. 

Under the final revised plan direction, recreation activities would be dispersed to lower elevations of the 

Forest, alleviating some of the existing pressure of intense use along PR 191, and ultimately allowing for 

more sustainable levels of recreation throughout the Forest and satisfying a broader range of recreation 

values and interests. Alternative 3 would eliminate recreation trails that may not be sustainably 

maintained. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

6 

In alternative 1, one area suitable for wilderness designation (the Baño de Oro Inventoried Roadless Area) 

would continue to be managed as part of the proposed expansion to the Baño de Oro Research Natural 

Area, providing for long-term watershed research and studies. Three rivers would remain eligible for wild 

and scenic river designation. Alternative 2 does not recommend any areas for wilderness designation. The 

final revised plan would expand (increase the acreage) the Baño de Oro Research Natural Area to include 

all mature forest on the eastern side of the Forest. No new wild and scenic river recommendations would 

be provided. Alternative 3 differs from alternative 1 and 2 by recommending the designation of a new 

wilderness area in the expanded Baño de Oro Research Natural Area. If designated as wilderness, 

recreation and non-market services interests and values would be served, but research and education 

stakeholders, particularly manipulative research interests and needs, are likely to be impacted (as these 

uses would be prohibited under wilderness designation).

While each alternative has the potential to affect local businesses and industrial sectors, the contribution 

of El Yunque National Forest to the local economy, and the relative differences among the alternatives, 

would not be large enough to cause measurable changes to local economic diversity (e.g., the number of 

economic sectors) or economic dependency (i.e., a limited number of industries dominate the local 

economy). However, alternative 2 best promotes existing and new economic opportunities tied to the 

Forest, particularly through the development or demonstration of multiple, sustainable uses in the CIRMA 

and nearby communities. The final revised plan (alternative 2) includes management strategies that 

support community collaboration and development, and ultimately lead not only to the creation of indirect 

and induced jobs, but also enhanced stewardship of the Forest and its goods and services. 

Overall, shifts in the local economy are likely to occur over the next 20 years or so, though not as a direct 

result of actions implemented under any alternative management scenario. Under all proposed 

alternatives, payments to the Commonwealth and municipalities would continue to help fund schools, 

roads, and public services; and ultimately contribute to the sustainability and health of local communities, 

particularly by supporting important amenities and services provided by local and Commonwealth 

governments. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Tables at the end of chapter 2, beginning with table 2-3, compare the alternatives by a variety of 

measures. Table 2-3 qualitatively compares the alternatives by the significant issues identified during the 

public participation process. Table 2-4 compares the alternatives by management area allocation acres. 

Table 2-5 compares timber suitability acres and timber volume by alternative. Table 2-6 compares 

recommended wilderness acres by alternative.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

7 

Table S-1. Comparison of alternatives by significant issues

Significant Issues Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3

Issue 1. What is the 

best way to provide 

sustainable recreation 

opportunities that 

minimize impacts to 

the Forest while 

meeting current and 

future needs and 

demands?

The 1997 Plan does not 

include plan components 

that address sustainable 

recreation. The plan 

increases the recreational 

opportunity; therefore, 

impacts will be expected to 

increase. This alternative 

helps us to meet current 

and future demands 

regardless of impacts. The 

alternative does not 

contemplate the impacts of 

recreation site 

development.

This alternative provides for 

sustainable recreation by 

including plan components that 

consider wetlands, community 

interface areas, limits on 

capacity and funding. This

alternative addresses current 

conditions of cultural resources, 

the need to protect sensitive 

areas at higher elevations, 

disperse the recreational 

opportunity away from PR

Road 191 in order to decrease 

crowding and improve setting.

This alternative 

provides for 

sustainable 

recreation. This 

alternative reduces 

the recreational 

opportunity and 

setting by reducing 

the trail system. The 

alternative responds 

to the issue by 

reducing capability to 

meet demands.

Issue 2. What is the 

best approach to 

respond to the 

potential effects of 

climate change on the 

Forest resources, 

ecosystem services 

and others?

This alternative does not 

respond to the issue. There 

are no specific plan 

components in response to 

climate change.

This alternative contains plan 

components that focus on 

climate change.

This alternative 

responds to the issue 

by promoting species 

management on 

threatened and 

endangered habitats 

and invasive species. 

Provides a stronger 

response to climate 

change.

Issue 3. How, where, 

and to what extent 

can the Forest provide 

opportunities that 

contribute to/enhance 

social and economic 

conditions in the 

region?

The Forest’s main 

contributions to the social 

and economic condition 

would continue to include

recreation, water and 

biodiversity. This

alternative responds to the 

issue by maximizing 

outputs of recreational 

opportunities, providing for 

water, timber products and 

research within the Forest. 

This alternative responds to the 

issue by introducing 

recreational sustainability, 

establishing plan components 

for recreation along Road 191 

and shifting recreation 

opportunities to lower 

elevations, establishing a new 

access, recreation and tourism 

strategy based on collaboration 

and community partnerships. It

best promotes existing and new 

economic opportunities tied to 

the Forest, particularly through 

the development or 

demonstration of multiple, 

sustainable uses in the 

Community Interface Resource 

Management Area and nearby 

communities.

This alternative 

responds to the issue 

by reducing 

recreational 

opportunity within 

National Forest

System lands while 

promoting 

recreational 

opportunities off 

National Forest

System lands.

El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

9 

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

This final EIS and final revised Forest Plan have been prepared in accordance with Title 36 Code of 

Federal Regulations, Part 219 – National Forest System Land Management Planning (2012 planning 

regulations), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969 and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations. This final EIS discloses 

the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and 

alternatives. This document is organized into the following sections. 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter includes information on the history of the project 

proposal, the purpose and need for the project and the Forest Service’s proposal for achieving the purpose 

and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how 

the public responded. 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed 

description of the Forest Service’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated 

purpose. These alternatives are based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. 

Finally, this section provides summary tables of the environmental consequences associated with each 

alternative.

Chapter 3. Affected Environmental and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the 

environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. The analysis is 

organized by themes developed from public involvement. Major themes include: Ecological 

sustainability, social and economic sustainability, and resource integration.

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies 

consulted during the development of the final EIS. 

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the 

final EIS.

References and Literature Cited: This section lists reference documents used in the preparation of this 

plan. 

Note: The final Forest Plan for El Yunque National Forest is a separate accompanying document. 

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in 

the planning project record located at El Yunque National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Key analysis 

documents can be found online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/elyunque/landmanagement/planning. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

10

Map 1-1. El Yunque National Forest and vicinity
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

11

1.1 Location 

El Yunque National Forest is the only tropical forest administered by the USDA Forest Service with a 

Forest supervisor and staff. The Forest has dual designation as an experimental forest (the Luquillo 

Experimental Forest). 

Offices are located at Headquarters and El Portal Visitor Center on PR Route 191, kilometer 4.4, south of 

Palmer, Río Grande. 

The Forest is located in the rugged Sierra de Luquillo Mountains, 25 miles southeast of San Juan, Puerto 

Rico. The Luquillo Mountains raise abruptly from sea level at Las Cabezas de San Juan on the 

northeastern tip of Puerto Rico to 1,074 meters in elevation at El Toro Peak. The Forest is approximately 

29,000 acres (map 1-1). Elevation ranges from about 330 to 3,533 feet above sea level. Topography is 

rugged, with 24 percent of the Forest exhibiting 60 percent slope or steeper. 

There are three geographic scales considered in this document: municipal, regional, and Island-wide. In 

Puerto Rico, a municipality is the smallest division of administrative and electoral government, similar to 

a county in the United States. The Forest is surrounded by nine municipalities in Eastern Puerto Rico: 

Canóvanas, Ceiba, Fajardo, Juncos, Las Piedras, Luquillo, Naguabo, Rio Grande and Humacao. These 

comprise more than 220,000 acres (347 square miles), which is about 10 percent of the Island’s total area. 

Stretching over 29,000 acres, the National Forest covers about 15 percent of the total El Yunque Region. 

Of the municipalities surrounding El Yunque, Rio Grande is the largest in terms of area and also 

encompasses the largest area of National Forest land within its borders (20.26 square miles; 33.2 percent 

of its total land base). At the other end of the spectrum, Juncos is the smallest of the region’s 

municipalities and encompasses the smallest area of National Forest System land (0.03 square miles, 0.1 

percent of municipality).

1.2 Background 

In 1997, the Forest Service developed a management plan that considered several issues and management 

needs. The 1997 management concept focused on a strong conservation approach. The planning strategy 

was to obtain a formal designation for the research natural areas, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness.

Finally, the plan addressed the utilization of water, wildlife, and research. The social needs were 

addressed through recreation and access initiatives. 

The 1997 Plan considered the following issues: 

1. Demonstrating timber production while assuring compatibility with a diversity of other Forest 

values. 

2. Recommending areas for congressional designation as wilderness.

3. Recommending areas for congressional designation as wild, scenic or recreational rivers.

4. Protecting the mature forest. 

5. Providing recreation opportunities while protecting the ecological values of the Forest. 

6. Protecting wildlife while conducting other forest management activities. 

7. Providing and protecting the Forest's water quantity and quality. 

8. Providing and managing appropriate Forest access.

9. Meeting the needs of tropical forestry research while protecting the Forest's environmental 

values. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

12

In 2007, a comprehensive evaluation report (CER) of the Plan was conducted. The purpose was to review 

the accomplishments of the plan and recommend changes. The comprehensive evaluation report’s 

findings were:

1. Land ownership: Desired conditions should state priorities clearly and emphasize the need for 

more partnerships.

2. Access Management: Desired conditions should address greenhouse gas emissions caused by 

vehicle traffic.

3. Facilities: Desired conditions should be updated to address minimizing construction practices 

that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

4. Socioeconomics: Monitoring should be developed to gather data on social and economic 

trends for future evaluations.

5. Special Uses and Communication Sites: Public-private partnerships may need to be 

increased. Climate change, sustainability, and green technology standards and guidelines 

should be incorporated into permit uses. 

6. Recreation: Standards and guidelines for camping should be updated.

7. Scenery: Standards and guidelines should be updated using new Scenery Management 

System.

8. Heritage: Desired conditions should provide emphasis on preserving and stabilizing heritage 

resources. Management direction should be updated to reflect current science. 

9. Minerals: Desired conditions should be updated to reflect management direction for minerals. 

10. Vegetative Communities: Desired condition and management direction should be updated to 

reflect current science.

11. Fish and Wildlife: Desired conditions should be updated to provide protection for species that 

may be affected by climate change.

12. Air: Management direction should be updated to reflect current science. 

13. Research: Desired conditions should be updated to address disclosure of research activities 

and promote high priority research topics for study. 

14. Timber Demonstration: Management direction should be updated to reflect current science.

The 2014 and 2015 Need for Change document (USDA Forest Service 2014, 2015) identified the forest 

plan components that need to be updated or added in this forest planning process. Furthermore, 

congressional designation of El Toro Wilderness and the Rio Mameyes, Rio de la Mina and Rio Icacos 

Wild and Scenic Rivers represented quite an achievement in land allocation. The significant number of 

recommendations from the comprehensive evaluation report, progress made on six of the nine issues 

considered in the 1997 Plan, and the assessment findings created the need to change the plan. 

In 2012, the Forest Service established an interdisciplinary team (ID team) to lead the plan revision 

process. In the fall of that same year, the ID team assessed what had been accomplished, new information, 

changes in technology, new Forest Service Planning Rule and land uses, as well as what did and did not 

work well in the 1997 Forest Plan. The ID team also developed the following three important documents: 

El Yunque National Forest Plan Assessment (2014). This document consists of ID team specialists’ 

reports and supporting supplemental reports. Several topics are covered including: wildlife habitats, 

at-risk species, natural disturbances, recreation opportunities, etc. At the beginning of each subsection 

are findings that highlight accomplishments, changed conditions, challenges, opportunities, data gaps 

and research needs. The assessment feeds into the affected environment in chapter 3 of this final EIS.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

13

El Yunque National Forest Need for Change (2014–2015). This document focuses on management 

direction that “needs to change” in the current Forest Plan. Using the findings in the assessment, the 

ID team developed “need for change” statements. These statements framed the scope of the proposed 

action. 

El Yunque National Forest Plan Revision: Proposed Management Strategies (2015–2016). This 

document addresses need for change statements in El Yunque National Forest Need for Change. 

Management strategies describe, in broad terms, how the agency would achieve desired conditions 

over time while considering priorities, such as program direction, budget trends, past program 

accomplishments and partnership opportunities. In some instances, these proposed management 

approaches are applied to areas that are similar in some respect across El Yunque National Forest and 

were used to identify social zones or management areas.

These documents are located on El Yunque website: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/elyunque/landmanagement/planning. 

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action 

The need to revise the current Forest Plan includes: (1) the existing Forest Plan is more than 18 years old 

and has been amended three times. There is a need to meet the legal requirements of the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) and the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219); and (2) since the Forest Plan was 

approved in March 1997, there have been changes in economic, social, and ecological conditions, new 

policies and priorities, and new information based on monitoring and scientific research. There is a need 

for these changes to be reflected in the plan. Extensive public and employee involvement, along with 

science-based evaluations, have helped to further identify the areas of the existing Forest Plan that need to 

be changed. Additionally, in September 2017, hurricanes Irma and María heavily impacted the Forest 

further than the already existing changes and will require further monitoring beyond this Environmental 

Impact Statement to fully assess the extent of their damages in ecological as well as social and economic 

aspects throughout the region.

From 2013 through 2016, El Yunque National Forest developed the Plan Assessment (USDA Forest 

Service 2014), the Need to Change (USDA Forest Service 2014, 2015) and the Proposed Management 

Strategies (USDA Forest Service 2015, 2016). The purpose of these documents was to assess new 

information, changes in technology, the 2012 Planning Rule, land uses, and to identify what did and did 

not work well in the 1997 Forest Plan. These assessments and public comments and recommendations 

were summarized into five areas where a change from current Forest Plan direction is needed: 

1. Incorporate collaborative adaptive management at the plan and site-specific levels. 

Sustain and develop partnerships. Continue current regional collaboration efforts engaged in 

conservation, management, and land use in a sustainable manner while seeking out opportunities for 

further partnership efforts. Shift priorities from primarily a Forest Service-driven management focus 

to more collaborative management. Partnership opportunities and collaborations support the 

achievement of desired conditions and objectives of the Plan.

Integrate agencies and stakeholders in conservation efforts. Facilitate and coordinate a framework 

similar to the concept of a State Technical Committee by integrating agencies and concerned citizens 

in the region in processes to request support or funds for programs and promote outreach for incentive 

programs available for private land-owners in the areas adjacent to the Forest. 

Provide opportunities for research. Develop initiatives with agencies, academic institutions, and 

citizen scientist groups for various projects.

2. Define a new recreation, access, and tourism system.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

14

Provide for sustainable recreation. The Forest provides sustainable recreation opportunities that are in 

harmony and sustainable within the natural setting, where people enjoy and value its unique tropical 

ecosystem which includes protecting and maintaining historical and cultural recreation resources. 

Future demands and limited agency resources will require public support and new partnerships to 

improve recreation facilities and services on the Forest as well as the capacity to support recreation 

usage without causing damage to the environment. 

3. Promote a stronger regional identity in and around the Forest using an “all-lands” policy.

Consider the ecological, social and economic needs of the broader landscape. An area (CIRMA) of 

community interface for management of resources at the lower elevations of the Forest is sustainably 

managed in accessible locations suitable for multiple use management and provides for forest 

products. 

4. Increase regional environmental literacy and educating local communities. 

Connect the surrounding communities to the Forest’s natural landscapes. Assist in developing 

community capacity for participation in various management activities in areas such as interpretation, 

education, recreation, economic development, conservation, restoration, research and monitoring. 

Identify and overcome barriers that inhibit these populations from connecting socially, culturally and 

economically to the natural landscapes within and surrounding the Forest. 

5. Provide for healthy ecosystems

Conserve and restore ecosystems. Protect and conserve the functional wetlands and mature forest and 

maintain and improve watershed conditions on the Forest while monitoring, adapting and mitigating 

the impacts of climate change.

1.4 Proposed Action

El Yunque National Forest proposes to revise the 1997 Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

Caribbean National Forest and Luquillo Experimental Forest, as amended (hereafter referred to as the 

1997 Forest Plan), in compliance with the 2012 planning rule (36 CFR 219.17(3)(b)(1)). The proposed 

action addresses the areas identified in the “El Yunque National Forest – Need for Change” document; the 

unique roles and contributions of El Yunque National Forest; as well as the collaborative approaches, 

sustainability management, and social, economic, and ecological needs that have been identified for the 

Forest. The Forest Plan guides all-natural resource management activities on El Yunque National Forest to 

meet the requirements of Federal law, regulations and policy. The area affected by the proposal includes 

the 29,000-acre El Yunque National Forest (map 1-1). See the “Alternatives” section for detailed 

information. 

1.5 Decision Framework 

The responsible official for the analysis is the Forest Supervisor for El Yunque National Forest. Based on 

the analysis and subsequent public comments, the responsible official will prepare a final environmental 

impact statement and identify a selected alternative in a record of decision that will be subject to an 

objection process guided by the direction in 36 CFR 219 Subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). 

The decision will: 

Establish desired conditions and objectives; goals (which are optional) may also be established;

Establish Forest wide design criteria (standards and guidelines); 

Establish management areas and geographic areas; 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

15

Determine suitability of land;

Determine the maximum amount of timber that might be removed; 

Recommend areas for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (36 CFR 

219.7(c)(2)(v)) if applicable; and 

Identify eligible wild and scenic rivers (36 CFR 219.7(c)(2)(vi)) if applicable. 

A final record of decision and accompanying Forest Plan sets a course of action for managing the Forest 

for the next 10 to 15 years. Project-level environmental analysis will still need to be completed for 

specific proposals to implement the direction in the Forest Plan. 

1.6 Public Involvement 

The notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 

2014 (79 FR, pages 56050-56054). The legal notice was published in the two newspapers of records, 

Nuevo Dia and San Juan Daily Star on September 14, 2014. The public was asked to comment on the 

proposed action by November 3, 2014. From 2014 to 2015 approximately 28 outreach activities and 

meetings were hosted (see planning record as well as Appendix A). Planning outreach activities included 

meetings with different communities and the public in general in locations that were accessible to the 

different municipalities located to the north, east and southwest of the Forest. Meetings were held with 

stakeholders including recreation outfitters, protected area land managers, municipality planners, the 

scientific and academic community and the Center for Landscape Conservation (CCP for its acronym in 

Spanish). The meetings were designed to describe and discuss the existing Forest and resource conditions 

being used to develop the proposed action; to collect information and comments from the public on land 

use for the Forest, and to consider suggestions for new alternatives for managing the Forest. Information 

and recommendations from these planning outreach activities were used to develop the proposed action 

for the final revised plan. The proposed action was shared with the public through a series of community 

meetings and interest group meetings to validate its content. The public outreach process spanned more 

than two years and the complete public involvement process can be found in the planning record. After 

the formal 90-day comment period on the draft EIS and proposed Forest Plan, the Forest received a total 

of 14 comment letters were received from the public, agencies, and public interest groups. Six individuals 

provided substantive comments on the proposed Forest Plan and draft EIS. Five government (federal or 

state organizations) provided comments. The letters received represent a total of 77 comments.

1.7 Issues 

Significant issues are those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. These 

issues drive the range of alternatives and effects analysis. Alternatives were developed around those 

issues that involved unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. See the 

“Alternatives” section in chapter 2. No areas of scientific controversy were identified under the proposed 

action. 

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant 

issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Nonsignificant issues were identified as those: (1) outside the scope of the proposed action; (2) already 

decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher-level decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be 

made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and 

eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior 

environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

16

A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be found 

in the project record. Additional information is available on our public website at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/elyunque/landmanagement/planning. 

Based on comments from Forest Service personnel, the public, other agencies and non-governmental 

organizations, the following significant issues were identified: 

1. What is the best approach to provide sustainable recreation 

opportunities that minimize impacts to the Forest while meeting current and 

future needs and demands of users and surrounding communities?

Forest management strategies should determine an appropriate offering of sustainable recreation 

opportunities that respond to increasing and changing demands while providing for public health and 

safety, cultural resources stewardship and ecosystem protection (such as soil and water and riparian 

resources, wildlife habitat, and control of invasive species).

The Forest, a popular tourism destination on the Island and in close proximity to the metropolitan area of 

San Juan, receives over 1 million visitors annually. Visitors use the Forest for a variety of recreational 

opportunities such as hiking, water play, sightseeing and camping. Much of the recreational infrastructure 

used by the public such as the trails, observation towers and picnic areas also constitute historic sites 

constructed during the 1930s. 

People want access to the Forest for recreation, but carrying capacities, user impacts to resources and 

maintaining sufficient infrastructure to support visitation, need to be determined. The lower elevations of 

the Forest may be better suited to provide recreation uses or access than the mature forest, cloud forest 

and wetlands (mainly above 600 meters in elevation); which need protection that may conflict with 

recreational user demands. Some people want Forest recreation access to be more controlled and limited 

while others want more access to new areas and some prefer re-use of existing and abandoned sites before 

developing new ones. 

2. What is the best approach to respond to the potential effects of climate 

change on Forest resources and ecosystem services?

The Forest should be able to contribute to the conservation of ecological system diversity on a landscape 

scale and simultaneously provide for the needs of diverse plant and animal species, as well as people. 

Forest uses and management activities may affect soil and water quality; riparian, wetland and watershed 

resources and the maintenance and restoration of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. The Forest may need 

to address additional challenges that increasing human population and urban development may present. 

Ecosystem services are the suite of goods and services from the Forest vital to human health and 

livelihood and are traditionally viewed as benefits to society. They can include wildlife habitat and 

diversity, watershed services, carbon storage, and scenic landscapes. These outputs and services can be 

important to many of the communities around the National Forest. 

Climate change may involve droughts or extreme weather events, including hurricanes, which could 

impact water quantity and quality. The impacts of powerful hurricanes, such as Irma and Maria 

(September 2017), caused severe defoliation, windthrown trees, wildlife mortality and in general affected 

the structure and, in some cases, the distribution of species. Changes in climate may require adaptive

strategies to facilitate the ability of ecosystems and species to adapt to changes in conditions such as 

stream temperatures, vegetation composition, wildlife habitat conditions and invasive species. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

17

The Forest will be challenged with protecting and conserving the functional wetlands and mature forest 

and maintaining and improving watershed conditions while monitoring, adapting to and mitigating the 

impacts of climate change. 

3. How, where, and to what extent can the Forest provide opportunities that 

contribute to and/or enhance social and economic conditions in the region?

Management activities and uses of El Yunque National Forest may affect the role the Forest plays in the 

economy of local communities, including the production of ecosystem services. Activities such as 

tourism, recreation, and agroforestry practices1

 and forest products, are important to local communities. 

Increasing population and development near the Forest may influence access to the National Forest, 

management activities such as special use requests, and responses to additional recreation demands and 

ecosystem services.

El Yunque National Forest should evaluate how to provide and sustainably manage forest products and 

multiple uses at lower elevations while protecting Forest resources and providing for healthy terrestrial 

and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds. While there is interest in agroforestry and forest products, there 

are concerns that techniques and uses are sustainable and do not cause ecological or scenic impacts. 

El Yunque National Forest should evaluate how to provide diverse and sustainable developed and 

dispersed recreation opportunities that consider experiences and offerings off the Forest within the region. 

There should be more integration with municipal and Commonwealth plans and planning regulations, as 

well as collaborative management strategies, which would help to strengthen regional economic and 

tourism networks. 

1.8 Other Related Efforts 

The Forest reviewed various planning and land use policies for the eastern part of Puerto Rico including, 

but not limited to, having discussions with the Puerto Rico Planning Board. The compatibilities of land 

use plans relating to conservation, water use, recreation and other uses were considered when developing 

the forest plan. Finally, the forest used information from municipal land use plans, and State and 

Commonwealth land use plans to express the current condition of the lands in the region when developing 

effects analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement.

The Forest used the following Land Use Plans, State and Commonwealth Land Use Policies: 

Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, Comprehensive Wildlife 

Resources Assessment

Forest Resources State Wide Assessment 

Puerto Rico Planning Board Land Use Plan 

Municipality Territorial Order Plans 

Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources Water Plan 

This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) incorporates by reference (40 CFR 1502.21) the 

management direction and environmental analysis from the following programmatic decisions:

Comprehensive River Management Plan 

 

1 The integration of tree species into crop systems to create social, economic and ecological benefits 

(Schoeneberger, Bentrup, & Patel-Weynand, 2017) 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

18

Invasive Species Management Plan

Other ongoing efforts influencing the decision to be made: 

Transportation Analysis Plan

Watershed Condition Framework 

Landownership Adjustment Strategy

Communication Sites Plan 

1.9 Changes from Draft EIS to Final EIS 

In response to comments on the draft EIS and further internal reviews, the following is a summary of the 

primary changes made to the final EIS and the Revised Land Management Plan. Excluding minor 

editorial and organization changes, clarifications and typographical errors, the modifications are 

summarized here: 

Addressing and adding language to address invasive species management. The term “invasive 

species” include what are considered to be pests.

Updated language for management of aquatic species management. 

Estimation of animal species present in El Yunque National Forest was changed from 166 to 

approximately 180. 

The cumulative effect stating that “development will improve aquatic habitat and more native 

species” was deleted.

Baño de Oro is identified as a National Natural Landmark.

Desired condition and objective components on water resources were added to address hydrologic 

connectivity of the rivers flowing from the forest to maintain healthy aquatic fauna. 

Improved language to address the conflicts between recreation and communication facilities. 

Updated language to clarify harvesting activities to provide for forest products within the CIRMA. 

Changed the language in the Plan from “co-management” to “shared stewardship” (in the English 

version) to meet agency direction.

Updated the monitoring program to include scale, alerts and responses by resource area.

Expanded the Ecosystems desired conditions to include better descriptions of their composition, 

structure and function.

Included an appendix on compatibility between local land use plans and the Revised Forest Plan. 

Included responses to comments from the comment period in appendix A of this final EIS. 

Updated the appendix in the final EIS on Ecosystems and Species Diversity, and added a table 

showing the plan components with each at-risk species.

After the pass of hurricane María, the Affected Environment section was reviewed and updated, as 

well as minor updates and clarifications throughout the document. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

19

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action

Each alternative represents a different management emphasis for El Yunque National Forest that 

addresses the significant issues identified during the planning process. Each alternative provides a 

different mixture of goods and services for the public and a different combination of resource outputs, 

land uses and environmental effects. The alternatives were developed according to NEPA procedures (40 

CFR 1502). 

2.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Revised Land Management Plan 

for El Yunque National Forest. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This 

section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each 

alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. 

2.2 Alternative Development 

Alternative 1 is the no-action alternative, which reflects the 1997 Forest Plan, as amended. 

Alternative 2, the proposed action and preferred alternative, was developed by collaborating with the 

public for over two years. It is based on the roles and contributions of El Yunque National Forest as well 

as addressing the management challenges ahead. The current planning regulations, 36 CFR 219, support 

ecological, social, and economic sustainability as a goal for managing National Forest System (NFS) 

lands. To meet this requirement, the proposed action (proposed plan) includes desired conditions, 

objectives, suitability of lands, standards, guidelines, and management area and geographic areas that 

would provide a management framework for El Yunque National Forest until amended or revised. Desired 

conditions are long term, and may not be immediately achieved. The proposed plan serves as the principle 

mitigation tool to avoid, minimize, rectify, or compensate for any adverse environmental impacts 

associated with multiple use management on El Yunque National Forest. 

Alternative 3 was developed to respond to concerns on sustainability. It would reduce the number of 

maintained trail miles. The alternative would expand wilderness, but would not create a scenic byway 

management area. 

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail 

In response to issues raised by the public, the Forest Service developed three alternatives, including 

alternative 1 (no action) (1997 Forest Plan), alternative 2 (proposed action, the preferred alternative), and 

alternative 3. The planning record includes responses to the significant issues described in chapter 1 as 

addressed in the proposed action.

2.3.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

The no-action alternative would continue management under the 1997 Land and Resource Management 

Plan for the Caribbean National Forest and Luquillo Experimental Forest, as amended. The alternative 

retains the 1997 Forest Plan goals and objectives, standards and guidelines and nine management area 

prescriptions (as amended). Management would continue to be focused on four forest types and would 

retain direction for managing species as management indicator species. Recreation would continue to be 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

20

promoted in functional wetlands that are above 600 meters in elevation. One area suitable for wilderness 

designation (the Baño de Oro Inventoried Roadless Area) would continue to be managed as part of the 

proposed expansion to the Baño de Oro Research Natural Area, which would continue to provide for 

long-term watershed research and studies. Three rivers would remain eligible for wild and scenic river 

designation. This alternative does not address sustainable Forest recreation and does not consider

management areas that would create socioeconomic development at a broader landscape perspective. 

2.3.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Alternative 2 is the proposed action for the final revised Forest Plan. It addresses the public’s desire to 

access the Forest for recreation, information and education; but recognizes carrying capacities and the 

need to maintain sufficient infrastructure to support visitation. It also addresses multiple-use of the Forest 

considering ecological, social and economic sustainability. It addresses climate change impacts by 

shifting recreational opportunities at the lower elevations of the Forest, which are better suited for 

recreational use by monitoring the effects of climate change with the development of standards, 

guidelines, and desired conditions that reduce the Forest’s carbon footprint. Alternative 2 would address 

the following ecological and socioeconomic themes. 

2.3.2.1 Ecological Themes

Landscape-scale Conservation Efforts 

Three geographic areas are identified to provide opportunities for targeted conservation initiatives, such 

as stream corridors, riparian zones, wild and scenic river corridors, connections to the Corredor Ecológico 

del Noreste Natural Reserve and other protected areas; and to integrate with conservation easements, 

donations, and private lands. 

Climate Change 

Management areas are arranged so they enhance landscape connectivity and maintain wetland conditions 

that foster amphibian habitat. Alternative 2 also proposes to adapt the recreational opportunities and 

settings to new climate patterns through plan components that provide for recreational opportunities and 

settings at lower elevations.

Wetlands 

Lands above 600 meters of elevation that have the soil, vegetation and hydrological elements of a 

functional wetland are recognized. This is a forest condition not dealt with in the 1997 Plan. Plan 

components and management strategies that protect the current condition, and ensure that functional 

wetlands are administered in accordance with management requirements are provided.

Vegetation

While the 1997 Plan was developed based on four forest types, Alternative 2 incorporates new 

information that establishes 15 forest types present in El Yunque National Forest (see 2014 Forest Plan 

Assessment), and provides management direction that would protect and conserve the riparian zones. This 

alternative also delineates suitable and unsuitable lands for human uses and has plan components for the 

new classified forest types that are endemic for Puerto Rico and rare in El Yunque National Forest. 

Water

The watercourses within El Yunque National Forest provide many beneficial uses including recreation, 

fish and wildlife maintenance, in-stream flow, and water level protection. Alternative 2 provides for the 

beneficial uses of water, incorporates the watershed condition framework, and maintains water quality. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

21

Flora 

There are an estimated 830 native and endemic plant species in El Yunque National Forest. Their 

conservation status was evaluated, and 39 species of conservation concern are identified. Species of 

conservation concern are designated by the Regional Forester, along with eight plant species that are 

federally listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Wildlife 

For an administrative baseline, the Forest began with 180 animal species found in El Yunque National 

Forest; that estimated number changed over time with additional comprehensive studies. As a result, 32 

species of snails and crustaceans (invertebrate species), 134 vertebrate species, and about 11 orders of 

insects that include multiple families were added to the Forest species lists. 

At-risk species for planning are threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species designated by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service including four species federally listed as endangered or threatened 

(Puerto Rican parrot, Puerto Rican broad-winged and sharp-shinned hawks, and the Puerto Rican boa). 

The elfin-woods warbler, which was recently proposed for listing, is also included. The revised plan also 

lists 23 faunal species of conservation concern consisting of coquies, anole lizards, bats, birds, fishes, 

freshwater shrimps and snails. 

Focal Species 

Five species groupings would be monitored as focal species: one group of four bird species, one group of 

four amphibians (different coquíes), one group of one aquatic species, and one group of six invasive 

species.

Invasive species 

Direction for restoring and expanding the range of native species is provided. Direction to better control 

the introduction and spread of invasive species on the Forest is also provided, including minimizing the 

spread of invasive plants that may increase as a result of management activities.

2.3.2.2 Social and Economic Themes

Connect with Communities through Recreation 

The communities surrounding the Forest represent a broad range in recreation needs and demands. 

Alternative 2 identifies recreational settings available outside the Forest boundary that would permit 

increased integration of access, recreation, and aspects of tourism at the sub-regional level. It also 

provides opportunities to better connect urban areas and rural communities to the scenic attractions, 

historic places, and recreation opportunities located in the lower elevations of the Forest. A scenic route 

management area is also created. 

Increase Environmental Literacy and Education 

Throughout the planning process the public has communicated an interest in the Forest’s role in 

environmental education. Alternative 2 enhances the surrounding communities’ connection to the Forest’s 

natural landscapes. It provides opportunities to help develop community capacity for participation in 

various management activities through recreation, increased environmental literacy and education; 

enhance landscape scale conservation efforts, and strengthen collaborative relationships and adaptive, 

shared stewardship approaches. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

22

Strengthen Collaborative Relationships and Adaptive, Shared Stewardship Approaches 

Three new geographical areas are identified that would allow the Forest to increase its engagement with 

local community stakeholders and Forest users. Opportunities for addressing new scientific information 

on, and changes in: social, economic, and ecological conditions within and around the Forest are also 

provided. 

Community Interface Resource Management Area (CIRMA) 

The Community Interface Resource Management Area (community interface or CIRMA) is the best 

example of the shift from Forest Service-driven management priorities to a more collaborative 

management and is the identified area where sustainable Forest practices could be considered with a 

community-based shared stewardship approach. Some CIRMA management strategies include 

agroforestry approaches, providing forest products to promote local businesses and local artisans, in 

addition to municipal collaboration projects to develop low impact recreational sites, trails and cultural 

resource interpretation programs.

Monitoring 

Alternative 2 includes an extensive monitoring plan. Public input indicates interest in commitment to a 

citizen based collaborative approach to monitoring, combined with support from regional protected area 

managers.

2.3.2.3 Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation, and Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Based on the wilderness inventory (see appendix D), one area that may be suitable for wilderness 

designation (Management Area–Baño de Oro) was identified. Alternative 2 does not recommend any 

additional areas for wilderness designation, including Baño de Oro. This is because over one-third of the 

Forest is within the designated El Toro Wilderness and there is lack of public support for additional lands 

to be designated as wilderness. 

The 1997 Plan EIS evaluated 15 rivers for wild and scenic river eligibility, classification, and suitability. 

Three rivers were congressionally designated; the Río Mameyes, Río de la Mina and Río Icacos. Three 

rivers remain eligible; the Río Espíritu Santo/Quebrada Sonadora, Río Fajardo, and Río Sabana. 

Alternative 2 does not identify any new rivers as eligible and does not propose any new wild and scenic 

river recommendations. 

2.3.2.4 Geographic Areas 

Alternative 2 proposes three geographic areas (map 2-1). Each geographic area encompasses a large area 

of land that is closely tied to the communities, conditions, and relationships beyond the Forest boundary: 

El Norte-North (Rio Grande and Luquillo) 

Provides access to recreation settings and connects to a regional trail system.

El Suroeste-Southwest (Canóvanas, Juncos, Las Piedras, Naguabo and Humacao) 

This geographic area focuses on community-based use with an emphasis on environmental education 

and community enterprises. 

El Este- East (Fajardo and Ceiba)

This geographic area is based on watershed management and is focused on water quantity and 

watershed restoration and improvement.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

23

Map 2-1. Alternative 2 geographic areas
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

24

2.3.2.5 Management Areas (MA) 

Alternative 2 proposes nine management areas (map 2-2). Table 2-1 describes the emphasis for 

each management area. 

This alternative also retains existing Forest Plan direction (including standards and guidelines) for 

the research, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness management areas. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

25

Table 2-1. Alternative 2, management areas

Management 

Area Number Name Acreage Description

Management emphasis for the 

Management Area

MA 1 Administrative Sites 141 Areas occupied by El Portal Forest Center, Catalina Work 

Station, and other Forest Service administrative facilities.

Emphasis is placed on transitioning to 

Green Buildings, recycling, use of 

alternative energy and reducing carbon 

footprint. Facilities are shared with 

partners.

MA 2 El Yunque 

Recreation Zone

844 El Yunque Zone covers El Yunque Trail, Mount Britton Trail, 

Forest Service Road 10 and Big Tree Trail.

Area where emphasis is on use of 

existing developed recreation sites 

managed by capacity with strong 

emphasis on sustainability.

MA 3 Communication and 

Recreation Sites

241 Areas on El Yunque Peak and Pico del Este used for 

communication facilities, access roads to the 

communications sites, electrical power lines and recreation 

sites.

Communication facilities’ footprint is 

reduced and facilities are energy 

efficient.

Access to recreational settings that 

provide unique scenic and natural 

experience is maintained.

MA 4 Community Interface 

Resource 

Management Area

7,187 This consolidation of lands under one management area 

provide sections of the Forest where an assortment of 

resource management practices could be applied to 

encourage tropical forest management initiatives in the 

broader landscape of El Yunque National Forest. 

Management focuses on communitybased shared stewardship, and 

improves access to lower lands.

MA 5 El Toro Wilderness 10,352 Designated area on the southwestern portion of the Forest. Manage the area to maintain it within 

wilderness characteristics.

MA 6 Research Bisley and 

El Verde Station

789 Research, including long-term watershed studies and 

treatment/ control studies, is emphasized.

Facilitate tropical ecosystem studies at 

the landscape scale.

MA 7 Baño de Oro 

Expanded Research

Natural Area

6,441 Existing and proposed research natural area (RNA). The 

existing Baño de Oro research natural area is expanded to 

encompass all of the mature forest area in east half of the 

Forest. 

Implement non-manipulative studies.

Maintained in undisturbed condition for 

current and future non-manipulative 

research.

MA 8 Wild Scenic 

Recreation River 

Corridors

1,531 Corridor along the Icacos, Mameyes, La Mina and Upper 

Mameyes designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers

Where protection of these rivers’ 

outstanding characteristic is 

emphasized.

MA 9 El Verde-Scenic 

Byway Management 

Area 

697 A 600-meter band of the PR 186 Road right-of-way from the 

Community Interface Resource Management Area. 

Protect scenery and develop a scenic 

byway.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

26

Map 2-2. Alternative 2 management areas
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

27

2.3.3 Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 was developed in response to concerns on recreation sustainability. This alternative is based 

on alternative 2, but with the following changes which: 

Recommends designating the Baño de Oro Research Natural Area as wilderness.

Excludes the proposed scenic byway management area for PR 186.

Provides additional plan components to address invasive species management in areas of road rightsof-way, recreation areas, and threatened and endangered habitats in order to promote management of 

Invasive species and to restore landscape level conditions. 

Addresses some sustainable recreation concerns by reducing the trail system to a level that can be 

maintained.

Creates two geographic areas: North and South to connect with communities on both sides of the 

Forest. North includes Canóvanas, Río Grande, Luquillo and Fajardo municipalities. South includes 

Juncos, Las Piedras, Naguabo, Humacao and Ceiba. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

28

Map 2-3. Alternative 3 geographic areas
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

29

Table 2-2. Alternative 3, management areas 

Management 

Area Number Name Acreage Description

Management emphasis for the 

Management Area

MA 1 Administrative Sites 141 Areas occupied by El Portal Forest Center, Catalina Work 

Station, and other Forest Service administrative facilities.

Emphasis is placed on transitioning to 

Green Buildings, recycling, use of 

alternative energy and reducing carbon 

footprint. Facilities are shared with 

partners.

MA 2 El Yunque 

Recreation Zone

844 El Yunque Zone covers El Yunque Trail, Mount Britton Trail, 

Forest Service Road 10 and Big Tree Trail.

Area where emphasis is on use of 

existing developed recreation sites 

managed by capacity with strong 

emphasis on sustainability.

MA 3 Communication and 

Recreation Sites

241 Areas on El Yunque Peak and Pico del Este used for 

communication facilities, access roads to the communications 

sites, electrical power lines and recreation sites.

Communication facilities’ footprint is 

reduced and facilities are energy 

efficient.

Access to recreational settings that 

provide unique scenic and natural 

experience is maintained.

MA 4 Community Interface 

Resource 

Management Area

7,884 This consolidation of lands under one management area 

provide sections of the Forest where an assortment of 

resource management practices could be applied to 

encourage tropical forest management initiatives in the 

broader landscape of El YunqueNational Forest. 

Management focuses on communitybased shared stewardship, and 

improves access to lower lands.

MA 5 El Toro Wilderness 10,352 Designated area on the southwestern portion of the Forest. Manage the area to maintain it within 

wilderness characteristics.

MA 6 Research Bisley and 

El Verde Station

789 Research, including long-term watershed studies and 

treatment/ control studies, is emphasized.

Facilitate tropical ecosystem studies at 

the landscape scale.

MA 7 Baño de Oro 

Expanded 

Wilderness Area

6,441 Existing and proposed research natural area (RNA) will be 

proposed for wilderness designation. 

Maintained in undisturbed condition for 

current wilderness designation. 

MA 8 Wild Scenic 

Recreation River 

Corridors

1,531 Corridor along the Icacos, Mameyes, La Mina and Upper 

Mameyes designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers

Where protection of these rivers’ 

outstanding characteristic is 

emphasized.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

30

Map 2-4. Alternative 3 management areas
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

31

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in 

detail (40 CFR 1502.14). 

Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative 

methods of achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope 

of what can be included in the final revised El Yunque Forest Plan, duplicative of the alternatives 

considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. 

Four alternatives were considered but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized 

below. 

Custodial (no recreation management, special uses or research 

management) 

This alternative was not considered in detail because it does not meet law or policy requirements to 

provide multiple uses. This alternative would not comply with the dual designation of El Yunque National 

Forest as also the Luquillo Experimental Forest.

Intensive recovery of the Puerto Rican parrot 

This alternative was not considered in detail because in the 1997 Forest Plan it was accepted, but not 

scientifically supported, that El Yunque was potentially prime habitat that would support a viable parrot 

population. Since then, interagency recovery research has found El Yunque National Forest is not optimal 

habitat for the Puerto Rican parrot, and is focusing recovery efforts in better habitats to the west of the 

Forest (White et al. 2014). Therefore, the new plan will keep Puerto Rican parrot recovery as an important 

management objective and continue to be in compliance with all relevant Federal and State land 

management regulations, but will not continue to manage the Forest as habitat critical to the recovery of 

the species. 

Recommending designation of all eligible wild and scenic rivers 

This alternative was not considered in detail for the following reasons:

There is public opposision in wild and scenic river designation for three rivers;

Additional areas would increase management complexity; and, 

People would still like to have access to these areas.

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Table 2-3 qualitatively 

compares the alternatives by the significant issues identified during the public participation process. Table 

2-4 compares the alternatives by management area allocation acres. Table 2-5 compares timber suitability 

acres and timber volume by alternative. Table 2-6 compares recommended wilderness acres by 

alternative.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

32

Table 2-3. Comparison of alternatives by significant issues

Significant Issues Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Alternative 3

Issue 1. What is the best approach to 

provide sustainable recreation 

opportunities that minimize impacts to 

the Forest while meeting current and 

future needs and demands?

The 1997 Plan does not include plan 

components that address sustainable 

recreation. The plan increases the 

recreational opportunity; therefore, 

impacts will be expected to increase. 

This alternative helps us to meet current 

and future demands regardless of 

impacts. The alternative does not 

contemplate the impacts of recreation 

site development.

The alternative provides for sustainable 

recreation by including plan components 

that consider wetlands, community 

interface areas, limits on capacity and 

funding. The alternative addresses 

current conditions of cultural resources, 

the need to protect sensitive areas at 

higher elevations, disperse the 

recreational opportunity away from PR 

Road 191 in order to decrease crowding 

and improve setting.

This alternative provides for 

sustainable recreation. The 

plan reduces the recreational 

opportunity and setting by 

reducing the trail system. The 

alternative responds to the 

issue by reducing capability to 

meet demands.

Issue 2. What is the best approach to 

respond to the potential effects of 

climate change on the Forest resources, 

ecosystem services and others?

This alternative does not respond to the 

issue. There are no specific plan 

components in response to climate 

change.

The alternative contains plan 

components that focus on climate

change.

The alternative responds to 

the issue by promoting 

species management on 

threatened and endangered 

habitats and invasive species. 

Provides a stronger response 

to climate change.

Issue 3. How, where, and to what 

extent can the Forest provide 

opportunities that contribute to/enhance 

social and economic conditions in the 

region?

The Forest’s main contributions to the 

social and economic condition would 

continue to include recreation, water 

and biodiversity. The alternative 

responds to the issue by maximizing 

outputs of recreational opportunities, 

providing for water, timber products and 

research within the Forest. 

The alternative responds to the issue by 

introducing recreational sustainability, 

establishing plan components for 

recreation along Road 191 and shifting 

recreation opportunities to lower 

elevations, establishing a new access, 

recreation and tourism strategy based 

on collaboration and community 

partnerships. It best promotes existing 

and new economic opportunities tied to 

the Forest, particularly through the 

development or demonstration of 

multiple, sustainable uses in the CIRMA 

and nearby communities

This alternative responds to 

the issue by reducing 

recreational opportunity within 

the National Forest System

lands while promoting 

recreational opportunities off 

National Forest System lands.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

33

Table 2-4. Comparison of alternatives by management area (acres)

Management Area 

Alternative 1

1997 Forest Plan

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Priority Watersheds (number) N/A 1 1 

Wild and Scenic Rivers (number of eligible rivers) 3 3 3 

Management Area 1 (acres) Administrative Sites 161 141 141

Management Area 2 (acres) El Yunque Zone - 844 844

Management Area 2 Developed Recreation 844 - - 

Management Area 3 (acres) Communication Sites 241 241 241

Management Area 4 (acres) Community Interface Resource Management Area (CIRMA) - 7,187 7,187

Management Area 4–Integrated (acres) 6,225 - - 

Management Area 5 (acres) El Toro Wilderness 10,352 10,352 16,793

Management Area 6 (acres) Research 789 789 789

Management Area 7 (acres) Research Natural Area 6,396 6,441 6,441

Management Area 8 (acres) Wild and Scenic Recreation River Corridors - 1,531 1,531

Management Area 8- Timber Demonstration 1,167 - - 

Management Area 9 (acres) El Verde -Scenic Byway - 697 - 

Management Area 9 Scenic and Recreation River Corridors 1,295 - - 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

34

Table 2-5. Comparison of acres suitable for timber production and estimated 10-year timber volume by alternative

Timber Suitability and Volume Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Land Classified as Suitable for Timber Production (acres) 1,167 7,187 7,187

Percent of Land Ownership Classified as Suitable for Timber Production (percent) 0 25 25

Sustained Yield Limit (MCF/year) 591.6 591.6

Projected Wood Sale Quantity (MCF/year), 1st decade 23 23 23

Note: MCF = Thousand cubic feet

Table 2-6. Summary of proposed wilderness by alternative

Existing Area

Alternative 1 

1997 Plan

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

El Toro Wilderness (acres) 10,363 10,3521 10,352

Inventoried Roadless Area (acres) 6,441 6,441

Proposed Additional Wilderness (Baño de Oro) (acres) 0 0 6,441

1-New acreage based on GIS delineation process
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

35

Chapter 3.Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area 

and the potential environmental consequences of implementing each alternative on that environment. The 

kinds of resource management activities allowed under each of the alternatives are reasonably foreseeable 

future actions to achieve the goals and objectives in the plan. However, the specific location, design, and 

extent of such activities are generally unknown. Therefore, the discussions in this chapter refer only to the 

potential for an effect to occur. The intent is to provide scientific analysis and information that allows a 

comparison of the alternatives and provide the basis for an informed decision. Information in this chapter 

is based on resource reports and supporting material, and all resource reports are incorporated by 

reference. Most resource analyses are available for viewing in the planning record or the Forest website. 

Those not on the website are available upon request. All reports are filed in the planning record. 

The Forest specialists developed their effects analysis considering the need for change and therefore need 

to revise the current plan. They also took into account the public comments to develop the alternatives, 

which address the issues that the Forest faces in its current condition. This analysis was developed in a 

matrix form, with each alternative analyzed to determine and consider how it would potentially affect the 

resources. Throughout the process we considered the public comments and need for revision identified as 

part of the analysis.

It should be noted that for the effects analysis alternative 1 is being analyzed at the same level as 

alternatives 2 and 3. However, alternative 1 is not being considered as a reference point or representative 

of the current conditions of the Forest (for the sake of effects analysis). The reason for this is that only a 

section of the policies outlined in the 1997 Plan were implemented (i.e., wilderness area, wild and scenic 

river designations). As such, the 1997 Plan only partially affected the current condition of the Forest. It is 

noteworthy to mention that alternative 1 (representative of the 1997 Plan) did not address significant 

factors present in the new planning rule (2012), such as sustainability and collaboration (i.e., “Plans will 

guide management of NFS [National Forest System] lands so that they are ecologically sustainable and 

contribute to social and economic sustainability...”) (Section 219(1)(c), New Planning Rule 2012)). There 

is a gap between the old and the new planning rule, which creates inconsistencies between the 

requirements of the two sets of regulations for Forest land management planning. This translates to 

alternative 1 (no action) and alternatives 2 and 3 presenting different criteria and issues that were 

addressed in the planning phase and which are analyzed in the final EIS. As such, alternatives 2 and 3 

contain elements not present in alternative 1.

After the pass of hurricane María on September 20, 2017, the Forest reviewed the changed conditions and 

effects of the hurricane on the Forest up to December 2017. In terms of ecological effects, almost the 

entire Forest was defoliated immediately after the hurricane. Preliminary data on vegetation change 

throughout the Forest is shown in map 3-1, though not in detail, using 250-meter resolution. As of

December 2017, the Forest was closed to the public almost in its entirety and recreation opportunities 

were greatly reduced due to loss of access, unsafe conditions on main roads and trails, and damaged 

recreation facilities, including El Portal Visitor Center. The closure of the Forest also resulted in lost

revenue and reduced income-generating activities for the Forest, outfitters, guides, and concessionaires, 

among others. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

36

Map 3-1. Vegetation change in El Yunque National Forest after hurricanes Irma and María based on MODIS

3.1 Assumptions 

The Forest Plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but does not 

authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity (including ground-disturbing actions). As a result, 

there are no direct effects. However, there may be implications, or longer-term indirect or cumulative 

environmental consequences from managing the Forests under this programmatic framework. 

Before any ground-disturbing actions take place, they must be authorized in a subsequent site-specific 

environmental analysis. Therefore, none of the alternatives would cause unavoidable adverse impacts 

or an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 

The plan decisions (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, management areas, and 

monitoring) will be followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects and activities. 

Law, policy, and regulations will be followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects 

and activities. 

Funding levels will be similar to the past 5 years. 

The planning timeframe for the effects analysis is 10 to 15 years; although other timeframes may be 

specified in the analysis depending on the resource and potential consequences. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

37

3.2 Cumulative Effects 

“Cumulative effects” is defined in the Council of Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations as the 

“impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions...” 40 CFR 1508.7. The Council on 

Environmental Quality interprets this regulation as referring only to the cumulative impact of the direct 

and indirect effects of the proposed action and its alternatives when added to the aggregate effects of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on all land ownerships across an area that is deemed 

appropriate for the impacts being analyzed.

For this analysis, the geographic area of consideration is likely to vary by resource and may differ in 

spatial scale, as well as the activities that are considered in cumulative effects discussions for each 

resource. The cumulative effects analyses contained in this chapter do not attempt to quantify the effects 

of past human actions by adding up all prior planning actions on an action-by-action basis. In order to 

understand the contribution of past planning actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and 

alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past 

planning actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human 

actions and natural events. It is difficult to quantify how these aggregates have affected the environment 

and how they might contribute to cumulative effects. Unless otherwise identified, cumulative effects are 

considered for the expected life of the revised Forest Plan (10 to 15 years).

3.3 Physical Environment 

3.3.1 Soils 

The soils information for El YunqueNational Forest can be accessed and reviewed in the Soil Survey 

Geographic Database (SURGO). The information in the database is certified as of October 24, 2012. The 

soil properties are considered static since the previous management plan. Only management activities 

related to the maintenance of the existing facilities and road access produced minimum and localized soil 

surface disturbances. The activities considered in the Forest Plan that can disturb the soil resources 

include recreation management, road maintenance, improvements in the scenic byways, and forest 

product utilization. The main concerns of the considered practices are the compaction, erosion, and 

reduction of the organic layer in the Forest. Healthy soils are critical for the Forest functions and to 

conserve activities essential for the regions and municipalities such as regulating water, sustaining of 

plant and animal life, cycling nutrients and physical stability and support. 

El Yunque National Forest has a mosaic of soils including hydric soils which are “formed under 

conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop 

anaerobic conditions in the upper part” as defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils 

(Federal Register; July 13, 1994). Proposed Forest Plan management area directions include standards 

and guidelines as well as mitigation measures and monitoring plans to limit and reduce any long-term 

effects to soils for the considered alternatives.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

38

Map 3-2. Soils on El Yunque National Forest

Note: Soil map developed by Maya Quiñones. 

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) describes the soil as a natural body comprised of 

solids (minerals and organic matter), liquid, and gases that occurs on the land surface, occupies space, and 

is characterized by one or both of the following: horizons, or layers, that are distinguishable from the 

initial material as a result of additions, losses, transfers, and transformations of energy and matter or the 

ability to support rooted plants in a natural environment. 

The soils of El Yunque National Forest have been developed and modified by a series of natural factors 

which are:

Climate 

Rainfall 

Temperature 

Plant and animal life 

Parent material 

Topography 

Time
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

39

Within Forest boundaries, the reduction of soil integrity is a function of landslides and subsequent 

erosion. Landslides are common both far and near from roads associated to rain events. Illegal off-road 

vehicle use in the Forest is another activity impacting soils and accelerating erosion.

The following soil unit types (from map 3-2), or parts of map units which are complexes, meet the 

definition of hydric soils and have at least one of the hydric soil indicators. This list can help in planning 

land uses and updates the hydric soils previously noted in the Forest. 

135 Prieto very cobbly clay loam

212 Yunque-Moteado complex, 20 to 65 percent slopes (Moteado part) 

214 Yunque-Los Guineos-Moteado complex, 5 to 30 percent slopes (Moteado part)

215 Palm-Yunque complex, 35 to 85 percent slopes, extremely stony (Palm part) 

223 Picacho-Ciales complex, 5 to 30 percent slopes (Ciales part) 

231 Guayabota-Yunque complex, 30 to 60 percent slopes (Guayabota part) 

311 Dwarf muck, 10 to 65 percent slopes, windswept 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

40

Map 3-3. Hydric soils, El Yunque National Forest (developed by Maya Quiñones) 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

41

3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences

The recreational activities associated with the number of visitors using the Forest are considered the ones 

that most likely will cause compaction, rutting, and impact over the organic surface. Other activities like 

road and trail maintenance can reduce soil productivity because of potential landslides and associated 

erosion. The analysis of the alternatives for the plan takes into consideration the pressure that these 

activities can produce on the soils of the Forest. The effects of other activities are managed through the 

standards and guidelines as well as the applicable best management practices. They would affect soil 

resources minimally and are discussed generally. 

Compaction is defined by the increase in soil bulk density due to an external force. Activities ranging 

from heavy equipment to the accumulative weight applied by hikers on the Forest trails can alter the 

chemical and physical properties of soil. The main concern of soil compaction is the reduction of 

productivity by retarding root growth as well as changes in air and water/nutrient transfer in the soil. The 

impact can be most significant in wet soils and special mitigation practices are considered in the Forest 

trail system to reduce these impacts. The documentation of the hydric soils of the Forest and the 

restriction in activities through these soils reduce potential impacts in sensitive and less resilient soils. 

Areas over 600 meters in elevation were identified in the plan as sensitive and reclassified as functional 

wetlands. These are addressed specifically as part of alternatives 2 and 3. The management plan would 

protect all hydric soils above the 600-meter elevational line in El Yunque National Forest (identified in 

the latest El Yunque soil survey of 2012). The periodic evaluation of the trails system and the application 

of best management practices will maintain soil conditions within acceptable standards. The management 

plan includes guidelines directed toward the stabilization of dispersed recreation sites that have exposed 

and/or highly compacted erodible mineral soils. 

Erosion is a process in which the topsoil is removed faster than it is formed; and it can happen due to 

natural, human, or animal activity. Soil erosion results in land infertility and can require special 

management practices to reduce the erosion or to recover the soils natural characteristics. Erosion is an 

important process that needs to be considered and monitored in El Yunque forests because of the slopes, 

the changes in elevation, and action of rain and visitors. 

Landslides are common, constantly reshaping the dynamic topography of the Forest. This type of soil 

displacement usually occurs during periods of high rainfall (Larsen and Torres-Sánchez 1992). Most 

landslides occur on the south side of the Forest, and are most common between 600 and 800 meters 

elevation. Commonly the failure surface for landslides, particularly the larger ones, is in the diorite 

derived soils (Río Blanco soils complex), along the contact with the surrounding soils derived from 

Cretaceous volcanic rocks. The largest recent landslides on the Forest are located in the Icacos Valley on 

the south side of the Forest, along Highway 191 (Guariguata and Larsen 1990; Larsen and Simon 1990). 

The management plan includes parameters directed toward stabilizing exposed soils caused by landslides.

Vegetation management related to timber is associated with alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 consider 

the utilization of wood products in the community interface resources management areas. The activities 

under alternatives 2 and 3 would be in the secondary montane forest classification. As part of the 

proposed management strategies in the Forest Plan, the soils in the secondary montane forest will be 

evaluated to identify soil formation stages and their contribution to appropriate ecosystem services. The 

management plan established the use of native vegetation as much as possible in watershed restoration 

and soils conservation projects. The design and implementation of vegetation treatments for wildlife 

habitat improvements are considered under standards that reduce soil exposure and protect sensitive areas.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

42

Recreation offerings in the Forest include the use of several recreation sites (see table 3-22, El Yunque 

National Forest recreation sites, in the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment) and trails providing a primitive 

recreation experience that limits soil exposure and other associated impacts. The Forest Plan considers a 

planned and properly designed network of facilities, roads, and trails as part of the recreation goals for the 

Forest. Stimulating the use and improvement of trails in the geographic region as part of the recreation 

considerations in the plan objectives, represents an action directed toward reducing impacts associated 

with recreational activities in sensitive areas of the Forest. The Forest Plan proposes linking existing trails 

to local communities located at lower elevations adjacent to the Forest boundary. The alternatives 

considered in the plan maintain the use of the trail system, including the research and service trails; but 

alternatives 2 and 3 target the use of trails in the lower elevations and the integration of geographic region 

as part of the recreation opportunity considerations. All of the recreation operation and management of the 

trails within the Forest will apply the Forest Service Manual parameters (FSM 2353 and FSH 2309.18). 

The recreation areas in the Forest are designed to limit effects to resources, and within a certain level of 

use, the effect on the soil resources should be minimal. The potential impacts will be higher during 

construction phases in developed recreational areas. The current recreational facilities are concentrated 

along the corridor of PR Road 191 North. These areas are deep inside the Forest boundary and away from 

local communities. The Forest Plan proposes a shift from Forest Service-driven management priorities to 

a more collaborative management strategy. This shift includes recreational options in the geographic 

region and are part of the considerations in alternatives 2 and 3 for the Forest Plan. 

Roads can impact soil resources through exposure, compaction, shifts in natural runoff, and changes in 

functions and services by creating impervious surfaces. The 2014 Forest Plan Assessment for El Yunque

Forest Plan includes 11.27 miles of inventoried, classified National Forest System roads in the Forest 

transportation inventory. Sixty percent are managed and maintained for public use with high clearance 

vehicles, 38 percent for low clearance vehicles, and 2 percent are unclassified roads. The unclassified 

roads include roads present when the land was acquired, or those created in order to access private 

properties, and many have been closed to public access by means of closure orders. 

Dirt roads might be needed to accomplish research objectives, and standards are defined for this type of 

activity to reduce impacts in soil resources. Alternative 2 considers PR Road 186 as a scenic route to 

decentralize the recreation opportunities within the Forest and reduce crowding of the PR Road 191. The 

Forest Plan includes a goal of establishing a partnership with the municipal planners and other agencies to 

promote the official state designation of the PR Road 186 Scenic Byway. 

Comparison of Alternatives

The alternatives included practices and standards to produce low to moderate soil disturbances. 

Alternative 1 includes a timber demonstration management area of 1,167 acres that has the potential to 

produce the highest soil disturbances. The timber demonstration activity includes management practices 

that will reduce the potential impacts. Alternative 1 also includes developed recreation areas (1,083 acres) 

and integrated management areas (6,225 acres), which are other zones where soil disturbances are

documented. In alternatives 2 and 3 the timber demonstration, the developed recreation and the integrated 

management areas are eliminated and the community interface management area is considered for 7,187 

acres in the lower elevations of the Forest. The activities considered in the community interface resource 

management area will result in fewer impacts than the ones considered in the timber demonstration area 

in alternative 1 because the proposed activities in the plan require the conservation of forested cover and 

the projects will be of a smaller scale. The designated areas (wilderness, research natural areas and wild 

and scenic recreation river corridors) are maintained in all three alternatives. El Verde Scenic Byway 

management area is considered in alternative 2 with an area of 697.3 acres that integrates PR Road 186 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

43

and the rights-of-way associated with the road. In alternative 3 El Verde Scenic Byway management area 

is considered under the community interface resource management area; but not a scenic byway.

The application of the best management practices, the appropriate mitigation actions, and a continuous 

monitoring plan would result in minimal soil effects for all the action alternatives. 

Table 3-1. Acres of activities with potential soil impacts

Alternative Activities and Management Areas Acres

1 Timber Demonstration 1,167.0

Develop Recreation Areas 1,083.0

Integrated Management Areas 6,225.0

Total 8,475.0

2 Community Interface Resource Management Area (CIRMA) 7,187.0

El Verde Scenic Byway 697.3

Total 7,884.3

3 Community Interface Resource Management Area (CIRMA) 7,884.3

Cumulative Effects 

Soil productivity will likely be affected by an increase in hurricane intensity, which might exacerbate 

vegetation loss and surface disturbance. The conservation of the hydric soils and zones over 600 meters of 

elevation established a protection parameter to El Yunque’s most sensitive soils. The management 

activities and areas considered in alternatives 2 and 3 redirect the recreational activities concentrated in 

the PR Road 191 corridor to other areas that with less sensitive slopes, soils, and natural conditions. The 

integration of the regional management areas and the incorporation of communities in the lower 

elevations of the Forest should reduce the pressure to the sensitive areas of the Forest. 

The cumulative and environmental impacts of the proposed activities in the plan would be minimized for 

all the alternatives through the application of best management practices and the monitoring plan. The 

potential impacts in soils would be low for the alternatives 2 and 3 and from low to moderate in 

alternative 1. The overall cumulative effects of the management actions over time are not expected to 

reduce soil productivity.

3.3.2 Geology

3.3.2.1 Introduction

The geologic parent materials of El Yunque National Forest areas are of three basic types.

Marine-deposited Cretaceous volcanic rocks, which are the most widespread. 

Tertiary intrusive quartz diorites, which occur on the south side of the Forest. 

Quaternary unconsolidated alluvial deposits (sands, gravels, silts and clays) occurring along major 

water courses.

The elevations on the Forest range from 100 feet (30.5 meters) at the northern boundary to 3,533 feet 

(1,077 meters) at El Toro Peak. The terrain ranges from gentle slopes in lower elevations to rugged side 

slopes exceeding 60 percent in higher elevations, where vertical rock-faced cliffs are numerous.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

44

Mineral rights on the Forest that are former Spanish Crown Lands, are held by the Federal Government, 

and are not subject to U.S. mining laws. Opening these lands to mineral entry would require an act of 

Congress or a presidential decision (USDI Bureau of Mines 1991). 

Ownership of mineral rights on the remainder of the Forest is more complicated. These rights were 

transferred from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the Federal Government by Puerto Rican Law of 

February 16, 1903 (Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources 1976). However, U.S. law states that 

acceptance of jurisdiction by the Federal Government is not automatic for lands acquired after 1940. 

Rights on such lands may be claimed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico through the U.S. Secretary of 

Interior. Puerto Rican law does not recognize private mineral rights, except for “non-commercial 

minerals” (equivalent to salable minerals under U.S. regulations [sand, clay, grave, etc.]) on private land.

3.3.2.2 Affected Environment

The extraction and removal of mineral materials is the only management activity that has the potential to 

affect the geology of the area. El Yunque National Forest has no mineral activity and no outstanding 

mineral rights. Mineral management would not vary by alternative. The only salable mineral extraction 

that would be permitted would be incidental amounts for administrative uses; like cleaning the debris 

from landslides in the road system of the Forest. The application of best management practices and 

standards for the different management areas will provide the protection and parameters for this type of 

activity.

Geological Hazards 

Puerto Rico is located on a microplate sandwiched between the obliquely subducting North American and 

Caribbean plates (map 3-4). 

On average, Puerto Rico is strongly shaken with Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) >VII once every 100 

years, and MMI >VI is experienced on the island once every 50 years.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

45

Map 3-4. Map of northeastern Puerto Rico, showing major tectonic structures and approximate locations for 

damaging earthquakes in recent history

All Alternatives 

The extraction and removal of mineral materials is the only management activity that has the potential to 

affect the geology of the area. El Yunque National Forest has no mineral activity and no outstanding 

mineral rights. Mineral management would not vary by alternative. The only salable mineral extraction

that would be permitted would be incidental amounts for administrative uses; like cleaning the debris 

from landslides in the road system of the Forest. The application of best management practices and the 

standards for the different management areas will provide the protection and parameters for this type of 

activity.

The potential for indirect effects can be considered from earthquakes and those can include landslides and 

damages in electrical lines, communication sites and other infrastructure in the Forest.

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis considered the management activities on the Forest in relation to adjacent 

areas that include roads, trail and communication sites. Management activities in El Yunque National 

Forest should not affect geological resources of the Forest or the regions established for alternatives 2 and 

3. Some of the previous activities on the Forest and adjacent areas may have a reduced degree of effect on 

geologic resources like the development of the communication sites and the development of roads and 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

46

trails with rocks and other materials. The areas modified by these previous activities have adjusted and no 

effects are reported in these areas. The considered management criteria for the communication sites and 

other management areas are not expected to cause any cumulative or significant effect on the mineral 

resources of the Forest.

3.3.3 Air Quality

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment

El Yunque National Forest does not conduct any management activities that would adversely impact air 

quality. Because of the climate and environmental settings, activities such as prescribed burning and 

related events are not a concern for the air quality of the Forest. The locality of El Yunque at the north east 

of Puerto Rico presents an excellent opportunity for monitoring the trade winds that flow mostly from the 

northeast toward the Island. Due to the changes in elevation within the Forest, there are vast differences in 

ecological settings because of the variation in rainfall, relative humidity, wind velocity, cloud cover, 

temperature, atmospheric saturation deficit, and solar radiation. Air quality directly affects plants, animal 

and fish habitat, and contributes to the scenic and recreational attributes of the Forest and nearby 

communities. Air is an essential resource of the Forest. In addition to being a physical resource, air is also 

an esthetic resource. The Forest's relatively cool clean air attracts many visitors, and is valued by local 

residents as well.

The air quality within the Forest was documented as in good condition in the 2014 Forest Plan 

Assessment (2014) although the Saharan air layers during the summer months have been recognized as a 

potential impact to the air quality of the Forest. The chemical characteristics of cloud water samples can 

be used to analyze the average concentrations of organic aerosols and inorganic aerosols, nitrogen and 

total nitrogen among others, and compare them to similar locations. Potential changes from current 

climate conditions are considered in other sections of the document. Maintaining air quality for a healthy 

and functional environment is an important component of the Forest Plan. 

3.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

For all the alternatives, the expected air quality effects from planned development and use of the Forest 

are temporary and limited. Effects include dust and vehicular emissions from potential facilities 

construction and maintenance, public travel on Forest roads, and smoke from picnic and camping 

activities. The alternatives would not vary in their effects on air quality. Alternative 1 includes the timber 

production demonstration management area and the developed recreation management areas that can be 

sources of temporary air quality changes in specific sites of the Forest. Alternatives 2 and 3 exclude the 

timber demonstration management area and include the community interface resource management area, 

which provides for sustainable use of Forest resources, but does not include a timber program. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 have a forest products program that provides some wood products. Alternative 2 

includes a scenic byway management area along PR Road 186 that can contribute to temporary changes 

in air quality. 

The expected use of the scenic byway will be through an existing road and the activities are not expected 

to degrade the air quality of the area. The monitoring plan is a key component in all the alternatives and 

will help to determine any variations form the prevailing conditions of the air quality. Alternatives 2 and 3 

include designated geographic areas (alternative 2–A. Rio Grande/ Luquillo; B. Canóvanas/Juncos/Las 

Piedras/Naguabo and Humacao; C. Fajardo/Ceiba; alternative 3–A. Canovanas/Rio Grande/Luquillo and 

Fajardo B. Juncos/Las Piedras/Naguabo/Humacao and Ceiba); these are important to the air resources of 

the Forest. The prevailing good air quality provided by El Yunque National Forest is considered an 

aesthetic resource to the visitors and community around the Forest. The integration of the geographic 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

47

areas is recognition of the importance of the air resources and opens the opportunity for collaborative 

work to monitor and protect the air quality of the Forest. 

The monitoring plan will link to the climate change parameters because future projections using the 

parallel climate model show a decrease in average easterly winds over the Greater Antilles for the coming 

century, but an increase elsewhere in the Caribbean (Angeles et al. 2010). All the alternatives include the 

research and monitoring component for the Saharan layers of dust. The observed sensitivities of the dust 

to changes in climate indicate that future climate change could drastically change the amount of dust 

reaching the Caribbean (Prospero and Lamb 2003). 

Cumulative Effects

The 2014 Forest Plan Assessment documented that the air quality within the Forest is in good condition. 

There are some activities and conditions associated with visitor density patterns in some areas of the 

Forest such as vehicle concentration that can degrade the air quality in some areas. If the interest and 

demand of the recreational areas are clustered, a cumulative effect can be expected unless the density is 

distributed through different areas of the Forest.

The identification of Saharan air layers during the summer months has the potential to impact the air 

quality of the Forest (2014 Forest Plan Assessment). This, added to the projected impacts of climate 

change, needs to be considered in all the alternatives to evaluate the cumulative effects that these 

conditions can create in the Forest. The increase in temperature and the associated urban development 

closer to the Forest edges (Lewsey et al. 2004, Kelman and West 2009) can also become a cumulative 

effect to air quality in relation to recurrence and distribution of wildfire.

The proposed alternatives are not expected to trigger environmental and social effects in the Forest in any 

particular manner. The protection and sustainable use of the Forest established by the proposed 

alternatives will reduce some of the potential cumulative effects to air quality on the Forest. All the 

alternatives prioritize Forest protection which is an important principle to sustain and protect the air 

quality for the visitors, stakeholders and region. 

3.3.4 Climate Change, Climate Trends, and Extreme Weather Events 

Average temperatures in the Caribbean region have increased over the past 40 years (Uyarra et al. 2005). 

Around the Luquillo Mountains, a small increase in annual maximum and minimum temperatures has 

been detected in long-term (62 year) records (Waide et al. 2013). Scientists predict warming will continue 

at an accelerated pace (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007); however, climate models vary 

in the degree of warming (table 3-2). Projected decreases in precipitation in the Caribbean suggest drier 

wet seasons, and even drier dry seasons (table 3-3) (Cashman et al. 2010). Increasing sea surface 

temperatures may lift the base altitude of cloud formation (Still et al. 1999) and alter atmospheric 

circulation patterns (Woollings and Blackburn 2012). Any change in the cloud base height will further 

reduce precipitation in El Yunque (Comarazamy and González 2011). Climate change may also affect the 

distribution patterns and concentrations of air pollutants through changing wind and precipitation patterns 

(Bytnerowicz 2007) as well as increased temperatures (Bedsworth 2012). 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

48

Table 3-2. Climate model projections for increases in temperature at end of century

Source Spatial Extent Projection 

Scatena (1998) Puerto Rico +1.5 to +2.5 °C

Girvetz et al. (2009); Meehl et al. (2007) Puerto Rico +2.2 to +2.7 °C

Campbell et al. (2011) Caribbean +2 to +5 °C

Christensen et al. (2007) (IPCC) Central America +1.8 to +5 °C

Magrin et al. (2007) (IPCC) Latin America +1 to +7.5 °C

Table 3-3. Climate model projections for changes in precipitation at end of century

Source Spatial Extent Projection 

Girvetz et al. 2009; Meehl et al. 2007 Puerto Rico -10 to -30 percent annually

Campbell et al. 2011 Caribbean -25 to -50 percent annually

Biasutti et al. 2012 (IPCC) Caribbean -30 percent in spring and summer

Magrin et al. 2007 (IPCC) Latin America -40 to +10 percent annually

Figure 3-1. Spatial patterns of average annual temperature (a) and precipitation (b) from 1963–1995 based on 

historic observations

Source: (Daly et al. 2003)

3.3.4.1 Extreme Weather

Heavy rainfall events have become more common in Puerto Rico in recent years, particularly since 2009, 

with changes linked to high sea surface temperatures (Vélez Rodríguez and Votaw 2012). The frequency 

of extreme precipitation events is expected to continue to increase, leading to potential increases in inland 

flooding and landslides (Magrin et al. 2007; Seneviratne et al. 2012). Hurricane events are relatively 

common to the island of Puerto Rico, including the recent passing of Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017. 

It is projected that hurricanes are likely to become less frequent but more severe, with increased wind 

speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge height (Karl et al. 2009; Knutson et al. 2010; Goldenberg et al. 

2001; Webster et al. 2005). In the Caribbean, the frequency of very warm days and nights is accelerating, 

while very cool days and nights are becoming less common (Peterson et al. 2002), increasing the 

likelihood of extreme heat waves (Anderson 2011). Additionally, as annual rainfall decreases over time in 

the Caribbean region, longer periods of drought are expected in the future (Breshears et al. 2005; Larsen 

2000). In Puerto Rico, where nearly all wildfires are associated with human activity, the interactions 

between climate warming and drying and increased human development have the potential to increase the 

effects of fire (Robbins et al. 2008). 

3.3.4.2 Terrestrial Ecosystems 

Higher temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and any alteration in cloud cover will affect plant 

communities and ecosystem processes in El Yunque (Lasso and Ackerman 2003). Increasing night-time 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

49

temperatures may affect tropical tree growth and induce tree mortality (Clark et al. 2010; Wagner et al. 

2012). Both intensified extreme weather events and progressively drier summer months in the Caribbean 

are expected to alter the distribution of tropical forest life-zones (Wunderle et al. 2011), potentially 

allowing low-elevation Tabonuco Forest species to colonize areas currently occupied by Palo Colorado 

Forest (Scatena 1998). Because they occur under narrowly defined environmental conditions, El Yunque’s 

Cloud Forests are among the world’s most sensitive ecosystems to climate change (Lasso and Ackerman 

2003). Cloud Forest epiphytes (e.g., bromeliads) may experience moisture stress due to higher 

temperatures and less cloud cover with a rising cloud base, affecting epiphyte growth and flowering 

(Nadkarni and Solano 2002; Zotz and Bader 2009). Plant communities on isolated mountain peaks will be 

most vulnerable, as they will not be able to adapt to the shifting cloud base by moving to higher 

elevations (Laurance et al. 2011; Magrin et al. 2007). 

As hurricanes increase in severity and intensity, the forest structure will continue to be altered (i.e. open 

canopy), which could lead to a shift in species composition and more vulnerable to invasive species. The 

combined effects of Hurricane Irma (2017) and Hurricane María (2017) were more intense than past 

Hurricane Hugo (1989) and Hurricane Georges (1998), resulting in more defoliation of the forest and an 

estimated average mortality of one in five trees. Hurricanes Irma and Maria caused severe defoliation, 

resulting in an almost completely open canopy. Palms and tree ferns were the few species that remained 

with some foliage immediately after the hurricanes. The strong winds resulted in many windthrown trees 

and broken branches, which have caused an altered forest structure of many branchless trees. Heavy 

rainfall has also caused many landslides throughout the forest, clearing away the vegetation and creating 

open areas that could be prone for invasive species colonization. Invasive species could also potentially 

spread because of the open canopy, as some species have been observed to spread beyond their usuall 

geographical distribution. After Hurricane Hugo, canopy openness returned to pre-Hurricane conditions 

within 14 months, and canopy openness in a hurricane mimicking experiment returned within 16 months 

(Klawinski, Dalton, & Shiels, 2014; Fernandez & Flether, 1991). It is anticipated that canopy openness 

will take longer after Hurricane María to return to pre-Hurricane conditions.

3.3.4.3 Aquatic Ecosystems

Shifts in rainfall patterns due to climate change will lead to periods of flooding and drought that can 

significantly affect aquatic ecosystems and water resources (Seager et al. 2009). Increases in heavy 

downpours in Puerto Rico and more intense hurricanes in the wet season can lead to increased erosion 

and sedimentation in waterways (Carpenter et al. 1992; Cashman et al. 2010; Karl et al. 2009). Riparian 

zones will see changes in structure and composition due to altered temperature, precipitation, and run-off 

regimes as well as changes in the distribution of plant and animal species (Seavy et al. 2009). Extended 

droughts in the dry season may significantly affect aquatic organisms by reducing dissolved oxygen 

content (Mulholland et al. 1997). During droughts, freshwater aquatic communities will experience 

crowding of species, leading to habitat squeezes and reduced reproductive output (Covich et al. 2003). In 

El Yunque streams, extended periods of extreme low water flows may increase pollutant concentrations 

and excessive nutrients (Cashman et al. 2010; Covich et al. 2003). 

The recent passing of hurricanes Irma and Maria over El Yunque became stream forming events, as new 

stream formations were found quickly after hurricane Maria. While downed woody debris is positive for 

habitat and stream formation, landslides and other debris resulting from the hurricanes obstructed habitat 

connectivity. After the passing of these hurricanes, the greatest negative impacts from intial observations 

came from off forest areas due to lack of sanitation in communities, increased fecal coliforms and trash.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

50

3.3.4.4 Wildlife 

Climatic change may push the narrow thermal tolerances of many species in tropical environments above 

their upper limits (Huey et al. 2009; Laurance et al. 2011), prompting population losses and habitat 

changes that will affect animal communities (Blaustein et al. 2010). Because of their cool-adapted, rangerestricted nature, high-elevation amphibians, including Puerto Rican coquí frogs, are especially vulnerable 

to future changes (Barker et al. 2011; Brodie et al. 2011; Longo et al. 2010; Stallard et al. 2001). More 

frequent drought conditions may increase the vulnerability of both reptiles and amphibians to water loss, 

parasites, and diseases including amphibian chytrid fungus (Anchukaitis and Evans 2010; Burrowes et al.

2004; Rogowitz 1996). Reduced rainfall may lead to decreased habitat quality for neo-tropical bird 

migrants wintering in El Yunque (Studs and Marra 2011), while cavity-nesting birds, including the Puerto 

Rican parrot (Amazona vittata), could see an increase in habitat competition and nesting predation with an 

increase in major hurricane disturbances (Arendt 2000; Pounds et al. 1999). 

With the extent of the defoliation and canopy branching lost as a result of hurricanes Irma and Maria, 

which will create drier microclimate and lower prey availability, it is expected this will result in a decline 

in coqui abundance. Additionally, since the entire Forest was nearly completely defoliated, there is a 

reduction in refugia for wildlife and an expected reduction in fruit and seed availability for wildlife. 

3.3.4.5 Recreation 

The Caribbean region, where year-round warm weather is the principal tourism resource, may see 

increasing competition from other regions as warm seasons expand globally (Scott et al. 2004). Sea level 

rise will affect coastal resorts, which may affect tourist and recreationist preferences throughout Puerto 

Rico (Lewsey et al. 2004; Magrin et al. 2007). Climate change may affect recreation in El Yunque through 

changes to local ecosystems and resources that affect scenic values, as well as changes to weather patterns 

that may disrupt recreational activities and lead to changes in visitor use (Prideaux et al. 2010). Visitors to 

El Yunque may see effects to the local plant and animal communities that make the Forest unique 

(Scatena 1998). An increase in extreme weather events may increase damage to facilities and structures, 

reduce tourist access in some areas, and increase the need for road repairs (Joyce et al. 2008). Recreation 

related infrastructure suffered significant damages after hurricanes Irma and María, including landslides 

or bed failures on trails, damaged picnic shelters, and damage to recreation related historic infrastructure. 

The collapse of the infrastructure also had severe impacts on the recreation offering and socioeconomic 

opportunities provided by the forest including lack of access for tourism, telecommunications and 

research.

3.3.5 Water and Watersheds 

This section offers the information and findings of effects of the alternatives on the water resources and 

watersheds within El Yunque National Forest designated zones. The main public uses of the waters that 

drain from the Forest are as municipal and domestic water sources, and as recreational opportunities for 

the visitors and surrounding communities in natural pools and scenic waterfalls. The 2014 Forest Plan 

Assessment identifies the water used for public consumption as an important commodity with economic 

significance. In this section, the information on watersheds, rivers and streams; riparian zones, wetlands 

and water quantity; is considered for the proposed action and alternatives for the Forest Plan. 

Water resources are jointly managed by several state and Federal agencies on the Island. Water quality is 

regulated by the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Water extraction is regulated by the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, and water 

distribution and supply is managed by the Puerto Rico Aqueducts and Sewers Authority. Water quality 

and quantity (part of the Caribbean Water Science Center) is managed by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS). 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

51

Ample information regarding the water resources of El Yunque National Forest, including instream flow 

data, is available and accessible in real time from the USGS and the other agencies mentioned above. The 

Forest protects the headwaters of eight watersheds which produce an estimated 73.5 billion gallons of 

water per year. The 2008 El Yunque National Forest Fiscal Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report 

presents a table of the conditions and trends of programmatic events associated with the desired future 

conditions of the Forest’s current land management plan. 

Table 3-4. Conditions and trends of the current land management plan toward the established desired future 

conditions

DFC Measurement or 

management action 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008

Healthy 

Watershed Acres restored 9 8 15 7 12

Healthy 

Watershed

Acres affected by illegal 

use 

0 0 0 8 1.5

Balanced 

Water Use Extraction 51 mgd 66.4 mgd 66.4 mgd 66.4 mgd 66.4 mgd

Balanced 

Water Use Intakes 32 34 36 36 36

Dynamic 

Links Flows

Not below 

natural 

minimum

Not below 

natural 

minimum

Not below 

natural 

minimum

Not below 

natural 

minimum

Not below 

natural 

minimum

Plan Goals Number of 

programmatic events 6 8 8 7 3 

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment: Watersheds

Conditions and Trends of the Current Land Management Plan Moving Toward the 

Desired Future Conditions

The watersheds within the designated areas of El Yunque are classified and defined by the hydrologic unit 

codes (HUCs) (http://pr.water.usgs.gov/public/rt/pr/rtmap_pr_east.html) that classify watersheds by size 

from region to sub-watersheds. Puerto Rico and other outlying Caribbean areas are in region 21. Table 3-5

includes the HUCs numbers, names, extents, and percent under Forest Service ownership for each 

watershed identified according to El Yunque Watershed Condition Classification Supplemental Guidance 

(USDA Forest Service 2010; EIY 2010 WCC Reg Supp v.5). 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

52

Table 3-5. Hydrologic units within the project area

HUC Number Name Total Acres

Percent of Acres 

under Forest 

Service Ownership

210100050202 Rio Blanco near mouth 17,341 30

210100050203 Rio Santiago near mouth 4,381 12

210100050204 Rio Fajardo near mouth 16,628 17

210100050302 Rio Pitahaya at mouth 4,085 11

210100050303 Rio Sabana at mouth 4,616 42

210100050304 Rio Mameyes near mouth 9,950 52

210100050305 Rio Espiritu Santo near mouth 15,761 55

210100050413 Rio Canóvanas/within RGLoiza 11,209 14
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

53

Map 3-5. Spatial relationship among watersheds, El Yunque
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

54

Map 3-6. El Yunque National Forest impaired and non-impaired waterbodies 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

55

3.3.5.2 Affected Environment: Rivers and Streams

The stream flows of the hydrologic network within the Forest are highly variable, running very high 

during heavy rains and much lower during periods of low rainfall. Stream water is generally clear, with 

low accumulations of dissolved nutrients at low flows, and turbid during high flows. The steep drainage 

of the eight watersheds is formed by volcanoclastic and igneous rocks that exert a strong, localized 

lithologic influence on the stream channels. The rivers of El Yunque are known for their biodiversity and 

conservation management in the surrounding watersheds. Mameyes River, as one of the last undammed 

rivers in Puerto Rico that originates on El Yunque, can be used as a reference stream to estimate the 

natural range of variance for El Yunque aquatic ecosystems.

The longitudinal profiles of the rivers are influenced by the multiple rocks types; coarse sediments are 

delivered by landslides along steep hillslopes (greater than 12 degrees) to the channels and also may 

influence channel gradients and geometry (Pike 2008). Río la Mina, Río Mameyes and a tributary; and the 

Río Icacos, a tributary of the Río Blanco are designated as wild and scenic rivers (National Park Service

2005). 

Monthly water budgets show that higher rainfall occurs from August to December, with a rainfall peak in 

November. A rainfall peak also occurs in May. March is the driest month of the year, which has important 

management implications: water diversion for human use should not exceed a level that would cause 

unacceptable stream habitat degradation during March. Runoff volume follows the monthly rainfall 

pattern: streamflow peaks in November with a second peak in May and is lowest in March. 

The parameters in the watershed condition framework are presented in table 3-6. These parameters were 

considered and analyzed for the Plan alternatives considering short- (1 to 10 years) and long-term (1 to 50 

years) scenarios in the Blanco, Canóvanas, Espíritu Santo, Fajardo, Mameyes, Pitahaya, Sabana and 

Santiago watersheds.

Table 3-6. Watershed condition framework parameters analyzed in this Plan

Key Attribute Name Measure

Hydrologic Function Flow Characteristics

Water Quality Sediments Forest Coverage Rating

Water Quality Sediments Riparian Road Density

Water Quality Sediments Road Density Rating

Water Quality Sediments Road Maintenance Index

Water Quality Toxics Impaired Water Listed as 303D

Water Quality Toxics Water Quality Problem (not 303D listed)

The need of a standardized regional approach for ecological and biological planning for the forest 

planning process was the main reason to develop a collaborative initiative to create what is known as the 

ecological sustainability evaluation (ESE) tool. The ESE tool is a strategic conservation planning tool 

used by the Forest Service Southern Region for forest planning. Ecological systems, watersheds, 

terrestrial and aquatic species are carried through the preliminary assessment and sustainability 

framework (including strategies and plan alternatives) to ascertain expected outcomes. The tool utilizes a 

standardized process while being flexible, efficient, and adaptable to Forest-specific priorities and needs. 

The ESE tool uses prioritization algorithms utilizing rank, importance rating, key characteristics and 

indicators, stresses and threats, scope and severity ratings, and management opportunities to assist and 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

56

support management decisions while creating a standardized, credible, and defensible process record. The 

ecological sustainability evaluation tool analysis also considered the short-term (1 to 10 years) and longterm (1 to 50 years) scenarios in the Forest. 

The Forest's streams are considered high quality waters that constitute an exceptional resource 

(Environmental Quality Board 1990). Generally, the water meets or exceeds Commonwealth water 

quality standards. Fecal coliform limits are being exceeded at heavily used undeveloped recreation sites, 

such as Puente Roto. 

The Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) operate 12 dams on the Forest, diverting 

stream water to treatment plants to provide municipal water. These systems consist of low concrete dams 

(less than 6 feet in height), simple passive intake structures, and buried pipelines carrying the water to offForest treatment plants where sediments are removed and the water is chlorinated. In addition to public 

use of Forest water through PRASA’s facilities, 36 private families obtain their domestic water from the 

Forest. These families use smaller dams (no more than 3 feet height) combined with 1- to 2-inch pipes. 

3.3.5.3 Environmental Consequences: Rivers and Streams

All Alternatives

None of the alternatives considered for the Forest Plan would have any measurable effect on the amount 

of water produced by the Forest. Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time and 

place, whereas indirect effects are caused by the action, but manifested later in time or farther removed in 

distance (but are generally foreseeable) (CEQ regulations Section 1508.8). For all alternatives, 

management activities on National Forest System land, and continued growth and development on private 

land have the potential for direct and indirect impacts to rivers and streams.

The Forest Plan proposes management to meet Forest land management objectives and move towards 

desired conditions. Effects are disclosed in general terms with estimations of “probable” effects. Direct 

and indirect effects would occur at the project level (where implementation occurs), where the effects are 

specific for an action where data related to that action and Forest monitoring is available.

For all the Plan alternatives the continuing urbanization and increase in construction in the areas around 

the Forest can increase the expansion of “urban-forest interfaces” or “wildland-urban interfaces” 

(Radeloff et al. 2005). The watershed condition framework and the ecological sustainability evaluation

tool analysis identified the following: 

The Rio Blanco Watershed is a priority watershed.

The impacts in all the watersheds and river system will be more relevant for each alternative in the 

long-term scenarios. For alternative 1 the watersheds and hydrologic network will show less 

favorable conditions compared to alternative 2 and 3. 

Five watersheds were rated as “very good” in the planning area for all the alternatives and time 

scenarios. This indicates that the watershed conditions are optimal; and that associated species' 

populations should remain robust and potentially even expand. 

Three watersheds (Rio Mameyes, Rio Espiritu Santo and Rio Blanco) were rated “good” which 

indicates that conditions are acceptable and that associated species' populations should remain stable. 

Watershed conditions remain in a sustainable level or improve in the long-term scenarios in 

alternatives 2 and 3. 

The application of best management practices should eliminate the long-term effects and indirect 

impacts to rivers for all the alternatives.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

57

Alternative 1

This alternative preserves the management strategies of the 1997 Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. Under the 1997 Plan the information and application of the watershed condition framework was not 

applied, reducing the opportunity to categorize priority watershed according to their ecological and 

physical conditions. The consideration of an “all-lands” strategy that could produce adoption or 

collaborative management programs for creeks and rivers was not considered under the management 

strategies in the 1997 Plan, reducing the potential benefits of monitoring components for rivers and 

watersheds through community and environmental organization agreements. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 present similar conditions of long-term improvements and sustaining the conditions 

of the rivers and watersheds. The alternatives identified priority watersheds for improvement following 

completion of the watershed condition framework. Collaborative and cooperative agreements with 

communities and environmental organizations provide a regional management perspective for the rivers 

and watersheds that starts within the Forest, but can continue through private properties resulting in a 

complete watershed approach. The themes in the Forest Plan show the need to maintain a healthy, 

accessible, and sustainable Forest and provide economic, ecological and social opportunities through an 

inclusive and collaborative Forest management approach. Alternative 1 does not provide specific plan 

components that could benefit the long-term sustainability of the watershed. The no action in view of the 

uses and practices in the road next to Rio Espiritu Santo of the areas considered in the analysis present a 

reduction in the watershed sustainability. Alternative 2 considers the integration of the scenic byway of 

road PR Road 186 but it also includes a plan component for environmental education, collaboration and 

ecosystem services. The establishment of the CIRMA in Alternative 2 without the necessary management 

applications can represent a reduction of the watershed sustainability. Although the NEPA process is 

expected to occur before any project is implemented, Alternative 2 has management practices and 

strategies (such as collaboration and environmental education) for the conservation and recovery of the 

ecosystems, as well as management strategies that would assist in its protection. However, alternative 3 

provides a better scenario for the Rio Espiritu Santo Watershed in the long term (see figure 3-2) because it 

did not consider a scenic byway management area but did not provide the option of an expanded 

educational component that is required for an integrated watershed conservation strategy. Both 

alternatives 2 and 3 maintain the quality of the Rio Espiritu Santo Watershed in the short-term scenario. 

Activities associated with the scenic byway in PR Road 186 will provide additional benefits to the Forest 

and further management considerations.

Under alternatives 2 and 3 the geographic areas concept provides a better distribution and association of 

the municipalities in which the watersheds are defined and can provide for a stronger community 

interaction in watershed approaches and programs. Alternative 2 considers the geographic areas and 

provides the integration of watershed management for the Fajardo and Ceiba area which is the main water 

supply watershed for the municipalities to the north of the Forest.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

58

Figure 3-2. Expected outcomes by alternative for the Rio Espiritu Santo Watershed

Cumulative Effects: Rivers and Streams

The cumulative effects analysis considers the eight HUCs identified in region of Puerto Rico (Region 21) 

as displayed earlier in affected environment; the temporal timeframe is the life of the plan. The Forest 

accounts for about 31.4 percent of the total area that composes the watersheds within the designated 

boundary. Past actions that have influenced the current condition include the approval of facilities near or 

close to a river or stream. Foreseeable actions on State, private or other Federal lands include the changes 

in zoning or land use that can occur in the municipalities that border the Forest and are outside of Forest 

Service control. 

In no action (alternative 1) when these actions are considered with the management plan that has been in 

place since 1997, the cumulative impacts throughout the rivers that flow from the Forest include the 

considerations of additional recreational areas, the timber demonstration projects and a management 

perspective based on management activities in the rivers and stream within the Forest boundaries. The 

construction of housing projects, the development of rural landscapes and urbanization on private lands 

adjacent to the Forest can create cumulative impacts. 

In alternative 2 and 3 although cumulative impacts would be possible from the development of rural 

landscape, the effects could be reduced with the “all-lands” approach and the integration of a regional 

management perspective. Jennings et al. (2014) documents that tropical landcover change, resulting from 

direct human activities, interacts with anthropogenic ecosystem drivers such as climate change and affects 

watershed supply. The scenic byway considered in alternative 2 is a use that would represent potential 

cumulative effects in the Rio Espiritu Santo Watershed. The use of an existing road (PR 186) for the 

scenic byway section would also represent the potential maintenance and drainage improvements that 

could reduce cumulative impacts associated with the no action (alternative 1) option. The consideration of 

recreational facilities or the development of recreational trails could have cumulative impacts depending 

of their location. It is important to note that most visitors enjoy or find pleasing contact with and use of 

the rivers and streams in El Yunque. In alternative 2 and 3 the proposed trails associated with the river 

course would need special attention because of the cumulative impacts expected from these activities.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

59

3.3.5.4 Affected Environment: Riparian Zones

The plan considers the restoration and conservation of riparian zones with native species to sustain its 

diversity and functions. All the alternatives recognize that the riparian zones deliver ecological services to 

the aquatic ecosystems and watersheds of El Yunque and the surrounding regional lands. As part of the 

2014 Forest Plan Assessment, 100-foot (30.5 meters) buffer zones were placed around the rivers (National 

Hydrography Dataset) inside the Forest to estimate riparian forests. The buffer zones were separated into 

submontane moist, montane wet and rain, and montane cloud wet and rain riparian forests using a 

combination of ecological life zones data and the 600-meter elevation line. These river buffer zones 

integrate 2,113.83 acres. Table 3-7 shows the distribution of acres per zone in the Forest. The 2014 Forest 

Plan Assessment presents a description of the vegetation described by different studies in these zones 

(Heartsill-Scalley et al. 2007; Brown et al. 2006; Pike and Scatena 2009; Scatena 1990; O’Connor et al. 

2000; Scatena and Larsen 1990). 

Table 3-7. River buffer zones in the planning area

River Buffer Zone Area in Acres

Submontane Moist 58.96

Montane Wet and Rain 1,350.14

Montane Cloud Wet and Rain 704.73

Source: 2014 Forest Plan Assessment, El Yunque National Forest

The Forest plan recognizes the need of a survey in the riparian zones and defines standards and guidelines 

to achieve the goal of maintaining or improve the functional ecological connections provided by riparian 

zones through the management regions. 

The Forest plan recognizes that hurricanes Maria and Irma were both stream forming events that resulted 

in a large quanity of sediment, rocky substrate, and large woody debris added to the riparian zones. These 

recent changes are part of the natural disturbance cycle and contribute to maintaining the health of the 

riparian zones. 

3.3.5.5 Environmental Consequences: Riparian Zones

All Alternatives

All alternatives would emphasize protection and improvement of riparian zones. Management activities 

consistent with best management practices and standards and guidelines will be implemented as described 

in the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment. For the estimated score in the ecological sustainability evaluation

tool, watershed improvement varies by alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3 present a better score for Rio 

Mameyes, Rio Espiritu Santo, and Rio Canóvanas in the long-term scenarios.

Alternatives 2 and 3 emphasize the collaborative approaches for conservation education regarding aquatic 

ecosystems or a related ecosystem component for the priority watershed every 2 years to enhance public 

awareness and opportunities and to better understand scientific land management. These alternatives also 

encourage the collaborative agreements with communities, agencies, and environmental organizations to 

establish permanent plots in order to monitor environmental change and its effect to El Yunque wetlands 

and the broader landscape. Alternative 1 presents conservation approaches for the riparian zones, but does 

not provide specific direction or management strategies for improvement and does not establish priority 

watersheds for the Forest. The riparian and watershed composition and structure are key components of 

aquatic ecosystems and are, therefore, important components of aquatic ecosystems monitoring.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

60

Alternative 1 

This alternative follows the management strategy of the 1997 Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan which follows a similar delineation of the riparian zone (100-foot buffer) used for the 2014 Forest 

Plan Assessment. The alternative includes the development of recreational areas with construction 

intended to reduce sedimentation to conserve riparian zones. The 1997 Plan includes a timber harvest 

component that is identified as a sediment source action in the long-term scenario of the Plan. The 

alternative does not integrate the evaluation of the watershed condition framework and did not establish a 

priority watershed as part of the analysis. Alternative 1 does not consider the geographical zones 

considered in alternatives 2 and 3, where there is the potential integration of community groups and 

organizations to participate in management strategies applied to riparian zones. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

In alternatives 2 and 3, the watershed condition framework identified one priority watershed for 

improvements in the short-term scenario of the Plan. The watershed condition framework identified the 

Rio Blanco watershed as the highest priority for improvement within the Forest. This watershed will be 

managed to supply appropriate ecological services. 

The identification of geographic areas in these alternatives also provides opportunities for targeted 

conservation initiatives, such as for stream corridors, riparian zones, wild and scenic river corridors, and 

potential riparian conservation connection projects with other naturally protected areas in the regions like 

the Corredor Ecólogico del Noreste Natural Reserve. Alternative 2 includes a geographic area that covers 

the eastern municipalities of Fajardo and Ceiba which specifically establish management emphasis in 

watershed management. This geographic area could be used as a reference for watershed integrated 

management initiatives developed in collaboration with eastern municipalities. Alternatives 2 and 3 

promote the engagement of community-based enterprises, groups, and other organizations for rivers, 

floodplains, and riparian area restoration and conservation efforts. The riparian management zones are 

defined in these alternatives as 100 feet from the edges unless a site-specific analysis is conducted to 

identify and delineate a more specific riparian management zone. Standards and guidelines require the use 

of best management practices approved by the Forest Service for all management activities or 

maintenance practices proposed close to riparian zones. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects for El Yunque National Forest were determined using current information 

provided in the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment, existing data, past practices, identified project effects and 

the available information on private land actions. The ecological sustainability evaluation tool analysis 

indicated the possible results for both 10 and 50 year time frames for alternative 2 and 3. These results are 

not significantly different and neither alternative resulted in long-term impacts due to current list of 

proposed actions. Alternative 1 presented less improvement in the watershed conditions compared to the 

other alternatives in three watersheds. Because of its relatively high road density and the anticipated 

future maintenance of roads and trails in each alternative, the Río Fajardo Watershed moved from very 

good to fair condition for all alternatives. Alternative 2 best addresses this condition shift by focusing on 

suitanable maintenance to minimize impacts to riparian zones.

Although the physical settings of the Rio Fajardo Watershed within the Forest limits display conditions 

that present positive sceneries; other areas of the watershed show dynamics of land uses that influence the 

quality conditions of the watershed. The management strategies considered for the Plan alternatives in the 

Rio Fajardo Watershed could maintain its quality within the Forest limits, but an integrated watershed 

management strategy will be needed to improve the overall watershed conditions in a long-term 

perspective. This circumstance is exhibited in the estimated watershed score as part of the analysis 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

61

applied and will be considered as part of the regional management perspective considered in the 

management plan. The graph presented in figure 3-3 display a constant conduct for this watershed but it 

also displays the need of long-term management strategies that will require a joined cohesive 

management project to improve the water quality of the Rio Fajardo watershed. 

Summary of Effects, All Alternatives

All alternatives would emphasize protecting and improving riparian zones. Management activities 

consistent with best management practices and standards and guidelines will be implemented as described 

in the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment. The estimated score in the ecological sustainability evaluation tool 

for watershed improvement varies by alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3 present a better score for Rio 

Mameyes, Rio Espiritu Santo and Rio Canóvanas in the long-term scenarios.

Alternatives 2 and 3 emphasize the collaborative approaches for conservation education regarding aquatic 

ecosystems or a related ecosystem component for the priority watershed every 2 years to enhance public 

awareness and opportunities and to better understand scientific land management. These alternatives also 

encourage collaborative agreements with communities, agencies and environmental organizations to 

establish permanent plots in order to monitor environmental change and its effect to El Yunque wetlands 

and the broader landscape. Alternative 1 presents conservation approaches for the riparian zones, but did 

not provide specific direction or management strategies for improvement and did not establish priority 

watersheds for the Forest. The riparian and watershed composition and structure are key components of 

aquatic ecosystems and are, therefore, important components of aquatic ecosystems monitoring.

3.3.5.6 Affected Environment: Water Quality and Quantity

The 2014 Forest Plan Assessment describes the importance of the water resources produced in the 

Luquillo Mountains. The Luquillo Mountains supply more than 20 percent of the Island’s municipal water 

each year, with El Yunque providing an average of 276 cubic hectometers of water per year for municipal 

uses (Scatena and Johnson 2001). The rivers that drain the Luquillo Experimental Forest all have steep 

gradients, boulder- and bedrock-lined channels with steep-pool morphology, and waterfalls (Ahmad et al. 

1993). The yearly water production of El Yunque is estimated at 73.5 billion gallons per year ([LRMP] 

USDA Forest Service 1997). Estimated as the cost paid by the consumer, water extracted from the 

streams that drain the Luquillo Mountains is worth about $25 million per year. Because of the importance 

of understanding where the water is most available and how the quantity changes; with individual storms, 

season, and on annual to decadal time scales; water budgets have been developed for El Yunque National 

Forest.

Water quality in the watersheds of El Yunque is relatively pure. According to McDowell (1994), water 

chemistry data indicate that major cations and anion concentrations do not exceed water quality standards. 

El Yunque common aquatic species include the following: nine freshwater shrimp species (Xiphocaris 

elongata, Atya scabra, Atya lanipes, Atya innocuous, Micratya poeyi, Macrobrachium faustinum, 

Macrobrachium heterchirus, Macrobrachium carcinus, and Macrobrachium crenulatum), one crab 

species (Epilobocera sinuatifrons), and five fish species (Sicydium plumieri, Awaous banana, 

Agonostomus monticola, Anguilla rostrata, and Gobiomorus dormitor). There are no rare or federally 

listed aquatic species on El Yunque. 

Population trends developed from long-term monitoring sites in many of the watersheds show a stable 

count of common aquatic species on El Yunque. Many of the freshwater shrimp live their entire life cycle 

within El Yunque river systems. The river system defined for the watershed condition framework

connects with coastal areas that integrate an estuary ecosystem, which provides an important condition 

and habitat for El Yunque aquatic species. Endemic freshwater fishes have the same biological cycle, 

except the American eel (Anguilla rostrata). The American eel is a catadromous fish species, where adults 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

62

travel to breeding areas in the Sargasso Sea to the north and the next generation of young eels return to El 

Yunque streams.

Primary impacts of the Forest from pollution are associated with public use of pools and river segments as 

recreational areas and from sediments produced by landslides in the Forest. A pulse of 250 landslides 

along roads occurred with hurricanes Irma and Maria which is excpected to continue to contribute 

sediment until the landslides stabilize in the future. Some impacts from airborne pollutants have been 

found in the waters (Jennings et al. 2014) of some watersheds. These are periodic events but have been 

identified as important monitoring components of the effects of climate change on El Yunque. There are 

34 water intakes withdrawing over 46 million gallons per day from the Forest, in some basins, up to 82 

percent of the median flow is diverted. Currently, 70 percent of water generated within the Forest is 

diverted before reaching the ocean, up from 54 percent in 1994 (Crook et al. 2007). The Plan considers 

improvement of the stream water network information to evaluate the quality and supply parameters of 

the resources. The management strategy will be developed considering an outreach component to promote 

the value and influence of the resource in relation to the socioeconomic system or aspects of the region.

3.3.5.7 Environmental Consequences: Water Quality

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Water quality and quantity were identified as key services provided by the Forest and should be 

maintained or improved as part of the management actions considered. The use of water for human 

consumption has to be balanced with in-stream flow needs for use, recreation, research, and aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystem maintenance. Integrating a watershed management perspective, the Forest should 

conserve a functional linkage for the aquatic wildlife from inside the Forest to the ocean. Alternative 2 

and 3 consider the watershed management approach and apply the watershed condition framework as part 

of the analysis for the management strategies. All the alternatives consider the conservation and 

application of best management practices applicable for water resource protection. The watershed 

approach considered with the geographic zones in the Forest plan will serve to minimize potential 

pollution problems and improve the restoration and monitoring strategies throughout the Forest. 

All the alternatives established that no management practice may cause detrimental changes in water 

quality and chemical composition, or block the watercourse or deposit sediment that would adversely 

affect the water conditions and fish habitat. The Plan considers key ecosystem characteristic related to 

drought, measured by drought severity indices and trends (from U.S. Geological Survey), which would be 

monitored over time as the data is updated through the water resource strategies applied in the Forest 

Plan. 

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 follows the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan which provide standards 

and guidelines to maintain a conservation track for the water resources of the Forest. This alternative does 

not establish a watershed approach with the definition of priorities and the analysis provided by the 

watershed condition framework. The application of management practices with this alternative will be 

focused within the Forest boundaries which can limit the management effectiveness for aquatic species.

Alternatives 2 and 3

These alternatives present similar conservation strategies for water resources. Improving or conserving 

water quality is achieved in both alternatives. The strategy of working with partners and/or other agencies 

to establish environmental flow ranges based on an empirical Forest water budget is proposed in both 

alternatives, but alternative 2 provides the integration of geographical areas that should provide additional 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

63

opportunities for partnerships. The integration of the geographical region could develop projects for 

specific watersheds, like the one that drains toward Northeast Ecological Corridor establishing a 

transboundary conservation initiative from Federal property to state and private areas to improve the 

management of aquatic ecosystems. The application of the watershed condition framework will provide a 

conservation strategy starting with the Rio Blanco Watershed that was identified as a priority watershed. 

The alternatives protect surface and sub-surface water resources from physical, chemical, and biological 

pollutants, and eliminate modifying flow regimes to levels that affect the abiotic functions and biotic 

needs for viable population in the aquatic ecosystems of the Forest.

Water Quality and Quantity Cumulative Effects 

The Forest accounts for about 31.4 percent of the total area that compose the watersheds within the 

designated boundary. Past actions that have influenced the current condition include the approval of 

facilities near or close to a river or stream. Hurricanes Irma and Maria have resulted in increased 

contaminants from private and other lands outside Forest boundaries. Foreseeable actions on State, 

private or other Federal lands include the changes in zoning or land use that can occur in the 

municipalities that border the Forest and are outside of Forest Service control. Climate change is likely to 

amplify existing pressures on water resources and water availability in northeastern Puerto Rico, 

especially in combination with increased urban development and water extraction (Crook and others 

2007). The quality of water would also show the cumulative effects of climate change because extended 

periods of extreme low flows in the dry season may result in increased pollutant concentrations and 

excessive nutrients in Caribbean streams (Cashman et al. 2010; Covich et al. 2003). 

In no action (Alternative 1) these actions are considered within the management plan that has been in 

place since 1997. Although cumulative impacts would be possible form the development of rural 

landscape, in Alternative 1 and 2 the effects could be reduced with the “all-lands” approach and the 

integration of a regional management perspective. Considering climate change, it can be expected that 

more intense rainfall events lead to increased runoff in the wet season; these events can also lead to 

decreased water quality through increased turbidity and erosion as well as flooding (Cashman et al. 2010). 

Watersheds that respond quickly to precipitation, such as in the Luquillo Mountains, may be especially 

affected (Schellekens et al. 2000). The scenic byway proposed in alternative 2 could have potential 

cumulative effects in the Rio Espiritu Santo Watershed. The use of an existing road (PR 186) for the 

scenic byway section would also represent the potential maintenance and drainage improvements that 

could reduce cumulative impacts associated with the no action (alternative 1) option. This maintenance is 

important in the consideration of cumulative effects considering climate change because an increase in 

extreme weather events may increase damage to facilities and structures, reduce tourist access in some 

areas, and increase the need for road repairs (Joyce et al. 2008). 

3.3.5.8 Watershed Health: Watershed Condition Framework

The watersheds identified in El Yunque were analyzed using the watershed condition framework (WCF) 

that evaluated watershed conditions based on watershed characteristics and attributes. Through the WCF, 

the watershed health is evaluated to establish priority watersheds that require restoration. The WCF 

classifies watershed condition, develops restoration in priority watersheds, and monitors accomplishments 

(USDA Forest Service 2011a, 2011b, 2011c). The WCF classified all the watersheds within the planning 

area as “good” or “very good” (the tables are included in the administrative record). The Plan establishes 

that the Forest will proceed with the application of the watershed condition framework according to the 

restoration action plans. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

64

Priority Watersheds

The Rio Blanco watershed was identified as a priority watershed under the watershed condition 

framework ranking system. The 2014 Forest Plan Assessment provides additional information of the 

watershed condition and the Plan identifies management strategies considered to improve the watershed 

health conditions. The watershed was classified as “functioning at risk” as part of the Regional 

assessment with the watershed condition (map 3-7). The Rio Blanco watershed covers 17,341 acres, 30 

percent of which (5,181 acres) are under Forest Service ownership. El Yunque Watershed Condition 

Classification Supplemental Guidance (2010) results for the Rio Blanco Watershed are presented in table

3-8. 

No direct or indirect effects are expected from the implementation of the Plan. The consideration of 

projects in the management areas has the potential for effects and these effects are summarized in table 

3-9. Table 3-10 describes the composite watershed scores that were developed as part of the alternative 

analysis process using the ecological sustainability evaluation (ESE) tool. Scores were calculated for 10 

and 50 years in the future. The score is a relative sustainability ranking from 0 to 10. Scores from 0 to 2.5 

means poor or less sustainable, 2.6 to 5.0 means fairly sustainable, 5.1 to 7.5 means good sustainability, 

and 7.6 to 10 means very good sustainability. For more detailed information about the ecological

sustainability evaluation please see appendix B and refere to the planning record.

Table 3-8. El Yunque watershed condition classification supplemental guidance classification for the Rio 

Blanco Watershed

Water Quantity Condition 

Indicator

Diversions Not Meeting Standards Developed by FERC Penstock System 

that Feed the Hydro Power Plant

Water Quantity Condition Indicator Diversions not meeting standards developed by FERC penstock system that feed 

the hydro power plant

Aquatic Habitat Condition Indicator On the Forest functioning at risk: aquatic habitat is not significant impacted but 

fragmented by FERC dams

Channel Shape and Function Impaired functioning: Highly erodible soils, high sand content; upper watershed flat 

and funnels water into channels and causes erosion; landslides have impacted 

channel shape

Aquatic Biota Condition Indicator On the Forest functioning at risk: penstock complex has impacted life forms during 

droughts

Road Maintenance Impaired functioning: lots of trails and roads which need deferred maintenance

Proximity to Water Impaired functioning: the extensive trail systems are notable along the streams, 

because of the nature of the trail system
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

65

Map 3-7. Watershed condition classification 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

66

Table 3-9. Summary of effects by alternative and watershed

Alternative Name Indirect Effects Direct Effects Cumulative Effects

Rio Canovanas: At Mouth; El Yunque

No Action 

1. Increase of recreation activities 

considered in the developed recreational 

area could produce indirect impacts over the 

riparian vegetation and sensible areas. 

2. Access to extract timber as part of the 

timber demonstration area can produce 

impacts in the aquatic habitats and can 

affect the riparian zones. 

Direct effects could be expected from the 

development of recreation facilities 

considered in the zone and from the 

timber demonstration.

Because of the recreational activities 

considered in the no-action alternative, some 

negative cumulative effects could be 

expected in the Canovanas River because of 

visitor pressure and recreational activities 

concentrated in the watershed.

Alternative 2

The CIRMA includes the possibility of 

applied community-based enterprises, 

groups, and other organizations that could 

cause indirect effects in rivers, floodplains, 

and riparian zones. 

The watershed includes areas 

considered under the CIRMA 

Management Area that could be used to 

disperse the visitors pressure considered 

in the corridor of PR Road 191. The 

increase in visitors could impact riparian 

zones and produce some direct effects 

in the vegetation.

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Canovanas from past, present, 

and foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Canovanas.

Alternative 3

The CIRMA management area include the 

possibility of applied community-based 

enterprises, groups, and other organizations 

that could cause indirect effects in rivers, 

floodplains, and riparian zones. 

The watershed includes areas 

considered under the CIRMA 

Management Area that could be used to 

disperse the visitor pressure considered 

in the corridor of PR Road 191. The 

increase in visitors could impact riparian 

zones and produce some direct effects 

in the vegetation.

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Canovanas from past, present, 

and foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Canovanas.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

67

Alternative Name Indirect Effects Direct Effects Cumulative Effects

Rio Espiritu Santo: At Mouth; El Yunque

No Action

Areas of the watershed are considered 

under the timber demonstration activity and 

the activities could produce indirect effects 

in the drainage areas of the watershed 

associated with Rio Espiritu Santo. 

The watershed includes zones 

associated with develop recreational 

areas and integrated management 

areas. Direct impact could be expected 

from recreational activities.

The management areas considered under 

the no-action alternative could produce 

cumulative impacts associated with visitors 

and recreational develop areas.

Alternative 2

The expected increase in use and visits in 

the areas within the watershed could 

produce additional pressure and trash 

problems identified in some drainage areas 

through the watershed landscape.

The watershed includes areas 

considered under the CIRMA 

Management Area that could be used to 

disperse the visitors pressure considered 

in the corridor of PR Road 191. The 

increase in visitors could impact riparian 

zones and produce some direct effects 

in the vegetation.

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Espiritu Santo from past, present, 

and foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Espiritu Santo.

Alternative 3

The expected increase in use and visits in 

the areas within the watershed could 

produce additional pressure and trash 

problems identified in some drainage areas 

through the watershed landscape.

The watershed includes areas 

considered under the CIRMA 

Management Area that could be used to 

disperse the visitors pressure considered 

in the corridor of PR Road 191. The 

increase in visitors could impact riparian 

zones and produce some direct effects 

in the vegetation.

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Espiritu Santo from past, present, 

and foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Espiritu Santo.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

68

Alternative Name Indirect Effects Direct Effects Cumulative Effects

Rio Mameyes: At Mouth; El Yunque

No Action 

The consideration of activities to improve 

the recreational facilities could cause 

additional pressure to riparian zones.

The water quality will show the effects of 

the concentration of visitors in the 

recreational facilities within the 

watershed.

Because of the recreational activities 

considered in the no-action alternative, some 

negative cumulative effects could be 

expected in the Mameyes River because of 

visitor pressure and recreational activities 

concentrated in the watershed.

Alternative 2

Positive effects should be expected at the 

watershed level because of the geographic 

management perspective considered in the 

alternative.

The lower elevation zones of the 

watershed are included in the CIRMA 

management area and the potential 

activities considered for this area could

produce impact in the riparian zones of 

the watershed.

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Mameyes from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Mameyes.

Alternative 3

Positive effects should be expected at the 

watershed level because of the geographic 

management perspective considered in the 

alternative.

The lower elevation zones of the 

watershed are included in the CIRMA 

management area and the potential 

activities considered for this area could 

produce impact in the riparian zones of 

the watershed.

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Mameyes from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Mameyes.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

69

Alternative Name Indirect Effects Direct Effects Cumulative Effects

Rio Sabana: At Mouth; El Yunque

No Action 

1. Increase of recreation activities 

considered in the integrated management 

area could produce indirect impacts over the 

riparian vegetation and sensible areas. 

2. Access to extract timber as part of the 

timber demonstration area can produce 

impacts in the aquatic habitats and can 

affect the riparian zones. 

1. Access to extract timber and the 

logging activities will produce impacts in 

the aquatic habitats and can affect the 

riparian zones. 

1. The recreation activities will also produce 

cumulative effects.

2. There is a risk of affect to the condition of 

the river because of the combination of 

activities that can be applied in closer areas 

of the Forest (timber demonstration, 

integrated management).

Alternative 2

The CIRMA management area include the 

possibility of applied community-based 

enterprises, groups, and other organizations 

that could produce indirect effects in rivers, 

floodplains, and riparian zones. 

1. The lower elevation zones of the 

watershed are included in the CIRMA 

management area and the potential 

activities considered for this area could 

produce impact in the riparian zones of 

the watershed. The higher elevation 

zones of the watershed are in the natural 

research area and no impacts from the 

allowed activities are expected.

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Sabana from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Sabana.

Alternative 3

The CIRMA management area include the 

possibility of applied community-based 

enterprises, groups, and other organizations 

that could produce indirect effects in rivers, 

floodplains, and riparian zones. 

The lower elevation zones of the 

watershed are included in the CIRMA 

management area and the potential 

activities considered for this area could 

produce impact in the riparian zones of

the watershed.

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Sabana from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Sabana.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

70

Alternative Name Indirect Effects Direct Effects Cumulative Effects

Rio Fajardo: At Mouth; El Yunque

No Action 

The areas of the watershed are considered 

under the integrated management 

description, and dispersed recreation could 

produce direct impacts in the Wet Forest of 

the zone. No indirect effects are expected 

form the activities applicable in the research 

natural area.

1. The areas of the watershed are 

considered under the integrated 

management description and dispersed 

recreation could produce direct impacts 

in the Wet Forest of the zone.

2. The research natural area is also 

considered under the no-action 

alternative and no direct effects are 

expected.

The areas of the watershed have steep 

terrain and cumulative effects could be 

expected from landslides that could occur 

naturally or can be caused by disperse 

recreation activities.

Alternative 2

The areas of the watershed are considered 

under the CIRMA Management area and 

recreation activities could be considered 

producing indirect impacts in the Wet Forest 

of the zone. No indirect effects are expected 

form the activities applicable in the research 

natural area.

1. Most of the terrain in the watershed is 

under the Natural Research Baño de 

Oro Area and no direct effects are 

expected form the activities.

2. Management application in the 

CIRMA areas will provide habitat 

improvement of riparian zones through 

the watershed. 

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Fajardo from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Fajardo.

Alternative 3

The areas of the watershed are considered 

under the CIRMA Management area and 

recreation activities could be considered 

producing indirect impacts in the Wet Forest 

of the zone. No indirect effects are expected 

form the activities applicable in the research 

natural area.

1. Most of the terrain in the watershed is 

under the Natural Research Baño de 

Oro Area and no direct effects are 

expected form the activities.

2. Management application in the 

CIRMA areas will provide habitat 

improvement of riparian zones through 

the watershed. 

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Fajardo from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Fajardo.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

71

Alternative Name Indirect Effects Direct Effects Cumulative Effects

Rio Santiago: At Mouth; El Yunque

No Action 

The areas of the watershed are considered 

under the integrated management 

description and dispersed recreation could 

produce direct impacts in the Wet Forest of 

the zone.

The areas of the watershed are 

considered under the integrated 

management description and dispersed 

recreation could produce direct impacts 

in the Wet Forest of the zone.

The area of the watershed within the Forest 

is small and no major cumulative impacts are 

expected from the activities considered 

under the no-action alternative.

Alternative 2

The areas of the watershed are considered 

in the CIRMA Management Area and 

activities directed toward community-based 

enterprises are considered. Because of the 

montane wet forest type the considered 

activities will be directed toward restoration 

and conservation of the riparian zones

reducing the direct and indirect effects.

The areas of the watershed are 

considered in the CIRMA Management 

Area and activities directed toward 

community-based enterprises are 

considered. Because of the montane wet 

forest type the considered activities will 

be directed toward restoration and 

conservation of the riparian zones

reducing the direct and indirect effects

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Santiago from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Santiago.

Alternative 3

The areas of the watershed are considered 

in the CIRMA Management Area and 

activities directed toward community-based 

enterprises are considered. Because of the 

montane wet forest type the considered 

activities will be directed toward restoration 

and conservation of the riparian zones

reducing the direct and indirect effects.

The areas of the watershed are 

considered in the CIRMA Management 

Area and activities directed toward 

community-based enterprises are 

considered. Because of the montane wet 

forest type the considered activities will 

be directed toward restoration and 

conservation of the riparian zones

reducing the direct and indirect effects.

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Santiago from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Santiago.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

72

Alternative Name Indirect Effects Direct Effects Cumulative Effects

Rio Blanco: At Mouth; El Yunque

No Action 

Increase of recreation activities could 

produce indirect impacts over the riparian 

vegetation and sensible areas.

Impacts from the consideration of 

recreational projects in the watershed.

The expected effects are related to the 

recreational activities considered in the 

watershed.

Alternative 2 Soil movements and sediments can be 

produced from CIRMA projects. 

Management application in the CIRMA 

areas will provide habitat improvement of 

riparian zones through the watershed. 

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Blanco from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Blanco.

Alternative 3 Soil movements and sediments can be 

produced from CIRMA projects. 

Management application in the CIRMA 

areas will provide habitat improvement of 

riparian zones through the watershed. 

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Blanco from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Blanco.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

73

Alternative Name Indirect Effects Direct Effects Cumulative Effects

Rio Pitahaya: At Mouth; El Yunque

No Action 

Increase of recreation activities could 

produce indirect impacts over the riparian 

vegetation and sensible areas.

Access to extract timber and the logging 

activities will produce impacts in the 

aquatic habitats and can affect the 

riparian zones. 

1. The recreation activities will also produce 

cumulative effects.

2. There is a risk of affect the condition of the 

river because of the combination of activities 

that can be applied in closer areas of the 

Forest (timber demonstration, integrated 

management, research, administrative site)

Alternative 2 Soil movements and sediments can be 

produced from CIRMA projects. 

Management application in the CIRMA 

areas will provide habitat improvement of 

riparian zones through the watershed. 

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Pitahaya from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Pitahaya.

Alternative 3 1. Soil movements and sediments can be 

produced from CIRMA projects. 

1. Management application in the 

CIRMA areas will provide habitat 

improvement of riparian zones through 

the watershed. 

The sources of cumulative effects may occur 

from road and trail maintenance, recreation 

and fluctuating human population, and the 

stress this creates on the natural resources. 

Cumulatively, environmental consequences 

to the Rio Pitahaya from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions would be minimized 

through the use of best management 

practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be 

low to moderate. Overall the cumulative 

effects of all management actions over time 

are not expected to adversely affect the Rio 

Pitahaya.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

74

Table 3-10. Element composite scores by alternative as for El Yunque Planning Area calculated by the ecological sustainability evaluation tool

Watershed Name

Planning Area 

Watershed Score

Watershed Planning 

Area Sustainability

Rating Alternative Name Years in the Future

Estimated 

Watershed Score

Rio Pitahaya at mouth 7.5 Very Good No Action 10 6.25

7.5 Very Good No Action 50 6.25

7.5 Very Good Alternative 2 10 6.25

7.5 Very Good Alternative 2 50 6.25

7.5 Very Good Alternative 3 10 6.25

7.5 Very Good Alternative 3 50 6.25

Rio Mameyes at mouth 6.25 Good No Action 10 4.84

6.25 Good No Action 50 4.84

6.25 Good Alternative 2 10 4.84

6.25 Good Alternative 2 50 6.25

6.25 Good Alternative 3 10 4.84

6.25 Good Alternative 3 50 6.25

Rio Espiritu Santo near mouth 6.25 Good No Action 10 6.25

6.25 Good No Action 50 5.00

6.25 Good Alternative 2 10 6.25

6.25 Good Alternative 2 50 5.00

6.25 Good Alternative 3 10 6.25

6.25 Good Alternative 3 50 7.50

Rio Canovanas 7.5 Very Good No Action 10 7.50

7.5 Very Good No Action 50 5.31

7.5 Very Good Alternative 2 10 7.50

7.5 Very Good Alternative 2 50 7.50

7.5 Very Good Alternative 3 10 7.50

7.5 Very Good Alternative 3 50 7.50
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

75

Watershed Name

Planning Area 

Watershed Score

Watershed Planning 

Area Sustainability

Rating Alternative Name Years in the Future

Estimated 

Watershed Score

Rio Santiago near mouth 7.5 Very Good No Action 10 6.25

7.5 Very Good No Action 50 6.25

7.5 Very Good Alternative 2 10 6.25

7.5 Very Good Alternative 2 50 6.25

7.5 Very Good Alternative 3 10 6.25

7.5 Very Good Alternative 3 50 6.25

Rio Sabana at mouth 7.5 Very Good No Action 10 7.50

7.5 Very Good No Action 50 7.50

7.5 Very Good Alternative 2 10 7.50

7.5 Very Good Alternative 2 50 7.50

7.5 Very Good Alternative 3 10 7.50

7.5 Very Good Alternative 3 50 7.50

Rio Blanco near mouth 6.25 Good No Action 10 4.84

6.25 Good No Action 50 5.31

6.25 Good Alternative 2 10 4.84

6.25 Good Alternative 2 50 5.31

6.25 Good Alternative 3 10 4.84

6.25 Good Alternative 3 50 5.31

Rio Fajardo near mouth 7.5 Very Good No Action 10 7.50

7.5 Very Good No Action 50 6.25

7.5 Very Good Alternative 2 10 7.50

7.5 Very Good Alternative 2 50 6.25

7.5 Very Good Alternative 3 10 7.50

7.5 Very Good Alternative 3 50 6.25
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

76

Figure 3-3. Graphic representation by watershed of the ecological sustainability evaluation for El Yunque 

National Forest Watersheds
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

77

3.4 Biological Environment 

3.4.1 Ecological Systems

3.4.1.1 Affected Environment

A vegetation classification process was developed for the revision of El Yunque Management Plan in 

2013. The geospatial dataset was created and modified at the International Institute of Tropical Forestry 

(IITF) GIS and Remote Sensing Lab with expertise from scientists and foresters from the IITF and El 

Yunque. The geospatial data was based on the PRGAP 2000 land cover map (Gould et al. 2007). The 

original data was modified to better-fit forest management needs. We modified the PRGAP land cover by 

incorporating information from the Holdridge ecological life zones (Ewel and Whitmore 1973), 600-

meter elevation line (USGS), and 3,300-millimeter precipitation line (Daly et al. 2003) to create the new 

vegetation classification. We also created a 100-foot buffer around the rivers (National Hydrography 

Dataset) inside the Forest to identify riparian forest. The river buffer zones were separated into 

submontane moist, montane wet and rain, and montane cloud wet and rain riparian forests using a 

combination of ecological life zones data and the 600-meter elevation line (USDA Forest Service, El 

Yunque Forest Plan Assessment 2014) 

Vegetation classification provides a common language for the effective management and conservation at 

all scales. The vegetation can be described by its repeating patterns in species composition and/or growth 

forms and structure and relationships to the environment in which found. As with any taxonomy, we use 

vegetation classification to simplify the patterns in order to communicate and share information. 

We initiated our mapping efforts using IITF Land Cover 2000–National Vegetation (map 3-8). As 

analyzed, the Forest contains 15 forest types. This map follows a hierarchy of the National Vegetation 

Classification (NVC) down to “groups.” 

1. In the USNVC System D represent division; M represents mega-groups and G represents groups. 

2. The numbers associated with the hierarchal units come from the NVC System nomenclature. 

The hierarchy of the NVC continues down with “associations” and “alliances,” which focus and refine the 

ecosystems vegetation or environmental conditions at the scale needed to assess timber stands. See, 

USDA Forest Service, El Yunque Forest Plan Assessment 2014 for a detailed description of forest types.

Distribution, Extent and Trends of the Luquillo Mountain Range 

The Forest is located in the rugged Sierra de Luquillo Mountains, 25 miles southeast of San Juan, Puerto 

Rico. It is the only tropical forest administered by the USDA Forest Service. Puerto Rico lies between the 

Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea; it is the easternmost island of the Greater Antilles. The total land 

area is 3,421 square miles.

The Forest contains about 29,000 acres. Elevation ranges from 100 to 3,533 feet above sea level. The 

climate is tropical. Average annual rainfall over the Forest is 120 inches per year. Topography is rugged, 

with 24 percent of the Forest exhibiting 60 percent slope or steeper. The Luquillo Mountains have a 

humid maritime climate.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

78

Map 3-8. El Yunque National Forest vegetation map 

Source: Quiñones, M.; Rivera, L.A.; Gould, W.A. 2013. El Yunque National Forest vegetation map. Terrestrial Ecosystem Assessment chapter of the land and resources management 

plan revision for El Yunque National Forest. Vector data. USDA Forest Service, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

79

Table 3-11. Vegetation classification, El Yunque National Forest

El Yunque Vegetation Classification Area (acres)

M279 Caribbean Montane Humid Forest

G448 Caribbean Wet Montane Forest Group

Mature Tabonuco Montane Rain Forest 3,471 

Mature Tabonuco Montane Wet Forest 2,619

Mature Sierra Palm Montane Wet Forest 496

Secondary Montane Wet Forest 5,843

M280 Caribbean Cloud Forest

G451 Caribbean Montane Cloud Forest Group

Mature Palo Colorado Montane Rain Cloud Forest 918

Mature Palo Colorado Montane Wet Cloud Forest 6,808

Mature Sierra Palm Montane Rain Cloud Forest 2,142

Mature Sierra Palm Montane Wet Cloud Forest 2,035

Mature Tabebuia/Eugenia Woodland Montane Rain Cloud Forest 342 

Mature Tabebuia/Eugenia Woodland Montane Wet Cloud Forest 298

Secondary Montane Wet Cloud Forest 725

M281 Caribbean Lowland Humid Forest

G454 Caribbean Moist Lowland Submontane Forest

Secondary Submontane Moist Forest 506 

Riparian Forest

Riparian Montane Rain and Wet Cloud Forest 705 

Riparian Montane Rain and Wet Forest 1,350

Riparian Submontane Moist Forest 59 

Non Forest

Non Forest -Natural Barrens, Grasslands and Shrublands 297 

Developed 19

Grand Total 28,633

Although El Yunque is one of the smallest forests in the National Forest System (29,000 acres or roughly 

11,300 hectares), it is one of the most biologically diverse areas that the Forest Service manages. El 

Yunque contains at least 830 native species of plants (Weaver et al. 2013) and over 240 species of native 

trees, of which 88 are rare or endemic. Sixty-eight (68) are limited to Puerto Rico and 23 are only found 

in the Forest. Along with the trees, El Yunque includes 50 species of native orchids and over 150 species 

of ferns. This relatively small land area also supports 127 species of terrestrial vertebrate (land animals 

with backbones) and 10 species of aquatic invertebrates (water animals without backbones) ([LRMP] 

USDA Forest Service 1997). 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

80

Luquillo Mountain Range Ecosystems

The forest types of El Yunque support a large diversity of tropical species. The dominant life zone 

distinctions include subtropical wet forest, subtropical rain forests, and subtropical lower montane wet 

and rain forests. In El Yunque, forest types and community structure shift as a result of continuous change 

in cloud cover, wind exposure, soil moisture, temperature, and precipitation across an elevational 

gradient, with land use intensity decreasing with elevation from secondary lowlands forests to protected 

peaks (Jennings et al. 2014). 

El Yunque Forest Types

Functional Montane Wetland 

All plant communities located above the 600-meter elevation line at El Yunque, above the cloud 

condensation level, are wetland communities. The three essential characteristics of wetlands are 

hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (Cowardin et al. 1979; U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers 1987; National Research Council 1995; Tiner and Burke 1995). The 600-meter elevation 

boundary determines where clouds will form and, thus, where the Cloud Forest community begins (Harris 

et al. 2012). From the total of 1,487 plant species listed on the Puerto Rico 2012 Final Regional Wetland 

Plant List (prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 559 (or 38 percent) of the list is reported to be 

present on El Yunque. All of the 559 wetland plant species present at El Yunque are above the 600-meter 

elevation boundary. These lands represent 46.76 percent of El Yunque or 13,268 acres.

See map 3-9 for the location of forest types inside the wetland (all lands above 600 meters of elevation). 

The number of acres for each vegetation type is included below. 

Table 3-12. Vegetation types and acreage in the functional montane wetland

Community Acres

Mature Palo Colorado Montane Rain Cloud Forest 918

Mature Palo Colorado Montane Wet Cloud Forest 6,808

Mature Sierra Palm Montane Rain Cloud Forest 2,142 

Mature Sierra Palm Montane Wet Cloud Forest 2,035 

Mature Tabebuia/Eugenia Woodland Montane Rain Cloud Forest 342 

Mature Tabebuia/Eugenia Woodland Montane Wet Cloud Forest 298

Secondary Montane Wet Cloud Forest 725
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

81

Map 3-9. Watershed wetland map
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

82

Mature Forest 

Mature forest refers to old-growth vegetation that has not been clear cut and that its structure and 

composition has not been significantly altered by anthropogenic disturbances. The largest block of such 

lands in Puerto Rico is in El Yunque, an area of approximately 13,700 acres. Most of El Yunque mature

forest is protected under a designated area (wilderness, research natural area, wild and scenic river, 

wetland and riparian zones) and the majority of it is over the 600-meters elevation line. There is other 

mature forest outside this area (as shown in map 3-10) that are part of the mature Tabonuco montane rain 

forest (3,470.54 acres) and the mature Tabonuco montane wet forest (2,619.04 acres). 

See map 3-10 for the location of vegetation types inside the mature forest below the 600-meter elevation

line. The number of acres for each vegetation type is included below.

Table 3-13. Vegetation types of the mature forest below 600 meters of elevation

Vegetation Type Acres

Mature Tabonuco Montane Rain Forest 3470.54

Mature Tabonuco Montane Wet Forest 2619.04
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

83

Map 3-10. Mature forest types below 600 meters
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

84

Montane Wet Secondary Forest 

Researchers examined secondary forest stands growing on abandoned pastures on the lower northern 

slopes of the Luquillo Mountains. After 40 years of recovery, these stands could not be distinguished from 

undisturbed sites in terms of density, basal area, species numbers, or diversity. Secondary forests 

recovering after anthropogenic disturbance on the lower slopes of the Luquillo Mountains will most 

probably carry the signature of past land use for several centuries, at least with regard to species 

composition. Since the 1920s, at least 120 tree species were introduced into El Yunque, including 112 

invasive and 8 species native to other areas in Puerto Rico. Most were planted along El Yunque

northeastern, western, and southern borders for timber production and watershed protection (Weaver et al. 

2013). Although secondary forest has regenerated throughout the lower areas of El Yunque during the 

past 70 years, much of boundary area still contains numerous introduced native and invasive trees 

(Weaver et al. 2013). 

Secondary forests are forests regenerating largely through natural processes after significant human 

and/or natural disturbance of the original forest vegetation at a single point in time or over an extended 

period, and displaying a major difference in forest structure and/or canopy species composition with 

respect to nearby mature forests on similar sites (Chokkalingam et al. 2001). Map 3-11 includes the 

secondary montane wet forest and secondary sub-montane moist forest. 

See map 3-11 for the location of vegetation types inside the montane wet secondary forest. The number of 

acres for each vegetation type is included below.

Table 3-14. Vegetation types of the montane wet secondary forest

Vegetation Type Acres

Secondary Montane Wet Forest 5,843.41

Secondary Sub-montane Moist Forest 505.85
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

85

Map 3-11. Montane wet secondary forest
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

86

Riparian Zones 

A riparian zone or riparian area is the interface between land and a river or stream. Plant habitats and 

communities along the river margins and banks are called riparian vegetation, characterized by 

hydrophilic plants. A riparian forest is the woodlands along the banks of stream or river. On El Yunque

the width of this riparian zone is 100 feet from each side of the river or the stream bank.

In El Yunque, forest types inside riparian zones are montane pterocarpus forest, riverine palm and riparian 

forest (Harris et al. 2012). 

Vegetation transects along a fluvial disturbance gradient from the middle of the channel into the adjacent 

forest follows a consistent pattern. Cushion mosses colonize in-channel boulders, whereas herbs, ferns, 

and grasses grow along channel margins. Woody shrubs and trees establish on higher, less frequently 

flooded surfaces. Vegetation stature similarly increases with the relative elevation above the channel. 

Short-stature vegetation grows along the channel and tall, closed-canopy woody vegetation and tall 

grasses grow on the banks and hill slopes (Pike and Scatena 2009). 

Mosses and lichens that require shade are more common in steep land streams having ample canopy 

cover. Wider lowland channels have a greater amount of incidental light and consequently have a greater 

abundance of grasses. Furthermore, there is no distinct riparian forest community in the headwater 

streams of the Luquillo Mountains. The continually humid climate of the Luquillo Mountains results in

both riparian and non-riparian forests having ample moisture availability and are consequently similar in 

composition, but can be different in structure and biomass (Pike and Scatena 2009). 

See map 3-12 for the location of vegetation types inside the riparian zones. The number of acres for each 

riparian area type is included below. 

Table 3-15. Vegetation types of the Riparian zones at El Yunque

Community Acres

Riparian Montane Rain and Wet Cloud Forest 705

Riparian Montane Rain and Wet Forest 1350

Riparian Submontane Moist Forest 59
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

87

Map 3-12. Riparian zones
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

88

Map 3-13. El Yunque National Forest rivers
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

89

Embedded Rare Communities

The Subtropical Montane Rain Forest Zone 

The wettest of the sea-level belt of subtropical life zones (lower rainfall limit about 3,800 millimeters), 

occupies very little area in Puerto Rico, occurring only in a single crescent-shaped band on the windward 

faces of the Luquillo Mountains (above 600 meter above sea level). It lies wholly within El Yunque and 

encompasses much of the area traversed by visitors going to the recreation area in “the rain forest” (La 

Mina Recreational Area). This life zone is characterized by a super abundance of precipitation. The water 

regime at La Mina indicates that the soil is at field capacity all year, and abundant runoff is produced 

every month, with 6 months each year yielding more than 300 millimeters. The annual total of 3,400 

millimeters of runoff is more than twice as much as most areas of the world receive as annual rainfall 

input. The constantly wet soil eliminates water as a potentially limiting growth factor in this environment, 

but oxygen stress, which can inhibit root respiration, may exert an important influence on plant growth 

(Ewel and Whitmore 1973). 

The species found here are essentially the same as those found in the surrounding subtropical montane 

wet cloud forest. The main features of the subtropical montane rain cloud forest are the high frequency of 

palms, Prestoea montana (sierra palm), and a super abundance of epiphytes. The spiny tree fern, 

Nephelea portoricensis, is more abundant here than in the subtropical montane wet cloud forest (Ewel and 

Whitmore 1973). Because of the small area it occupies, the subtropical rain forest in Puerto Rico is 

primarily of academic interest and recreational value. The Baño de Oro Research Natural Area, much of 

which lies in this life zone, may be the only place in the world where an example of the mature vegetation 

of subtropical montane rain forest is likely to receive long-term protection, while still being readily 

accessible (Ewel and Whitmore 1973). 

The Subtropical Lower Montane Rain Forest Zone (Mature Tabonuco Montane Rain Forest) 

This life zone occupies less area than any other in Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands, and is found 

only in a narrow band on the windward slopes of the Luquillo Mountains, immediately above the 

subtropical montane wet forest. Here, there is a mean annual of 18.6 °C, an annual rainfall of 4,533 

millimeters, and a mean relative humidity of 98.5 percent. If these conditions can be considered 

representative of the long-term mean values for this site, they would indicate an average, year-round 

runoff of almost 300 millimeters per month, and some months could yield almost twice that amount. The 

vegetation of this life zone in Puerto Rico is very similar to that of lower montane wet forest; the 

characteristic which distinguishes the two, is the greater abundance of epiphytes, epiphyllae, palms, and 

tree ferns in the lower montane rain forest. Most of this life zone in Puerto Rico is in the elfin cloud forest 

association (Tabebuia/Eugenia Woodland), where much of the vegetation on the exposed ridges has a 

windswept appearance. Howard (1969) described the morphology and structure of many of the species 

found in this environment, while Gilt (1969) documented the formation of aerial roots, which are 

extremely abundant on many species in this association. The water-saturated soil is covered with a soilfree root mat, and the root-soil-earthworm relationships here were investigated by Lyford (1969). 

Epiphytes, most of which are leafy hepatics, cover everything; this component of the flora was described 

by Fulford et al. (1970). Weaver (1972) removed all of the epiphytes from three plots and compared these 

to plots with the epiphytes left intact. He found that although the total amount of water reaching the 

ground was slightly affected, the distribution pattern of through fall and stem flow was significantly 

altered. Since the mature Tabonuco montane rain forest ecosystem is an environemtal extreme and is 

constrained to a small area in the forest, it is very succeptible to intense hurricanes. It is indeed fortunate 

that the limited amount of this life zone in Puerto Rico is located in a publicly-controlled forest, including 

the upper parts of the Baño de Oro Research Natural Area where long-term protection is the goal (Ewel 

and Whitmore1973).
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

90

See map 3-14 for the location of vegetation types inside the montane rain forest vegetation types. The 

number of acres for each vegetation type is included below. 

Table 3-16. Vegetation types inside the montane rain forest

Community Acres

Mature Tabebuia/Eugenia Woodland Montane Rain Cloud Forest 345 

Mature Tabonuco Montane Rain Forest 3,471 

Mature Palo Colorado Montane Rain Cloud Forest 918

Mature Sierra Palm Montane Rain Cloud Forest 2,142
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

91

Map 3-14. Montane rain forest
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

92

Process for Evaluating Effects to Ecosystem Integrity and Sustainability

Steps used to build an ecological sustainability framework are documented within the ecological 

sustainability evaluation (ESE) tool and described in Appendix B. The ESE tool, a relational database, is 

based on the structure of the ecological planning tool designed by The Nature Conservancy. The ESE 

database serves as the source for evaluating ecosystem diversity on El Yunque and developing plan 

components for the new revised Forest Plan. 

To evaluate ecological sustainability, the planning team identified key characteristics for each ecosystem, 

identified measurable indicators for each key characteristic, weighted them in importance and defined 

ranges of acceptability for each ecosystem across each alternative, both at 10- and 50-year timeframes. 

This process is further described in appendix B and in the ESE tool.

Indicators and Details

Changes in spatial extent

Deviation from natural range of variability

Paved open road density 

Recreational area density

Trail density

Percent of non-desirable invasive species

Percent of change of the structure and composition of the Forest

Percent of roads and recreational facilities under construction/repair 

The passing of Hurricanes Irma and Maria on September 2017 impacted the structure and composition of 

the forest and the resulting open canopy could expand the distribution of invasive species. However, with 

all these changes in the forest, the ecological sustainability evaluation tool analysis results will not change 

since the impacts have affected all alternatives equally, resulting in the relative differences between the 

alternatives still being valid. 

3.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 will maintain and preserve the management areas and activities per the 1997 Land and 

Resource Management Plan for El Yunque National Forest. Map 3-15 describes the management areas as 

delineated in alternative 1. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

93

Map 3-15. Alternative 1 management areas (1997 Land Management Plan) 

Source: Forest Service Planning Maps (2015). 

Functional Montane Wetlands

Affected Environment 

All plant communities located above the 600-meter elevation line on El Yunque, above the cloud 

condensation level, are wetland communities. Above this line determines where clouds will form and, 

thus, where the cloud forest community begins. All of these lands have characteristics of wetlands, that is, 

hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. 

Effects 

Alternative 1 includes parts of management areas; integrated areas, developed recreation, and research 

area inside the 600 meters above sea level. Activities proposed for these management areas will have 

impacts if implemented inside the functional wetland. Vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology are 

expected to be negatively affected by the implementation of proposed activities inside the wetland. Best 

management practices (BMP) and mitigation measures will minimize the effects of implementing this 

alternative.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

94

The maintenance and repair of trails with the 1997 Forest Plan protocols have the potential to affect the 

wetland conditions, particularly in the surrounding mature forest along the trails.

The recreational areas are within the functional wetland and the montane rain forest zone (a unique 

ecosystem to Puerto Rico, only present at El Yunque). Maintaining the visitation plan directly impacts the 

water quality, soils, vegetation, air quality and wildlife. Infrastructure maintenance also affects these other 

resources, and as result, the vegetation may change in its composition, particularly federally listed species 

and species of conservation concern known to inhabit along the trail system that traverses the wetland and 

the rain forest zone (6.1 miles of trail). 

Potential effects that could occur from management action that are inside the functional wetland include 

soil erosion, stream sedimentation, hydrologic system disturbance, disturbance to wildlife and disturbance 

to ground cover and shrub population in the general area of proposed project sites. 

Cumulative Effects: 

The cumulative effects analyzed for the functional wetland are based on management practices within the 

Forest boundary; although under new regulation, using collaboration in forest management and the “alllands” approach, could assist in mitigating effects such as impact to the riparian zone and estuarine areas 

(inside and outside Forest boundaries). The time for the analysis of the framework is 15 years or the life 

of the plan. It will be necessary to analyze how much private land falls within the 600-meter elevation 

belt; defined as a wetland. Under this alternative the wetland could be impacted cumulatively by uses 

described in the Forest Plan such as developed recreation, urban development and climate change. For 

climate change impact see “Forest Service Research and Development, General Technical Report SR193.” 

The cumulative effects are associated to the timing and addition of projects allowed in the management 

areas at the same time. Considering the construction of recreation sites, actions of research activities and 

projects in the integrated management area has the potential to produce cumulative effects in the 

functional wetland forest type.

Overall implementation of alternative 1 will modify the functional wetland’s vegetation, hydric soils and 

hydrology. 

Mature Forest

Effects 

Although Alternative 1 protects the mature forest with a series of plan components such as wilderness, 

wild and scenic rivers, and natural research area designations, there are some pockets of mature forest 

allocated to other management areas (research, integrated and develop recreation) that can affect the 

integrity and character of the mature forest. There would be potential for impacts to the mature forest in 

areas surrounding the project site. Also the potential of introduction of invasive species to its 

surroundings may occur. 

Cumulative Effects 

Allowed projects will have secondary impact to the integrity of the surroundings mature forest along a 

time scale (15 years or the life of the plan) as other activities close to the project site create impacts that 

will overlap. The cumulative effects analyzed for the mature forest are based on management practices 

within the Forest boundary; although under new regulation, using collaboration and the “all-lands” 

approach could assist in mitigating effects of impacts to the mature forest. The cumulative effects under 

this alternative would be related to recreation development in the areas of mature forest. Continued 

recreation use within the mature forest will cumulatively effect vegetation and species in these sensitive 

areas.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

95

Overall, alternative 1 has potential to affect the mature forest directly by reduction of its size, integrity, 

and character. The cumulative effects under this alternative are not consistent with the vision established 

in the new management plan and are not compatible with the core management theme of conserve and 

restore ecosystems for this forest type.

Montane Wet Secondary Forest

Affected Environment 

Secondary forests are forests regenerating largely through natural processes after significant human 

and/or natural disturbance of the original forest vegetation at a single point in time or over an extended 

period. They could display major differences in forest structure and/or canopy species composition with 

respect to nearby mature forests on similar sites.

Effects 

Alternative 1 proposes for these lands the management areas of: timber demonstration, developed

recreation, administrative sites, research and integrated management area. The area included in these 

management areas are: develop recreation—1,348 acres; timber demonstration—1,167 acres; 

integrated—6,219 acres; research—919 acres; and 204 acres in administrative sites for a total of 9,857 

acres (which represents around 35 percent of El Yunque lands). About 6,348 acres have being identified 

as secondary forest, the rest, 3,509 acres, will be on mature forest. Even though there are standards and 

guidelines to protect the mature forest, part of it is located in management areas where it may be affected 

by proposed projects. 

There would be potential for direct impacts to the following resources: watersheds, riparian zones, aquatic 

habitats and species, flora and fauna, soil, species of conservation concern, recreation, scenery, ecological 

services, forest products, and timber. Soil erosion and compaction, stream sedimentation, wildlife 

disturbance, habitat for flora and fauna disturbance and reduction, diversity, scenic values, vegetation and 

habitat for species of conservation concern will be part of the effects on these lands with the 

implementation of the potential projects allowed in these management areas. See other sections for more 

detail on effects to the resources. 

Potential impacts from alternative 1 are related to increased recreation activities; recovery of species and 

diversity; recovery of forest crown cover; recovery of appropriate habitat for plants and animals; soil 

recovery and potential encroachment of invasive species.

Cumulative Effects 

The implementation of numerous projects in the same watershed increases the risks of impairment to

watersheds on the Forest during the life of the plan, as other activities close to the project site create

impacts that will overlap. The cumulative effects analyzed for the montane wet secondary forest are based 

on management practices within the Forest boundary; although under new regulation, using collaboration 

and the “all-lands” approach could assist in mitigating effects of Forest multiple uses and climate change 

impacts.

Overall, alternative 1 will have the potential to affect several resources, some of which may take decades 

to recover.

Riparian zones

Affected Environment 

A riparian zone or riparian area is the interface between land and a river or stream. A riparian forest is the 

woodlands along the banks of stream or river. On El Yunque, the width of this riparian zone is designated 

as 100 feet from each river or stream bank, until actual field delineations are made. It has been calculated 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

96

as 2,113 acres along an altitudinal gradient. The riparian zones network interacts with El Yunque in all 

cardinal directions from the peaks to its boundaries. 

Effects 

Under alternative 1, the timber demonstration and developed recreation management areas are the ones

with high potential to impact the riparian zones while preparing access to extract timber and the logging 

activities themselves. The developed recreation sites are all associated with a stream, which is the 

preferred feature in the location of the sites. Some visitors to the Forest prefer to wade in water and 

recreate in the riparian zone when facilities are full or want to interact with the Forest outside the 

developed picnic shelters. Dispersed recreation in the integrated management area could also impact the 

riparian area if the site is heavily visited. The resources expected to be impacted are water quality, aquatic 

habitat and species, wildlife, soil, and riparian vegetation. Trash generated by visitor and the proper 

handling of it is another impact to the environment in high visited sites. See other sections for more 

details on effects to the resources. 

Potential indirect impacts are associated with soil erosion, soil compaction, vegetation trampling, and fine 

sediment movement in the water channel. 

Cumulative Effects 

Impacts could eventually overlap when timber management and developed recreation areas are relatively 

close. The time scale of this analysis is of 15 years or the life of the plan. The cumulative effects analyzed 

for the riparian zones are based on management practices within the Forest boundary; although under new 

regulation which uses collaboration and the “all-lands” approach could assist in mitigating effects. This 

alternative does not consider land acquisition along riverbanks to protect riparian zones which could have 

cumulative effects.

Overall, alternative 1 will have potential to affect the riparian area resource, if implemented in these lands 

without an appropriated buffer or some capacity control to the recreational sites. 

Alternative 2 

Refer to map 3-16 for alternative 2 management areas. 

Functional Montane Wetland

Effects 

In alternative 2, most of the lands above the 600-meter altitude line (functional wetland) are assigned to 

El Toro Wilderness, wild and scenic river corridors and Baño de Oro Research Natural Area; management 

areas that are protected designated lands. 

Management areas for communication, the develop recreation area at El Yunque Peak, and the PR Road 

191 corridor are the zones with more potential for direct effects to the environment by means of trash, 

vegetation trampling, soil compaction and erosion, direct use of water streams by visitors, and human 

waste from an estimated 1.2 million visitors per year. In addition, the vehicles used to access these areas 

can affect the water, soil, and air resources. The proposal to initiate management by capacity with strong 

emphasis on sustainability is expected to greatly reduce or inhibit direct effects to the environment. 

Maintenance protocols to structures and facilities in these management areas need to be revised to avoid 

impacts to the functional wetlands of El Yunque. Best management practices and other mitigating 

measures will reduce the effects of the impacts to the resources. See other sections for more detailed

effects to the resources. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

97

Map 3-16. Alternative 2 management areas

Source: Forest Service Planning Maps (2016). 

Most trails have been damaged by recent hurricanes (the most recent being hurricane María) and/or 

visitors deviating from the main trail that need erosion control measures while plans for repair or 

mitigations are initiated. 

Cumulative Effects 

The time scale of this analysis is of 15 years or the life of the plan. The cumulative effects analyzed for 

the functional wetland are based on management practices within the Forest boundary. Overall, there 

would be no significant impacts to the functions of wetlands with the implementation of alternative 1 or 

2. 

Mature Forest

Effects 

There would be no potential for direct effects to the mature forest with the implementation of alternative 

2. Most of this Forest is protected under designated lands and those outside are protected by means of 

standards and guidelines that calls to total preservation of the mature forest.

Cumulative Effects 

There would be no cumulative effects to the mature forest with the implementation of alternative 2. The 

time scale of this analysis is of 15 years or the life of the plan. The cumulative effects analyzed for the 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

98

mature forest are based on management practices within the Forest boundary; although under new 

regulations which use collaboration and the “all-lands” approach could assist in mitigating effects.

Overall there would be no significant effects to the mature forest with the implementation of this 

alternative.

Montane Wet Secondary Forest

Effects

In alternative 2, CIRMA (7,187 acres) is located in this forest type. It provides areas and sections of the 

Forest where an assortment of resource management practices could be applied to encourage tropical 

forest management initiatives in the broader landscape of El Yunque. Proposed activities could include 

sustainable native forest products, applied management strategies, dispersed or develop recreation, forest

restoration projects, watershed improvements, wildlife habitat improvement, riparian zones restoration, 

shared stewardship interface areas, aquatic habitat improvement, and the interpretation of cultural icons 

recognized in the selected areas.

Even though there are standards and guidelines to protect the montane wet secondary forest, part of this 

type is located where proposed projects might affect these forests. There would be the potential for 

impacts to the following resources: watersheds, riparian zones, aquatic habitats and species, flora and 

fauna, soil, species of conservation concern, recreation, scenery, ecological services, forest products, 

including wood products. Effects to these lands with the implementation of the potential projects allowed 

in these management areas include soil erosion and compaction, streams sedimentation, wildlife 

disturbance, habitat for flora and fauna disturbance and reduction, diversity, scenic values, vegetation and 

habitat for species of conservation concern. See other sections for more detailed effects to the resources.

Potential impacts from implementing alternative 2 are related to increased recreation activities, recovery 

of species and diversity, recovery of forest crown cover, recovery of appropriate habitat for plants and 

animals, soil recovery and potential encroachment of invasive species.

Cumulative Effects 

The implementation of several of these projects in the same watershed over time definitely risks the 

impairment of watersheds of the Forest. The time scale of this analysis is of 15 years or the life of the 

plan. The cumulative effects analyzed for the montane wet secondary forest are based on management 

practices within the Forest boundary; although under new regulation, using collaboration and the “alllands” approach could assist in mitigating effects.

Overall, alternative 2 has potential to affect several resources if implemented in these lands without 

appropriate mitigation. 

Riparian zones

Effects 

The potential developed recreation sites proposed under alternative 2 are mostly associated with a stream 

which is the preferred feature in the location of the sites. Visitors to developed recreation sites prefer to 

wade in water and recreate in the riparian zone when other facilities are full or want to interact with the 

Forest outside the picnic shelters. Many are developed for the use of the water environment. Dispersed 

recreation in the CIRMA and other potential activities proposed could also impact the riparian area if the 

site is heavily visited or intensively used. The resources expected to be impacted are water quality, aquatic 

habitat and species, wildlife, the soil and the riparian vegetation. Trash generated by visitor and the proper 

handling of it is another impact to the environment in high visited sites.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

99

The potential for indirect impacts are associated with the soil erosion and compactation, vegetation 

trampling, change in vegetation composition, and fine sediments movement into the water channel. See 

other sections for a more detail effects to the resources. 

Cumulative Effects 

The sources of cumulative effects may occur from road and trail maintenance, recreation, fluctuating 

human population and the stress this creates on the natural resources. Cumulatively, environmental 

consequences to the riparian from past, present, and foreseeable actions would be minimized through the 

use of best management practices, proper mitigation measures, careful planning, design, implementation 

and monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be low to moderate. Overall, the cumulative effects of all 

management actions over time are not expected to adversely affect the riparian zones. 

Alternative 3

Map 3-17. Alternative 3 management areas

Source: Forest Service Planning Maps (2016)

Functional Montane Wetland

Effects 

Under alternative 3, most of the lands above the 600-meter altitude line (functional wetland) are assigned 

to El Toro Wilderness, wild and scenic river corridors and recommendation for designation of Baño de 

Oro Wilderness (changing the research natural area designation of those lands) (management areas that 

are protected designated lands). 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

100

The management areas for communication and recreation at El Yunque Peak, Road 186 and El Yunque 

Zone are the areas with more potential of direct effects to the environment by means of trash, vegetation 

trampling, soil compaction and erosion, direct use of water streams by visitors, and human waste by an 

estimated 1.2 million visitors per year. In addition, the vehicles used to access these areas can affect the 

water, soil, and air resources. The proposal to initiate management by capacity with strong emphasis on 

sustainability is expected to greatly reduce or inhibit impacts to the environment. Maintenance protocols 

to structures and facilities in these management areas need to be revised to avoid impacts to the functional 

wetland of El Yunque. See other sections for more detailed effects to the resources. 

Most trails have been damaged by recent hurricanes (the most recent being hurricane María) and/or 

visitors deviating from the main trail that need erosion control measures while plans for repair or 

mitigations are initiated.

Cumulative Effects 

There are no cumulative effects expected to the functional wetland with the implementation of alternative 

3 over the life of the plan. The cumulative effects analyzed for the functional wetland are based on 

management practices within the Forest boundary; although under new regulation, using collaboration 

and the “all-lands” approach could assist in mitigating effects. 

Overall, there would be no significant impact to the functions of the wetlands of El Yunque with the 

implementation of alternative 3. 

Mature Forest

Affected Environment 

The largest block of mature forests in Puerto Rico is in El Yunque, an area of approximately 13,700 acres. 

Effects 

There would be no potential for direct effects to the mature forest with the implementation of alternative 

3. Most of this forest is protected under designated lands and those outside are protected by means of 

standards and guidelines that call to total preservation of the mature forest.

There would be no cumulative effects to the mature forest with the implementation of alternative 3. The 

time scale of this analysis is of 15 years or the life of the plan. The cumulative effects analyzed for the 

mature forest is based on management practices within the Forest boundary; under new regulation, using 

collaboration and the “all-lands” approach could assist in mitigating effects. 

Overall, there are no significant effects to the mature forest with the implementation of this alternative.

Montane Wet Secondary Forest

Effects 

In alternative 3, the Community Interface Resource Management Area (CIRMA) (7,187 acres) is located 

in this forest type. It provides areas and sections of the Forest where an assortment of resource 

management practices could be applied to encourage tropical forest management initiatives in the broader 

landscape of El Yunque. The considered activities could include sustainable forest products, applied 

management strategies, dispersed or developed recreation, forest restoration projects, watershed 

improvements, wildlife habitat improvement, riparian zones restoration, shared stewardship interface 

areas, aquatic habitat improvement, and the interpretation of cultural icons recognized in the selected 

areas.

Even though there are standards and guidelines to protect the montane wet secondary forest, part of the 

Forest is located where proposed projects might affect those Forests. There is potential for impacts to the 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

101

following resources: watersheds, riparian zones, aquatic habitats and species, flora and fauna, soil, species 

of conservation concern, recreation, scenery, ecological service and forest products, including wood 

products. Effects to these lands with the implementation of the potential projects allowed in these 

management areas include soil erosion and compaction, stream sedimentation, wildlife disturbance, 

habitat disturbance and reduction for flora and fauna, diversity, scenic values, vegetation and habitat for 

species of conservation concern. See other sections for more detailed effects to the resources. 

Potential effects from implementing alternative 3 are related to increased recreation activities, recovery of 

species and diversity, recovery of forest crown cover, recovery of appropriate habitat for plants and 

animals, soil recovery and potential increment of invasive species (20 more acres than alternative 2). 

The implementation of several projects in the same watershed over time definitely risks the impairment of 

watersheds of the Forest. The time scale of this analysis is 15 years or the life of the plan. The cumulative 

effects analyzed for the montane wet secondary forest will be based on management practices within the 

Forest boundary; although under new regulation, using collaboration and the “all-lands” approach could 

assist in mitigating effects. 

Overall, alternative 3 has potential to affect several resources if implemented in these lands without 

appropriate mitigation. 

Riparian zones

Effects 

The developed recreation potential sites proposed by alternative 3 are mostly associated with a stream 

which is the preferred feature in the location of the sites. The resources expected to be impacted are water 

quality, aquatic habitat and species, wildlife, the soil and the riparian vegetation. Trash generated by 

visitors and the proper handling of it is another impact to the environment in high visited sites. See other 

sections for more detailed effects to the resources. 

Potential impacts are associated with soil erosion, compaction of soil, vegetation trampling, vegetation 

composition change and fine sediments movement into the water channel. 

Cumulative Effects 

The sources of cumulative effects may occur from road and trail maintenance, recreation and fluctuating 

human population and the stress this creates on the natural resources. Cumulatively, environmental 

consequences to the riparian from past, present, and foreseeable actions would be minimized through the 

use of best management practices, proper mitigation measures, careful planning, design, implementation 

and monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be low to moderate. Overall, the cumulative effects of all 

management actions over time are not expected to adversely affect the riparian zones. 

Table 3-17. Determination of effects for all alternatives 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Functional Wetland Potential effects Potential effects Potential effects

Mature Forest Potential effects Low potential 

effects

Low potential effects

Montane Wet Secondary Potential effects Potential effects Potential effects, greater acreage than 

alternative 2 

Riparian zones Potential effects Potential effects Potential effects
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

102

3.4.2 Aquatic Ecosystems

3.4.2.1 Affected Environment

El Yunque aquatic ecosystem environment can be defined by two elements: (1) the types of streams and 

rivers that occur in the planning area; and (2) the composition and structure of aquatic faunal communities 

that persist in El Yunque streams. Water quality is generally considered high due to little sedimentation or 

man-made point sources of pollution, especially befire hurricanes Irma and María. The steep mountains in 

the Forest were formed by volcaniclastic and igneous rocks that exert a strong localized lithologic 

influence on the stream channels. Longitudinal profiles also show the influence of multiple rock types. 

Landslides along steep hillslopes (over 12 degrees), deliver coarse sediment (over 2,000 millimeters) to 

the channels and also may influence channel gradient and geometry (Pike 2008). New landslides occurred 

after hurricanes Irma and María into channels and adjacent to channels, delivering stream forming pulses 

of fine to coarse sediment. Although the sediment levels increased after the hurricanes, these increases are 

within the range of the natural disturbance regime and are important for natural episodic stream forming 

functions. 

Aquatic ecosystems in El Yunque also have steep gradients, channels lined with coarse boulder-sized 

sediment, numerous bedrock cascades, and abrupt waterfalls (up to 30 meters in height) (Ahmad et al. 

1993). First-order perennial streams have bouldered channels in steeply sloped reaches, and clay and soillined channels in reaches with more gentle slopes. Second- and third-order streams have steep gradient 

reaches, exposed bedrock channels, large boulders, and periodic waterfalls. Due to rapid decomposition, 

before hurricanes Irma and María, these channels lacked the large coarse woody debris dams that created 

aquatic habitat in many channels in humid temperate environments (Covich and Crowl 1990). The 

hurricanes resulted in a pulse of woody debris contributions to aquatic habitat. Numerous new woody 

debris slumps to dams have been found during after hurricane initial surveys. Fourth and fifth-order (wide 

and slow moving waters) streams occur only at the lower elevations along the coastal plain, which is 

outside of El Yunque. Most habitats are categorized as either pools or riffles. 

The second element of the affected environment consists of the biological component of the aquatic 

faunal community. El Yunque common aquatic species include the following species that act as first-level 

and second-level consumers: nine common freshwater shrimp species (Xiphocaris elongata, Atya 

lanipes, Atya scabra, Atya innocuous, Micratya poeyi, Macrobrachium faustinum, Macrobrachium 

heterchirus, Macrobrachium carcinus, and Macrobrachium crenulatum), one crab species (Epilobocera 

sinuatifrons), and five common fish species (Sicydium plumieri, Awaous banana, Agonostomus 

monticola, Anguilla rostrata, and Gobiomorus dormitor). There are no rare or federally listed aquatic 

species on El Yunque. 

Population indices of these aquatic species from long-term monitoring sites conducted by El Yunque

show a stable count of common aquatic species on El Yunque. Many of the freshwater shrimp live their

entire life cycle within the river systems where they are found. It is the same biological cycle for many of 

the endemic freshwater fishes with the exception of the American eel (Anguilla rostrata). The American 

eel is a catadromous fish species where adults travel to breeding areas in the Sargasso Sea to the north and 

the next generation of young eels return to El Yunque streams. 

There are no managed sport fishes on El Yunque due to natural conditions proving too challenging with 

high occurrence of flash flooding and high competition for resources. Invasive aquatic species are

insignificant to the aquatic ecosystems at this time. Thus, healthy native aquatic species populations 

provide a measurable component of the affected environment for aquatic ecosystems.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

103

Alternative 1

Desired conditions, objectives and standards/guidelines for the management areas in the 1997 Forest Plan 

are issue driven. The 1997 management concept focused on a conservation approach with little vegetation 

management. The planning strategy was for developing solutions to nine issues through plan components. 

Current (1997) management area designations would continue following standards and guidelines found 

in other resource areas such as the water and fisheries component of the wildlife section. These standards 

and guidelines make reference to what is now specifically known as “aquatic ecosystems through 

reference to maintenance of different ecological components” and “provide protection from actions near 

this ecosystem.” 

Long-term implementation of the plan would result in the continued functioning and protection of all 

federally designated rivers, streams, and their respective riparian zones, with robust populations of aquatic 

species. 

Aquatic ecosystem management parameters in this alternative would not reduce resiliency to change. This 

is based on reviewing 17 years of management using the direction in the 1997 Forest Plan. 

Water quality and an appropriate flow regime for aquatic fauna and riparian vegetation would continue to 

be provided. 

Biotic resources would be managed for continued sustainability through cursory monitoring and abiotic 

conditions would still be collected. Developed recreation facilities would occur adjacent or within aquatic 

ecosystem zones. Best management practices would still be emphasized for both use and improvements 

for these human recreational benefits. 

Monitoring data that would be collected should provide simple visuals of habitat conditions. 

Alternative 2

Desired conditions, objectives, and standards/guidelines for the management areas under this alternative 

emphasizes social and economic sustainability through a more dispersed recreation strategy, enhancing

ecosystem services, continued at-risk species stewardship through high quality habitat conditions, and 

improved resilience to climate change where possible. Potential effects to aquatic resources would be 

evaluated based on indices of monitoring variables that are identified in the proposed monitoring plan. 

Aquatic ecosystems programmatic management would continue to implement best management practices 

for any management action conducted on the Forest. 

In the long term (and cumulatively) the use (small scale) of Forest lands for forest products would enable 

a more diverse vegetation structure in a management area where plantations were used in the past. 

Recreation resources would be improved and a strategy to disperse public use would be spread to the 

periphery of the Forest. Improved at-risk species stewardship is anticipated through a more collaborative 

process; overall implementation of alternative 2 would improve the aquatic ecosystem. 

Alternative 3

Desired conditions, objectives, and standards/guidelines for the management areas in this alternative are 

the same as alternative 2, with new elements that implement a preservation approach to all resource areas 

by reducing trails, focusing the scope of invasive species at idientified sites like road right-of-ways, 

recreation areas, and threatened or endangered species habitats, recommending a new wilderness area, 

and eliminating the scenic byway. Most of the other similar elements of social and economic 

sustainability are retained in this alternative. Potential effects to aquatic ecosystems would be evaluated 

using the monitoring variables that are identified in the proposed monitoring plan. Aquatic ecosystems 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

104

management would continue to implement best management practices for any management conducted by 

the Forest. 

Long-term (and cumulative) effects would be similar to alternative 2 in the use of forest products with the 

additional results of more use on fewer trails and more lands in wilderness category.

3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species/Species of Conservation 

Concern 

This section covers federally threatened and endangered (T&E) species and any applicable candidate and 

proposed species, which require protection or consultation under the Endangered Species Act (36 CFR 

219.16). The Forest Service cooperates with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the 

identification and evaluation of species likely to be affected and in the development of Forest plan 

components that contribute to their recovery.

For this section of the document there will be three forms of effects analysis: direct, indirect and 

cumulative. An effect is often defined as a change measured “by comparing starting and ending points of 

reference for a specific indicator and relative to some benchmark of magnitude” (Dube et al. 2006). Thus 

a direct effect is caused by the action that occurs at the same time and place (National Environmental 

Policy Act, 1969). An indirect effect is caused by the action and occurs later in time or is farther removed 

in distance, but is still reasonably foreseeable (National Environmental Policy Act, 1969). A cumulative 

effect is defined as the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of the 

agency or person undertaking such other actions. 

For specific reference to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, there are two species from the 2008 U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Migratory Bird list for the U.S. Caribbean islands (Puerto Rico and 

U.S. Virgin Islands). The two species are the Elfin-woods warbler (Setophaga angelae) and the Greater 

Antillean Oriole or the updated name, the Puerto Rican Oriole (Icterus portoricensis). The two species are 

addressed through at-risk fauna species sections due to the status of the Elfin-woods warbler as a

Federally-listed species and the Puerto Rican Oriole as a Species of Conservation Concern. Thus, habitat 

issues are addressed for this Act in the new Forest Plan for El Yunque National Forest. 

3.4.3.1 Affected Environment–Threatened and Endangered Species

Six species of federally listed threatened and endangered animal species with ranges occurring in the 

municipalities of Rio Grande, Luquillo, Naguabo, and Canovanas were included and evaluated in the 

ecological sustainability evaluation process. Throughout El Yunque, threatened and endangered species 

protection and habitat enhancement is a priority, so their needs are particularly emphasized. The overall 

affected environment can be summarized as a tropical rainforest within the Caribbean Basin located 

between North America and South America. The vegetation on El Yunque is consistent with tropical wet 

rain forests and is arranged into 15 new vegetation types (see Map 3-18). 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

105

Map 3-18. El Yunque National Forest vegetation

Source: Quiñones, M.; Rivera, L.A.; Gould, W.A. 2013. El Yunque National Forest vegetation map. Terrestrial Ecosystem 

Assessment chapter of the land and resources management plan revision for El Yunque National Forest. Vector data. USDA Forest

Service, San Juan, PR. 

Table 3-18. List of federally listed threatened, endangered and candidate species (fauna) on El Yunque

Common Name Scientific Name Category Status 

Puerto Rican Parrot Amazona vittata Bird Endangered

Puerto Rican Broad-winged 

Hawk

Buteo platypterus 

brunnescens

Bird Endangered

Puerto Rican Sharp-shinned 

Hawk

Accipiter striatus venator Bird Endangered

Elfin Woods Warbler Setophaga angelae Bird Threatened

Puerto Rican Boa Epicratus inornatus Reptile Endangered

White-necked Crow Corvus leucognaphalus Bird Extirpated from Puerto Rico
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

106

3.4.3.2 Environmental Consequences–Threatened and Endangered Species (Fauna)

Forest planning is a 2-tier system consisting of:

A Forest Plan that provides broad management direction for the next 10 to 15 years, and 

Project-level decisions within the Forest Plan direction. 

Forest plan components, such as desired conditions, standards and guidelines, and objectives, provide 

broad management direction. These Forest Plan components comply with the requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and the associated recovery plan for each federally listed species.

Project-level analysis evaluates site-specific impacts, based on conditions on-the-ground. Additional 

mitigation measures may be developed, if needed.

In general, all federally listed threatened and endangered species would continue to be managed and 

protected across the Forest in accordance with Forest Service policy, recommended protection measures 

in the recovery plans, and all applicable state and Federal laws. Individual projects during the next 

planning period may result in direct negative effects to an individual, but effects analysis and consultation 

will take place at the project level should this situation ever occur.

Cumulative Effects, All Alternatives

Public lands play a critical role in the conservation of rare species and native habitats, which sometimes 

receive little formal protection or conservation on private lands. This is especially true for federally listed 

plants, which receive no legal protection on private lands. During the next 10 to 50 years of Forest Plan

implementation, human populations are likely to either expand or shift to urban areas, affecting present 

urbanizations, roads, and associated traffic. These trends suggest not only that public lands will play an 

increasingly important role in the conservation of threatened and endangered species in the future, but 

also that land management to ensure recovery and/or prevention of Federal listing of species may be 

increasingly difficult. 

For some species such as the Puerto Rican parrot and elfin woods warbler, the Forest Service consistently 

works beyond the plan area boundary to collaborate and cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and other partners to support an “all-lands” approach to 

species recovery. The agency has also worked and continues to work with partners to reintroduce at-risk 

species into historical habitat on National Forest System lands where appropriate. 

Thus, the planning components provide sustainable and long-term habitat management for all federally 

listed species to better meet changes to conditions that may warrant the use of scientific land management 

options. 

Puerto Rican Parrot (Amazona vittata): Endangered

Once widespread throughout the island, the Puerto Rican parrot was reduced to a relict population on El 

Yunque National Forest, one of few forested areas left on the island by the late 1930s (Brash 1987, Snyder 

et al. 1987). The Puerto Rican parrot was listed as endangered in 1968. This species is the only native 

parrot in the United States and it was considered one of the ten most endangered birds in the world. 

Nearly every aspect of the species’ life cycle, including most biotic interactions (e.g., predators, 

ectoparasites), have been managed to promote its persistence (USFWS 2009). The bird is not directly 

associated to a specific habitat on El Yunque National Forest but “Amazona parrots in general are known 

to range widely within the forest types they inhabit, regularly flying long distances to obtain food” 

(Snyder et al. 1987). 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

107

Figure 3-4. Pre-breeding population indices of wild flock of Puerto Rican parrots on El Yunque 2009 to 2017 

Note: Pre-breeding Puerto Rican parrots counted during pre-breeding indices (February to April) in El Yunque. Indices are not to be 

confused with a census that shows the total population size. 

Figure 3-5. Population trend of a wild Puerto Rican parrots on El Yunque 1973 to 2006 (USFWS 2013)

Note: Average Puerto Rican parrots counted during pre-breeding indices (March and April) in El Yunque. Pink is adults and blue is 

young parrots.

Before the 2017 hurricanes there were 53 to 56 wild individuals in El Yunque National Forest and 134 

wild individuals in the Río Abajo Forest in north central Puerto Rico. After hurricanes Irma and María, 

the number of known alive wild individuals reduced to 3 to 11 and 104 respectively. Two combined 

captive population aviaries hold more than 350 individuals: the Iguaca Aviary and the José L. Vivaldi 

Aviary in El Yunque National Forest and Rio Abajo state forest, respectively. The species was at 13 

individuals in 1976 and a total population, including captive birds, at approximately 500 individuals 

before the 2017 hurricanes (Velez 2016). According to a population viability analysis (2003) the Puerto 

Rican parrot is still slowly coming out of a genetic bottleneck. Interagency efforts have been addressing 

population growth limitations to move towards a viable status for the parrot. The interagency recovery 

effort has also realized that El Yunque National Forest is not the optimal habitat for the Puerto Rican 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

108

parrot. A more successful population may be established by introducing a third wild flock in more suitable 

habitat on the western side of Puerto Rico (White et al. 2014). 

Figure 3-4 illustrates the annual variability in El Yunque National Forest parrot population. Trend 

variation can be explained through varying effects from predation, hurricanes, genetic bottleneck, and 

local climatic factors which limit population growth (White et al. 2014). Overall El Yunque National 

Forest population had an increasing trend since 1973 prior to the 2017 hurricanes, see figure 3-4 and 

figure 3-5. 

Alternative 1

The 1997 Forest Plan focused on the recovery of the Puerto Rican parrot. Therefore, many management 

activities were restrained under the assumption that those habitats were vital for the recovery of the 

parrot. However eventually the parrot population dwindled over time due to limiting population factors, 

including the limited amount of actual optimal habitat. 

The population is no longer expected to grow significantly on El Yunque, but still functions as an 

important resource for the successful recovery outside of El Yunque in more preferred habitat. Population 

and active nest data can be interpreted that levels will be either rising or falling, but remaining within a 

range.

Planning components continue to provide protection to identified habitats that are in use and provide 

consideration in relation to other management uses.

Alternative 2

There would be a continued emphasis on parrot recovery with partners throughout identified habitat with 

planning components to manage any new suitable habitat use (e.g., nesting availability, population 

limiting factors control, enforced area closure of Forest Service Road 12 and competing land management 

use guidance). This allows for an ample degree of adaptive management for accumulating scientific data

on the biology of the parrot. 

An increased ability to improve resiliency to climate change through wildlife stand improvement 

components after a naturally occurring event and the monitoring of any new wildlife interactions will 

further assist in protecting the local Puerto Rican parrot population. 

Alternative 2 includes a new scenic byway (PR Road 186) in the western portion of El Yunque, where 

there is high quality habitat for the parrot. Designation of this scenic byway ensures that future 

management projects will ensure high quality habitat continues to persist through the maintenance of the 

values of the new scenic byway.

Regarding the establishment of Community Interface Resources Management Area (CIRMA), activities 

for sustainable resource use are not exempted from any wildlife and fisheries planning components. This 

ensures that if any parrot use (foraging or nesting) is found immediately within this new or any other 

management area, it will be a management priority. 

Alternative 3

The potential for direct effects to the Puerto Rican parrot would be the same as in alternative 2. However, 

indirectly, the exclusion of the new scenic byway would not create any potential increase of management 

of the right-of-way in the PR Road 186 area (in the northwest portion of El Yunque). This would increase 

the beneficial use by the parrot if it flies off El Yunque lands through the western portion. The benefit 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

109

would be minor due to knowledge that the activity would not create a significant change in Puerto Rican 

parrot behavior through this land use designation. 

Cumulative Effects

Puerto Rican parrot habitat would continue to be maintained and enhanced in all alternatives, as it has 

been since the 1997 Forest Plan was implemented. 

In alternatives 2 and 3, cumulative effects from the creation of the CIRMA and scenic byway may 

increase human presence in the form of diverted recreational use at small recreation areas (e.g., picnic 

sites, vistas) or small-scale use of sustainable agroforestry for the surrounding community. The CIRMA 

points of interest are located in the north, east, and southern periphery of El Yunque and are specifically 

meant to be small scale to ensure intact ecological services. Any interested group would be instructed to 

report any Puerto Rican parrot immediately to El Yunque and monitoring of those areas by El Yunque

personnel would provide continued stewardship of the habitat. 

The scenic byway would, over time, increase vehicular use in alternative 2; thus, it is expected that there 

would be an increase of potential noise from vehicular and human presence in any rehabilitated recreation 

site. The intent of the scenic byway is that it is meant to be used as a travel route through El Yunque in its 

western section. The designated management area is over 100 meters away in most areas to El Toro

Wilderness Area, and provides a buffer, due to the dense vegetation structure of the tropical rainforest. 

These and other planning components do provide for the project-level analysis, a strong foundation for 

any mitigation that may be needed at the project-level. 

Puerto Rican Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus brunnescens): Endangered

The Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk was federally listed as endangered in 1994. This hawk is an 

endemic woodland raptor of upland montane forests of Puerto Rico (Hengstenberg and Vilella 2005). It is 

a subspecies of the broad-winged hawk. Breeding in Puerto Rico begins in late December, with nests 

placed in the upper reaches, but below the high canopy (Delannoy and Tossas 2002). This species occurs 

in Elfin Woodland, Sierra Palm, Caimitillo-Granadillo, and Tabonuco Forest type of the Rio Abajo 

Commonwealth Forest (Western Puerto Rico), Carite Commonwealth Forest (Southeastern Puerto Rico), 

and El Yunque (USFWS 2010). The raptor is known to prefer forest types with an open mid-story 

vegetation structure to prey on species such as lizards and small birds. The broad-winged hawk in Puerto 

Rico is non-migratory and exhibits a limited geographic range with all known populations restricted to 

montane forests (Delannoy 1997). The hawk’s population was estimated at about 125 individuals 

Islandwide in 1994 (USFWS 2010). There have been very few observations of the broad-winged hawk in 

annual bird counts, but it is known to still exist on El Yunque. 

Table 3-19. Present observation trend of the Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk (Delannoy 1992)

Forest Census Area (km2) Number of Hawks Estimated Population

Luquillo (El Yunque) 206.4 58 124

The Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk’s density and population estimates varied considerably among 

forests, being highest at Rio Abajo Forest and lowest in El Yunque National Forest (Delannoy 1995). As 

far as current Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk population indices in El Yunque National Forest, there are 

none. Unfortunately, observations and anecdotal references exhibit substantial concern for a renewed 

effort toward population surveys and aligning with relevant land management agencies to address the 

recovery plan on this species. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

110

Dr. Francisco Vilella ́s understanding of this species’ conditions are the following: “they [PRBWHA] 

have gone from six or more breeding territories during my time in the Puerto Rican parrot project to a 

single pair sighted near El Toro” (Vilella, 2016). 

Alternative 1

In alternative 1, the hawk’s habitat would continue to be maintained and enhanced as it has since the 1997 

Forest Plan was written. The direction of this management area would continue to protect the species and 

its habitat, providing a naturally driven vegetative structure. However, without more direction to stimulate 

reproduction the Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk population would stay constant or trending towards 

decline.

Alternative 2 and 3 

Alternatives 2 emphasize the evaluation of the new scenic byway (PR Road 186) in the western portion of 

El Yunque, while alternative 3 doesn’t consider this possibility. This would be expected to improve 

management efforts providing high quality habitat for the species and other species of this system

(restoring ecological functions after a natural disaster, for example). Intrinsically, alternatives 2 and 3 

would be expected to provide the greatest amount of benefits and protection for the Puerto Rican broadwinged hawk. These alternatives provide new tools for partnerships with academic institutions and others 

to continue collecting scientific information on the species. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects may take the form of the shifting human population and stresses on the natural 

resources of El Yunque. There may be various degrees of partnership opportunities that all of these 

alternatives present to work on behalf of this species. The new Northeast corridor would provide a link 

between the Forest and the coastal region of Northeast Puerto Rico, which may present a variety of 

habitat for the species.

Puerto Rican Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus venator): Endangered 

The Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk, a subspecies of the sharp-shinned hawk, was designated a federally 

endangered species in 1994. There are more individuals outside of El Yunque National Forest, but a survey 

by Delannoy (1992) reported only a solitary territorial hawk pair in the southcentral part of the Forest. This 

area is located within the Palo Colorado Forest type in the Lower Mountane Forest Life Zone (Ewel and 

Whitmore 1973). Historically, sixty individuals of Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawks were counted in 

Island-wide surveys conducted in 1983, and a breeding density of 0.73 hawks per square kilometer was 

estimated (Cruz and Delannoy 1986). In 1985, 72 individuals were counted and a breeding population of 

0.76 hawks per square kilometer (230 to 250 Island-wide) was estimated in Island-wide surveys (Cruz and 

Delannoy 1986). In 1992, a total of 285.6 square kilometers was surveyed yielding 82 sharp-shinned hawks: 

80 outside of El Yunque National Forest and 2 within El Yunque National Forest. 

The hawk prefers an open mid-story vegetation structure for its preferred prey species of lizards and small 

birds.

As of late, available information on the Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk indicates populations are small 

and mostly restricted to montane forest reserves; virtually no information exists of Puerto Rican sharpshinned hawk on private lands. 

According to Gallardo (2014), all Caribbean subspecies appear to be declining and the Puerto Rican 

sharp-shinned hawk has exhibited a population reduction of 40 percent on public lands. “Recent field 

work and censuses suggest they [Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk] have been extirpated in the Maricao 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

111

Forest and potentially isolated in the rest of their range to a few montane reserves” (Gallardo and Vilella, 

2014). 

Table 3-20. Average density and estimated population of the Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk (Delannoy 

1992)

Forest

Census Area 

(km2) 

Number of 

Hawks

Average 

Density ±S.E. Min-max

Estimated 

population 

+S.E. 

Luquillo 

(El Yunque) 285.6 82 - - 129

Alternative 1

In alternative 1, the hawk’s habitat would continue to be maintained and enhanced as it has since the 1997 

Forest Plan was written. The direction of this management area would continue to protect the species and 

its habitat, providing a naturally driven vegetative structure. However, without more direction to stimulate 

reproduction, the Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk population would stay constant. 

Alternative 2 and 3 

These alternatives would have the following direct and indirect effects. Alternative 2 has an emphasis on 

the evaluation of the new scenic byway (PR Road 186) in the western portion of El Yunque. This would 

be expected to improve management efforts providing high quality habitat for the Puerto Rican sharpshinned hawk and other species of this system (restoring ecological functions after a natural disaster, for 

example). Intrinsically, alternative 2 and 3 would be expected to provide the greatest amount of benefits 

and protection for the species. These alternatives provide new tools for partnerships with academic 

institutions and others to continue collecting scientific information on the species. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects may take the form of the shifting human population and stresses on the natural 

resources of El Yunque. There may be various degrees of partnership opportunities that all of these 

alternatives present to work on behalf of this species. The new Northeast corridor would provide a link 

between the Forest and the coastal region of Northeast Puerto Rico, which may present a variety of 

habitat for use of species. 

Elfin-Woods Warbler (Setophaga angelae): Threatened 

The Elfin-woods warbler was listed as a threatened species in June 2016. The species is endemic to 

Puerto Rico and has been reported in humid montane forest habitats. Initially thought to occur only in the 

Luquillo Mountains (El Yunque National Forest), this species was later discovered in the Maricao, Toro 

Negro, and Carite State forests (Gochfeld et al. 1973; Cruz and Delannoy 1984a; Raffaele 1998). Kepler 

and Parkes (1972) described the elfin-woods warbler from the high elevation Elfin Woodland Forests 

(2,099 to 3,378 feet) even though they were also found in Palo Colorado Forests on El Yunque National 

Forest. Wiley and Bauer (1985) later reported the species from the Elfin Forests and lower elevation 

forests (1,213 to 1,968 feet) such as Palo Colorado and Sierra Palm forests in El Yunque National Forest. 

According to Arendt (2013), “since its discovery and classification there has been concern regarding the 

status and future of this species due to its limited range and dwindling habitat and predicted repercussions 

of escalating climate change.

Recent published studies on El Yunque National Forest conducted by Arendt (2013), included bird 

surveys that follow 30 transect points in each forest type in two days (15 points per day) between 05h30 

and 09h30 AST (Atlantic Standard Time). Surveys were conducted approximately monthly from 1989 to 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

112

2006. To minimize observer bias, three field biologists conducted most of the surveys over the 17-year 

period. By determining EWWA population density, Arendt (2013) documented its continuous decline in 

eastern Puerto Rico. The species showed a significant general declining trend from approximately 0.2 

individuals/ha in 1989 to approximately 0.02/ha in 2006 in elfin woodland, and from 1 to 0.2 in palo 

colorado forest types.

The USFWS has completed a candidate conservation agreement (CCA) with El Yunque National Forest 

in 2014 because this forest is one of the last two locations in Puerto Rico where the warbler is found. The 

candidate conservation agreement is summarized as a binding agreement between the USFWS, Puerto 

Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, and the US Forest Service-El Yunque 

National Forest in five conservation themes. These themes are strategic conservation actions, habitat 

restoration, species’ ecology, monitoring, and education/outreaches. Each agency partner are expected to 

commit in their own legal authority and report to a technical team dedicated to the species’ status.

Alternative 1

In alternative 1, the elfin-woods warbler habitat would continue to be maintained and if possible 

enhanced. Although this species is not specifically mentioned for management concerns, it is known 

indirectly as a species of which to be aware. 

Management areas such as El Toro Wilderness Area (MA-5) and Baño de Oro expanded Research Natural 

Area (MA-7) would resume protective standards and guidelines. 

Although this alternative contains an emphasis on retaining a natural vegetation composition and 

structure, the plan would not build the resilience of the habitat against climate change or changes in 

human activity (e.g., recreation pressures) that may prove detrimental over the long term. These long-term 

conditions may take the form of degrading foraging and nesting habitats, which may limit population 

growth and expansion of the species on El Yunque. 

Alternative 2 and 3

With emphasis on increased ecological/economic sustainability, conditions of the habitats occupied by the 

elfin-woods warbler would improve due to a higher priority on habitat management. Scientific knowledge 

is being accumulated over this species’ biological needs and these alternatives would foster the 

partnership with academic institutions to evaluate ecological and economic value. The desired conditions 

for “at risk” species includes the need for metapopulation management. This means a collaboration with 

partners outside of El Yunque to reach goals both in and outside of the planning area. 

These alternatives also included standards and guidelines specific to this species needs in moving it 

toward a viable population. Including a management area’s map in the new Forest Plan would confirm the 

priority of all management uses to take into considerations of this little-known warbler’s biological needs. 

In the following photos, note the high quality of the Elfin woodlands (mature Tabebuia/Eugenia

woodland wet cloud forest) and palo colorado (wet and rain). These alternatives would allow a more 

adaptive approach to improve the species’ habitat. In other words, if a degree of variation does occur from 

these baseline conditions, El Yunque would scientifically attempt to find the source of the change and 

determine how to address it. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

113

Figure 3-6. Desired Elfin woodlands (mature Tabebuia/Eugenia woodland montane wet cloud forest) (left);

desired Palo Colorado forest type (right)

Puerto Rican Boa (Epicratus inornatus): Endangered 

Listed as an endangered species in 1970, this boa is found mostly in the northern half of the Island of 

Puerto Rico. Wiley (2003) collected data from 1973 through 1986 and reported several new localities to 

the PR boa distribution, also showing that boas are widespread in Puerto RicoWunderle et al (2004) 

studied habitat use of the boa in El Yunque National Forest and indicated that, although the boa were 

located in a variety of microhabitats (i.e., vine enclosed broadleaf trees shrubs, vine tangles, bamboo, 

dead trees, buildings and streams), the boa mostly occurred in broadleaf trees followed by ground or 

below-ground sites. This radio telemetry study by Wunderle at El Yunque National Forest monitored 24 

snakes with a total 70 tagged Puerto Rican boas with transponders (pit-tags). Boas were found 

incidentally during daylight and evening hours while walking or driving to sites with radio-marked boas. 

According to Wunderle et al. (2004), much of the boa’s apparent rarity is related to the observer’s ability 

to visually detect this cryptic species within the forest. As an example, Wunderle et al. (2004) failed to 

visually detect telemetry-tracked boas an average of 85 percent of their telemetry relocations. Given this 

detection difficulty in the forest, it is likely that the species is more abundant than generally perceived. 

According to the findings of Wunderle et al. (2004), habitat use differed significantly among sexes with 

females spending more time on or below ground than males. “Thermoregulation requirements of gravid 

females may contribute to use of exposed terrestrial debris piles (Wunderle et al. 2004). 

The Puerto Rico Gap Analysis Project developed an occurrence map and predicted distribution map of the 

Puerto Rican Boa (Gould et al., 2008). This map illustrates that the known occurances of the boa are 

highly scattered and fragmented across northern Puerto Rico, but the predicted probable distribution is 

island wide. 

Alternative 1

Under alternative 1, the boa’s habitat would continue to be maintained and enhanced as it has since the 

1997 Forest Plan was written. The direction of this management area would continue to protect the 

species and its habitat providing a naturally driven vegetative structure. However, without more direction 

to stimulate reproduction and survival, the Puerto Rican boa population would remain as is.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 emphasizes the construction of the new scenic byway (PR Road 186) in the western portion 

of El Yunque. There would be an increase in vehicular travel and individuals may be affected. However, 

the habitat of the species as a whole will still remain functioning and contributing to a sustainable 

population. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

114

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would be expected to provide the greatest amount of benefits and protection for the Puerto 

Rican boa. This may be due to the restoration of habitat after natural disasters that would be expected to 

provide high quality habitat for the species. Also, the absence of the new scenic byway (PR Road 186) 

would reduce the risk to individuals. This alternative also provides new tools for partnerships with 

academic institutions and other partners to continue collecting scientific information on the species’ 

biological and behavioral trends.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects may take the form of the shifting human population and stresses on the natural 

resources of El Yunque. There may be various degrees of partnership opportunities that all of these 

alternatives present to work on behalf of this species. The new Northeast corridor would provide a link 

between the Forest and the coastal region of Northeast Puerto Rico, which may present a variety of 

habitat for use by the species.

White-necked Crow (Corvus leucognaphalus): Extirpated from Puerto Rico

The endangered white-necked crow no longer exists on the Island of Puerto Rico, but still occurs in 

neighboring Dominican Republic (Island of Hispaniola). The bird had an original range of both of the 

Greater Antilles Islands (Puerto Rico and Hispaniola), but over time was confined to only one Island. Due 

to considerable lowland forest clearance and hunting, the species was last seen in Puerto Rico in 1963. 

There is a low potential for reintroduction of this species, but El Yunque would be a likely location for its 

recovery. 

There will be no analysis of trends or drivers for this species since the species does not occur on the 

Island of Puerto Rico as unofficially accepted by Federal and state land managing agencies. 

3.4.3.3 Species of Conservation Concern 

The ecosystems of the tropical rainforests support the largest biodiversity on the planet. The planning 

team evaluated ecological conditions on El Yunque to provide for species diversity using a coarsefilter/fine-filter approach. Most plant and animal species on the Forest will be sustained by maintaining 

and restoring the composition, structure, function and connectivity of a diversity of ecosystems in the plan 

area.

Where needed, the team developed fine-filter strategies to contribute to the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of each 

species of conservation concern—all collectively called “at-risk species.”

To assess species diversity, a comprehensive list of plant and animal species was compiled as part of El 

Yunque National Forest Plan Assessment by combining species lists from a variety of sources, including 

the following:

Federally listed threatened and endangered species obtained from the USFWS; 

State species of conservation from the Puerto Rico Natural Heritage Program, State Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy;

Birds of conservation concern compiled by the USFWS; and 

The Forest Service’s list of sensitive species.

Additional species were added based on input from recognized conservation experts within the state. All 

species were considered in the design of ecological conditions within the plan area. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

115

Table 3-21. Species of conservation concern (fauna – 23 species) 

Taxonomic Taxonomic Species Common Name

Group Subgroup

Amphibian Frog Eleutherodactylus brittoni Grass Coqui

Amphibian Frog Eleutherodactylus eneidae Eneida's coqui

Amphibian Frog Eleutherodactylus gryllus Cricket coqui

Amphibian Frog Eleutherodactylus hedricki Hedrick's coqui

Amphibian Frog Eleutherodactylus karlschmidti Web-footed coqui

Amphibian Frog Eleutherodactylus locustus Locust coqui

Amphibian Frog Eleutherodactylus portoricensis Upland coqui

Amphibian Frog Eleutherodactylus richmondi Richmond's coqui

Amphibian Frog Eleutherodactylus unicolor Dwarf coqui

Amphibian Frog Eleutherodactylus wightmanae Melodius coqui

Aquatic Eel Anguilla rostrata American eel

Aquatic Fish Awaous banana Yellow river goby

Aquatic Fish Dormitator maculatus Fat sleeper

Aquatic Fish Eleotris pisonis Spinycheek sleeper

Aquatic Fish Gobiomorus dormitor Bigmouth sleeper

Aquatic Invertebrate Macrobrachium carcinus Bigclaw river shrimp

Aquatic Invertebrate Macrobrachium crenulatum Crenulated river shrimp

Bird Bird Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon

Bird Bird Icterus portoricensis Puerto Rican oriole

Mammal Bat Stenoderma rufum Red-fig eating bat

Mollusc Snail Luquillia luquillensis Luquillo mountain land snail

Reptile Lizard Anolis cuvieri Puerto Rican giant anole

Reptile Lizard Anolis occultus Dwarf anole

Species were then screened for inclusion in the framework and designated as species of conservation 

concern. The planning team used a species and Ecological Sustainability Evaluation framework for the 

analysis of species diversity and ecological sustainability and integrity built around principles developed 

by The Nature Conservancy in their Conservation Action Planning Workbook (The Nature Conservancy 

2005). 

Many of the species of conservation concern are also considered to be at-risk species by the USFWS; 

many have been petitioned to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. In Puerto Rico, large publicly 

owned landscapes such as El Yunque support some of the best habitat and highest densities of at-risk 

species in the commonwealth.

The 2012 Forest Planning Rule requires that species of conservation concern be, “known to occur in the 

plan area” and that the regional forester identify the species of conservation concern for which “the best 

available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over 

the long term in the plan area.” The 2012 Forest Planning Rule recognizes that there are limits to the 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

116

agency’s authority and the inherent capability of the land in providing for species. In contrast, the 1982 

Forest Planning Rule required management prescriptions to, “provide for adequate fish and wildlife 

habitat to maintain viable populations for all existing species.” The management emphasis on species of 

conservation concern is more focused than the viability provision under the 1982 Rule. If the responsible 

official determines that it is beyond the authority or not within the inherent capability of the plan area to 

maintain or restore ecological conditions to maintain viability of a species of conservation concern in the 

plan area, then the responsible official shall:

1. Document the basis for that determination; 

2. Include plan components, including standards and guidelines, to maintain or restore ecological 

conditions within the plan area to contribute to maintaining a viable population of the species within 

its range.

See section 3.4.3.6 for the botanical species of conservation concern. 

3.4.3.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Species Covered by Ecosystem Components 

(coarse/fine-filter)

For the purposes of this analysis, the planning team used species groups, as needed, as an evaluation tool 

to improve planning efficiency and for development of management strategies.

Species were grouped according to ecosystem group or habitat needs, limiting factors, threats or specific 

habitat elements. No federally listed threatened and endangered species are included due to their specific 

analysis of all alternatives. Those known as species of conservation concern were included in species 

groups in this section because their habitats are connected to ecosystem group maintenance and 

restoration, and ecological sustainability. Each group was analyzed by species group and determinations 

made on whether species needs were fully met by plan components, considering locations for species and 

management area direction associated with their known populations. A description of affected 

environment and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of plan alternatives on species groups and 

weights for general species’ groups and the biological requirements associated with habitats is given 

below. The following species groups can be linked to general plan direction associated with the 

maintenance and restoration of the following forest type groups, or other plan components. 

The rationale to assigning conservation status ranking is similar to the NatureServe’s framework and core 

methodology. El Yunque’s biologists mimicked the Global, National, and State ranks with the collected 

information by focusing on extinction risk on the global scale, and their extirpation risk at national and

subnational level. Thus, much of the information found in the International Union of Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) and the State Natural Heritage Plan (Puerto Rico Wildlife Conservation Strategy) are used 

to populate these three ranks. 

Table 3-22. Species group and associated ecological/vegetation system groups from the ecological 

sustainability evaluation tool

Species Group

Freshwater Crustaceans

Riparian Associates

Mature Tabebuia/Eugenia Woodland Associates

Palo Colorado Associates

Tabonuco Associates
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

117

The ecological sustainability evaluation (ESE) tool uses a range of 0 to 10, where a score of 0 to 2.5 is 

designated as poor or less sustainable. A score of 2.6 to 5.0 is fair, and 5.1 to 10.00 is good or more 

sustainable. For more detailed information about the ESE tool please see appendix B and refer to the 

planning record. 

Table 3-23. Group weight and description

Group Weight Group Weight Description

Very High All or nearly all of the species’ requirements are met by the species group.

High A high proportion of the species’ requirements are met by the species group.

Moderate A moderate proportion of the species’ requirements are met by the species group.

Low A low proportion of the species’ requirements are met by the species group.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

In general, allowing natural recovery or intentional hand/mechanical treatments would be the primary 

management activities used to maintain and improve desired habitat conditions for at-risk species in all 

three alternatives. However, the extent of these treatments and the resulting quality and amount of habitat 

vary across the alternatives. Portions of the Forest have been heavily impacted by past naturally occurring 

events (e.g., hurricanes, landslides, and flooding), most recently by the pass of hurricanes Irma and María 

on September 2017; the ecological services should be restored to improve habitat for at-risk species that 

have been or continue to be impacted by these perturbations. A history of recreational use occurs in the 

interior and dispersed spots throughout the Forest. The planning components programmatically give 

parameters to this activity and adapt the intent of reducing the over-use of recreation infrastructure in the 

interior with a collaborative approach on the periphery of the Forest. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

Public lands play a critical role in the conservation of rare species and native habitats, which sometimes 

receive little formal protection or conservation on private lands. During the next 10 to 50 years of Forest 

Plan implementation, human populations are likely to either expand or shift to urban areas; this will affect 

present urbanization, roads, and associated traffic. These trends suggest that both public and other lands 

will play an increasingly important role in conserving species of conservation concern in the future.

For some species of conservation concern, the Forest Service works beyond the plan area boundary and 

collaborates with USFWS, states, other partners, and landowners, to support an “all-lands” approach to 

species of conservation concern awareness. The agency has worked and continues to work with partners 

to reintroduce at-risk species into historical habitat on National Forest System lands where appropriate. 

Forest planning components, current and new, emphasize degrees of restoration, resilience, and 

sustainability. Restoration in its broadest sense is about protecting, restoring, and transforming not only 

ecosystems, but also human systems (socioeconomic) toward resilience. Resilience is about 

sustainability—ecological, economic and social—under the pressures of changing atmospheric, 

demographic, social and political climates. 

Climate change presents new challenges for managing resources. The interaction of climate change and 

other environmental pressures, has resulted in increased threats from fire, new insect and plant 

interactions, disease, extreme weather, and drought. Scientists predict that increases in temperature and 

changes in rainfall patterns may result in these events becoming more frequent, with more intensity and/or 

for longer durations.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

118

Species Groups: Freshwater Crustaceans and Rio Mameyes Associates 

Table 3-24. Freshwater crustaceans

Species Group Scientific Name Common Name Designation Group Weight

Invertebrate Macrobrachium 

carcinus

Bigclaw river 

shrimp

SCC Very High

Invertebrate Macrobrachium 

crenulatum

Crenulated river 

shrimp

SCC Very High

Table 3-25. Rio Mameyes associates 

Species Group Scientific Name Common Name Designation Group Weight

Fish Anguilla rostrata Freshwater eel SCC Very High

Fish Awaous banana River goby SCC Very High

Fish Dormitor 

maculatus

Fat sleeper SCC Very High

Fish Eleotris pisonis Spinycheek 

sleeper

SCC Very High

Fish Gobiomorus 

dormitor

Bigmouth sleeper SCC Very High

Alternative 1

This alternative retains all protective standards and guidelines for the waterways of El Yunque in the 

current Forest Plan. These standards and guidelines address water quality through best management 

practices. 

According to the ecological sustainability evaluation tool results, the Rio Mameyes scores fair (4.84 out 

of 10.0) for the next 10 and 50 years under alternative 1. These results suggest that components such as 

water quality and quantity should be appropriate for a functioning aquatic-dependent ecosystem. In the 

long term (50 years), however, it may be further affected by other long-term management challenges, 

such as climate change and increasing human use. Thus, there is a strong notion that this alternative, 

although prescriptive for ecological benefits, may be limited in relation to unseen future scenarios.

Alternative 2 and 3

Specific riparian and watershed area desired conditions found in both alternatives would provide aquatic 

habitat protection and high water quality. 

Plan components (standards and guidelines) are designed to maintain and improve habitat for species in 

this group. Both alternatives provide emphasis on ecologically/economical sustainable conditions to 

ensure management goals. The four management areas that are “preservative” in nature—MA-7 Baño del 

Oro expanded Research Natural Area, MA-5 El Toro Wilderness Area, MA-6 Research Area, and the 

MA-8 Wild/Scenic/Recreation River Corridors—provide resilience for change to both habitats and 

ecological functions. Management areas that allow for various degrees of use include MA-3 

Communication and Recreation and MA-4 Community Interface Resource Management Area.

Cumulative Effects 

The results of the ecological sustainability evaluation tool suggest that the condition of the Rio Mameyes

is likely to be fair (4.84 out of 10.0) for the next 10 years and good (6.25 out of 10) for the next 50 years 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

119

under Alternatives 2 and 3. Collaboration with partners can potentally minimize cumulative effects by 

addressing long-term challenges that may occur outside of the planning unit, such as adjacent municipal 

management and other unforeseen natural resource uses.

Aquatic fauna population are expected to remain stable with effects to individuals. However, if 

monitoring shows otherwise, El Yunque will implement policy through better public understanding of 

sustainable stewardship.

The sources of cumulative effects may occur from road and trail maintenance, recreation and fluctuating 

human population and the stress this creates on the natural resources. Cumulatively, environmental 

consequences from past, present, and foreseeable actions would be minimized through the use of best 

management practices, proper mitigation measures, careful planning, design, implementation and 

monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be low to moderate. Overall, the cumulative effects of all 

management actions over time are not expected to adversely affect the Rio Mameyes. 

Species Groups: Mature Tabebuia/Eugenia (Elfin) Woodland Associates

Table 3-26. Mature Tabebuia/Eugenia (Elfin) woodland associates

Species Group Scientific Name Common Name Designation Group Weight

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus 

eneidae

Mottled coqui SCC High

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus 

gryllus

Cricket coqui SCC High

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus 

portoricensis

Puerto Rican coqui or 

upland coqui

SCC Moderate

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus 

richmondi

Richmond’s coqui SCC Moderate

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus 

unicolor

Burrow coqui SCC High

Snail Luquilia luquillensis Luquillo Mountain land 

snail

SCC Very High

Alternative 1

In alternative 1, mature Tabebuia/Eugenia woodland forest type associate habitat would continue to be 

maintained and enhanced as it has since the 1997 Forest Plan was written. 

The results of the ecological sustainability evaluation tool suggest that the condition of the montane wet 

cloud forest is likely to be good (6.38 out of 10.0) for the next 10 and 50 years under alternative 1. The 

interpretation of these results is that components such as vegetation structure, composition, and function, 

should be adequate in sustaining this habitat type for use by the species. In the long term (50 years), it 

may be more difficult dealing with other management challenges, such as climate change, new fauna 

species and diseases, and human population use. 

Alternative 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose the dispersion of recreational use from the interior of El Yunque to its 

periphery, thus lowering impacts from human activity to these species. If recreational areas in this habitat 

would be proposed, the wildlife policy would be to keep recreational impacts low relative to the functions 

of this forest type. Using these alternatives, individuals of the species may be impacted, but the species as 

a whole should remain viable. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

120

The results of the ecological sustainability evaluation tool suggest that montane wet cloud forest is likely 

to be good (6.38 out of 10.0) for the next 10 years and (5.73 out of 10) 50 years under alternatives 2 and 

3. Habitat components such as vegetation structure, composition, and function should be adequate in 

sustaining this habitat type for use by the species. Species population should remain stable, but 

monitoring and research may detect the long-term changes. Also in the long term (50 years), it may be 

more difficult dealing with other management challenges, such as climate change, new fauna species and 

diseases, and human population use.

Cumulative Effects

The sources of cumulative effects may occur from road and trail maintenance, rereation and fluctuating 

human population and the stress this creates on the natural resources. Cumulatively, environmental 

consequences to the montane wet cloud forest from past, present, and foreseeable actions would be 

minimized through the use of best management practices, proper mitigation measures, careful planning, 

design, implementation and monitoring. Most adverse impacts would be low to moderate. Overall, the 

cumulative effects of all management actions over time are not expected to adversely affect montane wet 

cloud forest. 

Species Groups: Palo Colorado Associates and Tabonuco Associates

Table 3-27. Palo Colorado associates

Species Group Scientific Name Common Name Designation Group Weight

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus 

hedricki

Hedrick’s coqui Species of Conservation 

Concern

Moderate

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus 

karlschmidti

Web-footed 

coqui

Species of Conservation 

Concern

Moderate

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus 

wightmanae

Melodius coqui Species of Conservation 

Concern

High

Table 3-28. Tabonuco associates

Species Group Scientific Name Common Name Designation Group Weight

Mammal Stenoderma 

rufun

Red fig-eating 

bat

Species of Conservation 

Concern

High

Bird Icterus 

portoricensis

Puerto Rican 

oriole

Species of Conservation 

Concern

Moderate

Bird Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon Species of Conservation 

Concern

Moderate

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus 

brittoni

Grass coqui Species of Conservation 

Concern

Moderate

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus 

locustus

Grass coqui Species of Conservation 

Concern

Moderate

Reptile Anolis cuvieri Puerto Rican 

giant anole

Species of Conservation 

Concern

Moderate

Reptile Anolis occultus Dwarf anole Species of Conservation 

Concern

Moderate
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

121

Alternative 1

In alternative 1, mature Palo Colorado and Tabonuco forest type associate habitat would continue to be 

maintained and enhanced as it has since the 1997 Forest Plan was written.

The results of the ecological sustainability evaluation tool suggest that Palo Colorado montane rain cloud 

forest is likely to be good (7.08 out of 10.0) for the next 10 years and good (6.38 out of 10) for the next 50 

years under alternative 1. Hence, components such as vegetation structure, composition, and function 

should be adequate in sustaining this habitat type for use by the associated species. Species population 

should remain stable, but monitoring and research may detect changes over the long term. Also, in the 

long term (50 years) it may be more difficult dealing with other challenges, such as climate change, 

invasive speices introductions, diseases, and human population use. 

Alternative 2 and 3

The ecological sustainability evaluation tool results suggest that implementing alternatives 2 and 3 for the 

mature Palo Colorado montane rain cloud forest is likely to be in good condition (6.56 out of 10.0) for the 

next 10 years and good (6.39 out of 10) for the next 50 years. 

Cumulative Effects

The sources of cumulative effects may occur from road and trail maintenance, recreation and fluctuating 

human population and the stress this creates on the natural resources. Cumulatively, environmental 

consequences to Palo Colorado associates and Tabonuco associates from past, present, and foreseeable 

actions would be minimized through the use of best management practices, proper mitigation measures, 

careful planning, design, implementation, monitoring and cooporative agreements with municipal and 

private intities. Most adverse impacts would be low to moderate. Overall, the cumulative effects of all 

management actions over time are not expected to adversely affect Palo Colorado associates and 

Tabonuco associates. 

3.4.3.5 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Threatened and 

Endangered Species (Flora) 

The Forest has a total of 830 flora species; of those, 636 were evaluated to determine which should 

categorized as federally listed species and species of conservation concern. This evaluation resulted in 8 

federally listed species and 39 species of conservation concern. 

Table 3-29. List of federally listed threatened and endangered species (flora) on El Yunque

Common Name Scientific Name

Capá Rosa Callicarpa ampla

Uvillo Eugenia haematocarpa

Palo de Jazmín Styrax portoricensis

Palo Colorado Ternstroemia luquillensis

Chupacallos Pleodendron macranthum

None Lepanthes eltoroensis

None Ilex sintenisii

None Ternstroemia subsessilis
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

122

Throughout El Yunque, threatened and endangered species protection and habitat enhancement is a 

priority, so their needs are particularly emphasized. The overall affected environment can be summarized 

as a tropical rainforest within the Caribbean Basin located between North American and South America.

The vegetation on El Yunque is consistent with tropical wet rain forests and is arranged into 15 new 

vegetation types (See Section 3.4.3.1). 

Forest plan components, such as desired conditions, standards, guidelines and objectives, provide broad 

management direction. These Forest Plan components comply with the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and the associated recovery plan for each federally listed species.

Project-level analysis will evaluate site-specific impacts, based on conditions on-the-ground. Additional 

mitigation measures may be developed, if needed.

In general, all federally listed threatened and endangered species would continue to be managed and 

protected across the Forest in accordance with Forest Service policy, recommended protection measures 

in the recovery plans, and all applicable state and Federal laws. Individual projects during the next 

planning period may result in direct negative effects to an individual, but effects analysis and consultation 

will take place at the project level should this situation ever occur.

As was discussed earlier, the ecological sustainability evaluation (ESE) tool is a strategic conservation 

planning tool used by the Forest Service Southern Region for Forest planning. Ecological systems, 

watersheds, and terrestrial and aquatic species are carried through the preliminary assessment and 

sustainability framework (including strategies and plan alternatives) to determine expected outcomes. The 

tool utilizes a standardized process while being flexible, efficient, and adaptable to Forest-specific 

priorities and needs. The ESE tool employs prioritization algorithms utilizing rank, importance rating, 

attributes and indicators, stresses and threats, scope and severity ratings, and management opportunities to 

assist and support management decisions while creating a standardized, credible, and defensible process 

record. The ESE tool analysis also considered the short term (1 to 10 years) and the long term (1 to 50 

years) scenarios in the Forest.

Capá rosa (Callicarpa ampla): Endangered 

Callicarpa ampla (Verbenaceae) is an evergreen shrub with simple, opposite leaves. It is only found in 

Puerto Rico at El Yunque National Forest in the Tabonuco type forest. The species is only found on El 

Yunque National Forest in the municipalities of Rio Grande and Naguabo in three different populations 

(two natural and one planted), for a total of 18 known individuals. All known Callicarpa sites are located 

in protected lands. Because of the distance between the populations, genetic material is not expected to be 

exchanged, except for the one in El Portal which contains genetic material (clones) from both natural 

populations. 

See the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment section on “Assessing Ecological Sustainability and Diversity of 

Plant and Animal Communities (Terrestrial Ecosystems)” for a detailed description of forest types. See 

also the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment section on “Assessing Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and 

Candidate Species and Species of Conservation Concern (At-Risk Flora)” for a detailed description of this 

species.

Alternative 1

This alternative has several management areas that allow activities that may have direct effects on this 

species. These include timber demonstration, research areas, integrated areas and developed recreation 

areas, and all have a potential to directly disturb the vegetation, soil, streams, and associated fauna in 

these lands. Diversity and forest cover is also expected to be directly impacted by the implementation of 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

123

activities on these lands. These management actions could cause a high risk of losing populations of the 

species reported to be very rare and small in number. Hurricanes Irma and Maria greatly affected the 

habitat of this species and may have affected its population. The planted population is doing well and 

assessments are needed to evaluate the status of the other individuals. The NEPA process is expected to 

occur before any particular project is implemented. Hence, direct impacts would be mitigated if properly 

carried out; this alternative would have management practices for the conservation and recovery of the 

species that could also assist is protection. 

Indirect effect to this species are associated with erosion created by soil movement, tree felling and 

extraction, and trampling created by human activities in these management areas.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are associated with long-term erosion problems, recovery rate of vegetation impacted, 

and continuous human activities on these lands. 

Alternative 2

This alternative has the CIRMA that proposes activities that may have direct impact to this species. There 

are also activities proposed like improving recreation settings and access, improving roads and trails, 

improving watersheds, and provide forest products. All these actions incorporate vegetation management 

at some level in their implementation. There is a high risk of losing populations of the species reported to 

be very rare and small in number, if they are located in a management areas such as the CIRMA. Also, the 

recent impacts of hurricanes Irma and Maria have affected its habitat, increasing the risk of this 

endangered species. Although the NEPA process is expected to occur before any particular project is

implemented. This alternative has management practices for the conservation and recovery of the species, 

as well as management strategies that would assist in its protection. 

Beneficial effects to the populations of this species will occur because of the protection by standards and 

guidelines; and designated areas like wilderness, expanded research natural area, wild and scenic rivers 

corridors, mature forests, wetlands, and riparian zones. 

Also, standards and guidelines associated with management of invasive species and climate change will 

benefit the persistence and/or recovery of these species in El Yunque’s ecosystems.

Potential indirect beneficial effects associated with alternative 2 to these species are related to the focus of 

this alternative on ecological, social, and economic sustainability. This means that management practices 

and strategies considering sustainability will create a beneficial indirect effect on the species by sustaining 

the population in all activities. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect of this alternative will be associated with long-term benefits of management 

practices and management strategies that protect the species in El Yunque lands and its surroundings. 

Alternative 3

There would be a reduction in protected areas (research natural area), but standards and guidelines for 

mature forest will protect the lands excluded. Increased management of invasive species and invasive 

species at identified sites like road right-of-ways, recreation areas, and threatened or endangered species 

habitats may have direct effects on these species.

Potential beneficial effects may occur from management of the road and trail system to maintenance 

levels; this would reduce impacts on the species due to human interaction in certain areas where the 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

124

species is located. The exclusion of the scenic byway management area would diminish the vegetation 

management effects at the Forest level. The Forest will have fewer activities on the corridor, which would 

result in fewer management actions that could affect the species in this particular area of the Forest. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects for this alternative are the same as described in alternative 2.

Uvillo (Eugenia haematocarpa): Endangered

Eugenia haematocarpa (Myrtaceae) is an evergreen tree that can reach 6 meters (20 feet). Its distribution 

is the Sierra de Luquillo in El Yunque National Forest and the Sierra de Cayey. Known habitat is 

secondary montane and mature Tabonuco montane forest types, which grow on volcanic substrate. 

During the 2011 botanical survey, two populations were located at El Yunque National Forest, one in Rio 

Grande in El Verde area with 27 individuals and one in Rio Gurabo with 12 individuals. When Uvillo was 

listed as an endangered species in 1998, 119 individuals were reported within six populations; however, 

these other populations were not evaluated during the 2011 survey. 

See the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment “At-Risk Flora” section for a detailed description of this species.

Alternative 1

This alternative has several management areas that may allow activities that could have direct effects on 

this species. Timber demonstration, research areas, integrated areas and developed recreation areas all 

have a potential to directly disturb the vegetation, soil, streams and associated fauna, in these lands. 

Diversity and forest cover is also expected to be directly impacted by the implementation of projects on 

these lands, where projects, such as further developing recreational sites or timber demo practices, are 

conducted where the species is located. These management areas and practices resulting from this 

alternative could result in a high risk of losing populations of the species that is very rare and small in 

number. Hurricanes Irma and Maria affected the habitat of this species, which adds to the threats to the 

populations. Surveys to determine the current status of this species will be performed. The NEPA process 

is expected to occur before any particular project is implemented. This alternative would have 

management practices for the conservation and recovery of the species that could also assist is protection. 

Potential indirect effects to this species are associated with erosion created by soil movement, tree felling 

and extraction, and trampling created by human activities in these management areas.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are associated with long-term erosion problems, recovery rate of vegetation impacted, 

and continuous human activities on these lands. 

Alternative 2

Known habitat is secondary montane forest and mature Tabonuco montane forest types. See the 

“Terrestrial Ecosystems” section for a detailed description of these forest types. See “At-Risk Flora,” for a 

detail description of this species.

This alternative has the CIRMA that proposes activities that may have direct impact to this species. These 

activities may include improving recreation settings and access, improving roads and trails, improving 

watersheds, and providing forest products. All these actions incorporate vegetation management at some 

level in their implementation, and there is a high risk of losing populations of the species that are very 

rare and small in number. Although the NEPA process is expected to occur before any particular project is 

implemented, this alternative has management practices and strategies (such as collaboration and 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

125

environmental education) for the conservation and recovery of the species, as well as management 

strategies that would assist in its protection. 

Potential beneficial effects to the populations of this species will be through protection by standards and 

guidelines and protected designated areas such as wilderness, expanded research natural area, wild and 

scenic river corridors, mature forests, wetlands, and riparian zones. 

Also, standards and guidelines associated with management of invasive species and climate change will 

benefit the persistence and/or recovery of these species in El Yunque’s ecosystems.

Potential indirect beneficial effects associated with alternative 2 to these species are related to the focus of 

this alternative on ecological, social, and economic sustainability. This means that management practices 

and strategies considering sustainability will create a beneficial indirect effect on the species. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect of this alternative will be associated with long-term benefits of management 

practices and management strategies that persist and protect the species at El Yunque lands and its 

surroundings. 

Alternative 3

Known habitat is secondary montane forest and mature Tabonuco montane forest types. See the 

“Terrestrial Ecosystems” section for a detail description of these forest types. See “At-Risk Flora” for a 

detailed description of this species.

There would be a reduction in the number of acres of the research natural area and the reduced area will 

be proposed as wilderness, standards and guidelines for mature forest will protect the lands excluded. 

Increase of invasive species and invasive species management at identified sites like road right-of-ways, 

recreation areas, and threatened or endangered species habitats may have direct effects on these species.

Beneficial effects may occur from management of the road and trail system to maintenance levels, 

because of impacts on the species due to human interaction in certain areas. Excluding the Scenic Byway 

Management Area will reduce the vegetation management effects at the Forest level. The Forest will have 

fewer activities in the corridor resulting in fewer management actions that could affect the species. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects for this alternative is the same as described in alternative 2. 

Guayabota pequeña (Ilex sintenisii): Endangered

Ilex sintenissi (Aquifoliaceae) is a shrub/small tree with alternate leaves. Its distribution is limited to El 

Yunque National Forest, specifically to Pico El Yunque and Pico del Este. These areas are located in the 

cloud forest type, which grow above 600m in elevation on volcanic substrate. As of 2011, there were 

approximately 465 individuals on 23 populations, an increase from the 150-200 individuals in three 

populations identified during the 1995 recovery plan. 

Known habitat is mature Tabebuia/Eugenia woodland montane rain cloud forest type. See the 2014 Forest 

Plan Assessment “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section for a detailed description of this vegetation type. See 

the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment “At-Risk Flora” section for a detailed description of this species.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

126

Alternative 1

This alternative recommends the no more development or expansion of communication facilities on El 

Yunque Peak and Pico del Este. These management recommendations markedly reduce the potential of 

direct impact to the species. El Yunque Peak is impacted by a high number of visitations to its featured 

points (El Yunque Trail, El Yunque Rock, and El Yunque and Mt. Britton Towers).

A potential effect on Ilex may be caused under this alternative because recreational development and the 

increased number of Forest visitors to the area that could trample on the species. The human activity in 

this area may impact vegetation by trampling, generating trash, and vigilance and maintenance on the 

various communication sites at Pico El Yunque and recreation points (Mt. Britton Tower).

Cumulative Effects

The most critical cumulative effects to this species and its natural habitat is the accumulation of small 

spills of oil, gasoline, diesel and fumes as part of the operation of the communication sites and ground 

maintenance, as well as the maintenance of the access roads and recreation points through time. The high 

humidity and high rate of precipitation in this unique forest type increases the impact to the environment 

over time.

Alternative 2

Effects are similar to alternative 1, while considering in this alternative the options of dispersing 

recreation to other areas in CIRMA could potentially reduce the amount of impact on the species in 

certain locations. 

Cumulative Effects

A cumulative effect to this species is related to past projects that have impacted the species through 

habitat loss by projects such as the communication facilities and infrastructure development in these sites.

Alternative 3

Known habitat is the mature Tabebuia/Eugenia woodland montane rain cloud forest type. (Pico El 

Yunque and Pico de El Este). See the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section for a 

detailed description of this vegetation type. See the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment “At-Risk Flora” section 

for a detailed description of this species.

The effects are the same as described for alternative 2. 

Lepanthes eltoroensis: Endangered

Lepanthes eltoroensis (Orchidaceae) is a small epiphytic orchid. It grows on the north-face (non-windy) 

side of moss covered trunks on upper elevations (above 750 meters) in the Sierra Palm, Palo Colorado 

and mature Tabebuia/Eugenia woodland montane wet cloud forest types. The population was estimated at 

360 individuals at the time of listing and recent estimates based on surveys and expert opinions indicate a 

range of 3,000 individuals.

See the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment “At-Risk Flora” section for a detailed description of this species. 

This vegetation type is located inside El Toro Wilderness.

Alternative 1

Effects of this alternative to the species is visitation to the area. The trail where the species thrives is the 

only official access to the wilderness, and because most of the populations of this species are known to 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

127

occur along the trail, the species is highly exposed to damage by trampling activities and also on some 

occasion to unauthorized collection of this very rare and endangered orchid. 

Beneficial direct effects are associated with the designation of its habitat as part of El Toro wilderness. 

Under this designation, the management practices are limited, and therefore this could result in less 

population loss of the species.

Potential for indirect effects most damaging to this species, such as trampling and unauthorized 

collections, are related to visitation of the area.

Cumulative Effects

Visitation activities over time may have cumulative detrimental effects to the species.

Alternative 2

Beneficial direct effects are associated with the designation of its habitat as part of El Toro Wilderness. 

Under this designation the management practices and strategies (such as collaboration and environmental 

education) limit impacts and human interaction with the species which could result in less population 

loss.

The potential for indirect effects is the same as described in alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects for this alternative are similar to alternative 1. However, the increase of 

environmental literacy component and the revision of wilderness management directions of this 

alternative may reduce effects of visitation and human dynamics. As management direction for the 

wilderness area is developed, the amount of visitation and type of uses should consider minimal impacts 

to the species.

Alternative 3

Known habitat is mature Tabebuia/Eugenia woodland montane wet cloud forest. See the 2014 Forest Plan 

Assessment “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section for a detailed description of this vegetation type. This 

vegetation type is located inside El Toro Wilderness. The effects are the same as described for alternative 

2. 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are the same as alternative 1. 

Chupacallos (Pleodendron macranthum): Endangered

Pleodendron macranthum (Canellaceae) is an evergreen tree, for which there are 2 known populations 

with 11 individuals at El Yunque National Forest; however none of these individuals were located during 

the 2011 botanical survey. There are 25 planted individuals, 3 at El Portal Visitor Center and 22 at the 

Puerto Rican Parrot Aviary. Known habitat is secondary montane and mature Tabonuco montane forest 

types. See the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment “At-Risk Flora” section for a detailed description of this 

species.

Alternative 1

This alternative has several management areas that would allow activities that may have direct effects on 

this species. Management areas for timber demonstration, research areas, integrated area and developed

recreation areas all have a potential to directly disturb the vegetation, soil, streams, and associated fauna 

in these lands. These management areas and practices resulting from this alternative could result in a high 

risk of losing populations of the species that are very rare and small in number. Also, the effects of recent 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

128

hurricanes have increased the risk of these populations. Although the NEPA process expected to occur 

before any particular project is implemented should mitigate direct impacts if properly carried out, this 

alternative would have management practices for the conservation and recovery of the species that would 

also assist in its protection. 

Potential indirect effects to this species are associated with erosion created by soil movement, tree felling 

and extraction, and trampling created by human activities in these management areas.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are associated with long-term erosion problems and recovery rate along time of 

vegetation impacted.

Alternative 2

This alternative has the CIRMA that proposes activities that may have direct impact to this species. These 

may include improving recreation settings and access, improving roads and trails, improving watersheds, 

and providing forest products. All these actions incorporate vegetation management at some level in their 

implementation. In addition, direct impact to this species in the passing of hurricanes Irma and Maria that 

may have impacted Pleodendron populations; assessments will continue to determine its impacts. There is 

a high risk of losing populations of the species that are very rare and small in number. Although the 

NEPA process is expected to occur before any particular project is implemented, this alternative has 

management practices and strategies (such as collaboration and environmental education) for the 

conservation and recovery of the species, as well as management strategies that would assist in its 

protection. 

Potential beneficial effects to the populations of this species will be associated with the protection by

guidelines, standards, and protected designated areas like wilderness, expanded research natural area, wild 

and scenic river corridors, mature forests, wetlands and riparian zones.

Also, standards and guidelines associated with management of invasive species and climate change will 

benefit the persistence and/or recovery of these species in El Yunque’s ecosystems.

Indirect beneficial effects associated with alternative 2 to this species are related to the focus of this 

alternative to ecological, social, and economic sustainability. This means that management practices and 

strategies considering sustainability will create a beneficial indirect effect on the species. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect of this alternative will be associated with long-term benefits of management 

practices and management strategies that persist and protect the species on El Yunque and its 

surroundings. 

Alternative 3

The effects are the same as described for alternative 2.

Palo de Jazmín (Styrax portoricensis): Endangered

Styrax portoricensis (Styracaceae) is an evergreen tree for which its known habitat is secondary montane, 

mature Tabonuco montane and mature Palo Colorado montane wet cloud forest types. There were 19 

reported individuals at El Yunque National Forest, however during the last botanical survey, none of these 

populations were recorded. About 50 individuals were planted by FWS around the Puerto Rican Parrot 

Aviary. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

129

See the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment “At-Risk Flora” section for a detailed description of this species.

Alternative 1

This alternative has several management areas that would allow activities that may have direct effects on 

this species. Management areas such as timber demonstration, research areas, integrated area and 

developed recreation areas all have a potential to directly disturb the vegetation, soil, streams, and 

associated fauna in these lands, through the management practices and activities. Diversity and forest 

cover is also expected to be directly impacted by the implementation of projects on these lands such as 

further developing recreational sites or timber demo practices. These management areas and practices 

resulting from this alternative could result in a high risk of losing populations of the species that are very 

rare and small in number. In addition, hurricanes Irma and Maria may have impacted the habitat of 

Styrax; surveys are being performed to determine the current status of the populations. Although the 

NEPA process expected to occur before any particular project is implemented, this alternative would have 

management practices for the conservation and recovery of the species that could also assist in its

protection. Part of the population of this species is reported to be inside El Toro Wilderness area, which is 

expected to be fully protected, but because the small population sizes (sometimes consisting of one or two 

individuals) are in isolated areas of the wilderness, the lack of monitoring to determine population 

conditions puts this species at high risk. 

Potential indirect effect to this species are associated with erosion created by soil movement, tree felling 

and extraction, and trampling created by human activities in the management areas outside the wilderness.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are associated with long-term erosion problems, recovery rate over time of vegetation 

impacted, and continuous human activities over time on the lands outside the wilderness.

Alternative 2

This alternative has the CIRMA that proposes activities that may have direct impact to this species. These 

may include improving recreation settings and access, improving roads and trails, improving watersheds, 

and providing forest products. All these actions incorporate vegetation management at some level in their 

implementation. In addition, hurricanes Irma and Maria may have impacted the habitat of Styrax; surveys 

are being performed to determine the current status of the populations. There is a high risk of losing 

populations of the species that are very rare and small in number, if they are located in management areas 

such as the CIRMA. Although the NEPA process is expected to occur before any particular project is 

implemented, this alternative has management practices and strategies (such as collaboration and 

environmental education) for the conservation and recovery of the species, as well as management 

strategies that would assist in its protection. 

Standards and guidelines and protected designated areas such as wilderness, expanded research natural 

area, wild and scenic river corridors, mature forests, wetlands, and riparian zones, would have beneficial 

direct effects to the populations of this species.

Also, standards and guidelines associated with management of invasive species and climate change will 

benefit the persistence and/or recovery of these species in El Yunque’s ecosystems.

Indirect beneficial effects associated with alternative 2 to this species are related to the focus of this 

alternative to ecological, social and economic sustainability. This means that management practices and 

strategies considering sustainability will create a beneficial indirect effect on the species due to trying to 

sustain the population in all activities. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

130

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect of this alternative will be associated with long-term benefits of management 

practices and management strategies that persist and protect the species at El Yunque lands and its 

surroundings. 

Alternative 3

The effects are the same as described for alternative 2.

Palo Colorado (Ternstroemia luquillensis): Endangered

Ternstroemia luquillensis (Pentaphylacaceae) is an evergreen tree that can reach 20 meters. Its population 

is limited to 6 known individuals from 4 populations within the mature Palo Colorado montane, mature 

Tabonuco and montane cloud forest types, although two individuals may have been misidentified. 

See the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section for a detailed description of these 

vegetation types. See the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment “At-Risk Flora” section for a detailed description 

of this species.

Alternative 1

This alternative has several management areas that allow activities that may have direct effects on this 

species. Management areas such as timber demonstration, research areas, integrated area and developed

recreation areas all have a potential to directly disturb the vegetation, soil, streams, and associated fauna 

in these lands. Diversity and forest cover is also expected to be directly impacted by the implementation 

of projects on these lands, where projects such as further developing recreational sites or timber demo 

practices where the species is located. These management areas and practices resulting from this 

alternative could result in a high risk of losing populations of the species that are very rare and small in 

number. In addition, hurricanes Irma and Maria may have impacted the habitat of Ternstroemia

luquillensis; surveys will be performed to determine the current status of the populations. Although the 

NEPA process is expected to occur before any particular project is implemented and should mitigate 

direct impacts, if properly carried out, this alternative has management practices for the conservation and 

recovery of the species that could also assist is protection. 

Part of the population of this species is reported to be inside El Toro Wilderness area, the research natural 

area, wild and scenic river corridors and El Yunque Peak, which is expected to be fully protected. 

However, because of the small population sizes mostly consisting of one or two individuals in isolated 

areas of designated areas, lack of monitoring to determine population conditions puts this species at high 

risk. 

Potential indirect effect to this species are associated with erosion created by soil movement, tree felling 

and extraction, and trampling created by human activities in the management areas outside the wilderness 

and the research natural area and other protected areas. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are associated with long-term erosion problems, recovery rate over time of vegetation 

impacted, and continuous human activities over time on the lands outside the wilderness and the research 

natural area. 

Alternative 2

Although the NEPA process is expected to occur before any particular project is implemented, this 

alternative has management practices and strategies (such as collaboration and environmental education) 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

131

for the conservation and recovery of the species, as well as management strategies that would assist in its 

protection. There is a high risk of losing populations of the species that are very rare and small in number, 

due to various reasons including the lack of monitoring. Part of the population of this species is reported 

to be inside El Toro Wilderness area, the research natural area, wild and scenic river corridors, wetlands 

and El Yunque Peak, which is expected to be fully protected. However, because the small population sizes 

mostly consisting of one or two individuals in isolated sites of designated areas, lack of monitoring to 

determine population conditions puts this species at very high risk. In addition, hurricanes Irma and Maria 

may have impacted the habitat of Ternstroemia luquillensis; surveys will be performed to determine the 

current status of the populations. This alternative does, however, consider monitoring and collaboration 

that could help mitigate the effects of the population’s conditions. 

There are no potential indirect effects to the species with the implementation of this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect of this alternative will be associated with long-term benefits of management 

practices and management strategies that persist and protect the species at El Yunque lands and its 

surroundings. 

Alternative 3

The effects are the same as described for alternative 2.

Ternstroemia subsessilis: Endangered

Ternstroemia subsessilis (Pentaphylacaceae) is an evergreen tree/shrub with alternate leaves that can grow 

up to 5 meters. It had approximately 37 individuals distributed among 4 populations; however during the 

last survey in 2011, those populations could not be found. Known habitat are mature Palo Colorado 

montane, mature Sierra palm montane and mature Tabebuia/Eugenia woodland montane rain cloud forest

types. 

See the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment “Terrestrial Ecosystems” section for a detailed description of this 

vegetation type. See the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment “At-Risk Flora” section for a detailed description 

of this species.

Alternative 1

This alternative has several management areas that may have direct effects on this species. These include 

timber demonstration, research areas, wild and scenic rivers, and developed recreation areas; all of which

have the potential to directly disturb the vegetation, soil, streams, and associated fauna in these lands. In 

addition, hurricanes Irma and Maria may have impacted the habitat of Ternstroemia subsessilis; surveys 

will be performed to determine the current status of the populations. Although the NEPA process is 

expected to occur before any particular project is implemented, this alternative has management practices 

and strategies (such as collaboration and environmental education) for the conservation and recovery of 

the species, as well as management strategies that would assist in its protection. These management areas 

and practices resulting from this alternative could result in a high risk of losing populations of the species 

that are very rare and small in number. Part of the population of this species is reported to be inside the 

research natural area, wild and scenic river corridors, the wetlands and Pico del Este, which is expected to 

be fully protected. However, because the small population sizes mostly consisting of one or two 

individuals in isolated areas of designated areas, lack of monitoring to determine population conditions 

puts this species at very high risk. This alternative does, however, consider monitoring and collaboration 

that could help mitigate the effects of the population’s conditions. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

132

Indirect effects to this species are associated with erosion created by soil movement, tree felling and 

extraction, and trampling created by human activities in the management areas outside the wilderness and 

the research natural area. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are associated with long-term erosion problems, recovery rate over time of vegetation 

impacted, and continuous human activities over time on the lands outside the wilderness and the research 

natural area and other protected lands.

Alternative 2

Although the NEPA process is expected to occur before any particular project is, this alternative has 

management practices and strategies (such as collaboration and environmental education) for the 

conservation and recovery of the species, as well as management strategies that would assist in its 

protection. There is a high risk of losing populations of the species that are very rare and small in number, 

due to various reasons including the lack of monitoring. Part of the population of this species is reported 

to be inside El Toro Wilderness area, the research natural area, wild and scenic river corridors, wetlands, 

and El Yunque Peak, which is expected to be fully protected. However, because the small population sizes 

mostly consisting of one or two individuals in isolated sites of designated areas, lack of monitoring to 

determine population conditions puts this species at very high risk. 

No indirect effects are expected to occur with the implementation of this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect of this alternative will be associated with long-term benefits of management 

practices and management strategies that persist and protect the species at El Yunque lands and its 

surroundings. 

Alternative 3

The effects are the same as described for alternative 2.

3.4.3.6 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Species of 

Conservation Concern (Flora)

Using the best available scientific information, species known to occur in the plan area for which there is 

substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long term in the plan area were 

evaluated. We assume that populations of all the species of conservation concern are stable until we can 

gather data to quantify and locate the populations in existence on El Yunque. This assumption is based on 

the lack of forest-disturbing activities in the Forest, but we will consider climate change in the analysis. 

To be classified as “at risk,” a species must have an Extent of Occurrence (EOO) of <20,000 square 

kilometers, the threshold for IUCN’s threatened categories. Puerto Rico measures 8,870 square 

kilometers, therefore all endemic species (229) are technically considered “at risk” (Krupnick et al. 2012; 

Miller and Lugo 2009). 

A brief description of the ecology and distribution for the species of conservation concern for El Yunque 

and the environmental effects of the alternatives proposed for the land management plan revision follows.

Orchids

Of the 149 orchid species reported to Puerto Rico, 45 percent are reported as being native to the Luquillo 

Mountains (Kasomenakis 1988). Seven endemic species and one native are considered at-risk species and 

have been proposed for further analysis as species of conservation concern for El Yunque National Forest 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

133

(table 3-30). These are small plants that range in size from several millimeters to 14 centimeters tall. They 

are epiphytic plants found in a variety of environments, from mossy boulders along streams to moss 

covered tree trunks and branches in wet mountain and wet mountain cloud forest and on sphagnum moss 

on the peaks forest floor. Two of them Brachionidium ciliolatum and Lepanthes selenitepala are endemic 

to the Luquillo Mountains. Some are also present in the Sierra de Cayey and the Cordillera Central (on 

State Forests), but there is an overall lack of information on the population locations and sizes. The 

altitudinal ranges go from 215 meters to 1,300 meters above sea level.

They are mostly threatened by vegetation management affecting forest canopy, road and trail right of way 

maintenance, hurricane winds, landslides, low population numbers and some unauthorized collecting. 

Hurricanes are a major threat to orchids, since their small sizes and restricted population ranges make 

them vulnerable to the strong winds which could tear them from their host and/or knock the host tree to 

the ground. 

Climate change that affects the humidity required for the different forest types where they thrive may 

impair the moss layers in the different forest compartments where they are present, directly impacting 

their survival, reproduction, and population sizes. 

3.4.3.7 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences – Species of 

Conservation Concern (Flora)

Using the best available scientific information, species known to occur in the plan area for which there is 

substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long term in the plan area were 

evaluated. We assume that populations of all the species of conservation concern are stable until we can 

gather data to quantify and locate the populations in existence on El Yunque. This assumption is based on 

the lack of forest-disturbing activities in the Forest, but we will consider climate change in the analysis. 

To be classified as “at risk,” a species must have an Extent of Occurrence (EOO) of <20,000 square 

kilometers, the threshold for IUCN’s threatened categories. Puerto Rico measures 8,870 square 

kilometers, therefore all endemic species (229) are technically considered “at risk” (Krupnick et al. 2012; 

Miller and Lugo 2009). 

A brief description of the ecology and distribution for the species of conservation concern for El Yunque 

and the environmental effects of the alternatives proposed for the land management plan revision follows.

Orchids

Of the 149 orchid species reported to Puerto Rico, 45 percent are reported as being native to the Luquillo 

Mountains (Kasomenakis 1988). Seven endemic species and one native are considered at-risk species and 

have been proposed for further analysis as species of conservation concern for El Yunque National Forest 

(table 3-30). These are small plants that range in size from several millimeters to 14 centimeters tall. They 

are epiphytic plants found in a variety of environments, from mossy boulders along streams to moss 

covered tree trunks and branches in Wet Mountain and Wet Mountain Cloud Forest and on sphagnum 

moss on the peaks forest floor.Alternative 1 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

134

Table 3-30. Species of conservation concern (flora)

Taxonomic Group Taxonomic Subgroup Species Common Name

Vascular Plant Fern Lindsaea stricta var. 

jamesoniformis

Lindsaea

Vascular Plant Herb Pilea multicaulis P. Multicaulis 

Vascular Plant Herb Pilea yunquensis P. Yunquensis (endemic)

Vascular Plant Orchid Brachionidium ciliolatum B. Ciliolatum 

Vascular Plant Orchid Brachionidium parvum B. Parvum

Vascular Plant Orchid Lepanthes caritensis Carite babyfoot orchid

Vascular Plant Orchid Lepanthes dodiana Dodiana babyfoot orchid

Vascular Plant Orchid Lepanthes selenitepala spp 

ackermanii

Ackerman babyfoot orchid

Vascular Plant Orchid Lepanthes stimsonii Stimson babyfoot orchid

Vascular Plant Orchid Lepanthes veleziana Velez babyfoot orchid

Vascular Plant Orchid Lepanthes woodburyana Woodbury babyfoot orchid

Vascular Plant Shrub Brunfelsia lactea Jazmin de monte (endemic)

Vascular Plant Shrub Brunfelsia portoricensis Jazmin portoricensis 

(endemic)

Vascular Plant Shrub Marlierea sintenisii Beruquillo 

Vascular Plant Shrub Miconia foveolata Camasey

Vascular Plant Shrub Solanum woodbury Solanum (endemic)

Vascular Plant Shrub Urera chorocalpa Ortiga (endemic)

Vascular Plant Shrub Varronia wagnerorum Varronia (endemic)

Vascular Plant Shrub/Small tree Cybianthus sintenisii Cybianthus (endemic)

Vascular Plant Shrub/Small tree Eugenia egersii Palo de murta (endemic)

Vascular Plant Shrub/Small tree Xylosma schwaneckeana Palo de Candela (endemic)

Vascular Plant Small tree Miconia pycnoneura Camasey

Vascular Plant Tree Ardisia luquillensis Mamayuelo (endemic)

Vascular Plant Tree Banara portoricensis Caracolillo (endemic)

Vascular Plant Tree Calyptranthes luquillensis C. Luquillensis (endemic)

Vascular Plant Tree Calyptranthes woodburyi C. Woodburyi (endemic)

Vascular Plant Tree Coccoloba rugosa Ortegon 

Vascular Plant Tree Conostegia hotteana Camasey peludo

Vascular Plant Tree Laplacea portoricensis Maricao verde 

Vascular Plant Tree Magnolia splendens Laurel sabino (endemic)

Vascular Plant Tree Maytenus elongata Cuero de Sapo

Vascular Plant Tree Morella holdrigeana Palo de cera (endemic)

Vascular Plant Tree Psidium sintenisii Hoja menuda (endemic)

Vascular Plant Tree Ravenia urbanii Tortugo prieto (endemic)
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

135

Taxonomic Group Taxonomic Subgroup Species Common Name

Vascular Plant Tree Symplocos lanata Nispero cimarron (endemic)

Vascular Plant Tree Ternstroemia heptasepala Palo colorado (endemic)

Vascular Plant Tree Ternstroemia stahlii Palo de buey (endemic)

Vascular Plant Vine Gonocalix portoricensis Gonocalyx (endemic)

Vascular Plant Vine Mikania pachyphyla Mikania (endemic)

This alternative has several management areas that may have direct effects on these species. These 

include timber demonstration, research areas, integrated area and developed recreation areas, and all have 

a potential to directly disturb the vegetation, soil, streams, and associated fauna in these lands. Diversity 

and forest cover is also expected to be directly impacted by the implementation of projects on these lands, 

such as projects which further develop recreational sites or timber demo practices where the species is 

located. These management areas and practices resulting from this alternative could result in a high risk 

of losing populations of the species that are very rare and small in number. In addition, hurricanes Irma 

and Maria may have impacted the habitat of these species. The NEPA process is expected to occur before 

any particular project is implemented. This alternative would also have management practices for the 

conservation and recovery of the species that could assist in its protection. 

Standards and guidelines and protected designated areas such as wilderness, expanded research natural 

area, wild and scenic river corridors, mature forests, wetlands, and riparian zones, would have beneficial 

direct effects to the populations of this species.

Indirect effects to these species are associated with the erosion created by soil movement, tree felling and 

extraction, and trampling created by human activities in these management areas. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are associated with long-term erosion problems, recovery rate over time of vegetation 

impacted, and continuous human activities over time on these lands. The proximity of some of the 

proposed activities to each other is critical to this type of effects.

Alternative 2

This alternative has the CIRMA that proposes activities that may have direct impact to these species. 

These may include improving recreation settings and access, improving roads and trails, improving 

watersheds, and providing forest products. All these actions incorporate vegetation management at some 

level in their implementation. There is a high risk of losing populations of the species that are reported to 

be very rare and small in number. Although the NEPA process is expected to occur before any particular 

project is implemented and should mitigate direct impacts, this alternative also has management practices 

and strategies (such as collaboration and environmental education) for the conservation and recovery of 

the species, as well as management strategies that would assist in its protection. 

Beneficial direct effects to many of the populations of these orchids will be associated with the protection 

provided by guidelines, standards and protected designated areas like wilderness, expanded research 

natural area, wild and scenic rivers, mature forests, wetlands and riparian zones.

In addition, standards and guidelines associated with management of invasive species and climate change 

will benefit the persistence and/or recovery of these species in El Yunque ecosystems.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

136

Indirect beneficial effects associated with alternative 2 to these species are related to the focus of this 

alternative on ecological, social, and economic sustainability. This means that management practices and 

strategies considering sustainability will create a beneficial indirect effect on the species.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect of this alternative will be associated with long-term benefits of management 

practices and management strategies that persist and protect the species on El Yunque National Forest 

lands and its surroundings. 

Alternative 3

There will be a reduction in protected area as research natural area, but standards and guidelines for 

mature forest will protect the lands excluded. Increased management of invasive species and Invasive 

species at identified sites like road right-of-ways, recreation areas, and threatened or endangered species 

habitats may have direct effects on these species.

Beneficial effects may occur from management of the road and trail system maintenance levels, 

considering it would reduce the impacts on the species from human interaction in certain areas where the 

species is located. The exclusion of the Scenic Byway Management Area will reduce the effects of 

vegetation management at the Forest level. The Forest will have fewer activities in the corridor, resulting 

in less management actions that could affect the species in this particular area of the Forest. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as described in alternative 2. 

Vines

There are two vines proposed as species of conservation concern, one (Gonocalix portoricensis) is 

endemic to El Yunque and restricted to the peaks, and the other is endemic to Puerto Rico (Mikania 

pachyphyla) (table 3-30). The latter is present also in the Cordillera Central; its population is estimated at 

2,946 individuals, but the population in El Yunque has not being determined or mapped. G. portoricensis

population is being estimated to be eight individuals.

They are mostly threatened by vegetation management affecting forest canopy, road and trail right-of-way 

maintenance, hurricane winds, low population numbers, and landslides. 

Climate change that affects the humidity required for the different forest types where they thrive may 

impair its persistence at El Yunque. 

Alternative 1

These species are not expected to be directly affected by this alternative, given the fact that they are 

reported in areas designated for protection, such as wetlands, mature palm forests and cloud rain forest

types.

These species are not expected to be indirectly affected by this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect of this alternative will be associated with long-term benefits of management 

practices that persist and protect the species in El Yunque lands and its surroundings. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

137

Alternative 2

These species are not expected to be directly affected by this alternative, given the fact that they are 

reported in areas designated for protection, like wetlands, mature palm forests and cloud rain forest types.

These species are not expected to be indirectly affected by this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect of this alternative will be associated with long-term benefits of management 

practices and management strategies that persist and protect the species in El Yunque lands and its 

surroundings. 

Alternative 3

There will be a reduction in the protected research natural area, but standards and guidelines for mature

forest will protect the lands excluded. Increased management of invasive species at identified sites like

road right-of-ways, recreation areas, and threatened or endangered species habitats may have direct 

effects on these species.

Beneficial effects may occur from management of the road and trail system maintenance levels, 

considering it would reduce the impacts on the species due to human interaction in certain areas where the 

species is located. The exclusion of the Scenic Byway Management Area will reduce the vegetation 

management effects at the Forest level. The Forest will have fewer activities on the corridor, resulting in 

fewer management actions that could affect the species in this particular area of the Forest. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as described for alternative 2.

Shrubs

There are 11 endemic shrub species recommended as species of conservation concern on El Yunque, of 

which 4 are endemic to the Luquillo Mountains (Marlierea sintenisii, Miconea faveolata, Varronia 

wagnerorum, and Solanum woodbury). There are seven plant families represented in this group (table 

3-30). 

All of these species are reported or estimated to have small populations, making the species vulnerable to 

any disturbance that may change the vegetation structure of the Forest, its geomorphology, or its landform 

morphology. 

The principal immediate threat to all these species on El Yunque is the lack of information about their 

population numbers and location so that we can monitor the effects of stresses such as climate change, 

hurricane winds, landslides and canopy (structure) changes. Shrubs are part of the ground cover 

vegetation strata and are a key element in the food web of the Forest. 

Hurricanes are particulary a major threat and considering the lack of information on their current 

population status, then analyzing the effects is difficult. Hurricanes Irma and Maria, which recently 

passed over El Yunque on September 2017, likely further affected these populations. 

Alternative 1

This alternative has several management areas that may have direct effects on these species. These 

include timber demonstration, research areas, integrated area and developed recreation areas, and all have 

the potential to directly disturb the vegetation, soil, streams, and associated fauna in these lands. Diversity 

and forest cover are also expected to be directly impacted by the implementation of projects on these 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

138

lands, where projects such as further developing recreational sites or timber demo practices are 

implemented where the species is located. These management areas and practices resulting from this 

alternative could result in a high risk of losing populations of the species that are very rare and small in 

number. In addition, hurricanes Irma and Maria may have impacted the habitat of these species. The 

NEPA process expected to occur before any particular project is implemented. In addition, this alternative 

would have management practices for the conservation and recovery of the species that would help 

protect it. 

Standards and guidelines and protected designated areas such as wilderness, expanded research natural 

area, wild and scenic river corridors, mature forests, wetlands, and riparian zones, would have beneficial 

direct effects to the populations of this species.

Indirect effect to this species are associated with erosion caused by soil movement, tree felling and 

extraction, and trampling created by human activities in these management areas. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are associated with long-term erosion problems, recovery rate over time of vegetation 

impacted, and continuous human activities over time on these lands. The proximity of some of the 

proposed projects to each other is critical to these effects.

Alternative 2

This alternative has the CIRMA that proposes activities that may have direct impact to these species. 

Proposed activities such as improving recreation settings and access, improving roads and trails, 

improving watersheds, and providing forest products are expected to have direct effects these species. All 

these actions incorporate vegetation management at some level in their implementation. There is a high 

risk of losing populations of the species that are very rare and small in number, if they are located in a 

management area such as the CIRMA. In addition, hurricanes Irma and Maria may have impacted the 

habitat of these species. Although the NEPA process is expected to occur before any particular project is 

implemented and should mitigate direct impacts, this alternative has management practices and strategies 

(such as collaboration and environmental education) for the conservation and recovery of the species, as 

well as management strategies that would assist in its protection.

Beneficial direct effects to many of the populations of these shrubs will be associated with the protection 

provided by guidelines, standards and protected designated areas like wilderness, expanded research 

natural area, wild and scenic rivers corridors, mature forests, wetlands and riparian zones. 

In addition, standards and guidelines associated with management of invasive species and climate change 

will benefit the persistence and/or recovery of these species in El Yunque’s ecosystems.

Indirect effects associated with the proposed activities of alternative 2 to these species are soil erosion, 

soil compaction, vegetation trampling, and vegetation density reduction mostly associated with providing 

recreation and forest products, although this alternative includes activities such as collaboration, 

environmental education and other management strategies that could mitigate these indirect effects.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect in this alternative will be associated with the intensity and proximity of the 

activities implementation. Direct and indirect effects may be compounded if proximity of projects to each 

other is not considered. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

139

Alternative 3

There will be a reduction in the protected research natural area, but standards and guidelines for mature 

forest will protect the lands excluded. Increased management of invasive species and Invasive species at 

identified sites like road right-of-ways, recreation areas, and threatened or endangered species habitats El 

Yunque lands may have direct effects on these species.

Beneficial effects may occur from management of the road and trail system maintenance levels, 

considering it would reduce the impacts on the species due to human interaction in certain areas where the 

species is located. The exclusion of the Scenic Byway Management Area will reduce the vegetation 

management effects at the Forest level. The Forest will have fewer activities on the corridor, resulting in 

fewer management actions that could affect the species in this particular area of the Forest. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as described for alternative 2.

Trees

There are 15 species in this group recommended for species of conservation concern; 8 endemic, 4 native, 

and 3 endemic to El Yunque (Magnolia splendens, Calyptrantes luquillensis and Ternstroemia 

heptasepala) (table 3-30). They represent 12 plant families. All of the species listed (except the Magnolia) 

thrive under the dominant canopy of the Forest (they are small trees, 50 feet at the tallest). All of them are 

reported or estimated to have small populations making them vulnerable to any disturbance that may 

change the vegetation structure of the Forest, its geomorphology, or its landform morphology. 

The principal immediate threat to all these species in El Yunque is the lack of information about their 

population numbers and location so that we can monitor the effects of stresses or disturbances as climate 

change, hurricane winds, landslides and canopy (structure) changes. This is also true for all species of 

conservation concern.

Magnolia splendens – Laurel Sabino (G3)

This species is endemic to the Luquillo Mountains and the only known populations are inside El Yunque. 

It is native to an area where tree growth is slow, 0.06 inches diameter increase in a period of 5 years from 

a sample of 46 trees. Most seeds apparently are sterile; this fact greatly limits the future of this tree. 

Young trees are being encouraged wherever they appear naturally; its range is between 400 to 850 meters

of elevation above sea level. This means that part of the population is expected to be inside the cloud 

forest (functional wetland). During the 1930s the use of mature trees for furniture and cabinet making by 

the Civilian Conservation Corps dramatically reduced the mature population of this species (Little and 

Wadsworth 1964). 

The Department of the Environment and Natural Resources of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

classifies the species as a “critical element” based on its classification code. It is a species to be monitored

to determine its actual present range, population sizes and locations, phenology, and reproduction efforts. 

Alternative 1

This alternative has several management areas that may have direct effects on these species. These 

include timber demonstration, research areas, integrated area and developed recreation areas, and all have 

the potential to directly disturb the vegetation, soil, streams, and associated fauna in these lands. Diversity 

and forest cover are also expected to be directly impacted by the implementation of projects on these 

lands, where projects such as further developing recreational sites or timber demo practices occur where 

the species is located. These management areas and practices resulting from this alternative could result in 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

140

a high risk of losing populations of the species that are very rare and small in number. In addition, 

hurricanes Irma and Maria may have impacted the habitat of this species. The NEPA process expected to 

occur before any particular project is implemented; however, this alternative would have management 

practices for the conservation and recovery of the species that would also protect it. 

Many of the populations of these trees will be protected by guidelines, standards, and protected 

designated areas like wilderness, research natural area, wetlands, and mature forests. 

Potential indirect effect to these species are associated with erosion created by soil movement, tree felling 

and extraction, and trampling created by human activities in these management areas. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are associated with long-term erosion problems, recovery rate over time of vegetation 

impacted, and continuous human activities over time on these lands. The proximity of some of the 

proposed projects to each other is critical to this type of effects.

Alternative 2

This alternative has the CIRMA that proposes activities that may have direct impacts on these species. 

Proposed activities such as improving recreation settings and access, improving roads and trails, 

improving watersheds, and providing forest products, are expected to have direct effects on this species. 

All these actions incorporate vegetation management at some level in their implementation. There is a 

high risk of losing populations of the species that are very rare and small in number if they are located in 

a management area such as the CIRMA. In addition, hurricanes Irma and Maria may have impacted the

habitat of this species. The NEPA process expected to occur before any particular project is implemented; 

however, this alternative has management practices and strategies (such as collaboration and 

environmental education) for the conservation and recovery of the species, as well as management 

strategies that would assist in its protection.

Beneficial direct effects to the populations of these trees will be associated with the protection from

guidelines, standards, and protected designated areas like wilderness, expanded research natural area, wild 

and scenic river corridors, mature forests, wetlands, and riparian zones.

In addition, standards and guidelines associated with management of invasive species and climate change 

will benefit the persistence and/or recovery of these species in El Yunque’s ecosystems.

Potential indirect effects to this species associated with the activities of alternative 2 would allow soil 

erosion, soil compaction, and vegetation trampling and vegetation density reduction mostly associated 

with providing recreation and forest products, although this alternative includes activities such as 

collaboration, environmental education and other management strategies that could mitigate these indirect 

effects.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect in this alternative will be associated with the intensity and proximity of the 

activities implementation. Direct and indirect effects may be compound if proximity of projects to each 

other is not considered. 

Alternative 3

There will be a reduction in the protected research natural area, but standards and guidelines for mature

forest will protect the lands excluded. Increased management of invasive species at identified sites like 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

141

road right-of-ways, recreation areas, and threatened or endangered species habitats may have direct 

effects on these species.

Beneficial effects may occur from management of the road and trail system maintenance levels; this 

would reduce the impacts on the species due to human interaction in certain areas where the species is 

located. The exclusion of the Scenic Byway Management Area will reduce the vegetation management 

effects at the Forest level. The Forest will have fewer activities on the corridor, resulting in fewer

management actions that could affect the species in this particular area of the Forest. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as described for alternative 2.

Ferns and Herbs

There are three species in this group, one endemic to El Yunque (Pilea multicaulis), and three endemic to 

Puerto Rico (table 3-30). Three species are reported to range between 650 and 1,300 meters of elevation

above sea level in the cloud forest (functional wetland). The population in El Yunque still needs to be 

assessed. Lindsaea stricta var. jamesoniiformis is the only fern in this group.

All of these species are reported or estimated to have small population that renders the species vulnerable 

to any disturbance that may change the vegetation structure of the Forest, its geomorphology, or its 

landform morphology. 

The principal immediate threat to all these species at El Yunque is the lack of information about their 

population numbers and location to be able to monitor the effects of stresses or disturbances as climate 

change, hurricane winds, landslides and canopy changes. 

Alternative 1

This alternative has several management areas that may have direct effects on these species. These 

include timber demonstration, research areas, integrated area and developed recreation areas, and all have 

the potential to directly disturb the vegetation, soil, streams, and associated fauna in these lands. Diversity 

and forest cover are also expected to be directly impacted by the implementation of projects on these 

lands, where projects such as further developing recreational sites or timber demo practices occur where 

the species is located. These management areas and practices resulting from this alternative could result in 

a high risk of losing populations of the species that are very rare and small in number. In addition, 

hurricanes Irma and Maria may have impacted the habitat of these species. The NEPA process expected to 

occur before any particular project is implemented should mitigate direct impacts; however, this

alternative would have management practices for the conservation and recovery of the species that could 

also help protect them. 

Many of the populations of these ferns and herbs will be protected by guidelines, standards, and protected 

designated areas like wilderness, research natural areas, wild and scenic river corridors and mature

forests.

Potential indirect effects to this species are associated to erosion created by soil movement, tree felling 

and extraction, and trampling created by human activities in these management areas. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are associated with long-term erosion problems, recovery rate over time of vegetation 

impacted, and continuous human activities over time on these lands. The proximity of some of the 

proposed projects to each other is critical to these types of effects.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

142

Alternative 2

Increased management of invasive species on all El Yunque lands may have direct positive effects on 

these species by potentially creating more habitat for these ferns and herbs. 

Potential indirect effects associated with the proposed activities of alternative 2 to these species are soil 

erosion, soil compaction, vegetation trampling and vegetation density reduction mostly associated with

providing recreation and forest products; although this alternative proposes activities such as 

collaboration, environmental education and other management strategies that could mitigate these indirect 

effects.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects in this alternative will be associated with the intensity and proximity of the 

activities implementation. Direct and indirect effects may be compounded if proximity of projects to each 

other is not considered. 

Alternative 3

Increased management of invasive species at identified sites like road right-of-ways, recreation areas, and 

threatened or endangered species habitats may have direct positive effects on these species by potentially 

creating more habitat for these ferns and herbs.

Beneficial effects may occur from management of road and trail system maintenance levels, considering 

it would reduce the impacts on the species due to human interaction in certain areas where the species is 

located. The exclusion of the scenic byway management area will reduce the vegetation management 

effects at the Forest level. The Forest will have fewer activities on the corridor and therefore result in 

fewer management actions that could affect the species in this particular area of the Forest. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as described for alternative 2.

3.4.4 Forest Health 

Functioning ecological systems that support the diversity of native plants and animals depend on healthy 

forests to warrant the physical and biotic resources to support these systems. Most of the ecosystems 

dominated by native species are resistant or resilient to dramatic change caused by abiotic and biotic 

stressors. Through an adaptive management approach, priorities for management activities can be 

modified to respond to changing conditions that could affect the functioning ecological systems of the 

Forest. In El Yunque, the forest types area associated with the elevation and amount of rain they receive, 

creating conditions to the define areas of the Forest as wetland and other, as with a mosaic of vegetation 

species because of previous management practices and disturbances that dominate the lower elevations of 

the Forest.

3.4.4.1 Affected Environment: Terrestrial Ecosystems–Vegetation

The Plan established the preservation of mature forests and the conservation, maintenance, and restoration 

primarily with native species. The secondary montane wet forest and secondary submontane moist forest 

will be evaluated in relation to the ecological vegetation composition and ecological functions to monitor 

its resistance or resiliency to dramatic change caused by abiotic and biotic stressors.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

143

3.4.4.2 Environmental Consequences: Terrestrial Ecosystems–Vegetation

Alternative 1

This alternative maintains the management conditions of the 1997 Plan in which the re-construction of 

trails was considered in areas of mature forests. A demonstration project of sustainable timber production 

was also considered as part of the management strategies for alternative 1. The timber demonstration area 

considers the removal of up to one-third of the overstory trees. The alternative also considers the 

application of selective cuttings to benefit trees with greater potential for future growth and value. For 

alternative 1, the expected direct and indirect effects are minimal because of the standard and guidelines 

considered for the restoration of the trails and because the timber demonstration project include no mature 

forest and only represents a small part of the Forest (1,167 acres). No alterations of the vegetation 

diversity are expected from the management applications.

Alternative 2 and 3

These alternatives include the vision of retaining a healthy, accessible, and sustainable forest that 

integrates multiple uses; provides economic, ecological, and social opportunities; promotes education, 

environmental justice, cultural and environmental identity, and awareness for the conservation of its 

natural resources; and for adaptive forest management that is inclusive and collaborative. The alternatives 

also identify geographic areas for El Yunque Region. This approach benefits the evaluation of the 

terrestrial ecosystem in relation to the vegetation because the geographic areas permit the development of 

specific desired conditions, objectives, goals, and other plan components conducive to effective planning 

and management that fit the sub-regional context. 

For alternative 2 the region is divided in three geographic areas providing a watershed management 

component to the geographic areas that integrate the municipalities of Ceiba and Fajardo. The application 

of this third geographic area provides an important recognition to the water resources of El Yunque and 

deals with an integrated watershed management approach that could be applied according to the 

watershed classification framework. Both alternatives consider the CIRMA that merges segments of the 

Forest that were considered for timber demonstration, developed recreation and integrated management in 

the 1997 Plan. This consolidation of lands under one management area provide sections of the Forest

where an assortment of resource management practices could be applied to encourage tropical forest 

management initiatives in the broader landscape of El Yunque. The CIRMA management area is at the 

lower elevation areas of the Forest and it includes areas where plantations for potential timber projects 

were established in previous management plans. The absence of timber stand improvements in plantations 

and the impact of natural disturbances have created a mosaic of vegetation in these areas where 

introduced species, like the mahogany, share the forest composition with native species. The stand 

dynamic of these forests is different from other mature forests within El Yunque and the succession that 

these forest stands that follow will create a combination of species that tropical ecologists have identified 

as an “emerging forest.” The adaptation and naturalization of invasive species in these areas added with 

climate changes and the tension created by external land uses in the periphery of the Forest present 

conditions that require a special outlook to the forests that compose the CIRMA. The standards and 

guidelines considered for this management area will diminish any direct or indirect effects.

Cumulative Effects

The alternatives 2 and 3 include the geographic area approaches that provide regional perspective of the 

vegetation management. These alternatives could represent positive effects for the vegetation of the 

region as private lands are considered and observed as part of the regional management approach. The 

Community Interface Resource Management Area (CIRMA) provides opportunities for forest product 

utilization strategies that are applied in other tropical forests that can be coordinated with community 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

144

groups and residents. The application of agroforestry initiatives such as analog forestry, a form of 

agroforestry that maintains a tree-dominated ecosystem while providing marketable products (IAFN 

2012), could represent restoration initiatives with potential economic revenues. The demonstration and 

application of these practices could be reproduced in other areas promoting the extension of the forest 

coverage in the region.

3.4.4.3 Affected Environment: Insects and Diseases

This section examines the potential threats to forest health and those that might require active prevention, 

suppression, or monitoring efforts, as well as strategies in each of the three alternatives for achieving 

healthy forests. 

Alternative 1 maintains a timber demonstration area that used a reduced area of the Forest for the 

silvicultural practices associated for the project. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not consider a timber 

demonstration project, but include the CIRMA located at the lower elevation areas of the Forest and 

adjacent areas where plantations for potential timber projects were established in previous management 

plans. In this management area, an assortment of resource management practices could be applied to 

encourage tropical forest management initiatives in the broader landscape of El Yunque. 

The considered actions and standards and guidelines defined for the CIRMA are expected to improve the 

native species diversity and the resilience of the area to potential stressors such as diseases, insect 

outbreaks and responses to natural disturbances. Some of the specifications for this area include: 

Maintain trees and vegetation on the stream bank except at designated crossings or for ecological or 

stream restoration.

Conduct enrichment planting strategies in the riparian zone with native species.

Retain stumps, standing snags, den trees, and coarse woody debris. Exceptions may be made where 

necessary to control insects or disease outbreaks or to provide public and employee safety.

Forest products projects should maintain forest canopy coverage of the area. If a natural disturbance 

occurs, prevent further canopy openings and downed timber should be identified for salvage. 

The rapid growth rate of some tropical trees species, as well as the fact that the growth is continuous over 

much of the year, allow trees to outgrow the attack from most leaf-feeding insects (Hodges and 

McFadden 1987). Insects also have beneficial roles in the Forest such as the process of pollination and 

seed dispersal. Some birds and fishes rely on insects for their nutrition. Drewry (1970) published a list of 

1,200 insects collected at El Verde and were deposited in the collection at El Verde Field Station. 

The literature did not account for major harmful effects from insects in El Yunque National Forest. 

Studies for some species like Heliconia caribaea (Richardson and Hull 2000) and in Bromeliads 

(Richardson 1999) show a high diversity of ecosystems at different scales of the Forest that are important 

to the insect fauna of the Forest. 

The Forest Service conducts communication efforts and participates in interagency groups that focus on 

monitoring and identification of insect outbreaks in Puerto Rico. The USDA Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS), the Department of Agriculture of Puerto Rico, the Department of Natural 

and Environmental Resources, the Agricultural Experimental Station of the University of Puerto Rico, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service integrate a working group for the reported cases of 

Hypogeococcus pungens; an insect, native to South America, that attacks the cactus of the Island. Similar 

approaches were done for the pink hibiscus mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus) that attacks more than 

200 plant species, including agricultural value species. This bug has been controlled with biological 

controls and no major problems have been reported in the Forest from this insect. The red palm mite
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

145

(Raoiella indica Hirst), a pest of several important ornamental and fruit-producing palm species, has 

invaded the Western Hemisphere and is in the process of colonizing islands in the Caribbean, as well as 

other areas on the mainland. In November 2006, this pest was found in Puerto Rico, but it has not been 

reported in El Yunque. The Tabebuia trees through the Island have been observed with dramatically 

deformed foliage. The deformations were produced by the thrips named Holopothrips tabebuiae and it 

was reported in Puerto Rico in 2007. Within 6 months of its discovery in Puerto Rico virtually every 

Tabebuia heterophylla, commonly called the roble rosado, was infested and displaying the symptoms of 

crinkled leaves, deformed by the feeding thrips. Other species of Tabebuia are also infested, but at much 

lower rates. The thrips and their damage are still common, but the thrips do not appear to have impacted 

the populations of Tabebuia heterophylla in Puerto Rico. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

The proposed management applications for the three alternatives maintain a monitoring protocol and the 

collaborative initiatives with agencies that observe insect and diseases outbreaks in Puerto Rico. No direct 

or indirect effects are expected, and alternative 2 includes the management practices as well as the 

standards and guidelines to improve the native species diversity and the resilience of the area to potential 

stressors such as diseases, insect outbreaks and responses to natural disturbances.

Alternatives 2 and 3 include the geographic areas for El Yunque region and this perspective of the “alllands” approach should benefit the monitoring strategies as well as the participation of organizations and 

interest groups that could help in the identification of changes in species conditions that could be 

associated with insect and diseases outbreaks.

Table 3-31. Invasive faunal species (for management responses) 

Species Name Status Threats posed Management Responses

Mongoose 

Herpestes auropunctatus

Occurs throughout El 

Yunque National Forest, 

concentrates at recreation 

areas

Disease vector, potential 

aggressive human 

interactions, predation on 

Federally-listed species. 

Live trapping for removal

Black rats

Rattus rattus

Occurs throughout El 

Yunque National Forest

Disease vector, potential 

aggressive human

interactions, predation on 

Federally-listed species.

Live trapping for removal 

and use of rodenticides

Feral dog

Canis familiarus

Occurs on man-made 

transportation systems 

and recreation areas

Disease vector, potential 

aggressive human 

interactions

Live trapping for removal

Feral cats

Felis catus

Occurs on man-made 

transportation systems 

and recreation areas

Disease vector, potential 

aggressive human 

interactions

Live trapping for removal

Iguana

Iguana iguana

Occurs at random 

locations throughout El 

Yunque National Forest

potential aggressive 

human interactions

Live trapping for removal

House mouse

Mus musculus

Occurs throughout El 

Yunque National Forest

Disease vector Live trapping for removal

3.4.4.4 Affected Environment: Invasive Fauna and Diseases

Terrestrial species such as mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus), black rats (Rattus rattus), feral dogs 

(Canis familiarus) cats (Felis catus) the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the house mouse (Mus musculus) are 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

146

reported in the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment. These species can affect niche availability and individual 

behavior of native and endemic species. Some of these species are associated with recreational areas 

because of the availability of food leftovers. The wild and scenic rivers management area are maintained 

in all the considered alternatives and the trapping and removal of feral dogs, cats, and mongoose is 

considered as part of the standard and guidelines management applications. For both alternatives 2 and 3 

in regard to feral dogs and cats, there will be better collaboration with municipalities to use pounds for the 

collection of captured individuals. All species found in table 3-31 shall not have any significant 

management response changes in either alternatives, except for the scale of treating the species. The most 

significant is alternative 2, which aims at managing throughout El Yunque National Forest. Alternative 3 

is focused only at identified sites like road right-of-ways, recreation areas, and threatened or endangered 

species habitats.

The chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatis) was identified in Puerto Rico since the mid-1970s 

(Longo et al. 2010). The fungus has affected populations of endemic coquis (tree frogs) species and 

scientists believe that it can be exacerbated by climate change. The considered alternatives are not 

expected to promote the fungus conditions in the native and endemic fauna that could be affected. 

3.4.4.5 Environmental Consequences: Invasive Fauna and Diseases

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3

Alternative 1 considers the development of recreational areas that could have indirect effects in the 

presence of some of the invasive fauna identified as undesirable in the natural environment of the Forest. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 consider the use of the lower elevations and the spaces with potential use in the 

CIRMA to disperse recreational activities and reduce pressure in some of the current recreational areas. 

This action could produce some indirect effects in relation to the presence of invasive fauna species in the 

CIRMA, but could also produce a positive direct effect if the invasive fauna populations decrease in the 

higher elevation zones of the Forest. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 include the geographic areas for the forest region and the participation of 

organizations and interest groups that could help in the control strategies and in the outreach process to 

reduce the behavior of visitors that could increase the populations of invasive fauna, which in turn could 

affect the forest environment. The effects to public health and ecological dynamics of feral dogs, cats, and 

mongoose are expected to be locally controlled with the trap and removal standard and guidelines 

applications. 

3.4.4.6 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: Invasive Plant 

Species

Invasive plant species have been introduced to the Forest either accidentally (i.e. escaped ornamental) or 

purposefully (for agricultural or forestry purposes). Species such as bamboo were planted for erosion 

control along roads have spread beyond their original planted areas. The blue-green fern or the peacock 

fern (Selaginella willdenowii) was probably planted as an ornamental in the surrounding houses of the 

Forest. Other species have been identified in these areas that are associated with the lower elevations 

zones of the forest and areas with a historical land use that included agricultural activities applied before 

their integration as a designated National Forest. Some examples are kudzu (Pueraria phaseoloides) and 

rose apple (Syzygium jambos). Regardless of how they were introduced, they displace native species from 

their habitat and have the potential to alter forest structure and ecosystem processes. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

147

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3

Alternative 1 includes the timber demonstration area where these areas will be managed to maintain the 

composition of timber species, mainly mahogany. Alternatives 2 and 3 consider the use of the lower 

elevations of the CIRMA to develop projects that encourage forest management initiatives that could be 

applied to tropical forests. The standards and guidelines considered establish specific conditions to assure 

the ecosystems functions and the application of practices that benefit the native species, such as: 

Conduct enrichment planting strategies in the riparian zone within the CIRMA with native species, 

and control high-priority plant invasive species using mechanical, hand removal, and/or other manual 

techniques with a monitoring protocol and replace them with native plant species.

Do not remove trees and vegetation on the stream bank except at designated crossings or for 

ecological or stream restoration. Forest products projects should maintain forest canopy coverage of 

the areas. If a natural disturbance occurs that opens the canopy, prevent further canopy openings in a 

forest product project and downed timber should be identified for salvage. 

3.4.4.7 Affected Environment: Invasive Aquatic Species

The aquatic ecosystems of the Forest were defined by two elements in the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment: 

Defined in relation to the type of stream and rivers that occur in the planning area, and 

Defined by the composition and structure of the aquatic faunal communities that persist in the Forest 

steams.

The many invasive aquatic species are generally found in modified habitats, such as in reservoirs and 

downstream of instream aquatic species movement barriers. 

3.4.4.8 Environmental Consequences: Invasive Aquatic Species

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3

Alternative 1 does not specify management of invasive aquatic species. None of the invasive aquatic 

species are classified as federally listed aquatic species. In alternatives 2 and 3 standards and guidelines 

would provide for the maintenance of healthy native wildlife and aquatic species populations, including 

monitoring for changes over time. 

3.5 Economic and Social Environment 

3.5.1 Socioeconomics

3.5.1.1 Affected Environment

Humans have long-standing and complex ties to El Yunque. The human uses, values, interactions, and 

impacts associated with the Forest have shifted over time. Historically, the area now encompassed by El 

Yunque was a place of sacred and supernatural experience revered by the Taínos and other pre-Colombian 

inhabitants. Through the process of European colonization and early association with the United States, 

the Forest increasingly came to be seen through a utilitarian lens as a source of timber and later, charcoal, 

water, and recreation (Domínguez Cristóbal 1997a, 1997b; Robinson 1997). Today, people view the 

Forest as a place of profound ecological, social, economic, historical, and cultural importance, and 

associate it with a wide range of benefits and services for local communities and society at large. 

It is important to understand the socioeconomic conditions and trends in and around the Forest and how 

they might be affected by Forest management decisions, particularly as neighboring and nearby 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

148

communities often have strong ties to public lands and are those most likely to be affected by changes in 

management direction and use. In this section, we provide information on the socioeconomic environment 

surrounding El Yunque and analyze the potential effects of the three proposed alternatives on local 

communities, the broader region within which it is situated, and society at large. Consistent with the 2014 

Forest Plan Assessment and other planning documents, nine municipalities comprise the socioeconomic 

environment described in this section: Canóvanas, Ceiba, Fajardo, Juncos, Las Piedras, Luquillo, 

Naguabo, Humacao and Río Grande (also referred to here as El Yunque Region or the region)(map 1-1). 

These municipalities and the communities therein have longstanding social and economic ties to the 

Forest and the goods and services that it protects and provides.

Below, we describe the current conditions and trends related to the socioeconomic environment in the 

area surrounding El Yunque (i.e., affected environment), including population dynamics, human health 

and well-being, economic diversity, and other socioeconomic factors. This information provides a 

baseline against which the potential consequences of alternative management scenarios can be measured. 

Then, we describe the economic implications of plan alternatives taking into account potential changes in 

budget expenditures associated with management actions on the Forest, as well as potential changes in 

collaboration and partnerships associated with new and modified management strategies. We then discuss 

the social implications of management actions and strategies, focusing on communities of place (i.e., 

defined by geographic or political boundaries) and interest (e.g., stakeholder or interest groups). 

Information is analyzed at multiple levels (e.g., community, municipal, regional) to provide for a better 

understanding of existing and potential intraregional differences and nuances. Future projections are 

largely based on qualitative analysis carried out by a multi-disciplinary team of scientists and 

practitioners. 

Table 3-32. Total area and national forest area in El Yunque Region

Municipality Total Area 

(square miles)

Total Area 

(acres)

NF Area 

(square miles)

NF Area (acres) NF Acreage

(percentage)

Canóvanas 33.00 21,121 3.19 2,042 9.7

Ceiba 29.26 18,729 3.34 2,135 11.5

Fajardo 30.23 19,348 0.95 608 3.2

Humacao 44.75 28,640 0 0 0 

Juncos 26.59 17,017 0.03 21 0.1

Las Piedras 33.89 21,692 1.98 1,268 5.8

Luquillo 25.79 16,503 5.62 3,599 21.6

Naguabo 51.78 33,141 8.38 5,360 16.1

Río Grande 60.85 38,943 20.26 12,969 33.2

Region 336.14 215,134 43.75 28,002 13.0

Puerto Rico 3,515 2,249,600 43.75 28,002 1.2

The nine municipalities surrounding El Yunque extend over 336 square miles (about 10 percent of Puerto 

Rico’s total area) (table 3-32). They encompass coastline, plains, hills, and mountains within a complex 

matrix of land cover and use (Gould et al. 2012). El Yunque accounts for 13 percent of their total 

combined area. Eight municipalities have some of their land base within the boundaries of El Yunque, 

ranging from less than 1 percent of the total area of Juncos to more than 33 percent of Río Grande). 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

149

Humacao is the only municipality in El Yunque Region with no land falling within the national Forest 

boundary. 

Table 3-33. Total population and population change in the municipalities in El Yunque Region and Puerto 

Rico, 1970–2014, select years

Population (average annual change)

Area 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014

Canóvanas - 31,880 

(-) 

36,816 

(1.55%)

43,335 

(1.77%)

47,648 

(0.99%)

47,648

(-0.04%)

Ceiba 10,312 14,944 

(4.49%)

17,145 

(1.47%)

18,004 

(0.50%)

13,631 

(-2.43%)

12,607

(-0.75%)

Fajardo 23,032 32,087

(3.93%)

36,882

(1.49%)

40,712

(1.04%)

36,993 

(-.091%)

34,049

(-0.80%)

Humacao 36,023 46,134

(2.81%)

55,203

(1.97%)

59,035

(0.69%)

58,466

(-0.10%)

57,181

(-0.55%)

Juncos 21,814 25,397

(1.64%)

30,612

(2.05%)

36,452

(1.91%)

40,290

(1.05%)

40,102

(-0.47%)

Las Piedras 18,112 22,412

(2.37%)

27,896

(2.45%)

34,485

(2.36%)

38,675

(1.22%)

38,671

(0.00%)

Luquillo 10,390 14,895

(4.34%)

18,100

(2.15%)

19,817

(0.95%)

20,068

(0.13%)

19,338

(-0.91%)

Naguabo 17,996 20,617

(1.46%)

22,620

(0.97%)

23,753

(0.50%)

26,720

(1.25%)

26,886

(0.16%)

Río Grande 22,032 34,283

(5.56%)

45,648

(3.32%)

52,362

(1.47%)

54,304

(0.37%)

52,668

(-0.75%)

Region - 242,649

(-) 

290,922

(2.00%)

327,955

(1.41%)

336,795

(0.35%)

328,959

(-0.59%)

% Puerto Rico - 6.15% 6.69% 8.61% 9.04% 9.27%

Puerto Rico 2,712,033 3,196,520

(7.59%)

3,522,037

(8.26%)

3,808,610

(7.52%)

3,725,789

(-2.22%)

3,548,397

(-4.76%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder 2015.

Population Trends

Information on population and other demographic conditions and trends is fundamental to sound resource 

management, particularly in terms of understanding and managing human-environment interactions. 

Nearly 330,000 people lived in the nine municipalities comprising El Yunque Region in 2014 (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2015) (table 3-33). Humacao had the largest population (57,181), followed by Río Grande 

and Canóvanas (52,668; 47,457, respectively); while Ceiba and Luquillo had the smallest populations 

(12,607; 19,338, respectively). The area surrounding El Yunque accommodated a growing population and 

an increasing percent of Puerto Rico’s total population through the early 2000s. However, the total 

number of inhabitants in the region is estimated to have declined since about 2010, decreasing by 2.35 

percent between 2010 and 2014 (˗0.59 percent per year) (U.S. Census Bureau 2015) (figure 3-7). During 

this period, Naguabo was the only municipality in the area that continued to see an estimated increase in 

population (0.16 percent per year), while Las Piedras showed no measurable change in its population and 

the other seven municipalities saw population declines. Fajardo and Ceiba demonstrated the highest rates 

of population loss between 2010 and 2014 (˗1.99, ˗1.88 percent per year, respectively). These losses 

continued a downward trend experienced in the two municipalities beginning in the mid-2000s, attributed 

in part to the closure of Roosevelt Roads Naval Base in 2004, which led to the relocation of thousands of 

military members and their families to other bases around the world. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

150

Puerto Rico as a whole has seen significant changes in the size of its population since the early 2000s 

(i.e., 2000–2010: ˗0.22 percent per year; 2010–2014: ˗1.19 percent per year) (U.S. Census Bureau 2015), 

demonstrating the greatest exodus of people since the “Great Migration” of Puerto Ricans to mainland 

U.S. following World War II (Cohn et al. 2014). Population loss across Puerto Rico, including El Yunque 

Region, is projected to persist and perhaps increase with continued outmigration (e.g., 2015–2025 

projected at ˗6.9 percent (Banco Popular de Puerto Rico 2013) and an overall decline in birth rates (e.g., 

2000: 15.2, 2013: 10.1 live births per 1,000 persons) (CDC 2002, 2015)). 

It is estimated that 135,000 Puerto Ricans relocated to the United States six months after Hurricane Maria 

landed in Puerto Rico (Hinojosa, Román, & Meléndez, 2018). 

Figure 3-7. Total population in the municipalities surrounding El Yunque, 1970 to 2014 

Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder (2015).

Table 3-34. Population density in El Yunque Region and Puerto Rico, 1970–2014, select years

Geographic Area Population Density persons/mi2

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014

Canóvanas - 966.1 1,122.4 1,321.2 1,449.8 1,438.1

Ceiba 381.9 553.5 591.2 620.8 469.5 430.9

Fajardo 743.0 1,002.7 1,233.5 1,361.6 1,238.7 1,126.3

Humacao 1,277.8

Juncos 839.0 940.6 1,150.8 1,370.4 1,521.0 1,508.2

Las Piedras 548.8 659.2 822.9 1,017.3 1,141.5 1,141.1

Luquillo 399.6 572.9 704.3 771.1 777.5 7,49.8

Naguabo 346.1 396.5 437.5 459.4 517.2 519.2

Río Grande 361.2 553.0 752.0 862.6 895.8 865.5

El Yunque Region - 674.6 809.2 923.1 955.4 978.64

Puerto Rico 792.3 924.4 1,027.9 1,112.0 1,088.2 1,009.5
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

151

Population Density

There were about 933 persons per square mile in El Yunque Region in 2014, which was slightly less than 

the population density Islandwide (1,009 persons per square mile) (U.S. Census Bureau) (table 3-34). 

Population densities within the region have increased since 1970, though growth peaked in the early 

2000s, following the total population trend. Intra-regionally, there was considerable variation in 

population densities at the municipal level, ranging from 431 persons per square mile in Ceiba to 1,508 

persons per square mile in Juncos. Notably, Ceiba’s population density in 2010, while the lowest in the 

region, still ranked higher than 93 percent of all counties in the U.S. Additionally, Puerto Rico’s 

population density in 2010 was second only to New Jersey (1,196 persons per square mile) and places 

Puerto Rico among the most densely populated countries in the world (UN 2013). 

Urban/rural Population2

Population growth in the region surrounding El Yunque throughout much of the 20th Century, led to 

extensive expansion in housing, infrastructure, and other built-up areas, and ultimately, more than 95 

percent of the population being classified as urban by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, ranging from 88 

percent in Ceiba to 98 percent in Fajardo (table 3-35). As recently as the 1970s, more than 60 percent of 

the area’s population was classified as rural (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). Since then, the area has steadily 

shifted from a rural to an urban dominated population as the density of residents and residential, 

commercial, and other developed areas have increased. Only Ceiba has seen a recent decline in the 

percent of its population that is classified as urban, which is attributable in large part to the marked 

decline in its total population since the early 2000s (table 3-35 and figure 3-7). Similar trends may be seen 

in much of the region, as people continue to leave the Island from both urban and rural areas and as 

population totals continue to decline. Nevertheless, given the density of housing, infrastructure, and other 

built up areas, and the persisting high density of inhabitants, the population surrounding El Yunque is 

likely to remain highly urbanized into the foreseeable future. 

Urbanization can result in increased job opportunities and better health care options as compared to rural 

areas, but also often implies increased demands and impacts on natural resources and services (McKinney 

2002). Increases in housing, infrastructure, and other built-up areas has directly impacted forest cover in 

the region through its removal, affecting forest processes through fragmentation of the landscape, 

disruption of hydrological systems, introduction of invasive species, and interruption of nutrient cycles, 

for example, which collectively result in changes in the benefits and services that a forest provides (Lugo 

et al. 2004). The impacts of urbanization are further compounded in the context of global climate change, 

particularly in places like Puerto Rico, where human resources and capital infrastructure to address such 

problems are limited. For example, as projected sea level rise leads to a loss of land and infrastructure, 

there is potential for inland and upland migrations of populations, resulting in more intensive and 

extensive urban development closer to the Forest edge (Lewsey et al. 2004; Kelman and West 2009). 

Indirectly, increases in population density and urbanization can lead to impoverishments in the quality of 

recreational and other human interactions with nature due to the loss of open spaces, natural scenery, 

recreational sites, and other resources (Lugo et al. 2004). And while the population in Puerto Rico in 

general and around El Yunque in particular, has recently begun to decrease, high rates of population 

density and development persist, with ongoing implications for the Forest, its management, and its 

interconnections with other natural or vegetated areas within the broader landscape. 

 

2 In the remainder of this section, data is provided for the eight municipalities directly bordering El Yunque, 

following the analysis conducted for the Forest Assessment. Humacao was not analyzed in the Assessment and 

therefore is not included in the remaining data presented here.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

152

Table 3-35. Population classified as urban by the U.S. Census Bureau in the region surrounding El Yunque 

National Forest, select years 1970 to 2010

Jurisdiction Urban Population as Percent of Total Population

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Canóvanas * 61.3 69.1 97.3 97.7

Ceiba 28.6 60.9 78.7 92.7 88.2

Fajardo 79.2 83.9 85.8 97.8 97.9

Juncos 36.6 72.7 81.4 98.5 96.8

Las Piedras 25.6 27.0 58.6 93.1 97.6

Luquillo 0.0 30.4 47.9 93.9 91.6

Naguabo 25.7 20.1 27.6 91.1 90.6

Río Grande 31.8 56.2 55.3 95.6 97.4

Region 36.7 55.0 64.5 95.6 96.0

Puerto Rico 58.1 66.8 71.2 94.4 93.4

* Canóvanas was legally designated as a municipality in September 1970, after the decennial census was conducted. Therefore, the 

regional data point does not include Canóvanas in the 1970 data point. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Factfinder 2015.

Age and Gender

The median age of the regional population has been increasing slowly over the past several decades, 

ranging from 34.3 to 37.7 years in 2014 (Naguabo, Ceiba, respectively) (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). 

Except for Fajardo and Ceiba, the municipalities surrounding El Yunque have slightly younger 

populations than the United States and Puerto Rico as a whole (i.e., 36.8, 36.9 years, respectively). The 

municipalities to the south of the Forest (Naguabo, Las Piedras, Juncos) had the youngest populations in 

the region in terms of the median age of their inhabitants, followed by the municipalities to the north 

(Canóvanas, Río Grande, Luquillo), and those to the east (Fajardo, Ceiba). Females represent slightly 

more of the regional population than males (52 versus 48 percent, respectively) (figure 3-8). When age is 

considered, females account for 50.5 percent and males for 49.5 percent of the population aged 44 years 

and less, but in the population aged 45 years and older, females account for 54.3 percent of the total. 

While the population surrounding El Yunque has aged slowly but steadily in recent decades, the age 

structure of the regional population has changed quite dramatically in recent years (figure 3-8). Through 

the end of the 20th Century, the municipalities surrounding the Forest demonstrated a pyramidal age 

structure, which is associated with moderate population growth (i.e., proportionally more of the 

population is found in the younger age groups). By 2014, the age structure shifted to a more conical 

shape, with a smaller proportion of children (less than 18 years of age) and a greater proportion of 

individuals aged 40 years or more in the population. This shift is indicative of very limited to no 

population growth as the proportion of individuals in each age group falls within a small range of 

variation. Canóvanas and Fajardo saw some of the most pronounced changes in population structure 

during this time as the proportion of individuals in older age groups expanded and younger age groups 

retracted (McGinley 2016).
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

153

Figure 3-8. Total population of El Yunque Region in 2000 and 2014 by age and gender

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Factfinder (2015).

As the population around the Forest continues to shift in terms of number, age structure, and gender 

distribution, as predicted in the near term at least, changes are likely to occur in individual and 

community values, uses, needs, and demands on public lands. For example, in general, the emigrants 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

154

leaving Puerto Rico in recent years are younger on average than those who remain in Puerto Rico, but 

have similar or slightly lower levels of educational attainment as the Islandwide population (refuting 

reports of a perceived “brain drain” [i.e., increasing out-migration of the most educated and trained 

professionals] in Puerto Rico) (Birston and Meléndez 2015; Duany 2015). This leaves behind a growing 

segment of the population over 45 years of age. The already perceptible shifts in the region’s population 

and age structure, which are likely to be exacerbated by increasing emigration, will bring with them 

changes in the needs and demands for health care, education, recreation, and other resources and 

amenities that directly and indirectly influence the Forest and its planning and management, including 

new and different opportunities for Forest use and interaction.

Education

In 2010, 69 percent of the adult population (25 years or older) in the area had finished high school (69 

percent) and about 19 percent had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher (19 percent) (table 3-36). 

Educational attainment in the region is slightly less than Islandwide rates, and lower than the mainland 

U.S. rates (high school or higher: 87.1; bachelor’s or higher: 29.9). Within the region, Fajardo and Ceiba 

were the most educated in terms of adults with high school and college education, while Naguabo and Las 

Piedras had the lowest percent of their adult populations having earned a high school and bachelor’s 

degree. The number and percent of the population with high school and college education increased 

significantly throughout the region from 1990 to 2010. Given Islandwide trends, the region is expected to 

continue to see slow but steady increases in overall educational attainment, despite declines in total 

population (Birston and Meléndez 2015; Duany 2015). 

Table 3-36. Educational level of the population aged 25 years or more in the region surrounding El Yunque 

National Forest and Puerto Rico, 1990, 2000, and 2010

Total Population > 25 years Percent of Population > 25 years

High School

Graduate or Higher

Bachelor’s Degree 

or Higher

1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010

Canóvanas 19,629 24,911 29,770 44.2 54.9 69.3 8.2 10.9 18.7

Ceiba 9,136 10,733 9,158 60.3 66.0 70.7 10.2 16.3 22.0

Fajardo 20,668 25,203 24,231 51.3 63.2 72.6 11.7 16.2 21.5

Juncos 16,855 21,627 25,513 40.7 56.0 70.0 8.3 13.2 19.1

Las Piedras 15,121 20,324 24,916 43.8 57.0 68.2 8.7 13.1 18.2

Luquillo 9,933 11,858 13,008 50.6 59.8 70.8 11.4 17.6 17.6

Naguabo 12,326 14,120 16,840 40.5 51.9 65.7 8.4 12.3 17.6

Río Grande 24,522 31,032 35,204 47.9 59.5 70.6 11.9 13.6 19.6

Region 130,180 159,808 178,640 46.1 57.9 69.7 9.8 14.2 19.3

Puerto Rico 1,952,297 2,288,326 2,438,057 49.7 60.0 68.6 14.3 18.3 22.0

Source: (1990) Oficina del Censo, Junta de Planificación de Puerto Rico 2015; (2000, 2010) U.S. Census Bureau, American 

Factfinder (2015). 

Income and Poverty

Personal and family income are key indicators of the overall economic conditions or well-being of a 

community and are important considerations in public land management decisions, particularly where 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

155

these decisions may affect income opportunities. Per capita income in the municipalities surrounding El 

Yunque was $9,451 in 2010, which was slightly less than that of Puerto Rico as a whole ($10,355) (table 

3-37). There were fairly sizable intraregional differences in income, ranging from a per capita income of 

$7,548 in Naguabo to $10,409 in Río Grande, and a median family income of $18,109 in Naguabo to 

$24,160 in Río Grande. Overall, the municipalities in the northern part of the region (Río Grande, 

Canóvanas, and Luquillo) had higher median family and per capita income in 2010, followed by those in 

the East (Fajardo and Ceiba), while the municipalities in the southern part of the study area (Naguabo, 

Las Piedras, Juncos) exhibited comparatively lower income levels.

Census Information Center from the University of Puerto Rico (2017) estimates that the level of poverty 

increased from 44 percent before hurricanes to 52 percent by December 2017, potentially reaching 60 

percent in 2018. Highest poverty rate occurs in children (under 18 years old) (57 percent pre-hurricanes) 

and is expected to have increased after hurricanes. 

Table 3-37. Per capita and median family income in current dollars (not adjusted for inflation) of Puerto Rico 

and the municipalities surrounding El Yunque National Forest, select years 1970 to 2010

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Per Capita Income

Canóvanas * $1,650 $3,303 $5,917 $9,852

Ceiba $1,233 $2,817 $5,119 $9,256 $9,658

Fajardo $1,160 $1,925 $4,148 $7,852 $9,949

Juncos $801 $1,623 $3,388 $6,369 $8,968

Las Piedras $714 $1,627 $3,965 $6,427 $9,078

Luquillo $861 $1,633 $3,795 $7,529 $10,506

Naguabo $768 $1,581 $3,221 $6,960 $7,548

Río Grande $754 $1,772 $3,529 $7,347 $10,049

Puerto Rico $981 $2,126 $4,177 $8,185 $10,355

Median Family Income

Canóvanas * $5,431 $9,499 $15,033 $24,122

Ceiba $3,947 $7,355 $13,159 $18,851 $22,768

Fajardo $3,574 $5,381 $10,843 $18,387 $22,095

Juncos $2,842 $5,073 $9,144 $14,672 $20,282

Las Piedras $2,691 $5,339 $10,251 $16,408 $20,931

Luquillo $3,039 $5,296 $10,264 $15,203 $22,866

Naguabo $2,350 $4,725 $8,795 $12,957 $18,109

Río Grande $2,793 $5,980 $10,795 $17,033 $24,160

Puerto Rico $3,063 $5,923 $9,988 $16,543 $21,764

* Canóvanas was legally designated as a municipality in September 1970, after the decennial census was conducted.

Source: (1970-1990) Oficina del Censo, Junta de Planificación de Puerto Rico 2015; (2000, 2010) U.S. Census Bureau, American 

Factfinder (2015). 

Per capita and median family incomes in current dollars (value at the time earned/received) have 

increased across Puerto Rico and within the study area for several decades. However, to accurately 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

156

compare income over time, summary measures (medians, means, etc.) should be adjusted to account for 

changes in the cost of living (i.e., inflation) (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). When adjusted for inflation, 

income across Puerto Rico and within the area around El Yunque have only modestly increased since 

1970 (0.66 percent per year and 0.71 percent per year from 1970 to 2010, respectively) (figure 3-9). 

Within the study area, Río Grande experienced the greatest average annual increase in real median family 

income at a rate of 1.35 percent per year over inflation from 1970 to 2010. Ceiba demonstrated the lowest 

growth rate in real median family income at 0.07 percent per year during this 40-year time period. 

Ultimately, while median family and per capita income have increased in the study area and across Puerto 

Rico over the past several decades, they have only modestly outpaced the rate of inflation. This slow 

growth in personal and family income is in large part a reflection of the sluggish Puerto Rican economy 

that has struggled for decades under mounting government debt and the high costs of doing business on 

the Island (Cohn et al. 2014; Federal Reserve Bank of New York 2012). 

Figure 3-9. Real median family income (adjusted for inflation to the value of a U.S. dollar in 2010) of Puerto 

Rico and of the municipalities surrounding El Yunque National Forest, select years 1970 to 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Factfinder (2015).

Poverty

Poverty levels are another important indicator of community well-being. In 2010, about 44.2 percent of 

the population in the region was living below the poverty level as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau 

(2015). Fairly significant intraregional differences existed, with Fajardo and Río Grande having the 

lowest poverty rates (42.1 percent), and Naguabo demonstrating the highest (52.6 percent). The 

percentages of people living below the poverty level generally have been declining throughout the region 

since 1970 at least, with the exception of Ceiba, which increased to 43.1 percent in 2010 from 38.6 

percent in 2000 (Oficina del Censo 2015) (figure 3-10). Despite general improvements, poverty in the 

region and across Puerto Rico occurs at significantly higher rates than in the U.S. For example, the 

percent of people living in poverty in the region surrounding El Yunque in 2010 was nearly three times 

the national rate (14.3 percent) and almost double that of Mississippi (21 percent), which had the highest 

state-wide poverty rate in the U.S. in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). 

Children represent a disproportionate share of the poor in El Yunque region, as throughout Puerto Rico. In 

2013, children (less than 18 years of age) represented less than 25 percent of the total population in the 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

157

region, but they represented more than 33 percent of the population living below the poverty level (figure 

3-10). Of the estimated 71,912 children living in the region in 2013, 56 percent were considered to be 

living below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). Intraregional differences were notable for this 

variable as well, as the municipalities to the south of El Yunque along with Luquillo had higher childhood 

poverty rates than the other municipalities in the northern and eastern vicinities of the Forest. Naguabo 

had the highest childhood poverty rate at 67.5 percent in 2010. Ceiba demonstrated the greatest increase 

in the childhood poverty rate (0.93 percent per year) between 2000 and 2010, despite a decrease in the 

total number of children living in poverty. Conversely, Canóvanas and Juncos experienced the most 

significant decreases in childhood poverty rates between 2000 and 2010 (˗0.11 and ˗0.65 percent per year, 

respectively). 

Figure 3-10. 2013 five year estimate (2009–2013) of poverty levels for the total population and persons less 

than 18 years of age and the percent of the total population less than 18 years of age in the region 

surrounding El Yunque National Forest, Puerto Rico, and the United States

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Factfinder (2015). 

Overall, while the populations surrounding El Yunque are living longer and spending more years in 

formal education, which enhances the knowledge and skills available for responding to demands and 

changes in the social and natural environment, per capita and family income have only modestly outpaced 

inflation, and poverty remains high, particularly among children. Limited growth in income and persisting 

poverty among a large segment of the population are signs of social vulnerabilities and may be indicators 

of large segments of society that are being “left behind” or at risk of further decline. Low income and 

high poverty rates also often result in greater demands for public services and resources, including from 

public lands. Therefore, it is important for management decisions to account for how these community 

members or segments of society may be affected by changes in management direction and Forest use. 

Employment and Economic Diversity

Other economic variables, such as employment rates and economic sectorialization (e.g., employment by 

industry sector) can be used as indicators of a community’s overall economic diversity and health and 

community capacity to adapt to gradual or unexpected changes in the social and natural environments. In 

2010, 83.2 percent of the active labor force in the area around El Yunque was employed, resulting in a 

16.8 percent unemployment rate; which is similar to the Islandwide unemployment rate, but much higher 

than that of the U.S. (9.7 percent). About 48 percent of the regional population over 16 years of age was 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

158

actively seeking employment (i.e., in the labor force) in 2010, which is comparable to the island-wide rate 

(47 percent) but significantly less that the mainland active labor force rate (65 percent) in 2010. Intraregionally, unemployment rates ranged fairly widely from 11.7 percent in Ceiba to 21.0 percent in 

Luquillo in 2010 (El Yunque 2014). Unemployment rates decreased throughout the area and across Puerto 

Rico between 2000 and 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). Ceiba demonstrated the largest reduction in its 

unemployment rate during this period (˗0.67 percent per year), but also saw the only reduction in the 

number of people actively seeking employment (˗0.16 percent per year) (El Yunque 2014). Most 

municipalities saw measurable increases in their labor forces (greater than 0.5 percent per year), with the 

greatest increase occurred in Canóvanas (1.41 percent per year), which also saw a significant decrease in 

unemployment between 2000 and 2010 (˗0.58 percent per year) (El Yunque 2014). 

Figure 3-11. Industry by occupation for civilian employed population 16 years and older of El Yunque Region, 

2010 five-year estimate (2006–2010)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Factfinder (2015). 

The majority of jobs in the region in 2010 were in the education, health, and social services sector (21 

percent), followed by retail trade (13 percent), manufacturing (12 percent) and arts, entertainment, 

recreation, and accommodations (10 percent), all of which increased over the respective 2000 rates, with 

the exception of manufacturing (figure 3-11). Altogether, the majority of wage and salary jobs in the 

region in 2010 were in the service sector (77 percent). These types of jobs produce services, such as 

health care or education, as opposed to tangible objects, and encompass a wide range in wages and skills 

(e.g., doctors, chemists, software developers, restaurant workers, bus drivers). Goods producing jobs (i.e., 

agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, construction, and manufacturing) accounted for 23 percent 

of the jobs in the region. These statistics are not so different from the U.S., where about 79 percent of jobs 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

159

were in the services industry and 21 percent of jobs were in the goods producing industry in 2010 (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2015). 

At the municipal level, education, health, and social services jobs accounted for the greatest percent of 

jobs in the area, excepting in Las Piedras where manufacturing was the biggest provider of jobs in 2010 

(table 3-38). And, while the agricultural industry was once a significant sector in the local economy and in 

Puerto Rican economy as a whole, today the sector contributes about 0.8 percent to the GDP and provides 

less than one percent of jobs Islandwide. Similarly, less than 1 percent of jobs within the region are 

attributed to agriculture, ranging from 0.45 percent in Canóvanas to 2.04 percent in Las Piedras (table 

3-38).

Overall, Puerto Rico’s economy has been somewhat listless for the past few decades (Cohn et al. 2014). 

While longstanding corporate tax breaks spurred economic and industrial growth across the Island for 

many years, their termination in 2006 combined with the recession in the U.S. and the larger global 

economic downturn and other local economic factors to produce an economic crisis from which the Island 

has yet to recover (Cohn et al. 2014; Federal Reserve Bank of New York 2012). Moreover, government 

expenditures and the Island’s overall debt have increasingly exceeded revenues since the early 1990s, 

ultimately resulting in the downgrading of its debt to “junk” status in 2014 (Cohn et al. 2014). These 

factors and their effects are pronounced across the Island, including the area around El Yunque, and are 

reflected in part through the limited growth in income and persisting poverty among a large segment of 

the population. These conditions are not likely to improve anytime soon, particularly as the local and 

larger economies continue to languish, if not worsen, and may lead to marked changes in demands for 

services and resources from El Yunque and other public lands. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

160

Table 3-38. Industry by occupation for civilian employed population 16 years and older of the municipalities surrounding El Yunque National Forest 

and Puerto Rico, 2010 (five year estimate 2006–2010)

Canóvanas Ceiba Fajardo Juncos Las 

Piedras Luquillo Naguabo Río Grande Region

Agriculture, forestry, fishing 

hunting, mining

0.45% 1.27% 0.73% 0.98% 2.04% 1.50% 1.59% 0.57% 1.00%

Construction 9.47% 7.04% 6.56% 9.11% 9.03% 9.76% 15.01% 7.32% 8.89%

Manufacturing 8.52% 10.83% 7.68% 18.46% 22.78% 12.90% 11.17% 8.69% 12.29%

Wholesale trade 3.32% 0.22% 0.79% 3.46% 0.93% 0.73% 1.52% 2.78% 2.07%

Retail trade 13.25% 10.72% 15.57% 10.93% 9.07% 11.91% 14.20% 14.29% 12.77%

Transportation, warehousing, 

utilities

6.08% 3.40% 5.25% 2.14% 2.57% 2.65% 4.50% 5.08% 4.24%

Information 0.92% 0.77% 1.54% 1.58% 0.79% 2.44% 0.58% 1.32% 1.24%

Finance, insurance, real estate, 

rental leasing

4.85% 6.88% 5.53% 5.02% 4.18% 2.57% 2.20% 4.20% 4.47%

Professional, scientific, 

management, administrative, waste 

management services

6.81% 8.07% 8.45% 6.35% 9.46% 6.79% 5.88% 7.05% 7.34%

Educational, health, and social 

services

22.27% 26.09% 19.71% 19.99% 19.52% 21.01% 20.32% 20.83% 20.91%

Arts, entertainment, recreation, 

accommodation, food services

9.38% 10.74% 14.95% 5.28% 8.11% 14.17% 9.71% 11.76% 10.35%

Other services (except public 

administration)

4.28% 2.67% 3.68% 2.83% 5.13% 5.38% 4.44% 5.71% 4.40%

Public administration 10.40% 11.31% 9.56% 13.86% 6.39% 8.17% 8.88% 10.41% 10.01%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Factfinder (2015). 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

161

Economic and Social Contributions of El Yunque National Forest

El Yunque is a complex socio-ecological system that contributes to the sustainability of local communities 

and society at large through a wide range of products, services, uses, and opportunities. It directly 

contributes to local economies through employment, expenditures, and payments. In 2012, El Yunque

spent $3.53 million in salaries and non-salary expenditures and employed directly 27 full time equivalent 

(FTE) employees. These statistics were slightly lower than the 2008–2012 five-year average ($3.61 

million in expenditures, 29 FTE employees) (see 2014 Forest Plan Assessment). Forest Service 

employment and expenditures represent a direct investment in the local economy and also produce 

significant indirect and multiplier effects by stimulating additional investment and growth in businesses 

that are linked to or provide support for Forest-related activities and services. The Forest also makes 

payments to the local government through revenue sharing and payments in lieu of taxes (2012: 

$150,000; $10,000, respectively). Both types of payments have decreased in recent years, but remain 

important sources of income for local governments and provide support for critical public services and 

facilities (see 2014 Forest Plan Assessment). 

Table 3-39. Seven broad types of socioeconomic and cultural values and interests associated with El Yunque 

National Forest

Value-Interest Type Characteristics and Examples

Recreation Active, passive recreation; e.g., hiking, bathing, bird watching, picnicking, 

camping, driving

Research and Education Science and knowledge discovery, development, and exchange; e.g., Kuniversity educational activities, experimental and observational research, 

hands-on conservation

History and Heritage Cultural and historical heritage resources and activities; e.g., resources 

and activities related to historic sites, interpretation, folklore, national 

patrimony, cultural identity

Landscape Connectivity All lands/all communities ideology/philosophy; e.g., biophysical and 

sociocultural connections to public, private, agricultural lands, waterways, 

beaches, reefs, neighborhoods, towns, cities, etc.

Economic Opportunities Direct, indirect economic opportunities; e.g., tourism, art, NTFPs, wood 

products, telecommunications, etc.

Non-market Biophysical Services Provisioning, regulating, supporting ecosystem services; e.g., water for 

consumption and recreation, habitat for flora and water and air purification, 

carbon sequestration, soil production and erosion control, nutrient cycling, 

biodiversity maintenance

Non-market Sociocultural Services Social and cultural ecosystem services; e.g., scenic integrity, 

religious/spiritual value, human well-being, intrinsic/existence/option values

The Forest provides a broad range of goods and services, including the provisioning of water, support for 

habitat for flora and fauna, regulation of air purification, maintenance of biodiversity, carbon 

sequestration, soil erosion control, nutrient cycling, research and education, and non-timber forest 

products (see for example, López-Marrero and Hermansen-Báez 2011). Some forest goods and services 

have been quantified. For example, water production is estimated to be valued at $25 million a year and 

wildlife viewing activities are estimated to generate more than $3 million a year (El Yunque 2014; 

Southwick 2007). Yet, most of the goods and services provided by El Yunque have not been quantified or 

are difficult to monetize. Moreover, while some forest goods and services benefit specific communities or 

areas near the Forest (i.e., place-based), the benefits derived from many of its goods and services 

transcend geographic or physical boundaries (i.e., interest- or value-based). Identifying and understanding 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

162

both place-based and interest-based values that individuals and groups associate with the Forest is critical 

to assessing the potential effects of management alternatives and actions on economic and social 

sustainability.

Overall, area residents and other key stakeholders attach a wide range of values and interests to El 

Yunque. For example, some value the Forest for the economic opportunities that it offers businesses and 

communities. Others value the Forest for its recreation and leisure opportunities. Finally, some appreciate 

the Forest for its intrinsic value of existence. The values that people associate with the Forest often are 

interconnected and many people value the Forest for multiple reasons. Drawing from the collaborative 

Forest planning process involving local communities and other Forest stakeholders associated with El 

Yunque and work done by López-Marrero and Hermansen-Báez (2011) on stakeholder perceptions of the 

Forest ́s ecosystem services, we identified seven broad types of value or interest that individuals and 

groups associate with the Forest (table 3-39). These broad value/interest types were taken into account in 

our assessment of the potential consequences of proposed management alternatives, as discussed below.

3.5.1.2 Environmental Consequences

Information on the socioeconomic conditions and trends of the region surrounding El Yunque provides 

the baseline for examining the potential consequences of the three proposed alternative scenarios for 

managing the Forest going forward. For El Yunque, the analysis of potential economic and social impacts 

is based largely on qualitative assessment. Tools for conducting quantitative analysis, such as IMPLAN 

and FEAST have not been available for this Forest. Nevertheless, we can qualitatively assess the potential 

effects of the alternatives on socioeconomic indicators, such as employment, labor income, ecosystem 

services, and human values and interests, based on professional expertise and the best available scientific 

information. Implementation of any alternative would comply with existing rights, Federal regulations, 

Forest Services policies and directives, and all other related requirements. Key assumptions in the 

analysis include full implementation of each alternative and Forest Service budgets remaining constant 

across all alternatives. Actual impacts on neighboring communities and other stakeholders in the region 

and across the Island ultimately will depend on the uptake of opportunities provided by the Forest under 

any given alternative. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Population Trends 

As detailed in the “Affected Environment” section above, the region surrounding El Yunque has been 

associated with increasing population totals and density until very recently. Since about 2010 the

population around El Yunque has begun to decrease, following the broader Islandwide trend that began 

around the mid-2000s. Population loss is projected to continue across Puerto Rico, including the region 

around the Forest, for the next decade at least (Banco Popular de Puerto Rico 2013). Despite this shift in 

population dynamics in the region, population density remains high. While none of the proposed 

alternatives is expected to influence population trends in the region or across the island in any measurable 

way, under all proposed alternatives, El Yunque will continue to provide open space and natural settings, 

as well as an array of goods and services that are important to nearby residents, various communities of 

interest, and society at large. 

Forest Employment and Expenditures 

Annual budgets for National Forests generally have been in decline in recent years and congressional 

appropriations that support salary and non-salary Forest expenditures have become increasingly variable. 

Consequently, it is difficult to forecast with any certainty El Yunque’s future fiscal resources. Under each 

alternative, the Forest’s budget will continue to be allocated among resource programs based on priorities 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

163

identified through collaborative processes, monitoring, and adaptive management. If future funding 

allocations remain relatively constant, the Forest is expected to continue to directly support between 25 to 

30 jobs (full-time equivalents) under the three alternative management scenarios. Salary and non-salary 

expenditures are expected to continue to exhaust annual allocations under each of the alternatives. While 

fluctuations in future Forest spending may affect future economic contributions associated with El 

Yunque, management actions implemented under any of the three alternatives are not expected to have a 

measurable effect on annual funding allocations to the Forest and, as such, total Forest expenditures 

(including salary and non-salary expenses) are not expected to vary across alternatives. The number of 

indirect and induced jobs may vary across alternatives, given different management strategies, as 

discussed below. In particular, alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to result in more induced and/or indirect 

jobs than alternative 1, given their focus on collaborative strategies to develop new recreational 

opportunities within and around the Forest and sustainable production in and around the Community 

Interface Resource Management Area (CIRMA).

While implementing alternative management scenarios on El Yunque has the potential to affect local 

businesses and industrial sectors, the contribution of El Yunque to the local economy, and the relative 

differences between the alternatives, would not be large enough to cause statistically measurable changes 

to local economic diversity (e.g., the number of economic sectors) or economic dependency (i.e., a 

limited number of industries dominates the local economy). Nevertheless, alternatives 2 and 3 are 

expected to have positive impacts on local economic diversity and dependency as compared to alternative 

1. Shifts in the local economy are likely to occur over the next 20 years or so, though not as a direct result 

from the actions implemented under any alternative management scenario. 

Payments to Local Governments 

Although the future of receipt-sharing and per-acre Federal land payment programs is uncertain, the 

Twenty Five Percent Fund Act of 1908 guarantees Puerto Rico a 7-year rolling average of receipts from 

El Yunque. A portion of this is distributed to the eight municipalities with land inside the Forest

boundaries to fund local schools and roads. Revenue sharing payments are authorized through the act of 

May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260; 16 U.S.C. 500), and section 13 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 16 

U.S.C. 500) amended by P.L. 110-343. Under all proposed alternatives, payments to the Commonwealth 

and municipalities would continue to help fund schools, roads, and public services, and ultimately, 

contribute to the sustainability and health of local communities, particularly through support for important 

amenities and services provided by local and Commonwealth governments. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

As described above in the section on the affected socioeconomic environment, population and urban 

density near the Forest and across the Island remain high, particularly in comparison to much of the 

mainland U.S. High population densities and urbanization can result in increased job opportunities and 

better health care options as compared to rural areas, but also often implies increased demands and 

impacts on natural resources and the goods and services that they provide (McKinney 2002). High 

percentages and densities of built-up areas can alter Forest processes through fragmentation of the 

landscape, disruption of hydrological systems, introduction of invasive species, and interruption of 

nutrient cycles, among other impacts (Lugo et al. 2004). Indirectly, such increases can lead to 

impoverishments in the quality of recreational, spiritual, and other human interactions with nature due to 

the change in and/or loss of open space, natural scenery, recreational sites, and other resources (Lugo et 

al. 2004). 

The effects of urbanization are further compounded in the context of global climate change, particularly 

in places like Puerto Rico, where the projected impacts of climate change are significant and where 

human resources and capital infrastructure to address such problems are limited. Projected sea level rise 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

164

in Puerto Rico will lead to a loss of land and infrastructure, which will likely trigger inland and upland 

migrations of human populations, and potentially more intensive and extensive urban development closer 

to the Forest edge (Lewsey et al. 2004; Kelman and West 2009). Moreover, land-use changes interact with 

climate change to alter fire regimes in tropical forests, such that the feedbacks between climate warming 

and drying and increased human development within the wildland-urban interface can increase the 

occurrence of and impacts from fire (Cochrane and Laurance 2008; Robbins et al. 2008). This is 

particularly critical for Puerto Rico, where nearly all wildfires are associated with human activity 

(Robbins et al. 2008). 

None of the proposed alternatives is expected to influence population trends or climate change projections 

in any measurably significant way. Yet, all alternatives provide for the continued protection of the Forest

and sustainable use of its vast array of goods and services. El Yunque encompasses the largest continuous 

forested area in the region, but it is surrounded by a dense patchwork of urban and peri-urban areas, 

agriculture, pasture, secondary forest, and other land uses. Its protection and sustainable use under all 

proposed alternatives will continue to alleviate some of the negative effects on quality of life that are 

associated with densely populated and urbanized areas, particularly in the context of a changing climate. 

Moreover, under all alternatives, the Forest will continue to provide a vast array of essential goods and 

services that benefit local communities, multiple interest groups and stakeholders, and society at large.

Alternative 13

Under alternative 1, the 1997 Forest Plan will continue to guide management of the plan area. This 

alternative provides for increased recreation opportunities to meet current and future demands. However, 

in comparison to the other alternatives, the 1997 Plan does not include components oriented toward 

sustainable recreation opportunities and settings. This may benefit some recreation interest groups in the 

short term, but ultimately will lead to adverse impacts from increased, unsustainable recreation on the 

Forest in the long term. 

Cultural and historical heritage resources are addressed through alternative 1 and would continue to be 

supported through existing management, but are not prioritized or enhanced through targeted 

management. The 1997 Plan also provides direction and support for environmentally sound tropical 

forestry research, contributing to some key research and education values and interests. It also emphasizes 

the development of environmental interpretation and education programs and products. However, in 

comparison to alternatives 2 and 3, alternative 1 does not specifically address opportunities for increasing 

environmental education and literacy at a regional level or with specific groups (e.g., schools, university 

groups); nor does it provide direction for the use of research and knowledge development within the 

context of adaptive Forest management. 

Alternative 1 emphasizes the acquisition and conservation of key land units connected to the Forest, 

addressing some interests in landscape connectivity. Yet, it provides limited focus or direction on the 

broader biophysical and sociocultural connections of El Yunque within the region, as compared to the 

other alternatives. The 1997 Plan also emphasizes the importance of protecting water resources in terms 

of quantity and quality, as well as wildlife, mature forest, wilderness, and wild and scenic rivers, directly 

addressing values and interests associated with critical non-market biophysical and sociocultural services. 

However, it does not incorporate a holistic approach to managing the full spectrum of ecosystem services 

provided by the Forest as is proposed in alternatives 2 and 3. 

 

3 The cumulative effects of alternative 1 are discussed under the section on “Cumulative Effects Common to All 

Alternatives.”
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

165

Under alternative 1, the 1997 Plan provides for economic opportunities through Forest management 

activities, largely associated with recreation and tourism on the Forest. It also provides for other Forest

uses, such as telecommunication structures and a limited supply of wood products from timber harvest 

demonstrations. Nevertheless, economic opportunities under this alternative do not benefit from targeted 

direction to contribute to the local and larger socioeconomic environment as provided in the other 

alternatives.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 takes a holistic approach to planning, emphasizing the importance of El Yunque’s 

ecological, economic, and social resources and values to long-term sustainability. It addresses important 

recreation values and interests through significant enhancements to the recreation opportunities and 

settings offered by the Forest. Specifically, it differs from alternative 1 in its development of a recreation 

corridor along PR Road 191, a Scenic Byway along PR Road 186, and a Community Interface Resource 

Management Area (CIRMA), where multiple sustainable uses, including passive and active recreation can 

be developed and carried out in collaboration with nearby communities and governments. Under this plan 

direction, recreation activities will be dispersed to lower elevations of the Forest, alleviating some of the 

existing pressures of intense uses along PR Road 191, and ultimately allowing for more sustainable levels 

of recreation throughout the Forest and satisfying a broader range of recreation values and interests. 

Unique to alternative 2, is the identification of three geographic areas (El Norte, El Suroeste, and El Este) 

to enhance the development of integrated management strategies that tie to the distinct conditions that 

exist at the subregional level around the Forest, which increases the Forest’s effects on a broad range of 

value and interests. Alternative 2 calls for focused attention on increased access to recreation settings and 

connections to a regional trail system in El Norte GA, on community-based use of the Forest and 

increased environmental education and community enterprises in El Suroeste GA, and on watershed 

management in El Este. 

Under alternative 2, research and education interests are supported through multiple components and 

strategies, including management areas designated for on-going, long-term research (Bisley, El Verde, 

Baño de Oro) and Forest monitoring as a fundamental part of adaptive management. This alternative goes 

beyond alternative 1 in its plan components related to environmental education, specifically in terms of its 

focus on enhancing environmental literacy in neighboring communities, local schools, and society at 

large. Alternative 2 also proposes enhanced interpretation efforts associated with natural and cultural 

resources. It addresses cultural and historical heritage interests and values through the prioritization and 

targeted management of important resources and sites. It also promotes cultural identity, national 

patrimony, and folklore associated with the Forest and its history. Altogether, these efforts promote 

greater awareness and understanding of the Forest’s diverse resources and services and increasingly 

sustainable use and protection of these resources and services by a widening range of stakeholders. 

Overall, this alternative greatly enhances access to information and education to local communities, other 

key stakeholders, and the public-at-large. 

Landscape connectivity interests and values are supported through an “all-lands” approach to forest 

management, conservation, and restoration under alternative 2, particularly through the development of 

the CIRMA and the identification of three geographic areas. Alternative 2 goes beyond alternative 1 in 

supporting biophysical and sociocultural connections across the broader landscape, specifically through 

the identification of geographic areas where targeted conservation initiatives may be developed, such as 

for stream corridors, riparian zones, connections to other public lands and protected areas, facilitating the 

identification and protection of critical connections and developments at the sub-regional level. 

Alternative 2 also promotes and provides greater access to existing and new economic opportunities tied 

to the Forest, particularly through the development or demonstration of multiple, sustainable uses in the 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

166

CIRMA and nearby communities, and through management strategies that support community 

collaboration and development, and ultimately lead not only to the creation of indirect and induced jobs 

but also enhanced stewardship of the Forest and its goods and services. 

Alternative 2 directly integrates plan components focused on the protection and promotion of the 

ecosystem services provided by El Yunque, addressing a broad range of interests and values associated 

with its non-market biophysical and sociocultural resources and processes. It enhances protection and 

monitoring of the Forest’s provisioning, regulating, and supporting services, as well as its scenic integrity, 

intrinsic values and other sociocultural services. Additionally, through management strategies that 

promote participation and collaboration, this alternative contributes to reduced impacts on sensitive areas 

through dispersed recreation and increased restoration in specific areas. Moreover, management of 

invasive species throughout the Forest may contribute to some key non-market biophysical services 

values and interests, as well as provide new and additional economic opportunities. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is similar to alternative 2, with the exception of a few key areas. First, it does not 

recommend the designation of a Scenic Byway along PR Road 186 and differs from Alternative 2 in 

further reducing the impacts from recreation, particularly through the elimination of trails that cannot be 

maintained. These differences may affect hikers, birders, bathers, and other recreation stakeholders. Also, 

Alternative 3 recommends the designation of a new wilderness area, in the existing Baño de Oro Research 

Natural Area, which may serve recreation and non-market services interests and values, but impact 

research and education stakeholders. This alternative decreases the scope of invasive species management 

(managing at identified sites like road right-of-ways, recreation areas, and threatened or endangered 

species habitats) as compared to alternative 2 (managing throughout El Yunque), though still greater than 

alternative 1. Finally, alternative 3 identifies two geographic areas (El Norte, El Sur) in which integrated 

management strategies may be developed in line with the conditions that exist at the subregional level 

around the Forest and enhancing the Forest’s overall effects on a broad range of value and interests. 

3.5.2 Land Use and Ownership

3.5.2.1 Affected Environment

Approximately 29,000 acres of El Yunque National Forest are located in the municipalities of Canovanas, 

Rio Grande, Luquillo, Fajardo, Cieba, Juncos, Las Piedras, and Naguabo. The lands program area 

includes several different activities. Affected environment and environmental consequences on land 

exchanges, purchases, boundary management, and other activities are primarily real estate-type activities. 

Special uses activities include authorizations to use National Forest System lands for non-Federal type 

uses. These uses can include utility corridors, private and public roadways, communications sites, or 

signs. Actions and plans of local communities and their growth and development influence El Yunque 

National Forest through land adjustment cases, land exchange concerns, utility needs and development, 

and residential impacts. These communities are also partners in maintaining and acquiring open space and 

providing needed services to residents and Forest users. The Forest Service may acquire lands through 

exchange, purchase, donation, or condemnation. Land exchange and land purchase have been, and would 

continue to be, the means by which El Yunque National Forest acquires key wildland resources and open 

space areas. Most of the Federal lands exchanged are within or near existing communities and the 

majority of land conveyed to the Forest, as a result, is located in more remote areas. Procedures for 

processing cases and public participation is determined by set policies, rules and regulations outside the 

Forest Plan and would apply regardless of the alternative selected.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

167

3.5.2.2 Environmental Consequences

All Alternatives

Criteria for land adjustment cases are very similar among all alternatives. Public concern about being 

involved early in land exchange projects and continued support for community needs would be addressed 

in all alternatives. As a result, the public would be informed of land exchanges early enough to 

meaningfully contribute to the outcome for the benefit of the community. This would increase trust in the 

Forest Service’s lands program. Due to budgetary constraints, limitations of the plan and community 

influences, the Forest would likely continue to increase in acreage, but probably at a small rate throughout 

the life of the plan. 

Given the increasing concern of local communities regarding Forest and other open space fragmentation 

in the region, all alternatives are likely to produce increased public awareness and landscape conservation 

through land acquisition and environmental education. 

Under each alternative, the Forest would continue to pursue the acquisition of additional acres to add to 

the existing footprint of the Forest, with a primary focus on lands containing riparian zones along with 

rivers and streams to maintain and conserve water quality from the Forest to its connection to the sea. 

Lands would be evaluated for disposal and acquisition based on criteria developed in the Forest land 

ownership and acquisition strategy. Emphasis would continue to concentrate on lands with valuable 

recreation, wildlife habitat, or other natural resource attributes. Acreages such as those found in 

wilderness or other designated sites would not be considered for conveyance.

Alternative 1

El Yunque National Forest Land Ownership and Acquisition Plan lists specific attributes and tracts to 

acquire—many of which have been acquired. However, the list has not been modified to keep up with 

adjustments. Other acquisition parcels are not listed and, therefore, may not be perceived as high priority. 

Parcels of importance would change throughout the life of the plan as resource values are discovered 

(archaeology resources) and identified, interested parties come forward, or additional species are listed or 

conditions change. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund priority direction is contained in policy and ranking criteria, and this 

wording is no longer needed in the plan. The criteria of lands to acquire would continue to be effective for 

determining potential purchase cases instead of a list of priority properties.

Because this direction is redundant with Forest Service policy, it does not contribute to effects. 

The plan states specific boundary and landline direction, but timeframes do not reflect current limitations 

in budget and the flexibility of the Forest to determine priority work. As a result, this direction would 

remain unachievable.

Alternative 2

Conservation easements and other land conservation and restoration programs under alternative 2 can 

lead to increases in lands dedicated to ecological conservation and restoration and in reductions in land 

fragmentation in the region surrounding the Forest. 

Environmental education and agroforestry projects that can be developed within the Community Interface 

Resource Management Area (CIRMA) and promoted in neighboring lands under alternative 2 will 

contribute to enhanced agricultural, forestry, and other land use practices and lead to increases in 

recreation and employment opportunities. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

168

This alternative includes guidelines that would likely result in similar land adjustment opportunities 

identified in El Yunque National Forest Land Ownership and Adjustment Strategy. Including conveyance 

of inholdings that do not possess characteristics that would further the Forest Service mission and 

increase the ability to acquire non-National Forest System lands containing habitat for threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species and consolidate Federal ownership. 

Working collaboratively with local governments and communities early on the land exchange projects per 

the associated management approach may result in land exchanges being developed that meet 

communities and Forest needs and parties agreeing to potential tradeoffs of open space values for other 

resource benefits.

Alternative 2 would continue to allow for conveyance of lands to meet community and public needs and 

would add loss of wildland character to the list of lands that could be conveyed. This could provide 

incentives for non-Federal neighbors to protect those values to reduce the potential for land exchange or 

sale. This alternative would also add Forestwide emphasis to management approaches for collaboration 

with private landowners and local governments to protect Forest values from adjacent development 

impacts. This could result in less habitat fragmentation and greater watershed health to Forest resources 

from adjacent non-Federal uses by developing buffers on private lands. Characteristics of lands to acquire 

would be stated in the guidelines and priorities would be set using a ranking system in the Forest Service 

Handbook. Boundary survey and encroachments would not be specifically mentioned in alternative 2, but 

would still be part of a lands program and would be addressed according to policy and regulation and 

should not change current management. 

Overall, alternative 2 would be substantially different from the 1997 Plan. Adjustments of guidelines and 

desired conditions would reflect more succinctly the criteria of lands desired for Federal acquisition and 

those appropriate for conveyance. Values would be included to address local concerns about land 

exchanges that result in conveyance of National Forest System lands. Loss of wildland character as a 

conveyance characteristic would be a good communication tool with adjacent non-Federal owners who 

can work to protect those values, perhaps reducing encroachment cases. This would allow communities to 

identify important open space, but also to take some responsibility for preserving wildland and resource 

values. If land adjustment actions are consistent with the guidelines, key resource value properties would 

be acquired and would result in meeting the desired condition of a mostly contiguous land base that 

provides for biologically diverse public lands. 

Alternative 3

This alternative is similar to alternative 2 except for additional congressionally designated wilderness 

area. These acres would be permanently removed from consideration for conveyance.

Cumulative Effects, All Alternatives

The cumulative environmental consequences are spatially bounded by an area larger than El Yunque

National Forest proclaimed boundary, generally the area immediately adjacent El Yunque National Forest. 

While population has demonstrated a decrease Islandwide since the early 2000s and more recently in the 

region surrounding the Forest since about 2010, land use change for development, tourism, exurban 

growth, and other factors may continue to affect the Forest and surrounding natural areas. 

If private properties, especially inholdings change from rural or undeveloped land to subdivisions or 

higher density uses, residential encroachments on the Forest are expected to occur more frequently and 

degrade wildland character and other resource values, requiring additional land survey needs. If 

development increases and/or encroachment occurs, undeveloped lands and their open space values are 

converted to residential or commercial uses. This growth would likely result in continued pressures to 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

169

maintain National Forest System lands for their open space values. This may also trigger the need to 

acquire rights-of-way in places where informal public access is lost to development. Working with other 

governmental partners on ordinances and plans under alternative 2 could continue to reduce potential 

impacts to Forest resources.

All communities adjacent to El Yunque recognize the open space and recreational values the Forest

provides and have developed goals and objectives in their plans to preserve these characteristics. Entities 

like Puerto Rico Tourism Company, Center for Landscape Conservation, the Coalition Pro-Northeast 

Corridor as well as other partners can assist in acquiring key parcels that would help retain water 

resources and habitat for desired conditions for fish and other wildlife species. There may be additional 

tradeoffs of resource values on the Forest as local communities change demographically. There would 

also continue to be tension between the desires to retain National Forest System land near communities 

and the need to provide land for infrastructure for community expansion. Local collaboration expectations 

with communities and their desire for open space may result in localized exchanges. However, all 

alternatives acknowledge community needs and the locations where land adjustments are appropriate and 

minimize impacts.

3.5.3 Forest Products

3.5.3.1 Introduction

Timber Forest Products

Planned harvests would only occur on lands “suitable for timber production.” The identification of lands 

as “suitable for timber production” does not mean that timber production is the primary purpose of 

management on those lands; rather, the production of wood products is compatible with the achievement 

of desired conditions and objectives established by the plan for those lands (36 CFR 219.11(a)(1)(iii)), 

and some regular flow of wood products may be expected. 

Following natural disturbance events the removal of dead or damaged trees could also occur on lands 

identified as “not suited for timber production because timber production is not compatible with the 

desired conditions” (see table 3-40).

Table 3-40. Timber production suitability classification for alternatives 2 and 3

Land Classification Category Acres

A. Total National Forest System lands 28,223

B. Lands not suited for timber production due to legal availability or technical 

considerations

17,752

Wilderness 10,352

Slopes over 30 percent (outside of wilderness) 7,400

C. Lands that may be suited for timber production (A B) 10,471

D. Lands not suited for timber production because timber production is not compatible 

with the desired conditions and objectives established by the Plan

3,284

E. Lands suited for timber production (C D) 7,187

F. Lands not suited for timber production (B+D) 21,036
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

170

The vegetation types, wildlife, and physical conditions impose non-suitability of the lands. In table 3-40, 

lands outside of the wilderness area, but on slopes greater than 30 percent, are identified as “not suited for 

timber production,” because these lands are easily prone to landslides during heavy rains. The lands in 

category D (where timber production is not compatible with the Plan’s desired conditions) are the lands 

found within the existing and expanded research natural area. The only acres that are identified as 

“suitable for timber production” are those within the Community Interface Resource Management Area 

(MA 4).

For alternative 1, the lands in category D (where timber production is not compatible with the Plan’s 

desired conditions) are all the lands that “may be suited for timber production” except for the lands in the 

Timber Demonstration Management Area, which comprise the only acres “suitable for timber 

production.” Note that while the 1997 Forest Plan had these timber demonstration acres classified as “not 

suitable for timber production,” it was decided that under the new understanding of what lands should be 

identified as “suitable for timber production” that these lands should now fall into that category. 

Timber harvest and the production of wood products can play an important role in attaining desired 

conditions for ecological sustainability and can contribute to local social and economic sustainability. 

While the assessment identifies and evaluates how timber harvest and production contribute to social, 

economic, and ecological sustainability, there is no timber program on the Forest or the region. The 1997 

Plan did allocate 1,167 acres for a silvicultural demonstration program; this is continued in alternative 1. 

However, no harvesting has occurred and timber utilization has been limited to salvage of dead and down 

trees basically for wood crafters and artisans.

Alternatives 2 and 3 recognize that there is a local, non-commercial demand for wood products within the 

arts and crafts community. There are more than 600 artisans certified by the Puerto Rico Economic 

Development Administration. Most of the Island’s practicing artisans that work with wood use mainly 

locally available lumber resources that are harvested for that purpose, and milled in private sawmills 

(Kicliter 1997). Artisans’ state that the supply of wood is very scarce, difficult to maintain, and expensive 

(Kicliter 1997). Consequently, these alternatives promote the production of local wood products within 

the community interface resource management areas (CIRMA).

Table 3-41. Timber production suitability classification for alternative 1

Land Classification Category Acres

A. Total National Forest System lands 28,223

B. Lands not suited for timber production due to legal availability or technical 

considerations

17,752

Wilderness 10,352

Slopes over 30 percent (outside of wilderness) 7,400

C. Lands that may be suited for timber production (A B) 10,471

D. Lands not suited for timber production because timber production is not compatible 

with the desired conditions and objectives established by the Plan

9,304

E. Lands suited for timber production (C D) 1,167

F. Lands not suited for timber production (B+D) 27,056

The type of wood products that might be produced from the CIRMA management area would be smalldiameter timber (<8 inches or 20.3 centimeters of DBH) used mainly as poles, posts, carvings and other 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

171

biological material harvested from within and on the edges of Forests that regenerates naturally on lands 

abandoned after non-forested uses, and manipulated or disturbed Forests.

Forest Yield

Most of the suitable Forest land is dominated by secondary stands in the process of separating into a 

maturing canopy structure. Typically, this Forest integrates three canopy levels at its mature stage. About 

32 species of the 150 species identified in secondary stands are recognized as species with timber use 

value. The other species have added potential uses in relation to special forest products and are important 

for the ecological settings that these Forests provide in El Yunque. To establish a sustainable yield 

capacity, the growth rate of the species that dominate the suitable Forest lands need to be considered as 

part of the wood utilization initiatives. Growth rate in the subtropical wet, subtropical rain, lower montane 

wet, and lower montane rain forest life zones of the Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico has been studied 

(Crow and Weaver 1977; Schmidt and Weaver 1981; Weaver 1979; Weaver and Birdsey 1990). In 2009, 

Brandeis published a report titled “Diameter Growth of Subtropical Trees in Puerto Rico” in which the 

growth among trees measured in the Forest inventories of Puerto Rico were calculated by annual increase 

for the period considered in the Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA). The document presents the periodic 

annual increment or PAI in tree diameters at breast height (DBH). The suitable Forest lands include a 

small area of subtropical moist forest and most of it is in the subtropical wet forest according to Ewel and 

Whitmore (1973). Table 3-42 from Brandeis (2009) shows the mean increment by life zones documenting 

similar PAI in the Subtropical Moist and Wet Rain Forests. 

Brandeis (2009) also provides the periodic annual increments measured by species as part of the appendix 

of the document. This information will be used in the evaluation of potential silvicultural applications to 

sustain the potential growth of selected species. 

Table 3-42. Diameter at breast height (1.4 meters) periodic annual increments by Holdridge life zone with 

number of trees measured, standard error of the mean, standard deviation of the mean, and maximum 

observed periodic annual increments increase from Puerto Rico forest inventory data in cm/year

Life Zone N Mean SE SD Maximum

Subtropical Dry 307 0.20 0.03 0.45 5.74

Subtropical Moist 2,315 0.37 0.01 0.48 4.30

Subtropical Wet/rain 1,292 0.36 0.01 0.51 5.84

Lower Montane 112 0.20 0.02 0.24 1.28

All Life Zones 4,026 0.35 0.01 0.49 5.84

N = number of trees measured; SE = standard error of the mean; SD = standard deviation of the mean; Max = maximum observed. 

Planned Wood Product Sale Program

In alternatives 2 and 3, the amount of wood products expected from the CIRMA will fluctuate, depending 

on the previous silvicultural treatments that may have been applied in the area. After a review of several 

compartment examination and prescription reports prepared in El Yunque, extreme variation from 

secondary forest to climatic Tabonuco-type forests was evident. Before the pass of hurricanes Irma and 

María, in September 2017, the understory density in Tabonuco type forests was generally lower with 

reports of 49 trees per acre in the DBH range of 4 to 16 inches (10 to 40 centimeters) (Stand 12 

Compartment 1 Sabana) and in stands with secondary forests, the immature commercial species were 

reported at a rate of 100 trees per acre in the 4 to 12 inches (10 to 30 centimeter) DBH range.

The specific volume of production of stands throughout the CIRMA will also vary depending on the 

forest structure, previous treatments, site quality, and the response of the areas to natural disturbances. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

172

Alternative 1, which will continue the level of harvest from that estimated in the 1997 Plan, was estimated 

to be 22 acres per year for the first decade with 23 MCF (651 cubic meters) per year of yield (Table II-3, 

1997 Plan FEIS). The number of acres per year was based on a scaled-down demonstration of forest 

products on 1,100 acres (about 4 percent of the Forest). For alternatives 2 and 3, even though there are 

7,187 acres in the CIRMA where scheduled timber harvesting activities could occur, for the first two 

decades it has been determined that the level of harvesting activity from that estimated in the 1997 Forest

Plan is the level that should be continued within the CIRMA. The silvicultural prescription considered for 

stands in the CIRMA would plan for a stand to be entered every 50 years. So 1,100 acres ÷ 50 = 22 acres 

to be treated per year. The yield of 1.045 MCF/acre (10.45 CCF/acre or 29.57 cubic meters/acre [where 1 

cubic foot = .0283 cubic meters]) from the 1997 Forest Plan will also be used for the yield projections for 

all the alternatives. This will result in a total projected yield of 23 MCF/year (22 acres x 1.045 = 23 MCF 

[651 cubic meters]) or 230 MCF per decade. The ten year projections for the alternatives are shown in 

table 3-43. The integration of other forest products from agroforestry activities is incorporated into these 

yields and a review of the projected harvest acres per year and yields will be conducted after the first 5 

years of plan implementation. It is also important to recognize that this planned wood products program is 

long-term (over the life of the Forest Plan). However, some of these activities may not occur until after 

the timber salvaged from Hurricane Maria is used.

Table 3-43. Projected wood sale quantity, and projected acres treated by alternative

Alternative 1 

1st Decade

Alternative 1 

2nd Decade

Alternative 2 

1st Decade

Alternative 2 

2nd Decade

Projected Wood Sale Quantity in MCF 

(annually)

23 23 23 23

Acres Treated by Uneven-Aged 

Management or Thinning (annually)

22 22 22 22

Sustained Yield Limit

The sustained yield limit (SYL) is an estimate of the quantity of timber that can be removed annually in 

perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis (see 36 CFR 219.11(d)(6)). The sustained yield limit is also 

determined based on the total “lands that may be suited for timber production,” which from table 3-41 is 

10,471 acres. For El Yunque, the sustainable limit is the amount of timber that can be removed without 

exceeding the established level of annual growth. Silvicultural treatments in the Forest with structure and 

composition similar to the CIRMA forests in Puerto Rico has shown possibilities for a significant increase 

in the representation of promising tree species (Wadsworth 1986). The annual growth documented in this 

type of forests is 3 to 4 cubic meters per hectare per year (or 1.6 cubic meters per acre per year) 

(Wadsworth 1986). Where 1 cubic meter = 35.3 cubic feet, this converts to 56.5 cubic feet per acre/year 

(or 0.565 CCF/acre/year). The sustained yield limit for El Yunque is therefore 56.5 cubic feet/acre 

10,471 acres = 591,612 cubic feet per year or 591.6 MCF per year.

Non-timber Forest Products

There are several plant products (non-timber forest products) requested year-around and managed via free 

use permits. These products are mostly for personal consumption. Those products that are requested for 

commercial use are managed via small products forest sale permits; usually these include Heliconea 

flowers and dead tree fern stems of Cyathea arborea. 

During Christmas season there are many requests for ñame (yams), yautia (tanier), malanga (taro) and 

bananas. All of these consumption products are vegetation persistent from past agricultural practices or 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

173

from home gardens that existed prior to the 1920s when the lands were acquired by the Federal 

Government. These products are harvested yearly from the same location; with the root crops and the 

regenerative parts planted back in the same location for next year’s harvest.

For home decoration and Christmas tree manufacture, the fallen leaves of the Cecropia tree are solicited 

during the season. As mentioned, dead and down trees are permitted to artisans, wood crafters or even for 

fire wood. 

The permits generated by El Yunque are in the average of 30 per year and are administered from the 

reception desk at the Forest headquarters building. Most of the users are from the adjacent communities 

of El Yunque.

Other non-timber special forest products that may be provided from El Yunque include such products as 

(1) foods, such as wild edible mushrooms, native fruits, and nuts; (2) medicinal plants and fungi; (3) 

floral greenery and horticultural stock; (4) fiber and dye plants, lichens, and fungi; (5) oils, resins, and 

other chemical extracts from plants, lichens, and fungi. 

While these products can be provided through the use of a special forest product permit, there are strict 

limitations with the use of these permits. Special forest product permits can only be used for products that 

can be managed on a sustainable basis, and the amounts offered are limited to the amount that can be 

harvested annually in perpetuity (see 36 CFR 223.219). 

3.5.3.2 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 continues the allocation of 1,167 acres to the demonstration of sustainable timber 

production with 120 acres of roadside demonstration plots (1997 Plan, pages II-18). These lands would be 

used to demonstrate how sustainable timber production could be achieved while still being compatible 

with the protection of the other Forest resources. Under this alternative, only 22 acres would be harvested 

each year. The timber products that would be available would primarily be posts, poles, and firewood.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 allocate 7,187 acres of land for timber forest products. There is an increase of 6,020 

acres due to the creation of the community interface resource management area (CIRMA). The CIRMA 

provides opportunities for forest product utilization strategies that can be coordinated with community 

groups and residents neighboring these areas. The CIRMA management activities represent a shift from 

the more traditional forms of timber management as would occur in alternative 1, to a more collaborative 

management approach dependent on providing the types of wood products and special forest products that 

the local communities and local artisans have a demand for. While it is estimated that the acres treated 

and the total wood volume (in MCF) that would be produced would be the same for all three alternatives, 

the silvicultural treatments and the types of wood products that would be provided would be different 

under alternatives 2 and 3 than what would occur under alternative 1. 

The issuance of non-timber forest products permits could also increase because the acres available in the 

CIRMA in alternatives 2 and 3 (7,187 acres) is considerably larger than the lands available in alternative 1 

in the timber demonstration management area (1,167 acres).
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

174

3.5.4 Cultural Resources 

The presence of humans in El Yunque can be traced back almost a thousand years. During this period of 

time different groups, such as the Ostionan Ostionoid (pre-Tainos) and the Chican Ostionoid (known as 

Taínos), inhabited the zone surrounding the Luquillo Mountains. 

The majority of prehistoric activity in the Forest has been identified in the shape of petroglyphs located in 

the lower elevations of the Forest, mostly under the 600-meter elevation. Such petroglyphs are not only 

remains of past activities, but artistic expressions of the Prehistoric people’s set of beliefs and ideas about 

the world, and the supernatural world. 

More systematic studies of the forestlands are required to document other prehistoric-era sites such as 

settlements or places of resource extraction. 

European conquest and colonization of the Island of Borikén began by the end of the 15th Century, with 

colonization reaching the Luquillo Mountains by the early 1500s (Domínguez-Cristobal 2000; Weaver 

2012). The direct effects of colonization were the decimation of indigenous population, and the 

annihilation of their socio-political structures and religion. 

In part, this transformation was a direct result of mining activities established by Spaniards on the Island 

during the first three decades of colonization (Domínguez-Cristobal 2000). Mining was the most 

important economic activity during the early 16th Century, including the eastern mountains (Weaver

2012). 

Small settlements took hold in the lower elevations of El Yunque. These consisted of clustered rural 

communities and small dispersed households. Economic exploitation of El Yunque area continued 

between the 16th and 19th Century in the form of subsistence farming, and small-scale crop production 

such as coffee, tobacco, and sugar cane harvesting. Timber was one of the main product staples extracted 

from the Forest. These patterns along with the growing demand for wood used in construction, fuel, and 

ship building, mixed with, “poor agricultural farming practices, political instability, lack of 

communication between the metropolitan centers and the rural population and a scarcity of personnel and 

budget for forestry activities” resulted in the decimation of many primary forestlands across the Island; 

including some parts of the Luquillo Forest (Domínguez-Cristobal 2000; Weaver 2012). The origins of 

what we now call El Yunque and its conservation efforts are linked to several land use polices promoted 

by the Spanish Crown during the 19th Century. In 1876, King Alfonso XII issued the “Ordenanza de 

Montes,” an ordinance that set the framework for the functioning of all Forest management activity on the 

Island. It is through this ordinance that the Inspección de Montes was created; an entity in charge of the 

management of Crown lands, including approximately 10,000 hectares pertaining to La Comarca de 

Luquillo designated as a watershed, soil, and timber reservation (Domínguez-Cristobal 2000; ValdésPizzini et al. 2000; Weaver 2012).

After the Spanish American War, and having Puerto Rico being transferred to the United States, the 

Americans installed a new colonial rule. The new political regime resulted in the adoption of an 

alternative management framework for those lands pertaining to the Spanish Crown, including El Yunque. 

Subsequently in 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed the transferred Crown lands as the 

Luquillo Forest Reserve. The original proclamation boundary encompassed about 25,650 hectares 

classified as public Forest as soon as the government might acquire the lands; later, the boundary was 

modified (Weaver 2012, page 9). Since then, the Forest Service has been responsible for the management 

of the reserve. The first half of the 20th Century marked a major shift in the management policies 

implemented in El Yunque. After the Forest Service acquired the old Spanish Reserve they allowed the 

Parceleros to remain in place to “intercrop foodstuff with trees (a system called taungya or agroforestry) 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

175

gradually reforesting Federal lands” (Weaver 2012). Slowly they were relocated to lands outside the 

Forest from the 1930s on. 

With the start of the Great Depression Puerto Rico was heavily affected, in large part because of the 

prevailing Parcelero system, the lack of employment, and the overall poverty that was prevalent on the 

Island since prior to the economic collapse. The result of the initiatives promoted by the Roosevelt New 

Deal during the Great Depression brought to El Yunque the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in 1935 

(Valdés-Pizzinni et al. 2011). This program promoted temporary economic relief through the recruitment 

of young men that would be hired to engage in different reforestation, construction, and renovation 

projects in Federal and National Forests. Possibly the largest contributions of the CCC the construction of 

the main access and recreational infrastructure used in the Forest to this day. The CCC generated a new 

image of the Forest as the “recreational reconstruction of the forest” (Valdés-Pizzinni et al. 2011). Most of 

the Forest’s recreational manmade landmarks date to this period. Such infrastructure would subsequently 

make possible the steady increase in visitation of the Forest in the post- depression/post-war period. This 

CCC work was significant in introducing the urban building construction technique of reinforced concrete 

and architectural style elements into rural forest recreation settings throughout the island. 

The CCC period also coincide with the beginnings of the scientific experimental initiatives and the 

military use of the Forest. In 1939 the Tropical Forest Experiment Station (Valdés-Pizzinni et al. 2011). 

The Experimental Station (renamed Institute of Tropical Forestry in 1960) centered its efforts in research 

on tropical forestry and continues to serve as one of the primary research centers of its type until the 

current date. 

In 1942, the U.S. Army established a “warning radar system” at El Yunque Peak. Other military used of 

the Forest included maneuver practices in jungle warfare (Wadsworth 2014). 

During the 1940s the Puerto Rican Government launched Operation Bootstrap, a strategy to promote the 

modernization and industrialization of the Island. With the Operation, lands that were once used for 

agricultural activity were either abandoned or sold for the construction of new suburbs, town houses, and 

related economic activity. The suburbanization of El Yunque periphery resulted in a rapid population 

increase in some of the municipalities within the region. However, despite this trend, El Yunque remained 

important for local residents and tourists in search of a pleasant aesthetic experience and a direct contact 

with nature.

3.5.4.1 Affected Environment

Archaeological investigations in the area of El Yunque and surrounding municipalities date back to the 

late 19th Century when aficionados started recording some existing prehistoric sites around El Yunque. In 

the years following the transfer of sovereignty after the Spanish-American War, various scientists came to 

the Island as part of various scientific expeditions. Such academic endeavors, although producing some of 

the most significant research on Puerto Rican prehistory to this date, did not focus their attention on the 

lands that are now El Yunque National Forest. It is not until a decade after the passing of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 1966 that serious archaeological research commences on the Forest. 

In the early 1980s various surveys of the different timber stands included the description of 

archaeological sites found during timber inventory work. By then archaeological areas of relevance had 

extended beyond interest in prehistory to include sites from the historic period such as Parcelero 

homesteads, Haciendas, and CCC-era infrastructure. In 1981, the Forest completed a comprehensive 

literature search that documented all reported cultural sites known within the forestlands (Daubon 1981). 

By the mid-1980s, proper archaeological work was being conducted by a Forest archaeologist, 

archaeology technicians, and para-professionals. The work carried out in compliance with the various 

sections of the NHPA continues to this date. In 2003, a Centennial Timeline summarizing the history of 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

176

the Forest was completed. In 2005, a multi-property National Register Nomination titled the New Deal 

Era Properties was completed and accepted by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The multiproperty nomination centered on the Civilian Conservation Corp infrastructure on the Forest, which was 

completed with the aim of providing a historical context and stylistic framework which would facilitate 

the independent nomination of CCC-era properties in the Forest. 

Some form of archaeological survey has been completed on about one third of El Yunque National Forest. 

Much of such survey was conducted prior to the mid-1990s in support of improvement activities, land 

acquisitions, road and trail maintenance, and recreation development. This means that the criteria for 

testing many of these areas might have not responded to their archaeological potential, or to current 

scientific standards. Various areas have also been independently assessed as part of NHPA Section 106 

consultation prior to independent project implementation.

The result of the archaeological work has been the discovery of many historical and archaeological 

resources. A total of 172 sites are listed for El Yunque as of fiscal year 2015. In the aftermath of hurricane 

Irma and Maria in late 2017, a few new archaeological sites or new features of historic properties were 

discovered and were documented, including one World War 2 era toilet facilities at La Mina Recreation 

Area. The NHPA requires that all buildings, structures, archaeological sites, objects and other cultural 

resources be evaluated and managed as significant or non-significant assets (eligible or not-eligible as per 

the legislation’s wording). To reach such determination of significance the independent resources are 

evaluated based on their historic context, criteria of significance, and integrity in a multiparty consultation 

process.

So far 46 sites have been evaluated or partially evaluated and found eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places at the agency level. Formal concurrence from the State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) is required to cement the eligibility status in many of the cases. A total of 22 sites has 

been evaluated and found not eligible and 104 sites are pending a formal evaluation of eligibility. Of all 

the eligible properties only one prehistoric petroglyph site has been nominated and listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places.

Of the 33 sites listed in the New Deal Era Multi-property Nomination Form, ten have been deemed 

eligible by the agency, with two of them having official concurrence from the SHPO on that 

determination. One site was destroyed and thus is considered not eligible, while 22 are pending an 

eligibility determination. Of the 33, none has been independently listed.

The passing of hurricanes Irma and Maria in late 2017 caused damages to many of the historic properties 

on the Forest, mostly to the New Deal Era buildings strowned across the Forest. Most of the damage was 

limited to features of the building such as doors, windows and ceilings, and some limited structural 

damage to the fabric of the properties caused by falling vegetation. Structural damage was more severe on 

the historic trails and roads where a number of severe landslides and bed failures will necessitate 

reconstruction or rerouting of the resources. Prehistoric sites were not adversely affected at this time by 

the weather events. Emergency cleanup after the hurricanes helped safeguard the integrity of the 

properties, in many instances addressing the accumulated deferred maintenance needs of the sites. Further 

restoration efforts are required to address the damages to the properties.

3.5.4.2 Environmental Consequences

All Alternatives

Proposed practices can affect the different cultural resources in the Forest in different ways. Cultural 

resources in El Yunque National Forest can be broadly divided into three major groups: structures, rock 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

177

art sites, and archaeological sites (historic and prehistoric). Each of them constitutes a sector with 

different characteristics and different susceptibilities to adverse effects.

Recreational use of the Forest presents the greatest potential effects on the cultural resources in the Forest. 

Given that all alternatives presented focus heavily on developing or maintaining a high level of recreation, 

the principal effect is to be received by the historic recreation infrastructure of the Forest. High levels of 

visitation signify greater access and use of the resources, which increases wear and tear on the 

infrastructure, and augments the likelihood of damage by use or vandalism. Activities associated with 

dispersed recreation can affect cultural resources; particularly trail construction associated with the 

expansion or alteration of existing historic trails. 

Other activities involved in other management practices also present the possibility of having effects on 

cultural resources. For example, activities associated with watershed restoration could impact existing 

historic dams, which might be potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Another example 

is the proposed limited timber extraction. Although El Yunque does not have an active timber extraction 

program to the scale of other Forests in the mainland, the proposed limited timber demonstration areas 

(alternative 1) and the proposed “post” harvesting (from Forest products) in the CIRMA (alternatives 2 

and 3) could involve activities that cause soil movements, mixing and/or compaction thus having the 

potential to disturb archaeological sites. Activities such as lowering the maintenance level of existing 

trails (alternative 3) will have effects on the existing historic trail infrastructure. The increase in the efforts 

to share historical information as well as the proposed reuse of existing historic infrastructure will also 

have direct and indirect effects on the resources in the Forest. 

An outline of the actions that will have predicted effects on cultural resources is outlined below by 

alternative. For each alternative the effects of the desired future conditions, management areas, and 

geographic areas was taken in account (if present on the plan). The desired future conditions section 

includes the actions that were considered to have the likelihood of having effects on cultural resources. 

Actions not listed were found to present a very low to non-existent likelihood of effects, and thus were 

not outlined. 

We acknowledge that some of the proposals made are programmatic in nature and do not present enough 

detailed information with enough definition to properly assess the effects of the individual undertakings. 

As such they will be assesses on a project-base-level at the moment of implementation. In the case of 

cultural resources the effects assessment will include NEPA, as well as NHPA consultation.

Alternative 1

New Developed Recreation Sites (Recreation and Facilities and Transportation) 

Increase in public access and use of the Forest would have the potential to affect cultural resources. The 

increase in public visitation increases the potential for vandalism of archaeological sites and historic 

infrastructure. It also increases decay by wear and tear of actively used historic recreation infrastructure 

such as trails, observation towers, picnic shelters and access roads. The construction of new developed 

recreation areas would involve some level of soil movement, which potentially could disturb existing 

archaeological sites at the chosen development locations. Expansion of existing historical recreation 

infrastructure could also alter the context of each location altering its integrity and significance. 

Environmental Education – Cultural Resources 

The proposed educational and interpretative offering, which will “assist visitors and users in 

understanding... the role of ... cultural resources” will have the effect of increasing knowledge and 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

178

awareness of the resources. That could have the effect of reducing misuse and vandalism because of 

increased awareness of the importance of the resource.

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Scenery – Cultural Resources 

The proposed management of these areas as restricted development sections will reduce the possibility of 

undertakings which could disturb cultural resources. 

Timber Demonstration – Cultural Resources

Extraction of timber has the potential to involve a variety of activities, which could result in soil 

movements and direct damage to archaeological resources. Such activities could include but are not 

limited to yarding, access road creations, soil compaction by machinery or traffic, and soil destabilization.

Management Areas - Cultural Resources

Management Area 1 (Administration sites) 

The proposed reconstruction of trails could affect their historic integrity.

Management Area 2 (Developed Recreation) 

The development and enhancement of developed recreational activities in this area presents the potential 

to have direct and indirect effects on existing historic infrastructure and historic properties, which make 

up the backbone of the recreational offering. Effects of the actions on this area are the same as the ones 

outlined previously on the “New Developed Recreation Sites” assessment above.

Management Area 3 (Communications Sites) 

The proposed removal of communications facilities from the east end of El Yunque Peak Site and the 

proposed interpretation of the cultural resources there will have the effect of removing the detracting 

modern infrastructure from the cultural resource enhancing its historical context and user experience.

Management Area 4 (Integrated) 

Some research and dispersed recreation activities to take place in this area present the likelihood of 

potential disturbance to cultural resources if they involve soil movement and by increasing unsupervised 

access to existing or undiscovered resources in the area.

Management Area 5 (Wilderness) 

The preservation of the area as a wilderness limits all development, thus directly reducing direct and 

indirect effects on present cultural resources. The restrictions on management practices will have the 

direct effect of reducing the ease of maintenance on the two historic trails existing in the area (Trade 

Winds and El Toro). 

Management Area 6 (Research Management Area) 

The potential exists for research projects to disturb archaeological sites or alter the characteristic of 

existing historic properties if the research activity is to involve soil disturbance and/or installation of 

research equipment on historic properties. 

Management Area 8 (Timber Demonstration) 

The timber extraction activities proposed for this area have the same potential effects as the Timber 

Demonstration desired future condition. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

179

Management Area 9 (Scenic Rivers and Scenery Resources) 

The proposed management of these areas as restricted development sections will reduce the possibility of 

undertakings, which could disturb cultural resources. 

Alternative 2

Socioeconomics - Cultural Resources 

The economic opportunities provided to the community, such as guided excursions and outfitting 

opportunities, have the potential to increase visitation to cultural resources, such as scenic areas with 

petroglyphs, enhancing educational opportunities. Increasing unsupervised visitation and encounters with 

archaeological sites could lead to looting and damage to resources. Partnerships with the community have 

the potential effect of increasing site condition monitoring opportunities. 

Environmental Education - Cultural Resources 

The development of interpretative and educational efforts can have a direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effect on the preservation of historic properties by increasing awareness of their importance in the 

public’s mind, potentially reducing misuse and vandalism. 

New Developed Recreation - Cultural Resources 

Developing recreational opportunities in the lower part of the Forest will have the effect of reducing the 

strain on the existing historic recreational infrastructure located on the upper part of the Forest (PR Road

191 Corridor). The development of new recreation areas in the lower parts could have a direct impact on 

already discovered or undiscovered historic and archaeological resources if the development includes soil 

movements. A long-term cumulative effect and indirect effect could result if the newly developed 

recreation opportunities grant access to archaeological and historic resources by means of developed 

recreation areas such as parking lots, picnic areas and trails. This might cause an increase in opportunities 

of unsupervised access to the resources, which could lead to looting, vandalism, and/or damage. 

Actions on reducing the backlog of maintenance of existing recreational historic infrastructure will have a 

direct effect of improving the historic properties condition. The increase in historic literacy that will result 

from the development of the proposed historic/cultural recreation opportunity guides will have the 

potential effect of increasing awareness on the importance of heritage resources.

Forest Products - Cultural Resources 

The extraction of Forest products within the CIRMA could have a direct effect on archaeological/historic 

resources if the extraction of such resources would include any kind of soil movements such as those 

created during the construction of new access roads, timber yarding, planting and harvesting areas, etc.

Facilities and Transportation - Cultural Resources 

The proposed creation of timber extraction roads has the potential to disturb existing archaeological sites. 

The proposed private investment opportunities on abandoned historical facilities as well as the proposed 

annual maintenance inspections are likely to have an effect on the enhancement of the condition of the 

historic infrastructure.

Management Areas - Cultural Resources

Management Area 2 (El Yunque Zone) 

The restoration and management of recreation infrastructure in these areas will have a direct effect of 

maintaining/preserving existing historic infrastructure, which is the backbone of the infrastructural 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

180

recreational offering. The interpretation of the cultural resources in that area could have a direct and 

cumulative effect of reducing damaging practices by the public such as vandalism. The increase in 

visitation to the resources in that area could have the indirect effect of increasing vandalism and wear and 

tear on the historic infrastructure.

Management Area 3 (Communications) 

The proposed removal of communications facilities from the east end of El Yunque Peak Site will have 

the effect of removing the detracting modern infrastructure from the cultural resources located at El 

Yunque Peak. The proposed interpretation of the cultural resources there will directly enhance its 

historical context and the public understanding. 

Management Area 4 (CIRMA) 

The increase in access of the community to this land will have the effect of increasing access to cultural 

resources in this area. That could develop into greater vandalism and looting of existing or still 

undiscovered cultural resources in that area. The use of the area for dispersed recreation could reduce the 

effects that the high visitation has on the cultural resources located on the upper part of the Forest. The 

shared stewardship of this area could have the direct effect of increasing stewardship and shared 

stewardship opportunities of the cultural resources in the area and can increase educational opportunities. 

Resource extraction activities proposed for this area have the direct or indirect potential of disturbing 

cultural resources if they involve the creation of roads, soil movement, or other practices similar to the 

ones outlined on the desired future conditions section for CIRMA.

Management Area 5 (El Toro Wilderness) 

The preservation of the area as a wilderness would limit all development, thus directly reducing direct and 

indirect effects on existing cultural resources. The restrictions it imposes on management practices will 

have the direct effect of reducing the ease of maintenance on the two historic trails existing in the area 

(Trade Winds and El Toro). 

Management Area 6 (Research) 

The potential exists for research projects to disturb archaeological sites or alter the characteristic of 

existing historic properties if the research activity is to involve soil disturbance and/or installation of 

research equipment on historic properties. 

Management Area 7 (Research Natural Area) 

The use of this area for non-manipulative studies only will have the indirect effect of restricting 

recreational use and discouraging public traffic, and reduces the likelihood of invasive research. All this 

has the direct effect of reducing the likelihood of disturbance to cultural resources in the area.

Management Area 9 (Scenic Byway 186) 

The proposed creation of the Scenic Byway Management Area as outlined will require a higher level of 

maintenance, stewardship, and interpretation of the historic sites along the route. The increase in 

maintenance and interpretation will help improve and monitor the conditions of the resources, which have 

been neglected to a greater degree than similar resources along PR Road 191. This will have an effect on 

the resource by increasing public awareness of the resources importance, and has the potential to increase 

visitation to a number of historic structures along the route. The increase in visitation on the area might 

increase the likelihood of vandalism on the sites. It will also have the accumulative effect of wear and tear 

on the sporadically used historic road, bridges and related features. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

181

Geographic Areas - Cultural Resources

North and Southwest Geographic Areas 

The proposed increased interconnection of existing trail to points of access within the municipalities will 

likely have the indirect effect of increasing accessibility to the Forest and its cultural resources. This could 

translate into increased use of the newly accessible areas, augmenting the likelihood of wear and tear on 

the existing historic trails, and increasing the potential of unauthorized activities such as vandalism and 

looting. The proposed development of collaborative efforts with the community for increasing 

collaboration, conservation, and interpretation initiatives will potentially have the indirect effect of 

increasing educational and interpretative opportunities to increase education about the cultural resources 

in the Forest. The increase in collaboration might directly affect the conservation and study of cultural 

resources by increasing research, funding, and partnerships towards that goal.

Alternative 3

The effect of the resources desired conditions are the same as in alternative 2, but it adds the following. 

Extension of Wilderness to Research Natural Area - Cultural Resources 

The recommended extension of the wilderness area to encompass the Baño de Oro Research Natural Area 

would potentially have the effect of reducing the probability of site disturbances due to the highly 

regulated practices and activities allowed on wilderness reserves. 

Facilities and Transportation - Cultural Resources 

The proposed change of trail care level to maintenance levels will have an effect on the maintenance of 

the many of the historic trails. The reduction of maintenance will affect the conservation of the historic 

trail system and its potential interpretative use.

Management Areas - Cultural Resources

Management Area 2 (El Yunque Zone) 

The restoration and management of recreation infrastructure in those areas will have a direct effect of 

maintaining preserving existing historic infrastructure, which is the backbone of the infrastructural 

recreational offering. The interpretation of the cultural resources in that area could have the effect of 

reducing damaging practices by the public such as vandalism. The increase in visitation to the resources 

in that area could have the indirect effect of increasing vandalism and wear and tear on the historic 

infrastructure.

Management Area 3 (Communications) 

The proposed removal of communications facilities from the east end of El Yunque Peak Site will have a 

direct effect of removing the detracting modern infrastructure from the cultural resources located at El 

Yunque Peak. The proposed interpretation of the cultural resources there will directly enhance its 

historical context and the public understanding. 

Management Area 4 (CIRMA) 

The increase in access by the community to this land will have the direct effect of increasing access to 

cultural resources in this area. That could result in greater vandalism and looting of existing or still 

undiscovered cultural resources in that area. The use of the area for dispersed recreation could reduce the 

effects that the high visitation has on the cultural resources located on the upper part of the Forest. Shared 

stewardship of this area could have the effect of increasing educational and cultural resources 

opportunities. Resource extraction activities proposed for this area have the potential of disturbing 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

182

cultural resources if they involve the creation of roads, soil movement, or other practices similar to the 

ones outlined on the desired future conditions section for CIRMA.

Management Area 5 (El Toro Wilderness) 

The preservation of the area as a wilderness section will limit all development, thus directly reducing 

direct and indirect effects on present cultural resources. The restrictions it imposes on management 

practices will have the direct effect of reducing the ease of maintenance on the two historic trails existing 

in the area (Trade Winds and El Toro). 

Management Area 6 (Research) 

The potential exists for research projects to disturb archaeological sites or alter the characteristic of 

existing historic properties if the research activity is to involve soil disturbance and/or installation of 

research equipment on historic properties. 

Management Area 7 (Baño de Oro Proposed Wilderness) 

The extension of the wilderness area into the 629-acre section of the research natural area will extend the 

protections and restrictions of wilderness management to this area. This will have the effect of limiting all 

development in the designated section, reducing direct and indirect effects to the cultural resources

present. The restrictions it imposes on management practices will have the direct effect of reducing the 

ease of maintenance and monitoring of existing resources in the area.

Geographic Areas - Cultural Resources

North and South Geographic Areas 

The proposed increase in interconnection of existing trail to points of access within the municipalities will 

likely have the direct effect of increasing accessibility to the Forest and its cultural resources. This could 

translate in increased use of the newly accessible areas, increasing the likelihood of wear and tear on the 

existing historic trails and increasing the potential of unauthorized activities such as vandalism and 

looting. The proposed development of collaborative efforts with the community for increasing 

collaboration, conservation, and interpretation initiatives will potentially have the indirect effect of 

increasing educational and interpretative opportunities involving the cultural resources in the Forest. The 

increase in collaboration might directly affect the conservation and study of cultural resources by 

increasing research, funding, and partnerships towards that goal. 

3.5.5 Recreation

This analysis focuses on recreation sustainability and issues related to visitor use, capacity, and recreation 

infrastructure (parking limitations, structures, maintenance and demand) and recreation impacts to 

resources. For the cumulative effects analysis, the following activities and plans that occur on the private 

land/Forest interface were considered including the east, west and southwestern regions. Foreseeable 

actions include the development of a regional trail with municipalities and a non-profit partner that would 

connect the Forest to the coast, and a state proposal for a scenic byway on the western side of the Forest. 

Ongoing activities include community use located adjacent to the Forest interface areas. The timeframe is 

the life of the plan (approximately 15 years). 

3.5.5.1 Affected Environment

Visitor Use and Recreation Settings

Covering approximately 29,000 acres, El Yunque is the only tropical rain forest in the National Forest 

System, boasting unique and breathtaking views, biodiversity, and a variety of outdoor recreational 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

183

opportunities. It is a favorite recreation destination for both locals and the many tourists who visit Puerto 

Rico from around the world. The Forest receives over 650,000 visitors per year (Buta et al. 2014). These 

visitors make over 1.2 million site visits making it one of the most heavily visited Forests per acre in the 

National Forest System. This means that most Forest visitors visit more than one Forest destination during 

their visit. The major recreation areas (picnic areas and trails, observation tower, pools and bathhouses) 

are located along the main access road PR-191, which was built in the 1930s by the Civil Conservation 

Corps (CCC). Many of these structures and facilities are still in use today.

Recreation use occurs year-round due to the warm tropical climate. Use by local visitors is greater during 

the summer months, while more international visitors come during the winter months. The total number 

of visitors is approximately evenly divided between local residents and off-Island tourists. The types of 

recreation activities in the Forest has not changed drastically throughout the years. Visitors continue to 

enjoy hiking along trails, using the picnic areas, stopping at vista points and at the observation towers, 

photographing nature, and cooling off in the river and streams. 

The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) is used to identify recreation activities throughout a Forest. 

The recreation opportunity spectrum provides a framework for Forest administrators to manage and for

users to enjoy a variety of recreation environments. The ROS is used to determine if projects are 

compatible with Forest recreation goals. At the project level, this framework is used to determine if a 

project is moving toward or away from the desired ROS. In many cases, change to the transportation 

system can have the biggest impact on ROS. 

The ROS classes in El Yunque range from “semi primitive non-motorized” to “rural” settings. El Yunque 

has 21 active recreation sites that include a high capacity visitor center, 4 picnic areas totaling 51 picnic 

shelters, 12 observation sites, and 8.7 miles of trails. Recreational opportunities based on available 

recreation sites at El Yunque include hiking, backpacking, primitive camping, water play, picnicking, 

scenic driving, nature viewing, viewing cultural resources, photography, birdwatching, outdoor learning 

and nature study. 

El Yunque has four access routes that run through the Forest; PR-191, PR-988, PR-9966, and PR-186. 

Recreational opportunities on PR-988, PR-9966, and PR-186 are currently limited due to available 

development, available personnel, road conditions, and limited use; making PR-191 an 8.1-mile, two lane 

road with no throughway, the primary recreation opportunity corridor. Despite a proportionally high level 

of concentrated development along PR-191, developed recreation sites do not meet the demand during 

high visitation periods. 

Despite the level of development along the PR-191 corridor (map 3-19), El Yunque is challenged to fully 

provide recreational opportunities. New vehicle limits on the highly popular PR-191 corridor are 

monitored by vehicle counters, allowing management the tools necessary to manage and regulate the 

maximum number of visitors in the corridor at one time and thus reduce some of the impacts associated 

with “extremely high” and “excessive” use. This management, however, comes at the cost of lost 

recreational opportunities to visitors who are not able to enter the PR-191 Corridor. While PR-186, PR191 south, PR-988, and PR-9966 provide access to other locations in the Forest, road conditions and lack 

of public knowledge deter users from visiting these other locations. While potential and demand to 

develop additional recreational opportunities along state roads in El Yunque exist, current limitations to 

funding levels and adequate personnel prohibit increased development. These needs to account for both 

capital improvement costs along with the additional operation and maintenance costs associated with 

additional developed recreation sites. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

184

Map 3-19. El Yunque National Forest infrastructure and vegetation

Recreation Infrastructure

Forest visitors visit several destinations during their time on the Forest. Recreation on the Forest has been 

ongoing since the first facilities were constructed during the CCC period in the 1930s. Most of these 

facilities are still in use. Several facilities have been improved to meet current sanitary and accessibility 

standards and to increase parking capacity by redesigning parking areas and creating overflow parking 

spaces. These include Yokahu Tower, Palma de Sierra Picnic Area, and Palo Colorado Picnic Area. Forest 

vegetation density and steep topography greatly limit expansion of existing facilities as well as the 

development of new facilities.

There are two recreation sites along PR-988 which are mostly used by neighboring communities; these 

are Puente Roto and Angelito Trail. Puente Roto is mostly used on weekends and holidays and has 

parking issues and trash problems. The Rio Mameyes was designated as a wild and scenic river which 

require special protection and management. Angelito Trail is a short trail that leads to Rio Mameyes, a 

favorite local water play area. Parking in this area has been a concern due to several car collision

incidents. See the Recreation Specialist Report for additional information on recreation sites and 

infrastructure. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

185

State road PR-186 crosses through the western portion of El Yunque, traveling through a mixture of 

Forest and urban settings. Portions of this road have a number of scenic views and waterfalls; however, 

poor road conditions and lack of knowledge prevent Forest visitors from recreating on this portion of the 

Forest. Mostly locals recreate at the various river crossings that occur along this road.

Recreational opportunities are fairly limited. Currently, both El Toro Trailhead and Quebrada Grande 

Picnic Area are closed. El Toro Trail #34, a 2.2-mile trail crossing through El Toro Wilderness, is in need 

of repairs to address major drainage problems. Quebrada Grande Picnic Area is currently closed due to

low us and poor road conditions in the area. 

The high use of trails, especially the trails that do not have a built-hard surface, have eroded the trail 

surface causing erosion problems on the trail surface itself. In some cases the actual trail has become the 

main drainage-way. The picnic shelters also receive high use which require high maintenance for sanitary 

reasons and graffiti. See the Recreation Specialist Report for additional information on recreation 

infrastructure. 

Recreation-related infrastructure suffered significant damage after hurricanes Irma and María, including 

landslides or bed failures on trails, damaged picnic shelters, and damage to recreation-related historic 

infrastructure. The collapse of the infrastructure also had severe impacts on the recreation offering and 

socioeconomic opportunities provided by the forest including lack of access for tourism, 

telecommunications and research.

Recreation Capacity 

In 2011, capacity along PR-191 was set at 300 vehicles, based on 274 available parking spaces and 

approximately 26 parking spaces at private in-holding stores and restaurants along PR-191. Available 

parking at El Portal was evaluated separately because it is a recreation fee site.

Based on a 100 percent capacity of 300 vehicles, use classes were set as 33, 66, 100, 133, 166, and 200

percent plus, from low to excessive, using road counter data from PR-191 during portions of 2014 and 

2015. The percentage of each use type was also computed based on counter data. In addition, the number 

of visitors in the Forest was approximated using an estimate of 2.5 visitors per vehicle. The results of this 

exercise are shown on table 3-44. 

Table 3-44. Approximate vehicles and users per level of use

El Yunque Approximate

Vehicles and Users Per Level of 

Use

Low 

(0–100)

Mod 

(101–200)

High 

(200–300)

Very high 

(300–400)

Extreme 

(400–500)

Excessive 

(500+)

Percent of use type per year 4% 15.0% 31.0% 30.0% 13.5% 7.0%

Number of vehicles in Forest 100 200 300 400 500 600

Percent of total capacity 33% 66% 100% 133% 166% 200%+

Vehicles seeking parking 0 0 40 140 240 340+

Total vehicles/day 300 500 700 900 1,100 1400

Total users/day (2.5/vehicle) 750 1,250 1,750 2,250 2,750 3500

Number of users in Forest 

(2.5/vehicle) 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1500

‘Number of vehicles in forest’ and ‘Number of users in forest’ show an estimate of the number of users in the PR Road 191 corridor 

during a given use level while ‘Total vehicles per day’ and ‘Total users per day’ show an estimate of the total users per day during a 

given use level. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

186

Currently, developed recreation sites along PR-191 routinely receive very high (133 percent capacity) to 

excessive (200 percent capacity) use throughout the season, with a long recreational season that starts in 

November and continues into the new year to August, providing the Forest only two truly moderate use 

months (September and October). Highest use months are March, July, and December. 

Table 3-45 and figure 3-12 show “extreme” and “excessive” use during the July and August 2014 busy 

season. Table 3-46 and figure 3-12 show “very high” and “extreme” use during the March and April 2015 

busy season. Daily total visits track the total number of visits during a given day, while daily max tracks 

the maximum number of vehicles in the Forest at any one time. The sudden drop in use in early August is 

due to extreme weather.

Capacity issues are mostly concentrated at Big Tree Trail, La Mina Falls, and Palo Colorado Picnic Areas. 

Big Tree Trail and Palo Colorado Picnic Areas provide the main access route to La Mina Falls. Additional 

details are located in the Recreation Specialist Report. This heavy concentration of people and vehicles 

have an impact on the resource. There are designated parking areas as well as overflow parking, but once 

these areas are full, people start parking their vehicles anywhere they find an open space along PR-191. 

Figure 3-12. Vehicle use counts on PR Road 191 corridor
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

187

This uncontrolled parking impacts vegetation and natural drainages. Vehicles often get stuck and require 

towing. Another impact from high visitation is the amount of trash generated. Trash is piled next to trash 

cans once they are full and some of that trash ends up along the trails and in Rio de la Mina, a wild and 

scenic river. Outfitters and guides are also a part of the capacity issue. They continue their normal 

operations regardless of the high visitation and traffic congestion. Some outfitters will drop their 

customers off at one of the two La Mina Falls access trails and pick them up at the other trail where they 

exit the falls. Tour buses average about 20 to 25 persons. 

The Forest Interpretive Association is providing visitor services at El Portal and Palo Colorado Picnic 

Area. The Association also has store outlets at La Coca Falls and Yokahu Tower providing limited 

customer service. The food concessionaire provides some visitor service information at Big Tree 

Trailhead, Palo Colorado, and Palma de Sierra Picnic Areas. El Yunque’s Park Rangers provide partners 

with visitor information training annually.

The capacity issue at La Mina Falls has made outfitters and Forest visitors seek other water venues in the 

Forest. Juan Diego Creek has recently become an option for people seeking a stream with a waterfall. 

Juan Diego Creek is near Big Tree Trail parking areas making it easy for people to walk along the road to 

reach the creek. The increase in visitation to this area has caused sever erosion problems along the paths 

that lead to the falls. Once there, some visitors have opened a new path to get to the upper portions of the 

creek, causing erosion problems. The Juan Diego Creek area is a small area which is being overused and 

is being negatively impacted by high visitation.

To address current capacity issues, the Forest has implemented traffic control operation (TCO) during 

high visitation periods (spring break and June and July). The TCO consists of placing Forest personnel at 

strategic recreation sites to monitor parking and traffic flow. Currently the state police, in cooperation 

with Forest personnel, assist during TCO. When all available parking areas are full a Forest closure is 

implemented at the La Coca Falls gate. The tram system is still being evaluated to determine the best 

activation periods and routes to be used. Traffic control operation staffing and funding has had an impact 

on the Forest due to the fact that high visitation mostly occurs on weekends and holidays. 

Despite the high level of development on the PR-191 North Corridor, ongoing very high to excessive 

levels of use are taxing the existing infrastructure. Impacts from high visitation are varied both in type and 

duration. Types of impacts during “very high” to “excessive” use could include increased health and 

safety risks, impacts to trail resources, and social encounters. 

During “very high” to “excessive” levels of use, risks to public health and safety increase due to the 

number of visitors on the road, high levels of traffic, limited restrooms, and longer emergency response 

times. Use levels are highly variable through the day as use increases and decreases and tend to peak 

between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. during high visitation periods. The risk to public safety is particularly 

pronounced during extremely high to excessive use, when an alarmingly high number of vehicles and 

visitors are packed in a relatively small stretch of road with limited parking, leading to high a number of 

vehicles parking in non-designated spots, large crowds congregating in roads, extreme to excessive 

numbers of visitors overwhelming public restroom facilities, and a practical standstill of vehicular traffic, 

resulting in extended emergency vehicle response times. These increased risks, however, are short term 

and cease once the use levels are reduced, with the exception of health and sanitation impacts, which 

manifest in the form of urine smell around structures such as picnic and rain shelters, and can linger until 

major rain events.

Impacts to trails also increase during periods of very high to excessive use, when even the high level of 

trail development is not sufficient to reduce visitor impacts as crowds begin to pass each other on the trail 

shoulder, producing soil compaction, killing vegetation, and in essence widening the trail. These 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

188

increased impacts are cumulative over time as the vegetation’s resiliency is effectively reduced due to 

ongoing trampling during repeated and prolonged periods of “very high” to “excessive” use.

Another impact along trails during periods of “very high” to “excessive” use is the number of social 

encounters. While a large number of facilities and trails fall under an “urban” ROS setting, which defines 

the level of social encounters as “Large numbers of users on site and in nearby areas” and “High number 

of social encounters,” one could easily argue that during periods of “extremely high” and “excessive” use, 

one could encounter such large crowds that would exceed even the “urban” setting. This is particularly 

pronounced around observation points where large crowds can block access and or views. For areas with 

ROS settings below “urban,” ROS settings would increase to “urban” during periods of “very high” to 

“excessive” due to the large number of encounters, regardless of the physical setting.

Figure 3-12 shows the daily use patterns for PR Road 191 during a week in July. These daily patterns 

show that demand increases in the morning, peaks in the afternoon, and drops in the evening. During the 

busy months, use can reach “high” (67 to 100 percent) capacity as early as 9:00 a.m., “very high” (101 to 

133 percent) by 9:30 a.m., “extremely high” (134 to 166 percent) by 10:00 a.m., and “excessive” (167 to 

200 percent) by 11:00 a.m. “Excessive” use can last as long as 3:30 p.m.; with use patterns dropping to 

high by around 5:00 p.m. Such a high level of use has forced the Forest to close access at approximately 

450 to 500 vehicles due to the increased risk to public health and safety along with correlated trail 

widening during “extreme” and “excessive” use where people use more width than the trail has. Forest 

closures due to “extreme” and “excessive” use can be seen in the daily use patterns for Thursday, Friday, 

Saturday, and Sunday as a temporary steep drop in use. There is a second increase in use as the Forest is 

opened to the public again. The Forest is still fine-tuning the counter system to provide better real-time 

data so they can better manage use in the Forest.

Existing Recreation Sites in El Yunque

Forest access routes through the Forest include four state roads: PR Road 191 North, PR Road 191 South, 

PR Road 988, PR Road 9966, and PR Road 186. These access state roads vary in condition and level of 

amenities provided. Currently, the majority of the recreation infrastructure is centered on the north portion 

of PR Road 191 North, a limited 8.1-mile road with no throughway. Developed recreation is analyzed 

based on access routes.

Recreation Sites on PR Road 191 North

PR Road 191 is unique in that it runs through the center of El Yunque, providing intimate access to an 

otherwise highly inaccessible landscape. A landslide in the mid-1970s closed portions of PR Road 191 to 

the public. Use on PR Road 191 North is currently an 8.1-mile loop road. This means that vehicle traffic 

enters and exits this area of the Forest along the same road. 

A total of 20 recreation sites range in recreation opportunity spectrum class from “roaded natural” to 

“urban.” The primary route through EL Yunque provides a high level of developed recreational 

opportunities in this area. There is a visitor center, an information roadside kiosk, 6 roadside observation 

sites, 3 picnic areas with a total of 41 picnic shelters, 5 trailheads serving 8.3 miles of trail connecting to 

an additional 7 observation sites and the recreation portion of the La Mina Wild and Scenic River, all 

along 8.1 miles of road through a tropical forest ecosystem. In addition, private inholdings along PR Road 

191 North also provide a number of additional services ranging from novelty shops to food services (table 

3-39). 

Table 3-45 shows an estimate of the number of users wanting to use a particular trail system during “low,” 

“moderate,” “high,” “very high,” “extreme” and “excessive” use periods. Table 3-46 shows an estimate of 

the total number of users that may use a particular trail system per day during these same periods. (That 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

189

is, table 3-45 shows real-time demand while table 3-46 shows total daily use). These tables show the 

magnitude of use during “very high” to “excessive” use; and also the percent of the year that the trail 

systems endure given use levels. Note that trails receive above maximum capacity (from “very high” to 

“excessive”) 50.5 percent of the time. For perspective, during excessive use levels there may be 

approximately 750 visitors at La Mina Falls Trail System and as many as 1,750 visits in a day. During 

periods of “extremely high” to “excessive” use, some visitors will not be able to see La Mina Falls due to 

the large crowds. 

Note that on table 3-45 and table 3-46, use is distributed based on parking availability as a percentage of 

total parking and is meant as general reference. While this table represents potential use based on 

available parking, La Mina Falls is incredibly popular, and may actually draw some use away from El 

Yunque Trail system parking areas. La Coca Trail was not included in the Forest trail system because of 

its low use, challenging conditions, and limited parking spaces (four each).

Table 3-45. Demand per trail system based on total visitors during low through excessive use

Parking Miles

Low 

(0–100)

Mod (101–

200)

High (200–

300)

Very High 

(300–400)

Extreme 

(400–500)

Excessive 

(500+)

La Mina 

Falls Trail 

System

101 1.6 125 250 375 500 625 750

El Yunque 

Trail 

System

77 3.8 95 190 285 380 475 570

Mt. Britton 

Trail 

System

24 1.1 30 60 90 120 150 180

# of Users 

In Forest 202 6.5 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500

# of 

Vehicles In 

Forest

100 200 300 400 500 600

Percent of 

Use 

Type/Year

4.0% 15.0% 31.0% 30.0% 13.5% 7.0%

Risk to 

Public 

Health and

Safety

 

L L L M H VH 

Resource 

Damage

 L L L M H VH 

Social 

Encounters

 L M M H VH VH 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

190

Table 3-46. Total daily visitors per trail system (based on total use per day) 

Parking Miles Low 

(0–100)

Mod 

(101–200)

High 

(200–300)

Very High 

(300–400)

Extreme 

(400–500)

Excessive 

(500+)

La Mina 

Falls Trail 

System

101 1.6 375 625 875 1,125 1,375 1,750

El Yunque 

Trail 

System

77 3.8 285 475 665 855 1,045 1,330

Mt. Britton 

Trail 

System

24 1.1 90 150 210 270 330 420

Total # of 

Users/Day 202 6.5 750 1,250 1,750 2,250 2,750 3,500

Total # of 

Vehicles/ 

Day

 300 500 700 900 1,100 1,400

% of Use 

Type/Year 4.0% 15.0% 31.0% 30.0% 13.5% 7.0%

Risk to 

Public 

Health and

Safety

 L L L M H VH 

Resource 

Damage L L L M H VH 

Social 

Encounters L M M H VH VH 

Table 3-46 shows an estimate of the total number of users that may use a particular trail system per day 

during these same periods. (That is, table 3-45 shows real-time demand while table 3-46 shows total daily 

use).Note that on table 3-45 and table 3-46The alternatives presented focus on managing recreation in 

different Forest settings and circumstances. They provide direction on how to manage recreation activity 

in designated wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers (alternative 1). Alternatives also address the 

impacts related to high concentrated visitation and finding new recreation alternatives outside the PR-191 

corridor (alternatives 2 and 3). 

The actions that will affect recreation are outlined by alternative. The desired conditions, management 

areas, and geographic areas were the major topics evaluated in each alternative. In the desired conditions

section only the actions directly related to recreation were evaluated. The same applies for management 

and geographic areas. 

3.5.5.2 Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to all Alternatives

All alternatives continue to offer recreation along the PR 191, resulting in continued need to address 

capacity on PR 191 and infrastructure maintenance for this corridor. This is a direct effect of using PR 

191 as a recreation area in the Forest. All alternatives offer the same forms of recreational opportunities, 

which would continue to affect the resources that are utilized for these types of recreation. For example, 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

191

water play would continue within the Forest, resulting in a need to monitor water quantity and quality as 

well as climate change effects.

Alternative 1

This alternative follows the 1997 Forest Plan direction which does not include a component that addresses

sustainable recreation. This Plan calls for an increase in recreation opportunities to meet current and 

future demands regardless of impacts to the resource. There is limited direction to address the impacts 

that recreation site development will have on Forest infrastructure and capacity. 

Under the current plan, there would continue to be impacts to existing recreation facilities with the 

increased use and high visitation. The deterioration of trails due to high use would continue to create 

safety issues. The cumulative effects of having more recreation development will detract from having a 

quality experience in the rain forest, due to how it impacts the natural settings of the Forest; not to 

mention the amount of impact it will have on other resources. The impact of climate change with relation 

to recreation is not addressed in this alternative. The social and economic issue related to recreation 

would continue to provide options to local businesses and outfitters and guides. 

Recreation Sites 

The needs of Forest visitors are met with services and facilities. Opportunities and facilities for a wide 

variety of recreation experiences are met. Recreation demands are prioritized over impact to facilities and 

capacity issues. Trails systems focus on experience, ecosystems, difficulties, and length. Protection of the 

trail systems is not addressed. Recreation activity continues to be concentrated in the main PR-191 

Corridor, because it does not offer recreation in other areas of the Forest.

Wild and Scenic Rivers - Recreation 

Recreation segments of designated wild and scenic rivers allow for picnic area and trail construction in 

close proximity to the river. This type of development would increase the amount of trash near the rivers. 

Law Enforcement - Recreation 

Parking and traffic management and uniformed Forest Service personnel are used at times and locations 

of heavy public use. The increase in Forest visitation requires new and updated methods to deal with high 

visitation.

Environmental Education - Recreation 

The capacity for offering environmental education would continue to be reduced because this alternative 

does not offer environmental education under collaborative considerations. The program would continue 

to be oriented toward learning about the resource and not about protecting the resource or learning about 

impacts related to carrying capacity issues.

Management Areas - Recreation

Management Area 1 (Administrative sites) 

The recreation components in this management area are located at the lower levels of the Forest where 

building enhancement has occurred with the construction of El Portal Visitor Center. The plan would 

allow for additional recreation development that may not be considering current visitor capacity levels, 

available facilities, parking and fiscal reality on the Forest.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

192

Management Area 2 (Developed Recreation) 

Management Area 2 direction provides for the construction of new developed recreation facilities, but 

does not address protection of the resources. The construction of new facilities could adversely affect the 

natural resources found in the PR-191 Corridor. This could also result in the unsustainable use of Forest 

ecological and infrastructure resources when considering climate change tendencies that can range from 

severe droughts (summer and fall 2015) to heavy rain events and flashfloods (resulting in landslides).

Management Area 3 (Communication Sites) 

Improving vista point at El Yunque Peak Observation Tower would provide hikers with an undisturbed 

panoramic view of the Forest and the Atlantic Ocean coastline. There is limited conflict between 

recreation facilities and the communication sites and structures. The recreation opportunity spectrum 

setting changes from “semi-primitive non-motorized” along the hiking trails to “semi-primitive

motorized” along the roads that service the communication sites, yet this as stated in this alternative does 

not propose a recreational alignment. 

Management Area 4 (Integrated) 

Management area 4 would continue to be managed for recreation opportunity spectrum class “roaded 

natural undeveloped” near open roads and “semi-primitive non-motorized” which provides for a natural 

recreation setting. This management area does not include collaboration as an option with neighboring 

communities to better protect resources and to offer other uses within this management area; limiting 

socioeconomic development in these areas. No dispersed recreation is included to alleviate capacity issues 

on the PR-191 Corridor. 

Management Area 5 (Wilderness) 

Maximum encounters and group sizes need to be revised to address the protection of the resource; 

considering that wilderness designated areas have standards in respects to human encounters. There is a 

trail that goes from east to west. The current group size is causing damage to the vegetation along the trail 

and increasing the number of social trails particularly during wet weather conditions. 

Management Area 6 (Research) 

Continues to limit recreation use in this area due to its location and lack of infrastructure

Management Area 7 (Research Natural Area) 

Continues to allow recreation activity in the periphery of the management area. The area does not have an 

recreation opportunity spectrum class assignment.

Management Area 8 (Timber Demonstration) 

This management area should not have an ROS class assignment for safety and health reasons.

Management Area 9 (Scenic and Recreation River Corridor) 

Continue to manage the recreation segments of Rio de la Mina and Rio Mameyes. The proposed 

development of a picnic area near the crossing of the Rio Mameyes and PR-988 (Puente Roto) would 

increase recreation activity increasing trash along and near a wild and scenic river. There will also be an 

impact on the natural setting and create additional rive access points.

Alternative 2

This alternative addresses the issue of sustainable recreation and the protection of the resource. Plan 

direction would limit recreation activities in sensitive areas of the Forest. It would allow at the project 

level for alternative recreation sites to be identified/constructed at lower forest elevations. The creation of 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

193

the community interface resource management area (CIRMA) would provide for engagement with 

community groups to help manage and maintain recreation areas at the lower elevations near their 

communities. Capacity issues would be addressed and managed in a way that the resource is protected 

and the visitor becomes more involved in helping with trash management. 

Alternative 2 addresses recreation capacity, the protection of the resource (wetlands), and identifying 

alternative recreation sites and activities in the lower elevations of the Forest located in the CIRMA and 

the development of an alternative scenic byway for vehicular recreation. A scenic byway and its further 

development from state and Federal agencies could create other recreation opportunities within the Forest

and disperse these activities off of PR 191, reducing the pressure on sensitive species located on the PR 

191 and its recreation sites. Recreation opportunities are in harmony with preserving and conserving the 

Forest ecosystems on both the PR-191 corridor and at lower elevations. The main recreation focus is to 

promote long-term ecological, cultural and historical, social, economic sustainability. The Forest carrying 

capacity is addressed along the PR-191 corridor for the sake of improving the recreation experience and at 

the same time protecting the resource. Existing facilities and trails located at remote sites at lower 

elevations are evaluated and co-management is pursued with neighboring community groups. Present and 

future recreation demands are balanced with the ability of the land to sustain use, the capacity of the 

Forest staff to manage its use, and the resource available to manage recreation opportunity. The 

management of trash along recreation segments of wild and scenic rivers and at other undeveloped 

recreation sites is done by getting Forest visitors to practice “Leave No Trace” and “Pack-it-in and Packit-out.” 

Functional Wetlands - Recreation 

The protection and preservation of the functional wetlands could limit the types of recreation activities 

that occur within this elevation (above 600 meters).

Socioeconomic Resources - Recreation 

Provides for recreation opportunities at lower elevations which better connect neighboring communities 

with the Forest and could decrease saturation and uses of PR 191. 

Environmental Education - Recreation 

Increased knowledge and collaboration in recreation management with neighboring communities. 

Special Uses - Recreation 

The role that El Yunque holds as a tourist and recreation destination for locals and visitors that come to 

Puerto Rico must be closely monitored in relation to sustainability and protecting the resource. 

Cultural Resources - Recreation 

The reuse of historic properties near recreation sites will make the visitor more aware of the Forest 

heritage program and give them a feeling of ownership and pride for what the Forest means to Puerto 

Rico.

Facilities and Transportation - Recreation 

A Forest transportation system to facilitate the public’s access to the Forest during high visitation periods 

would be a safer alternative but could cause an inconvenience to those wishing to visit recreation sites on 

their own. The proposed scenic byway would increase the enjoyment opportunities and help disperse 

vehicular traffic from visitors that mainly want to have a leisure drive through the Forest.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

194

Management Areas - Recreation

Management Area 2 (El Yunque Recreation Zone) 

This zone includes all the recreation areas located along PR-191. The management of this zone will focus 

on capacity and sustainability issues as well as on the protection of the resource.

Management Area 3 (Communications and Recreation Sites) 

Recreation sites are located near El Yunque Peak (El Yunque Peak Observation Tower, La Roca El 

Yunque, La Roca El Yunque Trail and El Yunque Trail). The scenic value and natural setting is unmatched 

in the Forest. There are no conflicts between the communication sites and recreation facilities (trails and 

observation sites). The only conflict would be from a scenery perspective: hiking in a natural setting and 

ending in an urban-like setting at El Yunque Peak (roads, antennas and concrete structures). There are no 

recreation sites near Pico del Este Communication site.

Management Area 4 (CIRMA) 

This management area provides a unique opportunity to integrate different types of uses in proximity to

one another and near communities located at the lower elevations of the Forest. There are numerous trails 

and facilities that are not in use or are abandoned which could be renovated and put back into use with the 

shared stewardship of these communities. This management area would greatly contribute to alleviating 

the current capacity issues on the PR-191 corridor by providing other recreation opportunities outside the 

corridor. 

Management Area 5 (El Toro Wilderness) 

This is the only tropical and Puerto Rico’s only wilderness area. This area will continue to provide a 

challenging hiking experience and the opportunity for solitude. Limited permit camping is allowed with 

limited group sizes and strict camping guidelines. 

Management Area 8 (Wild and Scenic Rivers) 

The recreation segments of Rio Mameyes and Rio de la Mina are managed following the current 

comprehensive river management plan. The plan provides guidelines for trash management and proper 

recreation guidelines that protect the rivers free-flowing condition, water quality, and remarkable values.

Management Area 9 (El Verde Scenic By-Way) 

The scenic byway will make the area of El Verde once again accessible to Forest visitors. The byway in 

essence can provide alternative Forest access and recreation to that provided by the PR 191 corridor. Such 

access was a common alternative during the 1960s and 1970s during weekends and high visitation 

periods. There are various river crossings with parking spaces, abandoned picnic area, vista points and 

trailheads located along the scenic byway. In unity with the CIRMA this management area could become 

a favorite Forest recreation destination.

Geographic Areas - Recreation

El Norte/North 

This geographic area includes the municipalities of Rio Grande and Luquillo. These two municipalities 

provide the major access points to the Forest as well as the major recreation destinations. Throughout the 

years both municipalities have provided support to the Forest for special events (Forest Clean Up Day), 

road maintenance, and improvements to state roads that lead to the Forest and the services and support of 

their Civil Defense Team during rescue operations related to Forest visitors getting lost or injured. The 

development of collaboration efforts should continue as the Forest looks to work closer with surrounding 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

195

communities. The link to a regional trail system will be an important element in providing recreation 

opportunities at lower elevations and to adjoining natural reserves such as the Northeast Ecological 

Corridor. 

El Suroeste/ The Southwest 

This geographic area considers and addresses the creation of a scenic byway along PR-186 that would 

contribute to creating alternative recreation destinations for Forest visitors.

El Este/ The East 

This geographic area includes and addresses water and watershed protection; which result in better water 

quality and quantity for visitors of the Forest.

Cumulative Effects 

The Forest would cumulatively benefit due to how recreation sites are managed at lower elevations with 

collaborators and local communities. This alternative will have a positive cumulative effect in protecting 

cultural resources as well as sensitive ecological resources which are currently being impacted by 

recreation capacity issues on PR 191, by offering other recreation and cultural resources protection 

opportunities off PR 191. 

Alternative 3

The impacts from this alternative are similar to alternative 2, with the exception of creating more 

wilderness area. The creation of more wilderness will limit recreation activities. 

The effect on the resources are similar to alternative 2, but with the following modifications.

Wilderness Designation for the Baño de Oro Research Natural Area - Recreation 

The change from a research natural area to a wilderness area will not impact recreation activity. If 

wilderness designation is successful, recreation activity will not be affected because there are no 

recreation facilities or trails in the research natural area. The existing El Toro Wilderness Area is not near 

or adjacent to the research natural area, which means the physical setting will remain the same.

Facilities and Transportation - Recreation 

There would be a plan component to foster the reduction of the trail systems to meet maintenance levels. 

The elimination of a scenic byway would impact any future recreation opportunities along PR-186. 

Management Areas - Recreation 

The effects on the management area are the same as in alternative 2, but with the following modifications. 

Management Area 9 (El Verde Scenic Byway) 

The elimination of this management area will have a negative impact on recreation opportunities along 

PR-186. Without this designation, the current conditions will remain the same and with time may 

deteriorate making this area not attractive or inviting to Forest visitors. By not having a scenic byway on 

the western side of the Forest, congestion of PR-191 would continue and could become worse with more 

visitation.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

196

Geographic Areas - Recreation 

North and South Geographic Areas 

The realignment of geographic areas from three to two areas would not affect recreation activities. Most 

of the recreation activities occur on the North Geographic Area and access to the Forest would remain the 

same.

3.5.6 Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas

3.5.6.1 Affected Environment 

Congressionally designated wilderness areas are protected by the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 

1131-1136)) and valued for their ecological, historical, scientific and experiential resources. Outdoor 

recreation is one of the benefactors of wilderness and is one of the drivers of wilderness demand and 

management. According to trend data collected from 1965 to 1994, the trend in recreation visits to 

national forest wilderness areas has paralleled designations and use has increased over time. In addition to 

outdoor recreation in wilderness, a non-user component that values American wilderness also exists and is 

important to understand when analyzing areas that may be suitable for wilderness allocations. 

Wilderness is valued for preserving representative natural ecosystems and local landscapes. The very 

existence of wilderness is valued by the American public as part of the natural heritage of the country.

El Yunque National Forest is home to one designated wilderness area: El Toro Wilderness, which is made 

up of 10,352 acres. On El Yunque National Forest this represents about one-third of the total Forest 

acreage. Annual wilderness use for El Yunque National Forest is about 1,000 visits per year, or about 0.5 

percent of total visitor use.

Table 3-47. Existing designated wilderness areas

Wilderness Area Acreage 

El Toro Wilderness 10,352

The existing wilderness areas should maintain the areas’ natural characteristics. Four qualities help 

describe wilderness character:

1. Untrammeled. Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or 

manipulation. 

2. Naturalness. Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern 

civilization.

3. Undeveloped. Wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements or modern human 

occupation. 

4. Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Wilderness 

provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primitive and unconfined 

recreation, including the values of inspiration and physical and mental challenge. 

Affected Environment Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Inventoried roadless areas are designated areas under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR, 36 

CFR Part 294). The Forest Service first inventoried these areas in 1972, as part of the Roadless Area 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

197

Review and Evaluation phase I (RARE I). A second inventory was completed for RARE II in 1977 and 

then in the RACR in 2001. El Yunque National Forest has one inventoried roadless areas on the Forest, 

which is the same area as the expanded Baño de Oro Research Natural Area (6,441 acres).

Table 3-48. Inventoried roadless areas, approximate GIS acreages

Roadless Area Acres Acreage

Baño de Oro 6,441

Areas that May be Suitable for Wilderness Designation 

The first step in the evaluation of areas that may be suitable for wilderness designation is to identify and 

inventory all areas that satisfy the definition of wilderness. Direction can be found in Section 2 (c) of the 

1964 Wilderness Act and Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70–Wilderness Evaluation.

The Forest Service must evaluate lands that meet the inventory criteria for areas that may be suitable for 

wilderness during plan revision and, from the information gathered in that evaluation, consider 

alternatives for recommending wilderness. The previous planning process identified two areas as lands 

that may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. These two inventoried 

areas totaled 23,600 acres out of the total 28,223 acres in El Yunque. None of the remaining acres meet 

the criteria for being included in an inventory of areas that may be suitable for wilderness designation. Of 

these two areas, one, El Toro area, became designated as El Toro Wilderness Area in 2005. The second 

area is the Mameyes Area (of approximately 11,000 acres), which includes the Baño de Oro Inventoried 

Roadless Area of 6,441 acres.

Table 3-49. Areas on El Yunque that may be suitable for wilderness designation

Area Acreage

Mameyes area (Approximately) 11,000 acres

The Mameyes area was then further evaluated as to its suitability for wilderness designation (see

appendix D). Based on this information, the planning team considered alternatives with varying amounts 

of recommended wilderness. Recommended areas would be managed to maintain their wilderness 

character until they are officially designated by Congress and added to the National Wilderness 

Preservation System.

Under alternatives 1 and 2, no additional areas would be recommended for wilderness designation. 

However, in alternative 3, the portion of the Mameyes area that is an inventoried roadless area would be 

recommended for wilderness designation. 

Table 3-50. Summary recommendations by alternative

Existing Area Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

El Toro Wilderness (acres) 10,363 10,352 10,352

Inventoried Roadless Area (acres) 6,441 6,441

Proposed Additional Wilderness (Baño de Oro) 

(acres) 

0 0 6,441
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

198

Wilderness has many positive effects. As stated previously, wilderness preserves natural systems and 

provides places of solitude for visitors. However, there are environmental effects within wilderness from 

many sources. Four previously defined wilderness characteristics are considered for effects, (1) 

untrammeled, (2) naturalness, (3) undeveloped; and (4) outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 

Recreational use can negatively impact the four wilderness characteristics, especially the opportunity for 

solitude and naturalness. Some of these negative impacts, especially on naturalness, include the 

following: 

1. Soil compaction; 

2. Vegetation loss, disturbance and/or replacement by invasive species such as noxious weeds on trails 

and campsites caused by recreation use;

3. Deterioration of water quality from improper disposal of human waste and waste water; and

4. Loss of or threats to biological/ecological processes and biodiversity through human disturbance. 

Other environmental effects which impact the integrity of the natural systems in wilderness include air 

pollution from outside sources, interruption of natural functioning ecosystems by fire suppression, and 

threats to native plant species from the spread of noxious weeds from sources outside wilderness. 

3.5.6.2 Environmental Effects

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives carry forward the need for wilderness patrols, wilderness rehabilitation of any impacted 

sites, wilderness education, and wilderness-specific management plans. These effects are common to all 

alternatives.

There would be no negative effects to the roadless character of inventoried roadless areas on the Forest 

from these alternatives. All of these areas have a recreation opportunity setting of “semi-primitive 

motorized” or “semi-primitive non-motorized” and would continue to implement the direction from the 

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) on limiting road construction and tree cutting in these 

areas.

Alternative 1 

Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness 

Alternative 1 would not recommend any new wilderness study areas on El Yunque. The management 

direction for El Toro Wilderness would continue as it is currently being managed. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

The Baño de Oro inventoried roadless area would continue to be managed as a part of the proposed 

expanded Baño de Oro Research Natural Area. There would be no negative effect to the roadless 

character of the inventoried roadless area. 

Opportunities for solitude and remoteness may decrease. Sights and sounds of man’s activities may be 

more obvious. Noise levels and soil erosion may increase. Air and water quality may decrease although 

water quality would meet state and Federal standards. There would be no negative effect to the roadless 

character of inventoried roadless areas on the Forest from this alternative. The areas have a recreation 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

199

opportunity spectrum setting of “semi-primitive motorized” and would continue to implement the 

direction from the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule on limiting road construction and tree cutting 

in these areas.

Alternative 2

Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness 

Alternative 2 would not recommend any new wilderness areas. Like alternative 1, the management 

direction would follow that for El Toro Wilderness area. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

The Baño de Oro Inventoried Roadless Area would continue to be managed as a part of the expanded 

Baño de Oro Research Natural Area. There would be no negative effect to the roadless character of the 

inventoried roadless area.

Alternative 3

Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness 

Under alternative 3, the management direction for El Toro Wilderness Area would continue as it is 

currently being managed. The 6,141-acre Baño de Oro Inventoried Roadless Area would be 

recommended for wilderness designation. The 2,172-acre formally designated Baño de Oro Research 

Natural Area that is within the inventoried roadless area would become a part of the recommended 

wilderness. However, the proposal to officially expand the research natural area would not be pursued. 

The recommended area would be managed the same as designated wilderness until a final determination 

is made by Congress as to whether it should be added to the National Wilderness Preservation system.

The primary change to the management of the Baño de Oro area under this alternative is that the area 

would be managed as a wilderness area instead of as a research natural area. This would have the effect of 

potentially increasing the recreational use of the area. Any research activities that would involve 

manipulating vegetation within this area, which could occur under alternatives 1 or 2, would not be 

conducted under this alternative. Water quality and air quality should remain good and the imprint of 

man’s influence would not increase or would diminish over time. On some occasions there may be 

restoration of degraded resources in the recommended wilderness area, i.e., invasive eradication or 

control. 

Opportunities for solitude and remoteness would potentially increase as would the opportunity for 

primitive and unconfined recreation due to the reduction of research-related activities. Additional acreage 

for wilderness would allow wilderness user impacts to be dispersed across a larger area providing an 

increase in wilderness visitor satisfaction. Maintenance of trails and facilities would be limited to using 

hand tools only. 

Educational opportunities for the scientific study of natural ecological processes would increase with the 

increased acres in wilderness. The naturalness, uniqueness and representative ecosystems of the 

designated areas would be maintained

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

In alternative 3, the Baño de Oro Inventoried Roadless Area is recommended for wilderness designation.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

200

3.5.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers

3.5.7.1 Affected Environment 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542: 16 USC 1271-1287, October 2, 1968) and its 

amendments provide for the protection of selected rivers and their immediate environments. To be eligible 

for designation, rivers must possess one or more outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, 

fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values. Designation preserves rivers in free-flowing 

condition, protects water quality, and protects their immediate environments for the benefit and 

enjoyment of present and future generations. 

Most rivers are added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System) through Federal 

legislation, after a study of the river’s eligibility and suitability for designation. The Forest Service is 

required to consider and evaluate rivers on lands they manage for potential designation while preparing 

their broader land management plans under Section 5(d)(1) of the Act.

Rivers and stream corridors accommodate different uses such as picnicking, day hiking, and walking for 

pleasure, primitive camping, swimming and nature study. 

Demand for river designation is expressed primarily through public comment and responses to agency 

proposals. The degree to which the public input favors designation indicates the demand for a wide range 

of uses, activities, and resource qualities associated with river management.

Although demand is closely related to the current population and the projected growth of the local area, 

designation would likely produce increased levels of recreation use in designated and potential corridors. 

Designated Rivers on El Yunque National Forest 

The Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2002 designated the following three rivers 

as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System: Rio Mameyes, Rio de la Mina, and Rio Icacos. 

Non-Eligible/Eligible Rivers 

In previous planning efforts, rivers on El Yunque National Forest were considered for wild and scenic 

river eligibility. During the current planning effort another evaluation was done. Three streams or rivers in 

El Yunque were reviewed for potential eligibility. Rivers/streams must possess at least one outstandingly 

remarkable value (ORV) to be considered eligible. These streams were classified according to Section 2 

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Table 3-51 shows the rivers that were studied and found eligible. (See 

also appendix C.) 

During this plan revision, any additional evaluation of rivers/streams was limited to the evaluation of any 

rivers or streams that were not previously evaluated for eligibility, or any rivers or streams with changed 

circumstances. However, the previous planning effort evaluated all the potential streams, and there has 

been no change in circumstances. 

Table 3-51. Rivers studied for national wild and scenic river system

River Miles Preliminary Classification

Rio Espíritu Santo/ Quebrada Sonadora 2.9 Wild

0.8 Scenic

Rio Fajardo 3.4 Wild

Rio Sabana 2.3 Wild

0.3 Recreation
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

201

3.5.7.2 Environmental Consequences

The identification of a river for study through the Forest planning process does not trigger any protection 

under the act until designation by Congress. Importantly, identifying rivers as eligible, or eligible and 

suitable, does not create any new agency authority; rather, it focuses the management actions within the 

discretion of the Forest Service on protecting identified river values. For eligible rivers, the preliminary 

(inventoried) classification is to be maintained absent a suitability determination. The recommended 

classification is to be maintained throughout the duration of the Forest plan. Protection of rivers and 

streams through the Forest planning process helps to assure high-quality, free-flowing rivers and streams, 

as well as river-related recreation opportunities. 

Management emphasis for the eligible rivers and their corridors is focused on protection and enhancement 

of the values for which they were established, without limiting other uses that do not substantially 

interfere with public use and enjoyment of those values. The establishment values (outstandingly 

remarkable vaules) for the rivers on El Yunque National Forest include scenic, recreational, geological, 

fish and wildlife, historical, cultural or other values including ecological.

Most impacts to all rivers come from activities outside the river corridor. However, Forest management 

would be subordinate to the river’s outstandingly remarkable vaules. Vegetation management, road 

construction and construction or removal of recreation facilities could cause erosion along the river, 

sedimentation from soil runoff, visual intrusions or noise from nearby activities 

Increased public interest and use may result with the creation of CIRMA by having additional trailheads 

and trails and access points to the river to accommodate additional public interest and use of the river. 

However, increased recreation use due to designation may also result in more river-related activities and 

cause localized increases in soil compaction and erosion of stream banks and the need for limited public 

access.

River sections classified as scenic or recreational are managed with a wider variety of activities allowed 

within the river corridor. However, Forest management would be subordinate to the river’s outstandingly 

remarkable vaules. Sights and sounds of man’s activities would be more apparent. Management activities 

that have the greatest potential of affecting rivers and their potential suitability for scenic or recreation 

designation are road construction, vegetation management, insect and disease control, and special use 

utility right-of-ways. Other management activities that also can affect the river resources to a degree are 

threatened and endangered species habitat management, recreation and administrative site facilities. A 

“wild” classification, however, would be expected to have a smaller range of effects from activities within 

the river corridor (e.g., no new roads, no new rights-of-way or wildlife openings).

Non-eligible Rivers 

Any river determined to be not eligible may be managed on El Yunque National Forest under a variety of 

management areas, geographic zones, and special designations. These prescriptions will allow a wide 

variety of activities within the river corridor. Management activities may include road construction, 

vegetation management, insect and disease control or special use utility right-of-ways. Other management 

activities that also can affect the river resources to a lesser degree are threatened and endangered species 

habitat management, recreation and administrative site facility construction and wildlife and fisheries 

management.

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, the three eligible wild and scenic rivers would retain their eligibility in accordance 

with Forest Service manual and handbook direction until they are evaluated for suitability and either 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

202

designated or released. This means that they would be maintained in their free-flowing condition and their 

identified outstandingly remarkable vaules would be retained.

Faced with the challenge of managing the recreation segments of the existing designated wild and scenic 

rivers, the Forest does not have the management capacity and resources to pursue additional wild and 

scenic river designations. All of the streams and rivers that originate in the Forest will maintain their freeflowing condition, water quality and their “outstanding remarkable” values, so in essence they are being 

managed as wild and scenic rivers. The rivers conditions within the Forest were analyzed and determined 

to be in a good state (see 2014 Forest Plan Assessment). 

3.5.8 Special Uses

Special uses are an integral part of the management of the Forest. It allows individuals and organizations 

to use resources provided by the land. 

After the passings of hurricanes Irma and María, the only foreseeable change in Special Uses is the 

reduction of recreational residences in the Forest due to the damages caused to them, although right 

before the hurricanes there were only 3 recreational residences remaining.

3.5.8.1 Affected Environment

Special uses permitted include areas for electronics and communications, temporary housing and camps, 

and water supply. Temporary permits are issued for projects such as recreation events, research, and 

filming/photography. Current permitted special uses are summarized in the following table. 

Table 3-52. Summary of special use categories

Special Use Category

Number of permits given in 

2012

Communication Sites 8 

Filming and Photo 18

Food Concession 1 

Organization Camp (e.g., Girl Scouts) 1 

Outfitters and Guides 30

Recreational Residences 3 

Recreation Events 15

Research 18

Road Right-of-Way 9 

Water Right-of-Way 20

Electronic facilities, water systems, tours and outfitters, and research are the predominant special uses on 

the Forest. Research and outfitters/guides permits make up the vast amount of services requested by 

individuals and institutions. Communications and water intakes make the bulk of governmental requests 

for permits.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

203

3.5.8.2 Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 

Water – Special Uses 

The permitted extraction of water from the Forest will have the effect of supplying the local community 

with a water supply while at the same time controlling the extracted amount to benefit the health of the 

aquatic habitat.

New Developed Recreation Areas – Special Uses 

Access to the area by means of permitted outfitters and tours will have the effect of opening new areas of 

the Forest to tourism. The concentration of permitted use of the developed areas will potentially reduce 

the effects of dispersed recreation on other areas of the Forest, thus reducing damage to the natural 

environment and resources in the Forest overall.

The permitted use of the new developed areas will increase the likelihood of damage to the natural and 

cultural resources in or near the vicinity of the developed areas.

Minerals – Special Uses 

The extraction of minerals will not be permitted. This will have the effect of ensuring the health of the 

ecosystem, and other resources as well as the maintenance of healthy recreation, scenic and other natural 

forest values. The ban on the extraction of minerals from the Forest will have the direct effect of 

eliminating economic enterprises on this sector within the Forest.

Vegetation – Special Uses 

The permitted collection of plants and plant material (fruits, seeds, etc.) from the Forest will have the 

effect of reducing unchecked damage to the flora while at the same time providing access to it under 

justifiable means. The requirement of a permit for the salvage of timber allows the extraction of naturally 

fallen trees for non-economic, justifiable means, thus protecting the visual and ecosystem quality of the 

Forest. 

Permits - Special Uses 

The requirement of permits for all commercial activities in the Forest will have the effect of ensuring 

control of such activities, while allowing the population and enterprises to benefit from the Forest. The 

Special Uses Program allows the use of the Forest for military exercise while placing specific parameters 

for that use. Such controls will have the effect of reducing the footprint of the activities on the Forest and 

its resources and will reduce the visual impact to the visitor. The control of water intakes and research 

will have the direct effect of reducing the impacts of such activities while keeping the Forest open to 

them.

Recreation – Special Uses 

The requirement of permits for camping will ensure user safety while minimizing direct environmental 

impact on the Forest.

Facilities and Transportation – Special Uses 

The permitted use of Forest facilities for the Puerto Rican parrot recovery program will have the effect of 

enhancing the success rate of the recovery efforts.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

204

Wild and Scenic Rivers – Special Uses 

The ban on permits for the construction of dams within the waterways in the sections cataloged as “wild 

rivers” will have the effect of ensuring the health and character of the rivers under this classification. It 

can also have the effect of reducing available water reserves for the use of the community under extreme 

weather conditions such as drought. 

Research and Demonstration – Special Uses 

The permitted use of certain areas of the Forest for research and demonstration activities will have the 

effect of ensuring that the ecosystem and resources are protected while allowing those activities that are 

justifiable and beneficial for the greater good. 

Management Areas – Special Uses

Management Area 2 (Developed Recreation) 

The termination of permits for recreational residences that are no longer in use will have the effect of 

reducing the footprint of such structures and activities in the Forest. The discontinuation of their use will 

have the indirect effect of allowing the natural ecosystem around them to recover.

Management Area 3 (Communication Sites) 

The ban on constructing new facilities, and consolidating permitted activities to a few sites, will have the 

effect of reducing the environmental, visual, and audio impact of the communication activities in the 

Forest. Removing the communication equipment around El Yunque Peak Tower Heritage Site will have 

the effect of returning the sense of feeling to the site to its original intended purpose of an isolated 

observation tower. The goal of having one special use permit holder per facility manager will have the 

effect of reducing administrative burdens on the Forest. It could also have the indirect effect of reducing 

accessibility to the sites given that the discretionary use would be in the hands of the permit holder. The 

ban on new land clearings and new road constructions will have the effect of protecting the environment 

both directly and cumulative. 

Management Area 7 (Research Natural Area) 

The permitting of research activities within this area will allow access to investigators and the placement 

of temporary equipment. This could have the cumulative effect of enhancing the understanding of the 

Forest ecosystems in the long run. The ban on permitted facilities or occupation will have the effect of 

preserving the environment and the natural qualities of the area. 

Alternative 2

Water – Special Uses 

The ban on new water intake permits could have the effect of reducing availability of water to the 

communities in times of drought or if recent drier weather patterns start to prevail.

Wildlife – Special Uses 

Research activities as well as third party land management practices that can provide benefit to habitat 

(i.e., agroforestry activities) will require a permit. This will increase monitoring of activities, the results of 

which would allow better management of the resource and a reduction in the possibility of direct adverse 

effects on the fauna.

The conditioned permitted extraction of water will have the effect of securing a stable supply of water to 

maintain the aquatic habitats.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

205

Socioeconomics – Special Uses 

All economic activities provided by the Forest to individuals, institutions, or communities will require a 

permit. This will include outfitting/guide services, resources collection and extraction, research, 

educational and interpretation activities. This will have the effect of providing a better quality of services, 

information, education, interpretation and other activities to the people and communities. 

Ecosystem Services – Special Uses 

The permitted use of ecosystem services has the effect of providing resources and services while at the 

same time ensuring the protection of the environment and resources.

Recreation – Special Uses 

The requirement of permits for outfitting services, vending services, food concessionaires, and other forprofit activities will have the direct effect of controlling illegal activities and uses. It will have the indirect 

effect of enhancing the recreational and interpretative offering to the visitors. The use of outfitters might 

have the cumulative effect of reducing impacts on the Forest and recreation areas caused by high traffic, 

and individual vehicular use. The use of permitted outfitting/guides could have the effect of increasing 

peak visitation numbers to the Forest. 

Forest Products – Special Uses 

The controlled and permitted extraction of Forest products will have the effect of reducing illegal 

activities and uses on the Forest and its resources. It will also have the indirect effect of allowing for the 

better management and monitoring of the area and its resources.

Permits - Special Uses 

Special use permits make the land, its resources, and opportunities available to the public, government, 

and entities. Special use permitting also has the direct effect of supporting communities and the economy. 

Permitted communication, water, research and military uses has the effect of enhancing the productivity 

of the Forest to the benefit of society in general. The implementation of the special uses program has the 

effect of securing accountability, transparency, equality and efficiency. It also has the indirect effect of 

helping manage, protect and monitor other resources and management areas. 

Cultural Resources – Special Uses 

All cultural resource-related research by individuals and organizations outside the Forest Service will 

require a special use permit.

Facilities and Transportation – Special Uses 

All use of the communication equipment in the Forest will require a special use permit and will be limited 

to the communications management area. No new communication structures will be permitted. 

The permitted use of existing infrastructure could have the effect of reducing maintenance costs.

The continuous support of the parrot aviary will have the effect of improving recovery conditions to the 

Puerto Rican parrot. 

Minerals – Special Uses 

The ban on the permitted extraction of minerals limits will have the effect of limiting access to resources 

by the public. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

206

Research – Special Uses 

The permitting of research activities will have the effect of filtering beneficial research and will help 

control research activities which could affect other resources such as scenery, recreational opportunities, 

water and air, etc. 

Management Areas – Special Uses

Management Area 2 (El Yunque/Yokahu Zones) 

The focus on recreation on this area will impact the special uses program because of the focus on 

outfitted/guided alternative use of this area. Because outfitting permits are being issued to individuals, 

monitoring and enforcement would improve, but so would the workload. Permitting and the associated 

monitoring of vending and concessionaire activities will have the effect of increasing visitor’s recreational 

opportunities and available facilities and services. Special use permits for the use of vacant infrastructure 

will help reduce deferred maintenance costs. It could also have the direct effect of rehabilitating historic 

infrastructure.

Management Area 3 (Communications) 

The proposed removal of communications facilities from the east end of El Yunque Peak Site and Pico del 

Este area will mean that no new constructions will be authorized and that all new and proposed permitted 

communication activities will be limited to the existing infrastructure in the area. This will have the direct 

effect of reducing noise, traffic, and scenic contamination. It will have the indirect effect of reducing 

damage to the access road by reducing the amount of infrastructure in need of maintenance and refueling. 

The reduction in traffic will also have the effect of increasing hiker safety on the route by reducing 

encounters between vehicles and people. 

Management Area 4 (Community Interface Resource Management Area) 

The controlling and permitting of activities within the Community Interface Resource Management Area 

(CIRMA) will have the effect of protecting the resources and land while allowing the use of the area and 

the establishment of projects from the community, collaborators, and enterprises. It will also have the 

indirect effect of aiding in the management and monitoring of the area and its resources. The management 

of special use permits within the CIRMA will also have the direct effect of reducing illegal activities and 

uses on the Forest and its resources within the CIRMA. We expect to see an increase in the collection and 

extraction of Forest resources if the CIRMA is implemented. 

Management Area 5 (Wilderness) 

The permitting of the limited outfitting and research activities within the wilderness will have the direct 

effect of reducing unintended damage to the resources and will maintain the wilderness characteristics of 

the area.

Management Area 6 (Research) 

The issuing of permits for research will have the direct effect of reducing unintended damage to the 

resources and will help conserve/preserve the resources and the environment.

Management Area 7 (Baño de Oro Research Natural Area) 

The requirements of permits for any activity in the area will have the direct effect of reducing unintended 

damage to the resources and will help conserve/preserve the resources and the environment.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

207

Management Area 9 (Scenic By-Way 186) 

The issuing of permits for enterprises will have the effect of allowing the development and 

implementation of projects, enterprises, and initiatives within the corridor, while at the same time helping 

to preserve the environment, nearby wilderness character, cultural resources, and infrastructure around the 

corridor. The establishment of such ventures could have the indirect effect of increasing Forest Services’

and partners’ visibility in that area of the Forest, which will increase the level and feeling of safety and 

monitoring of the area.

Geographic Areas – Special Uses 

No significant effects are foreseen for the differences in the geographic areas.

Alternative 3

The effect of the resources’ desired future conditions are the same as in alternative 2, with the following 

differences. 

Extension of Wilderness to Research Natural Area – Special Uses 

This will limit the permitted activities to those allowed by the standard and guidelines outlined for the 

wilderness area. The regulation of the limited outfitting and research activities within the wilderness will 

have the direct effect of reducing unintended damage to the resources and will maintain the wilderness 

characteristics of the area. It will also have the direct effect of prohibiting new water intakes within the 

boundaries of the area. 

Management Areas – Special Uses 

The effect of the resources within the management areas are the same as in alternative 2, with the 

exception of the lack of management area 9 (scenic byway) in this alternative.

Geographic Areas – Special Uses 

No significant effects are foreseen for the differences in the geographic areas.

3.5.9 Scenery 

Scenery varies depending on existing natural features, which include vegetation, water features, 

landforms, geology, and human-made elements. Scenic character is a combination of the physical, 

biological, and cultural images that give an area its scenic identity and contributes to its sense of place. 

The landscape of El Yunque National Forest has a wide variety of features that provide for some of the 

most spectacular scenery found anywhere in Puerto Rico. El Yunque has a variety of scenic settings from 

dense, enclosed picnic areas and trails, to cloud covered peaks and observation towers, which on clear 

days have vistas of the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea. The Forest also has many prehistoric and 

historic sites adding richness of character and culture. Scenery combines all the ecological features and

human elements which together give a landscape its character and image. Viewing the natural scenery is 

one the major reasons most visitors have for visiting to the Forest (NVUM 2011). 

The development on neighboring lands negatively impact the scenic resource as visitors approach the 

Forest along several state roads. Understanding the value of Forest scenery to the local communities is 

important as it affects real estate values and quality of life. In addition to other Forest natural resources, 

the scenery resource must be preserved and managed for future generations 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

208

3.5.9.1 Affected Environment

All Forest visitors’ activities are experienced in a scenic environment defined by the arrangements of the 

landscapes’ natural elements combined with components of the built environment. The natural scenic 

beauty of the Forest stands out, making it a major local and international recreation destination. Roads 

off-Forest as well as Forest roads, trails, and recreation sites are key components for viewing scenery, 

especially along the PR-191 Recreation Corridor. 

Large areas of the Forest contain naturally evolving landscapes where processes occur with very little 

human intervention. The scenic character is basically intact with only minute deviations. Views beyond 

the immediate background are influenced by the viewer’s elevation and forest type and density. 

Vegetation is dense with tall trees and large canopies while at the upper elevations the trees and palms are 

shorter and less dense with more shrubs and tall grasses. Currently, after hurricanes Irma and Maria, most 

of the vegetation has regrown its leaves; however many trees lost its branches and is a persistent 

characteristic of the forest structure. If another major hurricane does not impact the forest in the next 20 

years, the views of a dense forest will again be seen.

Most of the Forest areas have a natural appearing scenic character. Deviations in the scenic character 

borrow from elements in the landscape. Roads and trails area a part of the natural appearing landscape, 

offering opportunities to view scenery. Historic structures such as the observation towers (Yokahu and 

Mount Britton) are noticeable, but borrow from the landscape elements and are positive cultural elements 

which add to the valued scenic character.

In all alternatives there would be little to no change in the landscape character of natural appearing and 

natural evolving. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more protection and enhancement to the scenic 

resources because of the focus on protecting the resources. 

3.5.9.2 Environmental Consequences

All Alternatives

The scenic resource is affected by management activities that alter the appearance of what is seen in the 

landscape. Scenic effects are usually considered in terms of visual contrast with existing or adjacent 

conditions that result from management activities. 

Due to the heavy concentration of recreation areas in the PR-191 Recreation Corridor, traffic congestion 

and overcrowding of favorite sites and parking areas continues to be a problem. Recreation use beyond 

capacity may cause natural resource damage adjacent to recreation sites, roads, and trails, affecting the 

naturally appearing scenery adjacent to these areas. Traffic congestion may affect access and 

opportunities to view scenery. There are management activities and areas that can result in visual 

alteration. Those that have the greatest potential of affecting scenery include the following:

Road construction 

Vegetation management

Special use utility right-of-ways

Other management activities that can also affect the scenery resource include: 

Threatened and endangered species habitat management

Communication sites

Administrative and recreation facilities construction
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

209

Changes to scenic conditions across the landscape mostly occur through natural processes such as 

hurricanes, tropical storms, tree falls, and landslides with naturally evolving landscapes. These natural 

disturbances will continue to shape the vegetation and landform features of the landscape. 

Alternative 1 

This alternative follows the desired future condition, goals, and standards and guidelines that appear in 

the 1997 Forest Plan. The scenery resource continues to be one of the most valued and enjoyed amenities 

by visitors. The scenery goals are set to protect, enhance, and where necessary, restore the scenery values 

of the Forest by considering the former visual quality objectives in resource planning and management, 

demonstration, and research activities. 

Alternative 1 does not contemplate an “all-lands” approach for management and collaboration of scenic 

values, retaining the complete authority and responsibility of managing the scenery within the National 

Forest. This policy limits the strategies the Forest has to reduce the visual impacts of land fragmentation 

on the overall scenic viewshed. 

Developed Recreation - Scenery 

Addresses recreation demands and development which would have an impact on the natural scenery. It 

could alter the natural setting and limit the natural scenic character, which is a recognizable value for the 

Forest and its visitors.

Wild and Scenic Rivers - Scenery 

The designation and management of the wild and scenic rivers protects the scenery and outstanding 

remarkable values of the rivers while providing a scenic enjoyment opportunity for Forest visitors.

Wilderness Area - Scenery 

Protects the scenery and natural setting that is found in this area. 

Management Areas - Scenery 

All management areas would continue to meet their former visual quality objective ratings:

Table 3-53. Management area visual quality objective ratings

Management Area Visual Quality Objective Rating

MA 1 Administrative Sites Partial Retention

MA 2 Developed Recreation 50 percent Retention

MA 3 Communication Sites Modification

MA 4 Integrated 75 percent Retention, 20 percent Partial Retention, 5

percent Modification

MA 5 Wilderness 95 percent Preservation

MA 6 Research 40 percent Retention

MA 7 Research Natural Area 100 percent Preservation 

MA 8 Timber Demo. 50 percent Partial Retention, 10 percent Modification

MA 9 Scenic and Recreational Rivers 5 percent Partial Retention
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

210

Alternative 2 

This alternative addresses the protection of the resources. Scenery will continue to be a valued resource 

and will be managed accordingly. 

Alternative 2 considers an “all-lands” approach for management and collaboration of scenic values. This 

strategy provides the Forest broader opportunities to manage scenic viewshed which can help improve 

and maintain scenic character values that are affected by land fragmentation and peripheral urbanization, 

a growing issue for the region (see the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment). 

Developed Recreation - Scenery 

Addresses recreation demands, but development is a lot less than alternative 1, which would have less 

impact on the natural scenery of the Forest. The development of recreation under this alternative would 

consider existing infrastructure at the lower elevations of the Forest, which would also impact the natural 

setting, but in a much reduced way. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers - Scenery 

The designation and management of the wild and scenic rivers protect the scenery and outstanding 

remarkable values of the rivers while providing a scenic enjoyment opportunity for Forest visitors.

Riparian Zones - Scenery 

Riparian restoration under this alternative is more intense and the land acquisition program for the Forest 

considers acquiring riparian zones as a priority. This could help the management and protection of the 

scenic value that rivers possess with the Forest. 

Wilderness Area - Scenery 

Protects the scenery and natural setting that is found in this area. 

Management Areas - Scenery 

Management Area 1 Administrative 

Scenery is impacted by structures, parking areas, roads, utilities and signage. The natural forest is a scenic 

background for these built elements. The scenic character of this management area closely resembles that 

of an urban/rural landscape. Under this alternative no new infrastructure will be developed within this 

management area, therefore the impact to the natural setting could be less. 

Management Area 2 El Yunque Recreation Zone 

This management area is highly developed with picnic shelters, bathrooms, trails, roads, parking, 

observation towers and road and trail signage. The Forest scenery is closely integrated to the built 

environment. Under this alternative no new infrastructure will be developed within this management area, 

therefore the impact to the natural setting could be less. 

Management Area 3 Communication and Recreation 

Communication antennas located at El Yunque Peak are highly visible when viewed from afar or after 

hiking for several hours and arriving at the peak. The communication site at Pico del Este is also visible 

from off the Forest and from key points within the Forest. The predominate cloud conditions at these 

peaks during most of the year greatly reduces the negative scenery that these antennas represent.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

211

Management Area 4 Community Interface Resource Management Area

This management area will have some scenery impact as alternative sites are reused or restored at the 

Forest’s lower elevations. Most of the scenery impact will be along existing roads that provide access to 

the Forest.

Management Area 5 El Toro Wilderness Area 

This management area would retain its natural scenic character. There would be minimal scenery impact 

because there would be no new trails developed in this area. Any trail maintenance would have some 

scenery impact but would be for a limited amount of time when trail work would be done. 

Management Area 6 Research 

Scenery would be impacted in this management area where research plots are located. These sites are 

located in very isolated parts of the Forest and are not visible from roadways or recreation trails.

Management Area 7 Baño de Oro Research Natural Area 

Scenery would not be impacted. 

Management Area 8 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Scenic character would be managed by the comprehensive river management plan. The plan addresses the 

protection of the rivers outstanding remarkable values which includes the rivers scenic beauty.

Management Area 9 Scenic Byway PR-186 

This management area will greatly contribute to improving the scenery along this roadway. Scenic byway 

designation will prioritize the importance of providing a scenic experience to people that travel on this 

section of PR-186. 

Geographic Areas - Scenery 

All geographic areas will continue to have the same scenic opportunities. Access roads to the Forest will 

continue to be the same. The North Geographic Area will continue to have the most used access routes to 

the PR-191 Recreation Corridor and the CIRMA.

Alternative 3 

The effect on the scenery resource is the same as in alternative 2. This alternative would have added 

wilderness area acreage. 

Resources - Scenery 

The effects on the scenery resources is the same as in alternative 2.

Management Areas - Scenery

MA 9 Scenic Byway 

Eliminating the scenic byway designation will have a negative impact on the scenery along the PR-186 

roadway that crosses the Forest. The scenery resource will not be managed at the level of a scenic byway.

Geographic Areas - Scenery 

All geographic areas will continue to have the same scenic opportunities. Access roads to the Forest will 

continue to be the same. The North Geographic Area will continue to have the most used routes to the PR191 Recreation Corridor and the CIRMA. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

212

Cumulative Effects

Under all alternatives the cumulative effects on the scenery of the Forest would be the same; considering 

the management under the alternatives protect scenery within the Forest with minimal impacts. The 

scenery from a broader landscape perspective is not managed within the alternatives but there are possible 

positive impacts from alternative 2 and 3 which propose collaboration and an “all-lands” approach. 

3.5.10 Infrastructure

3.5.10.1Affected Environment

Infrastructure in the Forest is varied and vast, and consists of buildings, roads within the Forest

boundaries, external roads, parking, transit, trails, research facilities, recreation facilities, abandoned 

facilities, water intakes, and non-Forest service buildings. Much of the infrastructure on the Forest is 

already considered a historic asset. The Forest infrastructure supports recreation, communications, access, 

water supply, research, and resource management. The main infrastructure within the Forest includes: 

11.27 miles of National Forest System roads. 

34 permitted water intakes.

1 Forest headquarters compound. 

1 Visitors center (El Portal del Yunque).

1 aviary facility.

1 quarters building El Verde site. 

1 El Verde storage area. 

3 observation platforms (Yokahu Tower, Mt. Britton Tower, and Los Picachos platform). 

2 research stations (Long Term Ecological Research Station Site and Sabana Field Research Station).

Living quarters in research stations.

3 open picnic áreas (Palo Colorado and Palma de Sierra, El Verde).

2 stores.

13 open trails. 

7 empty historic structures. 

2 closed pools (Baño de Oro and Baño Grande). 

Forest Service buildings and structures (both administrative and recreation) support administrative and 

recreation programs across El Yunque National Forest.

A facility master plan would be developed to guide the acquisition, continued use, maintenance, 

improvements and disposal of Forest Service facilities on El Yunque National Forest. The plan would 

propose an overall reduction in facilities through consolidation and decommissioning. 

The passing of hurricanes Irma and Maria in late 2017 had severe impacts on the forest infrastructure. The 

two main administration buildings (headquarters and visitor center) were moderately damaged during the 

events. The damage extended to the water supply system, including intakes and distribution system that 

feed the headquarters and visitor center, as well as a partial collapse of the sewer systems. The electric 

system in the forest was completely destroyed or failed during the emergency. This included the backup 

electrictricity generator system which failed after prolonged use during the emergency. The main roads 

suffered landslides and two catastrophic failures, necesitaning the closing of the forest and severely 

limiting access to the vital communication sites on the higher parts of El Yunque. Recreation related 

infrastructure suffered significant damages, including landslides or bed failures on trails, damaged picnic 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

213

shelters, and damage to recreation related historic infrastructure. Overall significant forest infrastructure 

will require large amounts of reconstruction, restoration or overall replacement. The effects of the 

hurricanes highlighted the fragility of the current systems when confronted with severe weather events. 

The collapse of the infrastructure also had severe impacts on the recreation offering and socioeconomic 

opportunities provided by the forest including lack of access for tourism, telecommunications, research, 

and national defense. 

3.5.10.2Environmental Consequences, All Alternatives

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would not change the way the Forest is managing the lands, it would simply implement the 

1997 Forest Plan with the Forest’s current condition. This alternative does not propose the new 

requirements or the aspect of sustainable (ecological, social, and economic) use within the Forest; nor is 

the concept of collaboration a foothold to management. 

New Developed Recreation Sites (Recreation Facilities and Transportation) - Infrastructure 

The proposed construction of new recreation areas can have the effect of dispersing recreation use stress 

on the existing infrastructure, thus reducing likelihood of vandalism, wear, and damage on existing 

recreation. 

Environmental Education - Infrastructure 

The proposed educational and interpretive offering could have the indirect and cumulative effect of 

increasing awareness on the function, use, and importance of the existing recreational infrastructure. That 

could have the indirect effect of reducing misuse and vandalism because of the increased awareness of the 

importance of the resource. 

Management Areas - Infrastructure

Management Area 1 (Administration sites) 

The proposed reconstruction of trails could affect their historic integrity of many of the historic trails.

Management Area 2 (Developed Recreation) 

The limitations on recreational activities in this area will have the indirect effect of reducing use stress 

and disturbances to the resources located in the other management areas.

Management Area 3 (Communications Sites) 

The proposed removal of communications facilities will reduce maintenance costs and traffic in the area. 

This also has the potential indirect effect of enhancing the natural environment by reducing use of the 

area.

Management Area 5 (Wilderness) 

The wilderness area has the effect of increasing the difficulty and costs involved in the maintenance and 

repairs of the existing trails through the wilderness. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

214

Alternative 2

Socioeconomic Resources - Infrastructure 

Potential leasing of vacant infrastructure could have the effect of reducing management and maintenance 

costs and of enhancing and preserving the historic character of historic infrastructure, if implemented 

following the standards and guidelines outlined in the management plan. 

Environmental Education - Infrastructure 

The development of interpretative and educational efforts can have a direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effect on the preservation of existing infrastructure by increasing awareness of their importance in the 

public’s mind, potentially reducing misuse and vandalism. Existing vacant infrastructure reused in 

community-based interpretive and educational efforts, training, and demonstration will have the effect of 

reducing the amount of vacant infrastructure and could reduce existing deferred maintenance costs.

Climate Change - Infrastructure 

Increases in extreme weather events may increase damage to facilities and structures, reduce tourist 

access in some areas, and increase the need for road repairs. The projected increase in the dry weather 

periods will reduce the effects of rain erosion on the roads, possibly reducing maintenance needs. At the 

same time, the increase in intensity of severe weather systems such as hurricanes or heavy rain events will 

directly affect the infrastructure by landslide damage, water erosion, wind damage, damage by fallen 

debris and destabilization of soils. The projected increases in urban area temperatures during the dry 

season and summer months might translate in higher visitation to the Forest by people looking for 

recreation in cooler areas with shade and accessible water like those provided by El Yunque. If visitation 

increases that will directly increase the wear and tear on the infrastructure, roads and trails, as well as the 

likelihood of intentional vandalism activities. 

Recreation - Infrastructure 

Developing recreational opportunities in the lower part of the Forest will have the effect of reducing the 

strain on the existing recreational infrastructure located on the upper part of the Forest (Road 191 

Corridor). The proposed evaluation of infrastructure investments could directly affect the maintenance 

and development of existing and new infrastructure by identifying partnerships, volunteering, and funding 

to support infrastructure management.

Cultural Resources - Infrastructure 

The proposed reduction of deferred maintenance of existing historic infrastructure will have a direct effect 

of improving the condition of many of the properties. The proposed restoration and reuse of existing 

historic infrastructure will have the effect of reducing the amount of vacant infrastructure and reduce 

operational and maintenance costs. 

Management Areas - Infrastructure

Management Area 2 (El Yunque/Yokahu Zones) 

The restoration and management of recreation infrastructure in those areas will have a direct effect of 

maintaining preserving existing infrastructure. The interpretation of the historic properties in that area 

could have a direct and cumulative effect of reducing damaging practices by the public such as 

vandalism. The increase in visitation to the resources in that area could have the indirect effect of 

increasing vandalism and wear and tear on the infrastructure.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

215

Management Area 3 (Communications) 

The proposed removal of communications facilities from the east end of El Yunque Peak Site will have 

the effect of removing infrastructure, reducing maintenance and operational costs at El Yunque Peak. The 

proposed interpretation of the cultural resources there will directly enhance its historical context and the 

public understanding of historic infrastructure which could have the indirect effect of reducing vandalism 

and misuse.

Management Area 4 (Community Interface Resource Management Area - CIRMA) 

Recreation relocation to this area will reduce stress on the upper Forest infrastructure, including roads, 

trail and facilities.

Management Area 5 (Wilderness) 

The wilderness area has the effect of increasing the difficulty and costs involved in maintaining and 

repairing the existing trails through the wilderness. 

Management Area 9 (Scenic Byway 186) 

The proposed creation of the scenic byway management area as outlined will require a higher level of 

maintenance, stewardship, and interpretation of the historic sites along the route. The increase in 

maintenance and interpretation will help improve and monitor the conditions of the resources, which have 

been neglected to a higher degree than similar resources along Road PR-191. This will have an effect on 

the resource by increasing public awareness of the resources importance and has the potential to increase 

visitation to a number of historic structures along the route. The increase in visitation on the area might 

increase the likelihood vandalism on the sites. It will also have the cumulative effect of wear and tear on 

the sporadically used historic road, bridges and related features. 

Geographic Areas - Infrastructure

North and Southwest Geographic Areas 

The proposed increased interconnection of existing trail to points of access within the municipalities will 

likely have the indirect effect of increasing accessibility to the Forest and maintenance costs due to wear 

and tear on the existing historic trails. The proposed development of collaborative efforts with the 

community could have the effect of increasing the availability of partnerships, personnel and external 

funding for maintenance and use of existing infrastructure. 

Alternative 3 

The effect of the resources’ desired future conditions are the same as in alternative 2, with the following

differences. 

Extension of Wilderness to Research Natural Area - Infrastructure 

The recommended extension of the wilderness area to encompass the Baño de Oro Research Natural Area

will potentially have the effect of increasing maintenance costs of the infrastructure located within it due 

to the constrains imposed by wilderness regulation. 

Facilities and Transportation - Infrastructure 

The proposed change of trail care level to maintenance levels will have an effect on the maintenance of 

many of the trails. The reduction of maintenance will affect the conservation of the trail system.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

216

Management Areas - Infrastructure

Management Area 2 (El Yunque/Yokahu Zones)

The restoration and management of recreation infrastructure in those areas will have a direct effect of

maintaining and preserving existing infrastructure. The interpretation of the historic properties in that area 

could have a direct and cumulative effect of reducing damaging practices by the public such as 

vandalism. The increase in visitation to the resources in that area could have the indirect effect of 

increasing vandalism and wear and tear on the infrastructure.

Management Area 3 (Communications) 

The proposed removal of communications facilities from the east end of El Yunque Peak Site will have 

the effect of removing infrastructure, thus reducing maintenance and operational costs at El Yunque Peak. 

The proposed interpretation of the cultural resources there will directly enhance its historical context and 

the public understanding of historic infrastructure which could have the indirect effect of reducing 

vandalism and misuse.

Management Area 5 (Wilderness) 

The wilderness area has the effect of increasing the difficulty and costs involved in the maintenance and 

repairs of the existing trails through the wilderness. 

Management Area 7 (Baño de Oro Proposed Wilderness) 

The creation of and additional wilderness area will have the effect of increasing the difficulty and costs 

involved in the maintenance and repairs of the existing trails through the wilderness. 

Geographic Areas - Infrastructure

North and South Geographic Areas 

The proposed increased interconnection of existing trails to points of access within the municipalities will 

likely have the indirect effect of increasing accessibility to the Forest and maintenance costs due to wear 

and tear on the existing historic trails. The proposed development of collaborative efforts with the 

community could have the effect of increasing the availability of partnerships, personnel and external 

funding for maintenance and use of existing infrastructure. 

3.6 Other Required Disclosures 

3.6.1 Environmental Justice

Under legislation and presidential mandates, the Federal government requires “environmental justice” in 

all its agencies to ensure fair access to all in environmental regulations and decision making. 

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, 

and incomes, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. The goal of environmental justice is for Federal agencies to identify impacts that 

are disproportionately high and adverse with respect to minority or low-income populations and identify 

alternatives that will avoid or mitigate those impacts. The Forest Service has specifically adopted this into 

its new planning rule. This is an opportunity for the Forest to address this issue and have a better 

connection with underserved populations. 

El Yunque has a conglomerate of unique qualities, one of the most significant are the communities that 

surround it. These communities can be identified within the framework of environmental justice qualities 

as described in the Planning Rule (2012). The communities in the region surrounding the Forest have the 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

217

lowest income per capita in the nation. Youth programs are greatly needed to give equal opportunities in 

land use within National Forest lands and the communities that surround the Forest are mostly (all) Puerto 

Rican, a minority at a national level. Although some interaction with the Forest and the communities have 

existed in the past; historically they have not had a participative relationship with the Forest 

(underserved). These are precisely the traits that the new Forest Planning Rule (2012) describe as the 

types of populations that we should be actively engaging to encourage and enable their participation in 

planning processes regarding forest management activities and use of forest resources as part of seeking 

environmental justice. As the planning rule states in its preamble:

The Department recognizes the need to engage a full range of interests and individuals in the 

planning process and the responsibility to promote environmental justice. To encourage wideranging participation, the final rule retains the requirement for the responsible official to seek 

participation opportunities for traditionally underrepresented groups like youth, low-income 

populations, and minority populations.

The Department added requirements in §§ 219.8 and 10 to take into account opportunities to 

connect people with nature when developing plan components to contribute to social and 

economic sustainability and for multiple uses, including recreation, in addition to the requirements 

for outreach to youth, low-income, and minority populations included in this section. Specific 

issues regarding recreation access on a unit will be addressed at the local level during the planning 

process.

Environmental Justice [...]

...While national level impacts are not expected to be disproportionate, yet-to-be-identified 

adverse impacts may be possible on a regional or local scale at the unit planning level. Differences 

in national level effects and regional/local level effects are the result of uneven distribution of 

minorities, low-income populations, and variations in regional, cultural, or traditional use, and 

differences in local access to resources. Impacts on the national forest level will be further 

examined at the unit level, including NEPA analysis for plan development, plan revision, or plan 

amendment and site-specific projects.

The participation efforts required by the final rule have significant potential to reach and involve 

diverse segments of the population that historically have not played a large role in National Forest 

System planning and management. Section 219.4(a) requires that when developing opportunities 

for public participation, the responsible official shall take into account the discrete and diverse 

roles, jurisdictions, responsibilities, and skills of interested and affected parties as well as the 

accessibility of the process, opportunities, and information. The responsible official is required to 

be proactive and use contemporary tools, such as the Internet, to engage the public, and share 

information in an open way with interested parties.

Requirements of § 219.4 to consider accessibility and requirements to encourage participation by 

youth, low income populations, and minority populations may improve environmental justice 

outcomes.

El Yunque National Forest has, during all stages of the planning process, addressed youth, low income 

populations, minority populations, as well as underserved communities to promote and develop further 

accessibility to the Forest lands and Forest collaboration initiatives. At the assessment stage, the Forest

developed community meetings and activities with communities that had not been engaged before. 

During the planning process (in the need for change, the proposed action as well as the development of 

the alternatives) the Forest met with these sectors of the public for their input and to establish a 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

218

relationship for future engagement and collaborative opportunities within the realms of environmental 

education, recreation, access, tourism, conservation, etc. This became a historic opportunity for the Forest

to not only address the Forest-wide issues but to contribute to the broader landscape as it seeks 

Environmental Justice for its local communities. 

3.6.1.1 Affected Environment 

The census data presented in the Economic and Social Environment sections describes the demographic 

conditions of communities surrounding the Forest, which is essential to understanding this section. The 

previous sections assessed the social and economic conditions and demographic trends in order to 

establish a baseline understanding of how the Forest contributes to social and economic sustainability of 

local beneficiaries and the general public.

The nine municipalities surrounding El Yunque extend over 336 square miles (about 10 percent of Puerto 

Rico’s total area) (table 3-32). They encompass coastline, plains, hills, and mountains within a complex 

matrix of land cover and use (Gould et al. 2012). El Yunque accounts for 13 percent of their total 

combined area. Eight municipalities have some of their land base within the boundaries of El Yunque, 

ranging from less than 1 percent of the total area of Juncos to more than 33 percent of Río Grande (table 

3-32). Humacao is the only municipality in El Yunque Region with no land falling within the National 

Forest boundary; however, its ecological and socioeconomic connections are an important part of the 

relationship this municipality possesses with the Forest. 

As the population around the Forest continues to shift in terms of number, age structure, and gender 

distribution, as predicted in the near term at least, changes are likely to occur in individual and 

community values, uses, needs, and demands on public lands. 

Personal and family income are key indicators of the overall economic conditions or well-being of a 

community and are important considerations in public land management decisions, particularly where 

these decisions may affect income opportunities. For more detailed information please see the 

socioeconomic section. 

Per capita and median family incomes in current dollars (value at the time earned/received) have 

increased across Puerto Rico and within the study area for several decades. However, to accurately 

compare income over time, summary measures (medians, means, etc.) should be adjusted to account for 

changes in the cost of living (i.e., inflation) (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). When adjusted for inflation, 

income across Puerto Rico and within the area around El Yunque have only modestly increased since 

1970 (0.66 percent per year and 0.71 percent per year from 1970 to 2010, respectively) (figure 3-9). 

Ultimately, while median family and per capita income have increased in the study area and across Puerto 

Rico over the past several decades, they have only modestly outpaced the rate of inflation. This slow 

growth in personal and family income is in large part a reflection of the sluggish Puerto Rican economy 

that has struggled for decades under mounting government debt and the high costs of doing business on 

the island (Cohn et al. 2014; Federal Reserve Bank of New York 2012). 

Poverty levels are another important indicator of community well-being. In 2010, about 44.2 percent of 

the population in the region was living below the poverty level as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau 

(2015). Fairly significant intraregional differences existed, with Fajardo and Río Grande having the 

lowest poverty rates (42.1 percent), and Naguabo demonstrating the highest (52.6 percent). The 

percentages of people living below the poverty level generally have been declining throughout the region 

since 1970 at least, with the exception of Ceiba, which increased to 43.1 percent in 2010 from 38.6 

percent in 2000 (Oficina del Censo 2015) (figure 3-10). Despite general improvements, poverty in the 

region and across Puerto Rico occurs at significantly higher rates than in the U.S. For example, the 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

219

percent of people living in poverty in the region surrounding El Yunque in 2010 was nearly three times 

the national rate (14.3 percent) and almost double that of Mississippi (21 percent), which had the highest 

state-wide poverty rate in the U.S. in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). 

Children represent a disproportionate share of the poor in El Yunque region, as throughout Puerto Rico. In 

2013, children (less than 18 years of age) represented less than 25 percent of the total population in the 

region, but they represented more than 33 percent of the population living below the poverty level (figure 

3-10). Of the estimated 71,912 children living in the region in 2013, 56 percent were considered to be 

living below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). 

Overall, while the populations surrounding El Yunque are living longer and spending more years in 

formal education, which enhances the knowledge and skills available for responding to demands and 

changes in the social and natural environment, per capita and family income have only modestly outpaced 

inflation, and poverty remains high, particularly among children. Limited growth in income and persisting 

poverty among a large segment of the population are signs of social vulnerabilities and may be indicators 

of large segments of society that are being “left behind” or at risk of further decline. Low income and 

high poverty rates also often result in greater demands for public services and resources, including from 

public lands. Therefore, it is important for management decisions to account for how these community 

members or segments of society may be affected by changes in management direction and Forest use.

In conclusion, although educational characteristics reflect a more educated population than in past years 

the poverty levels are extremely high. These ingredients point to shifting conditions around the Forest but 

it also points to future possibilities for land use and socioeconomic development. The varied 

socioeconomic conditions surrounding the Forest could result in a great opportunity to have positive 

impact on the broader landscape and Forest-wide conditions. The revised Forest Plan offers resources 

such as recreation, water, cultural resources, environmental education, vegetation, and forest products in a 

sustainable use focus that could also be a contribution to the socioeconomics of the region. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

While there are no populations in the plan area that will experience significant, adverse human health 

impacts or environmental effects due to management actions proposed under any of the alternatives, 

alternative 2 or 3 provide for more opportunities for collaboration and environmental justice and in turn 

socioeconomic development in the region more than alternative 1. 

Under all alternatives, the Forest will continue to provide benefits to local beneficiaries and the general 

public which enhance their economic opportunities for employment and earning income. Detailed 

information on the Forest contribution in employment can be found in the “socioeconomic” section. 

Under all the alternatives, the Forest will continue to provide benefits to local beneficiaries and the 

general public which enhance their quality of life through contributions to well-being, health and safety, 

water resources, recreation, traditional and cultural resources and many other important resources. 

Alternative 1

This alternative does not address environmental justice within its land use, nor any resource-driven 

activities to address environmental justice. For instance; collaboration is not proposed in alternative 1 and 

therefore activities that include collaboration with surrounding communities is not considered. This would 

limit Forest activities that could address the needs of low-income populations, underserved populations, 

and youth and minorities populations surrounding the Forest. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

220

Under this alternative the Forest will continue to provide resources as the other alternatives, but with less 

accessibility to certain communities (underserved), considering it will not consider management such as 

the Community Interface Resource Management Area (CIRMA) in alternatives 2 and 3.

This alternative would have an indirect adverse effect on the surrounding landscape because limiting 

engagement with the public and local communities would not foster socioeconomic development within 

the Forest and expanding this outside the Forest as well.

This alternative would not foster relationships with the communities and management strategies of the 

Forest would not consider the populations which the new planning rule requires, in terms of 

environmental justice. 

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 considers collaboration, and environmental justice in its development and content of Forest

land management; as well as land use management that would impact the broader landscape. 

This alternative would foster or consider the socioeconomic conditions of the surrounding communities 

(underserved, youth, minorities, low-income population) for its land use. For instance, the Forest in this 

alternative could develop collaboration opportunities for socioeconomic development in sectors of the 

Forest accessible to communities that previously did not have accessibility to Forest lands. The 

Community Interface Resource Management Area is Forest lands that would serve as lands to develop 

activities such as forest products (agroforestry), recreation, environmental educations, among other 

activities that could be developed with these communities. 

This alternative could address socioeconomic issues the region is facing through the development of 

socioeconomic opportunities within the Forest and within the broader landscape when collaboration 

opportunities arise. 

This alternative would foster long-term relationships with the communities and the management strategies 

of the Forest would consider populations in new planning rule which are deemed important to address 

issues arising in environmental justice. 

Alternative 3

This alternative would have the same effects as alternative 2, although with geographical differences 

considering management areas such as the scenic by-way management area would not exist and therefore 

the opportunities for furthering access and socioeconomic development could be limited. 

While there are no populations in the plan area that will experience significant, adverse human health 

impacts or environmental effects due to management actions proposed under any of the alternatives, 

alternatives 2 or 3 will provide for more opportunities for collaboration and environmental justice (and in 

turn more socioeconomic development opportunities in the region) than under alternative 1.

3.6.2 Relationship of Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity

The relationship between the short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement 

of long-term productivity is complex. Short-term uses are generally those that occur irregularly on parts 

of the Forest, such as fixing the trail in a recreational site, a one day special activity in the forest, etc. 

Long-term uses refer to a period greater than ten years; for example use of a certain area for permits of 

communication towers and facilities.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

221

Productivity is the capability of the land to provide market and amenity outputs and values for future 

generations. Soil and water are the primary factors of productivity and represent the relationship between 

short-term uses and long-term productivity. The quality of life for future generations would be determined 

by the capability of the land to maintain its productivity. By law, the Forest Service must ensure that land 

allocations and permitted activities do not significantly impair the long-term productivity of the land. 

All the alternatives considered for the forest, including the preferred alternative (alternative 2), 

incorporate the concept of sustained yield of resource outputs while maintaining the productivity of all 

resources. The specific direction and mitigation measures included in the forest-wide management 

standards ensure that long-term productivity would not be impaired by the application of short-term 

management practices.

Each alternative considered in the Plan was analyzed, to ensure that the minimum standards could be met. 

Through this analysis, long-term productivity of the National Forest’s ecosystems is assured for all 

alternatives. 

As stated earlier, the effects of short-term or long-term uses are complex, and depend on management 

objectives and the resources that are emphasized. No alternative would be detrimental to the long-range 

productivity of El Yunque National Forest. 

The effects of implementing the Forest Plan will be monitored at the Forest level. Broad-scale monitoring 

will focus on changes in the environment that may affect resources on El Yunque. Evaluation of the 

monitoring data collected will determine if standards for long-term productivity are being met, or if 

management practices need to be adjusted. A monitoring design is included in chapter 4 of the Forest 

Plan.

3.6.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are normally not made at the programmatic level 

of a Forest Plan. Irreversible commitments are decisions affecting non-renewable resources such as soils, 

minerals, plant and animal species, and cultural resources. Such commitments of resources are considered 

irreversible because the resource has been destroyed or removed, or the resource has deteriorated to the 

point that renewal can occur only over a long period of time or at a great expense. While a Forest Plan can 

indicate the potential for such commitments, the actual commitment to develop, use, or affect nonrenewable resources is normally made at the project level.

Irretrievable commitments represent resource uses or production opportunities, which are foregone or 

cannot be realized during the planning period. These decisions are reversible, but the production 

opportunities foregone are irretrievable. An example of such commitments is the allocation of 

management prescriptions that do not allow timber harvests in areas containing suitable and accessible 

timber lands. For the period of time during which such allocations are made, the opportunity to produce 

timber from those areas is foregone, thus irretrievable.

The leasing of a resource or the increase of water extraction from the Forest is not made solely due to a 

request of a citizen, or an agency. The available information, the circumstances, the sites considered and 

additional technical information needs to be evaluated before making any decision. Actual extraction of a 

resource could be considered an irreversible commitment, especially for non-renewable resources, like 

minerals. Any site-specific decisions to actually permit an extraction will occur following receipt of an 

application for permit for that extraction or activity.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

222

3.6.4 Effects on Wetlands and Floodplains

No significant adverse impacts on wetlands or floodplains are anticipated. The plan integrates the 

definition of a functional wetland considering that all plant communities located above the 600-meters 

elevation line at El Yunque, above the cloud condensation level, are wetland communities. The 600-meter

elevation boundary determines where clouds will form and, thus, where the cloud forest community 

begins (Harris et al. 2012). 

Wetland values and functions would be protected in all alternatives through the implementation of the 

riparian management zones and following best management practices for forestry. Under the requirements 

of Executive Order 11990 and Clean Water Act, Section 404, wetland protection would be provided by 

ensuring that new construction of roads and other facilities would not have an adverse effect on sensitive 

aquatic habitat or wetland functions. In addition, wetland evaluation would be required before land 

exchanges or issuance of special-use permits in areas where conflicts with wetland ecosystems may occur.

Mitigation measures have been designed to conserve riparian zones and protect floodplains through the 

direction in the rivers and streams ecosystems. The direction of this ecosystem is embedded in all other 

ecosystem groups. Executive Order 11988 also requires site-specific analysis of floodplain values and 

functions for any project occurring within the 100-year floodplain zone, and prior to any land exchange 

involving these areas. Effects to wetlands are also discussed through the document especially in Section

3.3 “Physical Environment,” 3.3.5 “Water and Watersheds,” 3.4 “Biological Environment,” 3.4.1

“Ecological Systems,” of this final EIS.

Protective measures for riparian zones include the delineation of riparian management zones on perennial 

and intermittent streams. Management activities within the riparian management zone must comply with 

the best management practices and any other water quality regulations. Floodplains would be managed by 

locating critical facilities outside of floodplains or by using structural mitigation measures. Further 

protections are provided in Forest-wide standards for management of ephemeral stream zones.

3.6.5 Unavailable or Incomplete Information

El Yunque National Forest has used the best available scientific information and state-of-the-art analytical 

tools to evaluate management activities and to estimate their environmental effects.

However, gaps will always exist in our knowledge. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

discuss the process for evaluating incomplete and unavailable information (40 CFR 1502.22 (a) and (b)). 

Incomplete or unavailable information is noted in this chapter for each resource, where applicable. 

After hurricane María, many of its effects, especially in the socioeconomic aspects, are still unknown, 

though much monitoring is taking place. 

Forest Plan monitoring is designed to evaluate assumptions and predicted effects. Should new information 

become available, the need to change management direction or amend the Forest Plan would be 

determined through the monitoring and evaluation process. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

223

Chapter 4.List of Preparers and Distribution

The following individuals contributed to this final environmental impact statement. 

Pedro Ríos Forest Planner 

M.S. in Forestry 

24 years with the Forest Service

Raymond Feliciano Forest Archeologist

M.A. in Archaeology

B.A. in Anthropolgy

15 years of professional experience 

Felipe J. Cano Forest Wildlife Biologist

B.S. Wildlife Sciences

18 years of professional experience 

Jessica K. Ilse Forest Wildlife Biologist

B.S. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 

18 years of professional experience 

Luis A. Rivera Forester/Vegetation Specialist

M. in Biology Education 

M. in Forestry 

33 years with the Forest Service

José Ortega Forest Recreation Program Manager

William D. Jones GIS Specialist

M.S. in Geoscience

B.S. in Forestry 

15 years of professional experience 

Emrys Treasure Biological Scientist, Climate Change Specialist

B.S. in Natural Resources: Policy and Administration 

12 years of professional experience 

Kathleen McGinley Social Scientist

PhD in Forestry 

15 years with the Forest Service
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

224

Edgardo González Forester (Contractor) 

B.S. in Biology 

M. of Forestry 

30 years of professional experience 

Michelle Ramos NEPA Coordinator 

B.A, J.D. 

4 years with the Forest Service

Gabriela M. Morales Nieves Conservation Planning Intern 

B.S. in Biology and Environmental Science 

1 year with the Forest Service

Grizelle González Ecology Research Scientist

PhD in Soil Ecology 

17 years with the Forest Service

Miguel Amat y Leon Recreation Specialist

B.S. in Environmental Science and Resource Management

7 years of professional experience

Carolyn Krupp Public Affairs Specialist

B.S. in Outdoor Recreation and Conservation Education 

25 years with the Forest Service

Ricardo J. Santiago Ecologist 

PhD in Environmental Science 

1.5 years with the Forest Service

Maya Quinones Cartographer

M.S. in Remote Sensing, Image Processing and Applications 

13 years with the Forest Service

Leadership Team

Sharon I. Wallace Forest Supervisor

M. in Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 

17 years with the Forest Service

Manuel Ortiz Property Management /Administration/Visitor Service and Enjoyment 

Management Team Leader

B.S. in Engineering 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

225

Pedro Ríos Planning/Ecosystem Team Leader

M.S. in Forestry 

19 years with the Forest Service

Email List of Government, Agencies, Organizations, 

Academic Institutions and Individuals Receiving El Yunque 

Revised Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Municipalities 

Canóvanas 

Ceiba

Fajardo

Las Piedras

Luquillo 

Naguabo 

Rio Grande 

Juncos 

Humacao 

Non-government Organizations

Acampadores De Puerto Rico

Programa De Café De Sombra

Fondos Unidos De PR 

Amigos De El Yunque 

Alianza Ambiental De PR

Fideicomiso De Conservación De PR

Ciudadanos Pro Bosque San Patricio 

American Red Cross

Amigos De Los Animales

Fundación Luis Muñoz Marín 

Yo Limpio A Puerto Rico 

Servicio De Extensión Agrícola 4H 

Fideicomiso De Conservacion E Historia De 

Vieques

Coalición Pro-Corredor Ecologico Del 

Noreste 

Comité Yabucoeños Pro-Calidad De Vida

Asociación De Agricultores De PR

Producir, Inc. 

Comité Pro Acceso A Playas De Rio Grande, 

Inc.

Comité Pro Conservación Ecológica Y 

Ambiental 

Comité Pro Yabucoeños Pro Calidad De 

Vida

Consejo Legal En Defensa Del Ambiente 

Re-Foresta

Ciudadanos Del Karso

Sociedad Puertorriqueña De Planificación

Waterkeepers

Frente Unido Ambiental

Fundación Enrique Marti Coll

Fundación Sufrider De PR

Centro De Información, Investigación & 

Educ Social 

Corp. Conservation of the San Juan Bay 

Estuary

Colegio De Ingenieros Y Agrimensores 

Ciencia PR

Sierra Club

Org Boricuá De Agricultura Ecoorgánica

Instituto Universitario Desarrollo De 

Comunidades 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

226

Comité Pro Rescate Y Desarrollo De 

Vieques

Programa Del Estuario De La Bahía De San 

Juan

Arrecifes Pro Ciudad

Coralations 

Scuba Dogs Society 

Casa Pueblo

Eco-Ambiente, Inc. 

Misión Industrial De PR, Inc. 

Movimiento Agua Para Todos

Boricua

Sociedad De Historia Natural

Girls Scout Council 

Centro De Acción Ambiental, Inc.

Boy Scout Council 

Coalición Playa Para Todos

Proyecto Coquí 

Museo De Arte Contemporáneo 

Comité Pro Mejor Ambiente Y Salud 

Red Caribeña De Varamientos

Sociedad Espeleológica De PR, Inc 

Canal Luis Peña

Fundación Puertorriqueña De Conservación 

Nuestra Madera

Rural Opportunities 

Sociedad Ornithologica Puertorriqueña 

Arrecifes Pro Ciudad

Centro Para Conservación Del Paisaje

Pare Del Este

Urukuda Guakia Taina Ke, Inc.

Tropic Ventures Sustainable Forestry Project

Mahogany for the Future, Inc. 

Peces

Sea Grant

Outfitters and Guide Companies

Native Tours and Expediciones Nacionales 

Adventours 

Enchanted Island Eco Tours, Inc. 

Atlantic San Juan Tours

Autobuses de Puerto Rico 

Bracero Limousine, Inc. 

Castillo Watersports, Inc.

Cintron Tour Services

COPLADET

Dorado Transportation Cooperative 

The Exclusive

Explorer Adventure

Federación de Taxistas de Puerto Rico 

Go Happy Tours

Hillbilly Tours

Net Transporation, Inc.

Northeast Coast, Inc. 

Palmas Transportation Corp.

Rafael Quiles

Rico Suntours 

RM Transport

San Juan Tour Guides 

Luis Sanchez Diaz 

The Excursionists Association, Inc. 

Tour Coop de Puerto Rico 

Travel Services, Inc.

United Tour Guides Cooperative of Puerto 

Rico 

Vany Tours
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

227

Professors, Students and Organizations from Academic Institutions in

Puerto Rico

Ana G. Méndez University System

Universidad De Puerto Rico 

UPR Carolina

UPR-Río Piedras 

UPR-Bayamón 

UPR-Arecibo

UPR-Mayaguez

UPR-Humacao

Ites-UPR

UPR-Aguadilla 

UPR-Cayey

Universidad Interamericana

Universidad Politécnica De PR

Universidad Del Turabo

National University College

Universidad Metropolitana

Professors, Students and Organizations from Academic Institutions 

Outside of Puerto Rico

University of New Hampshire

Michigan State University

Syracuse University

University of Washington

Frostburg State 

North Carolina State University

University of Georgia

Rutgers University

University of Missouri 

Puerto Rico Government Agencies

Regulations & Permits Administration 

Puerto Rico Tourism Company 

Solid Waste Authority 

Puerto Rico Ports Authority 

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority 

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority

Puerto Rico Planning Board 

Department of State of Puerto Rico 

Roosevelt Road Base Development 

Authority

State Historical Preservation Office

Department of Transportation and Public 

Works 

Department of Corrections-El Zarzal

Puerto Rico Film Commission 

Department of Agriculture of Puerto Rico 

Department of Natural and Environmental 

Resources 

National Parks Company of Puerto Rico 

Environmental Quality Board of Puerto Rico 

State Police of Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico Land Authority 

Institute of Puerto Rican Culture 

Puerto Rico Department of Education 

Federal Government Agencies

Alcohol, Tobacco, Tax & Trade Bureau

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Department of Homeland Security 

USDA Animal & Plant & Plant Health 

Inspection Service-APHIS
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

228

OSHA

NOAA

National Park Service: San Juan National 

Historic Site 

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Geological Survey

Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services

Small Business Administration 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services

Internal Revenue Services

U.S. Customs & Border Protection 

Veteran Administration

Social Security Administration

Federal Highway Administration-FHWA

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban 

Development 

Federal Aviation Administration 

U.S. Army Ft. Buchanan 

Elected Officials 

Members of U.S. Congress

Resident Commissioner 

Hon. Jennifer González

Governor of Puerto Rico

Hon. Ricardo A. Roselló Nevares 

Representatives and Senators of PR

House of Representatives

Hon. Carlos Méndez Nuñez (president) 

Hon. Angel Bulerin Ramos 

Hon. Angel R. Peña Ramírez

Hon. Javier A. Aponte Dalmau

Hon. Narden Jaime Espinosa 

Hon. Jesus Santa Rodriguez 

Senate of Puerto Rico

Hon. Thomas Rivera Schatz (President) 

Hon. Luis Daniel Rivera 

Hon. Nayda Venegas Brown 

Hon. Eric Correa Rivera 

Hon. Pedro A. Rodríguez 

Hon. Jose Luis Dalmau

Hon. Jorge Suarez Cáceres

Hon. Miguel Laureano 

Members of special committees 

Hon. Cirilo Tirado

Hon. Ramón Ruiz Nieves 

Individuals

Nando Acosta

Eduardo Agostini

Monica Agosto

Albert Aguirre

Rafael Alvarez

Lisandra Andina

Jose M. Aponte 

Jose F. Aponte 

Jose Ardren

Y. Baez

Roberto Bello

Jose Benitez

Hector M. Caolo Alvarez

Marcela Canon 

Ruth Carrasquillo

Yomar Y. Chico

Angel Colon 

Angie Colon 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

229

Vanessa Colon

Nancy Contreras 

Juan R. Cordova

Rupert Cosme

Jim. A. Cruz

Jose A. Cruz

Narayan De Jesus

Viviana De Jesus

Hector Dones 

Pedro Dones

Gilberto Dumont 

Gilbert Encarnacion 

Marieni Estrada

Julia Febo

Emilio Font 

Rolando Feria

Diana Ferro

Sarah Fowler

Eduardo García 

Jose Orlando García

Damaris Hernandez

Richard Heredia

Annelly G. Hernandez Santos

Enrique Hernandez Prieto

Venus Hernandez 

Maria Falcon

Tatiana Gladkikh

Milagros Gomez

Rafael Gomez

Victor H. Rivera 

Carmen Hurtado 

Fernando Jimenez

Diana Ju

Miriam La (Lamora) 

Antonio Lizardi

Manuel Leal

Miguel Leon

Arturo Lizardi

Victor L. Lleras

Ricky Lopez 

Eduari Navarro

Brad Mann

Joanina Martinez

Jose E. Martinez

Victor M. Martinez

Rafael Marrero Carrasquillo

Carlos Medina

Carmen I Mendez

Luz M. Mendez

Rosa M. Mendez

Adenis Millan

Erik P. Moccabez

Maribed Ojeda

Nemesis Ortiz

Lenis Oropeza 

Ashley Perez

Debora Perez

Esmeralda Perez

Leslie Perez

Migdalia Perez Plaza

Ramon Perez

Jimmy Pina 

Stephen Porder 

Geraldo Quiñones 

Melanie Quiñones 

Abimael Reyes

Marisa Reyes

Yolanda Rios Carrasquillo
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

230

Luis Jorge Rivera Herrera

Anamarie Rivera

Carlos Rivera

Edwin Rivera

Elba Rivera

Harold Rivera

Keila Rivera

Martin Rivera

Luis A. Robles

Fidel Rodriguez 

Jose R. Rodriguez

Samuel Rodríguez Morales 

Zoreida Rosa

Domingo Rosado 

Efrain Rosado 

Melissa Rosario

Julio Rodriguez Planell 

Blanca Ruiz

Javier Ruiz

Edwin Santos

Julio Santiago

Ileana Sewpershad

Robert Talavera

Angel Torres

Jose A Torres

Soraya Torres

Miguel Treviño 

Carlos Vega

Frank Wadsworth

Richard Washburn 

Peter Weaver

Plan Revision EIS Mailing List, Required Federal Agencies

Director, Planning and Review/Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, DC 20004 

Deputy Director, APHIS, PPD/EAD; Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 

Rural Utilities Service; Washington, DC 20250-1548 

National Environmental Coordinator, NRCS; Washington, DC 20250 

Acquisitions & Serials Branch; Beltsville, MD 20705 

Habitat Conservation Division; St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Atlanta, GA 30303-8801 

U.S. EPA, Region 2; New York, NY 10007-1866 

U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant CG-47; Washington, DC 20593 

Regional Director, Southern Region, FAA; East Point, GA 30320 

PR Division Federal Highway Administration, Division Administrator; San Juan, PR 00918 

Director, NEPA Policy & Compliance, DOE; Washington, DC 20585 

NOAA Office of Policy and Strategic Planning; Washington, DC 20230 

Director OEPC; Washington, DC 20240 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Washington, DC 20426 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

231

References 

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q, July 14, 1955, as amended. This Act, as amended, is known as 

the Clean Air Act of 1970. The amendments made in 1970 established the core of the clean air program. 

The primary objective is to establish Federal standards for air pollutants. It is designed to improve air 

quality in areas of the country which do not meet Federal standards and to prevent significant 

deterioration in areas where air quality exceeds those standards.

36 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 219; National Forest System Land Management 

Planning. This planning rule sets forth process and content requirements to guide the development, 

amendment, and revision of land management plans to maintain and restore National Forest System 

(NFS) land and water ecosystems while providing for ecosystem services and multiple uses.

36 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 294; Roadless Area Conservation. The intent of this final 

rule is to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System in the 

context of multiple-use management.

40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 1502; Environmental Impact Statement. The primary purpose 

of an environmental impact statement is to serve as an action-forcing device to insure that the policies and 

goals defined in the Act are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government.

40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 1508; Terminology and Index. This Code of Federal Regulation 

has the intent of providing a list of terms and their meaning according to the Federal Government. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. Protects 

threatened, endangered, and candidate species of fish, wildlife, and plants and their designated critical 

habitats. Under this law, no Federal action is allowed to jeopardize the continued existence of an 

endangered or threatened species. The ESA also requires consultation with the USFWS and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and the preparation of a biological assessment when such species are present in 

an area that is affected by government activities.

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12; Land Management Planning Handbook Chapter 70; 

Wilderness Evaluation. The primary function of the identification and inventory step is to 

comprehensively identify “all-lands” that may have wilderness characteristics within the plan area, using 

a transparent process. Lands included in the inventory will be carried forward for further evaluation. 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2309.18; Trails Management Handbook. Objectives of this 

handbook include: to provide trails that meet their trail management objectives, are consistent with the 

applicable land management plan, provide opportunities for satisfying recreation experiences, harmonize 

with and provide opportunities for enjoyment of the National Forest or grassland setting, and minimize 

maintenance costs.

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2300 – Chapter 2350; Trail, River, and Similar Recreation 

Opportunities. Objectives of this chapter include: to provide recreation-related opportunities for 

responsible use of national forests and national grasslands, and to mitigate adverse impacts of recreational 

uses on natural, cultural, and historical resources and on other uses through education, outdoor ethics 

programs, and on-the- ground management, including law enforcement and restoration. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended; Public Law 91-190; 42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq. Requires Federal agencies to utilize a systematic approach when assessing environmental 

impacts of government activities. Establishes the use of environmental impact statements. NEPA proposes 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

232

an interdisciplinary approach in a decision making process designed to identify unacceptable or 

unnecessary impacts on the environment. 

National Forest Management Act Of 1976; 16 U.S.C. 1600(note). This act recognizes that the 

management of the Nation's renewable resources is highly complex and the uses, demand for, and supply 

of the various resources are subject to change over time.

The Wilderness Act of 1964; Public Law 88-577; 16 U.S. C. 1131-1136. Established the National 

Wilderness Preservation System composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress. The act also 

stipulates these lands be administered for the “use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner 

as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness and preserve their untouched character.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; U.S.C. 1271-1287. The purpose of this Act is to implement this policy by 

instilling a national wild and scenic rivers system, by designating the initial components of that system, 

and by prescribing the methods by which and standards according to which additional components may 

be added to the system from time to time.

Summary, Chapters 1 and 2

Schoeneberger, M. M., Bentrup, G., & Patel-Weynand, T. (2017). Agroforestry: Enhancing Resiliency in 

U.S. Agricultural Landscapes Under Changing Conditions (General Technical Report No. WO-96) 

(p. 228). Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/gtr/gtr_wo96.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Revised land and resource management plan, Caribbean National 

Forest/Luquillo Experimental Forest. Southern Region, Puerto Rico. 

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Forest Plan Assessment: El Yunque National Forest. El Yunque National 

Forest; Rio Grande. 

USDA Forest Service. 2014-2015. Need for Change. El Yunque National Forest 

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Draft Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. El Yunque National 

Forest. 

White et al. 2014. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service powerpoint presentation to the Executive Interagency 

Panel Committee. Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources. San Juan, PR

Soils 

Guariguata, M.R.; Larsen, M.C. 1990. Preliminary map showing landslides in El Yunque quadrangle, 

Puerto Rico: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 89-257, scale 1:20,000, 1 sheet. 

Larsen, M.C.; Simon, A. 1990. Landslide processes in saprolitic soils of a tropical rain forest, Puerto 

Rico. In: Larue, D.K.; Draper, G., editors; Transactions of the 12th Caribbean Geological 

Conference, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Miami Geological Society. p. 217–222. 

Larsen, M.C.; Torres-Sánchez, A.J. 1992. Landslides triggered by Hurricane Hugo in eastern Puerto Rico, 

September 1989: Caribbean Journal of Science 28(3-4): 113–125. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

233

Geology 

Clinton, J.F.; Cua, G.; Huérfano, V.; [and others]. 2006. The current state of seismic monitoring in Puerto 

Rico. Seismological Research Letters 77(5): September/October. 

Lepore, C.; Kamal, S.A.; Shanahan, P.; Bras, R.F. Rainfall-induced landslide susceptibility zonation of 

Puerto Rico. Environmental Earth Science [DOI 10.1007/s12665-011-0976-1]. 

Monroe, W.H. 1979. Map showing landslides and areas of susceptibility to land sliding in Puerto Rico: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1148, 1 sheet. 

Air 

Ángeles, M.E.; González, J.E.; Erickson, D.J.; Hernández, J.L. 2010. The impacts of climate changes on 

the renewable energy resources in the Caribbean Region. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 

132(3): 031009. 

Kelman, I.; West, J.J. 2009. Climate change and small island developing states: A critical review. 

Ecological and Environmental Anthropology 5(1): 1−16. 

Lewsey, C.; Cid, G.; Kruse, E. 2004. Assessing climate change impacts on coastal infrastructure in the 

eastern Caribbean. Marine Policy 28(5): 393−409. 

Prospero, J.M.; Lamb, P.J. 2003. African droughts and dust transport to the Caribbean: Climate change 

implications. Science 302(5647): 1024–1027. 

Quiñones, F.; Torres, S. 2005. El Clima de Puerto Rico. 

[http://www.recursosaguapuertorico.com/Clima_PR_for_Web_Page_2005_rev_Jan2012.pdf] 

Climate Change 

Anchukaitis, K.J.; Evans, M.N. 2010. Tropical cloud forest climate variability and the demise of the 

Monteverde golden toad. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107(11): 5036–5040. 

Anderson, B. 2011. Near-term increase in frequency of seasonal temperature extremes prior to the 2°C 

global warming target. Climatic Change. 108(3): 581–589. 

Arendt, W.J. 2000. Impact of nest predators, competitors, and ectoparasites on pearly-eyed thrashers, with 

comments on the potential implications for Puerto Rican parrot recovery. Ornitología Neotropical 11: 

13–63. 

Barker, B.S.; Waide, R.B.; Cook, J.A. 2011. Deep intra-island divergence of a montane forest endemic:

Phylogeography of the Puerto Rican frog (Eleutherodactylus portoricensis) (anura: 

Eleutherodactylidae). Journal of Biogeography. 38(12): 2311 –2325. 

Bedsworth, L. 2012. Air quality planning in California’s changing climate. Climatic Change. 111(1): 101–

118. 

Blaustein, A.R.; Walls, S.C.; Bancroft, B.A. [and others]. 2010. Direct and indirect effects of climate 

change on amphibian populations. Diversity. 2(2): 281–313. 

Breshears, D.D.; Cobb, N.S.; Rich, P.M. [and others]. 2005. Regional vegetation die-off in response to 

global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 102(42): 15144 –

15148. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

234

Brodie, J.; Post, E.; Laurance, W.F. 2011. Climate change and tropical biodiversity: a new focus. Trends 

in Ecology and Evolution. 27(3): 1–6. 

Burrowes, P.A.; Joglar, R.L; Green, D.E. 2004. Potential causes for amphibian declines in Puerto Rico. 

Herpetologica. 60(2): 141–154. 

Bytnerowicz, A.; Omasa, K.; Paoletti, E. 2007. Integrated effects of air pollution and climate change on 

forests: A northern hemisphere perspective. Environmental Pollution 147: 438–445.

Carpenter, S.R.; Fisher, S.G.; Grimm, N.B.; Kitchell, J.F. 1992. Global change and freshwater 

ecosystems. Annual Review Ecological Systems. 23: 119–139. 

Cashman, A.; Nurse, L.; John, C. 2010. Climate change in the Caribbean: The water management 

implications. The Journal of Environment Development 19(1): 42–67. 

Clark D.B.; Clark D.A.; Oberbauer, S.F. 2010. Annual wood production in a tropical rain forest in NE 

Costa Rica linked to climatic variation but not to increasing CO2. Global Change Biology 16: 747–

759. 

Comarazamy, D.E.; González, J.E. 2011. Regional long-term climate change (1950–2000) in the 

midtropical Atlantic and its impacts on the hydrological cycle of Puerto Rico. Journal of Geophysical 

Research. 116(D21): D00Q05. 

Covich, A.P.; Crowl, T.A.; Scatena, F.N. 2003. Effects of extreme low flows on freshwater shrimps in a 

perennial tropical stream. Freshwater Biology. 48(7): 1199–1206. 

Daly, C., Helmer, E. H., & Quiñones, M. (2003). Mapping the climate of Puerto Rico, Vieques and 

Culebra. International Journal of Climatology, 23, 1359–1381. 

Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mestas-Nuñez, A. M. and Gray, W. M. 2001. The recent increase in 

Atlantic hurricane activity: causes and implications. Science 293: 474 – 479. 

Huey, R.B.; Deutsch, C.A.; Tewksbury, J.J. [and others]. 2009. Why tropical forest lizards are vulnerable 

to climate warming. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 276(1664): 1939–

1948. 

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, 

Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. 

Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.M.; Littell, J.S. [and others]. 2008. National forests. In: Julius, S.H.; West, editors. 

Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 873 p. 

Karl, T.R.; Melillo, J.M.; Peterson, T.C. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. 

Cambridge University Press, NY. 188 p. 

Klawinski, P.Paul D. Dalton, B.; and Shiels, A.B. 2014. Coqui frog populations are negatively affected by 

canopy opening but not detritus deposition following an experimental hurricane in a tropical 

rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management. 332: (2014) 118-123. 

 Fernandez, D.S; Flether, N. 1991. Changes in light availability after Hurricane Hugo at three elevations 

in the Luquillo Experimental Forest of Puerto Rico. Biotropica. 393-399 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

235

Knutson, T.R.; McBride, J.L.; Chan, J. [and others]. 2010. Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nature 

Geoscience. 3(3): 157–163. 

Larsen, M.C. 2000. Analysis of 20th century rainfall and streamflow to characterize drought and water 

resources in Puerto Rico. Physical Geography. 21(6): 494–521. 

Lasso, E.; Ackerman, J.D. 2003. Flowering phenology of (Werauhia sintenisii), a bromeliad from the 

dwarf montane forest in Puerto Rico: An indicator of climate change? Selbyana. 24(1): 95–104. 

Laurance, W.F.; Useche, D.C.; Shoo, L.P. [and others]. 2011. Global warming, elevational ranges and the 

vulnerability of tropical biota. Biological Conservation. 144(1): 548–557. 

Lewsey, C.; Cid, G.; Kruse, E. 2004. Assessing climate change impacts on coastal infrastructure in the 

eastern Caribbean. Marine Policy. 28(5): 393–409. 

Longo, A.V.; Burrowes, P.A.; Joglar, R.L. 2010. Seasonality of (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) 

infection in direct-developing frogs suggests a mechanism for persistence. Diseases of Aquatic 

Organisms. 92: 253–260. 

Magrin, G.; Gay García, C.; Cruz Choque, D. [and others]. 2007. Latin America. In: Parry, M.L.; 

Canziani, O.F.; Palutikof, J.P., comps, eds. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and 

vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 581–

615. 

Mulholland, P.J.; Best, G.R.; Coutant, C.C. [and others]. 1997. Effects of climate change on freshwater 

ecosystems of the south-eastern United States and the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Hydrological 

Processes. 11: 949–970. 

Nadkarni, N.; Solano, R. 2002. Potential effects of climate change on canopy communities in a tropical 

cloud forest: an experimental approach. Oecologia. 131(4): 580–586. 

Peterson, T.C.; Taylor, M.A.; Demeritte, R. [and others]. 2002. Recent changes in climate extremes in the 

Caribbean region. Journal of Geophysical Research 107(D21): 4601. 

Pounds, J.A.; Fogden, M.P.L.; Campbell, J.H. 1999. Biological response to climate change on a tropical 

mountain. Nature. 398(6728): 611–615. 

Prideaux, B.; Coghlan, A.; McNamara, K. 2010. Assessing tourists' perceptions of climate change on 

mountain landscapes. Tourism Recreation Research 35(2): 187–199. 

Robbins, A.M.; Eckelmann, C.M.; Quiñones, M. 2008. Forest fires in the insular Caribbean. AMBIO: A 

Journal of the Human Environment 37(7): 528–534. 

Rogowitz, G.L. 1996. Evaluation of thermal acclimation and altitudinal variation of metabolism in a 

neotropical lizard (Anolis gundlachi). Copeia 1996(3): 535. 

Scatena, F.N. 1998. An assessment of climate change in the Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico. In: 

Segarra-García, R.I., editor. Proceeding tropical hydrology and Caribbean water resources. Third 

international symposium on tropical hydrology and Fifth Caribbean Islands water resources congress 

in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Herndon, VA: American Water Resources Association. p. 193–198. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

236

Scott, D.; McBoyle, G.; Schwartzentruber, M. 2004. Climate change and the distribution of climatic 

resources for tourism in North America. Climate Research 27(2): 105–117.

Seager, R.; Tzanova, A.; Nakamura, J. 2009. Drought in the South-eastern United States: Causes, 

variability over the last millennium, and the potential for future hydroclimate change. American 

Meteorological Society. 22(19): 5021–5045. 

Seavy, N.E.; Gardali, T.; Golet, G.H. [and others]. 2009. Why climate change makes riparian restoration 

more important than ever: recommendations for practice and research. Ecological Restoration. 27(3): 

330–338. 

Seneviratne, S.I.; Nicholls, N.; Easterling, D. [and others]. 2012. Changes in climate extremes and their 

impacts on the natural physical environment. In: Field, C.B [and others], eds. Managing the risks of 

extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A Special Report of Working 

Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge, UK, and 

New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. p. 109–230. 

Stallard, R.F. 2001. Possible environmental factors underlying amphibian decline in eastern Puerto Rico: 

Analysis of U.S. government data archives. Conservation Biology 15(4): 943–953. 

Still, C. J., Foster, P. N., and Schneider, S. H. 1999. Simulating the effects of climate change on tropical 

montane cloud forests. Letters to Nature, Macmillan Magazines Ltd Nature, VOL 398. 

[http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/StillEtAl.pdf].

Studds, C.E.; Marra, P.P. 2011. Rainfall-induced changes in food availability modify the spring departure 

programme of a migratory bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278(1723): 

3437–3443. 

Uyarra, M.C.; Côté, I.M.; Gill, J.A. [and others]. 2005. Island-specific preferences of tourists for 

environmental features: implications of climate change for tourism-dependent states. Environmental 

Conservation. 32(1): 11–19. 

Vélez Rodríguez, Z.; Votaw, G. S. 2012. Precipitation in Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 6 p. 

Wagner, F.; Rossi, V.; Stahl, C. [and others]. 2012. Water availability is the main climate driver of 

neotropical tree growth. 

Waide, R.B.; Comarazamy, D.E.; González, J.E. [and others]. 2013. Climate variability at multiple spatial 

and temporal scales in the Luquillo Mountains, Puerto Rico. Ecological Bulletins. 54: 21–41. 

Webster, P. J., Holland, G. J. , Curry , J. A. and Chang , H.-R . 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, 

duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science 293: 474 – 479. 

Woollings, T.; Blackburn, M. 2012. The North Atlantic jet stream under climate change and its relation to 

the NAO and EA patterns. Journal of Climate 25(3): 886–902. 

Wunderle, J.M.; Arendt, W.J. 2011. Avian studies and research opportunities in the Luquillo Experimental 

Forest: A tropical rain forest in Puerto Rico. Forest Ecology and Management 262(1): 33–48. 

Zotz, G.; Bader, M.Y. 2009. Epiphytic plants in a changing World-Global: Change effects on vascular and 

non-vascular epiphytes. In: Lüttge, U.; Beyschlag, W.; Büdel, B.; editors. Progress in Botany 70(4): 

147–170. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

237

Water and Watersheds

Ahmad, R.; Scatena, F.N.; Gupta, A. 1993. Morphology and sedimentation in Caribbean montane 

streams: Examples from Jamaica and Puerto Rico. Sedimentary Geology. 85: 157–169. 

Brown K.A.; Scatena; F.N.; Gurevitch, J. 2006. Effects of an invasive tree on community structure and 

diversity in a tropical forest in Puerto Rico. Forest Ecology and Management 226 (2006): 145–152. 

Cashman, A.; Nurse, L.; John, C. 2010. Climate change in the Caribbean: The water management 

implications. The Journal of Environment Development 19(1): 42–67. 

Covich, A.P.; Crowl, T.A.; Scatena, F.N. 2003. Effects of extreme low flows on freshwater shrimps in a 

perennial tropical stream. Freshwater Biology. 48(7): 1199–1206. 

Cowardin, L.M.; Carter, V.; Golet F.C.; LaRoe, E.T. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater 

habitats of the US. DIANE Publishing. 

[https://books.google.com/books?hl=es&lr=&id=hKn1tI4QIoUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Cowardin+

1979+wetlands&ots=23W-_zozSS&sig=SHixw_BlTIV25-

BJFD5KoYadrm8#v=onepage&q=Cowardin%201979%20wetlands&f=false].

Crook, K.E.; Scatena, F.N.; Pringle, C.M. 2007. Water withdrawn from the Luquillo Experimental Forest, 

2004. General Technical Report IITF-GTR-34, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of 

Tropical Forestry, San Juan, PR. 26 p. 

Environmental Quality Board. 1990. Reglamento de Estándares de Calidad de Agua de Puerto Rico. 

Office of the Governor, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Fulford, M.; Crandall, B.; Stotler, R. 1970. The ecology of an elfin forest in Puerto Rico: The leafy 

hepaticae of Pico del Oeste. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 51: 56–69. 

Gilt, A.M. 1969. The ecology of an elfin forest in Puerto Rico: Agrial roots. Journal of the Arnold 

Arboretum 50: 197–209. 

Jennings, Nicole; Douglas, J.; Treasure, E.; González, G. 2014. Climate change effects in El Yunque 

National Forest, Puerto Rico and the Caribbean Region. GTR-SRS 193, USDA Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station, Ashville, NC. 

Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.M.; Littell, J.S. [and others]. 2008. National forests. In: Julius, S.H.; West, editors. 

Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 873 p. 

Heartsill-Scalley, T.; Scatena, F.N.; Estrada, C. [and others]. 2007. Disturbances and long-term patterns of 

rainfall and throughfall nutrients fluxes in a subtropical wet forest in Puerto Rico. Journal of 

Hydrology 333(2-4): 472–485. 

Howard, R. A. 1969. The ecology of an elfin forest in Puerto Rico: Studies of stem growth and form and 

of leaf structure. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 50. 

[https://archive.org/details/cbarchive_49455_theecologyofanelfinforestinpue1970].

Lyford, W.H. 1969. The ecology of an elfin forest in Puerto Rico: Soil, root and earthworm relationships, 

Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 50 [210e224]. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

238

McDowell, W.H.; Asbury, C.E. 1994. Export of carbon, nitrogen, and major ions from three tropical 

montane watersheds. Limnology and Oceanography 39(l): 111–125 

Miller, G.L.; Lugo, A.E. 2009. Guide to the ecological systems of Puerto Rico. General Technical Report 

IITF-GTR-35, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, San Juan, PR. 437 

p. 

National Research Council. 2008. Hydrologic effects of a changing forest landscape. National Academies 

Press [http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12223.html].

O'Connor, J.P.; Covich, P.A.; Scatena, F.N.; [and others]. 2000. Non-indigenous bamboo along headwater 

streams of the Luquillo Mountains, Puerto Rico: Leaf fall, aquatic leaf decay and patterns of 

invasion. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16: 499–516. 

Pike, A.S. 2008. Longitudinal patterns in stream channel geomorphology and aquatic habitat in the 

Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. 88 p. 

Pike, A.S.; Scatena, F.N. 2009. Riparian indicators of flow frequency in a tropical montane stream 

network. University of Pennsylvania, Department of Earth and Environmental Science, 240 South 

33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 

Radeloff, V.C., Hammer, R.B.; S.I. Stewart, S.I.; [and others]. 2005. The wildland-urban interface in the 

U.S. Ecological Applications 15(3): 799–805. 

Scatena, F. (1990). Selection of Riparian Buffers in Humid Tropical Steeplands. Research Needs and 

Applications to Reduce Erosion and Sedimentation in Tropical Steeplands. 192, pp. 328-327. Fiji: 

IAHS-AISH.

Scatena, F.N. and Johnson, S.L. 2001. Instream-flow analysis for the Caribbean National Forest, Puerto 

Rico: Methods and analysis. General Technical Report IITF-GTR-11, USDA Forest Service, 

International Institute of Tropical Forestry, Rio Piedras, PR. 30 p. 

Scatena, F. N., & Larsen, M. C. (1991). Physical Aspects of Hurricane Hugo in Puerto Rico. 

BIOTROPICA, 3(4), 317-323. 

Schellekens, J., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Scatena, F. N., Bink, N. J., & Holwerda, F. (2000). Evaporation from a 

Tropical Rain Forest, Luquillo Experimental Forest, Eastern Puerto Rico. Surface Water and 

Climate, 36(8), 2183-2196. 

Tiner, R.W.; Burke, D.G. 1995. Wetlands of Maryland. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological 

Services, Region 5, Hadley, MA and Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD, 

Cooperative publication, 193 pp. plus appendices. 

[http://www.fws.gov/northeast/EcologicalServices/pdf/wetlands/MD_wetlands85.pdf].

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Francis Marion National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1997a. Environmental impact statement (EIS) for the land and resource 

management plan for the Caribbean National Forest/Luquillo Experimental Forest. Southern Region, 

Puerto Rico. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997b. Revised land and resource management plan, Caribbean National 

Forest/Luquillo Experimental Forest. Southern Region, Puerto Rico. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

239

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. El Yunque watershed condition classification supplemental guidance (EIY 

2010 WCC RegSupp v.5). 

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Forest Service watershed condition classification technical guide. Updated 

(October 25, 2010). 

USDA Forest Service. 2010c. Watershed condition framework implementation guide. Updated 

(November 12, 2010). 

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Watershed condition framework. Publication FS-977, May 2011. 34 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Watershed condition framework technical guide. PublicationFS-978, July 

2011. 49 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Land and Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Columbia, SC. 

Weaver, P.L. 1972. Cloud moisture interception in the Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico. Caribbean 

Journal of Science 12: 129–144. 

Ecological Resources 

Alexander, S.J.; Mclain, R.J.; Blatner, K.A. 2001. Socio-economic research on non-timber forest products 

in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest Sciences Laboratory, 

Corvallis, OR. 

Anadón-Irizarry, V. 2006. Distribution, habitat occupancy, and population density of the elfin-woods 

warbler (Dendroica angelae) in Puerto Rico. M.S. thesis, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez 

Campus. 53 p. 

Arendt, W.J.; Qian, S.S.; Mineard, K.A., 2013. Population decline of the elfin-woods warbler Setophaga 

angelae in eastern Puerto Rico. Bird Conservation International, Birdlife International 2013 [doi: 

10.1017/S0959270913000166]. 11 p. 

Axelrod, F.S. 2011. A systematic vademecum to the vascular plants of Puerto Rico. 

Brokaw, N.; [and others]; editors. 2012. A Caribbean forest tapestry: The multidimensional nature of 

disturbance and response.

Cano, F. 2013. Forest biologist. USDA Forest Service, El Yunque National Forest, Rio Grande, PR. 

Caughley, G.C. 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations. Wiley, New York, NY, USA. 

Center for the Aquatic Technology Transfer (CATT). 2001. Report: The use of basinwide visual 

estimation technique on the Caribbean National Forest. Rio Grande, PR. 

Chokkalingam, U.; De Jong, W. 2001. Secondary forest: A working definition and typology. International 

Forestry Review 3(1).

Cowardin, L.M.; Carter, V.; Golet F.C.; LaRoe, E.T. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater 

habitats of the US. DIANE Publishing. 

Cruz, A.; Delannoy, C.A. 1984. Ecology of the elfin-woods warbler (Dendroica angelae). I. Distribution, 

habitat usage, and population densities. Caribbean Journal of Science 20 (1-2): 89–96. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

240

Cruz, A.; Delannoy, C.A. 1986. Status, breeding biology and conservation needs of the Puerto Rican 

sharp-shinned hawk. Final report submitted to the USFWS work contract no. 14-16-0004-82-031. 

Daly, C., Helmer, E. H., & Quiñones, M. (2003). Mapping the climate of Puerto Rico, Vieques and 

Culebra. International Journal of Climatology, 23, 1359–1381. 

Delannoy, C.A. 1992. Status surveys of the Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk and Puerto Rican broadwinged hawk. Final report submitted to the USFWS in work contract no. 14-16-0004-91-031. 

Delannoy, C.A. 1995. Space requirements and nesting: Site habitat characterization of the Puerto Rican 

broad-winged hawk. Final report submitted to the USFWS. 

Departamento de Recursos Naturales, Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico. 2007. Elementos criticos de 

la Division de Patrimonio Natural-Plantas. Revised. 

DiFiore, S. 2001. Introduced species summary report: Small Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus). 

Columbia University. 

Evans, J.; Turnbull, J. 2004. Plantation forestry in the tropics. Third edition, Oxford University Press. 

Ewel, J.J.; Whitmore, J.L.; 1973. The ecological life zones of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Ewel, J.S.; Whitmore, J.L. 1973. Ecological life zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. USDA 

Forest Service Research Paper ITF-18, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical 

Forestry, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 72 p. 

Fiqueroa Colon, J.C.; Woodbury, R.O. 1996. Rare and endangered plant species of Puerto Rico and the 

Virgin Islands: An annotated checklist. 

Fulford, M.; Crandall, B.; Stotler, R. 1970. The ecology of an elfin forest in Puerto Rico: The leafy 

hepaticae of Pico del Oeste. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 51: 56–69. 

Gannon, M.; Kurta, A.; Rodriguez-Duran, A.; Willig, M.R. 2005. Bats of Puerto Rico. Texas Tech 

University Press, Lubbock, TX. 

Garcia M.A.; Cruz-Burgos, J.A.; Ventosa, E.; Lopez, R. 2005. Puerto Rico comprehensive wildlife 

conservation strategy. Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, San Juan, 

PR. 

Gilt, A.M. 1969. The ecology of an elfin forest in Puerto Rico: Agrial roots. Journal of the Arnold 

Arboretum 50: 197–209. 

Gochfeld, M.; Hill, D.; Tudor, G. 1973. A second population of the recently described elfin-woods 

warbler and other bird records from the West Indies. Caribbean Journal of Science 13(3-4): 231–235. 

Gould, W.A.; Alarcon, C.; Fevold, B. [and others]. 2008. The Puerto Rico gap analysis project. USDA 

Forest Service IITF-GTR-39, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, San 

Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Hamilton, L.S.; Juvik, J.O.; Scatena, F.N.; editors. 1994. Tropical montane cloud forests. Ecological 

Studies 110.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

241

Harris, N.L.; Lugo, A.E.; Brown, S.; Heartsill-Scalley, T.; editors. 2012. Luquillo Experimental Forest: 

Research history and opportunities. USDA Forest Service, EFR-1. 

Hein, C.L.; Redd, S.M.; Crowl, T.A.; Gonzalez-Caban, A. 2007. Conservation of a predatory, freshwater 

shrimp (Macrobrachium carcinus) in Puerto Rico. Paper presented at the 2008 Association for 

Tropical Biology and Conservation Paramaribo, Suriname, 9–13 June 2008. 

Hengstenberg, D.W.; Vilella, F.J. 2004. Reproductive biology, abundance, and movement patterns of the 

Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk in a limestone forest of Puerto Rico. Final report submitted to the 

U.S. Geological Survey under Cooperative Agreement No. 14-45-009-1543-59. 

Howard, R. A. 1969. The ecology of an elfin forest in Puerto Rico: Studies of stem growth and form and 

of leaf structure. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 50. 

[https://archive.org/details/cbarchive_49455_theecologyofanelfinforestinpue1970].

InfoNatura: Animals and ecosystems of Latin America [web application]. 2007. Version 5.0. NatureServe, 

Arlington, VA (USA). http://www.natureserve.org/infonatura accessed April 29, 2013. 

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2012. IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 

2012.2. [www.iucnredlist.org; downloaded April 29, 2013]. 

Jennings, 2014. Climate change effects in El Yunque National Forest, Puerto Rico and the Caribbean 

Region. GTR-SRS 193, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Ashville, NC. 

Jensen, K.; Alvarado-Ramy, F.; González-Martínez, J. [and others]. 2004. B virus and free-ranging 

macaques, Puerto Rico. Emerging Infectious Diseases 10(3): 494–496. 

Joglar, R. 1998. Los Coquies de Puerto Rico: Su historia natural y conservacion. Primera Edicion 

Universidad de Puerto Rico. 

Kikkert, D.A.; Crowl, T.A.; Covich, A.P. 2009. Upstream migration of amphidromous shrimps in the 

Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico: Temporal patterns and environmental cues. Journal of the 

North American Benthological Society 28(1): 233–246. 

Krupnick, G.A.; Miller, J.S.; Porter-Morgan, H.A. 2012. Addressing target two of the global strategy for 

plant conservation by rapidly identifying Puerto Rican plants at risk. Pedro Acevedo-Rodriguez 

National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.; The New York 

Botanical Garden, Bronx NY. 

Kwak, T.J.; Cooney, P.B.; Brown, C.H. 2007. Fishery population and habitat assessment in Puerto Rico 

streams: Phase I final report. USGS, North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

Department of Zoology, North Carolina State University. 

Lichvar, R.W. 2012. Puerto Rico 2012 final regional wetland plant list. The national wetland plant list, 

ERDC/CRREL TR-12-11, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering 

Laboratory, Hanover, NH. [http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/search/asset:asset?t:ac=$N/1012381] 

Little, E.L., Woodbury, R.O. 1980. Rare and endemic trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. USDA 

Conservation Research Report 27. 26 p. 

Little, E.L.; Woodbury, R.O. 1976. Trees of the Caribbean National Forest, Puerto Rico. Research Paper 

ITF-20, USDA Forest Service Institute of Tropical Forestry. 27 p. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

242

Longo, A.V.; Burrowes, P.A. 2010. Persistence with chytridiomycosis does not assure survival of directdeveloping frogs. EcoHealth [doi: 10.1007/s1039-010-0327-9]. 

López-Marrero, T.; Meyn, M.; Hermansen-Báez, L.A. 2011. El Yunque ecosystem services: A 

participatory research approach [fact sheet]. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

Gainesville, FL: 

Lugo, A.E. 2009. The emerging era of novel tropical forests. International Institute of Tropical Forestry, 

USDA Forest Service, 1201 Ceiba St. Jardín Botánico Sur, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico. Biotropica 

41(5): 589–591. 

Lyford, W.H. 1969. The ecology of an elfin forest in Puerto Rico: Soil, root and earthworm relationships, 

Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 50 [210e224]. 

Marrero, J. 1947. A survey of the forest plantations in the Caribbean National Forest. Master thesis. 

Tropical Forest Experiment Station. 

Miller, G.L.; Lugo, A.E. 2009. Guide to the ecological systems of Puerto Rico.

Mirjam, A.F. R.; Wiersum, K.F. 2003. The importance of non-timber forest product for forest-based rural 

livelihoods: An evolving research agenda. Presentation at the International Conference on Rural 

Livelihoods, Forests, and Biodiversity. May, Bonn, Germany. 

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4766. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2012. Soil survey of the Caribbean National Forest. 

NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [http://www.natureserve.org/explorer accessed April 29, 2013]. 

Neal, J.W.; Lilyestrom, C.G.; Kwak, T.J. 2009. Factors influencing tropical island freshwater fishes: 

Species, status, and management implications in Puerto Rico. Fisheries 34(11): 546–554. 

 (The) New York Botanical Garden. 2011. Puerto Rico endangered plants initiative (PREPI). 

[PREPI_SpecimenData.accdb]

Panagopoulos, N. 1999. A guide to Caribbean vegetation types: Preliminary classification system and 

descriptions.

Pike, A.S.; Scatena, F.N. 2009. Riparian indicator of flow frequency in a tropical montane stream 

network. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

Puente-Rolon, A.R.; Bird-Pico, F.J. 2004. Foraging behavior, home range, movements and activity 

patterns of (Epicrates inornatus) Boidae at Mata de Platano Reserve in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. 

Caribbean Journal of Science 40(3): 343–352. 

Quiñones, M.; Rivera, L.A; Gould, W.A. 2013. El Yunque National Forest vegetation map: Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Assessment chapter of the land and resources management plan revision for El Yunque 

National Forest. Vector data, USDA Forest Service, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Raffaele, H.A. 1989. A guide to the Birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Princeton University 

Press. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

243

Rivera, R.L. 2008. Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources: Lista de elemento 

críticos y especies bajo vigilancia de la division de partimonio natural (natural patrimony species 

list). San Juan, PR. 

Rivera, R.L. 2013. Personal discussion with PRDNER biologist representative Ramon L. Rivera-Lebron. 

Agreement on habitat criteria and explanation of natural patrimony list. Rio Grande, PR. 

Rivera-Milan, F.F.; Ruiz, C.R.; Cruz, J.A. [and others]. 2003. Population monitoring of plain pigeons in 

Puerto Rico. The Wilson Bulletin 115 (1): 45–51. 

Rivero, Juan A. 2006. Guia para la identificacion de Lagartos y Culebras de Puerto Rico. La Editorial 

Universidad de Puerto Rico 

Robinson, K. 1997. Where dwarfs reign: A tropical rain forest in Puerto Rico. University of Puerto Rico 

Press, San Juan, PR. 

Samson F.B.; Knopf, F.L. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America. Bioscience 44:418–421. 

[doi:10.2307/1312365]. 

Scatena, F.N.; Blanco, J.F.; Beard, K.H. [and others]. 2012. Disturbance regime. In: N. Brokaw, T.; Crowl, 

A.; Lugo, W. [and others]; editors. A Caribbean forest tapestry: The Multidimensional Nature of 

Disturbance. p. 164–200. 

Scatena, F.N.; Johnson, S.L. 2001. Instream-flow analysis for the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto 

Rico: Methods and analysis. IITF-GTR-11, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical 

Forestry, San Juan, PR. 

Snyder, M.; Anderson, E.; Pringle, C. 2009. A migratory shrimp’s perspective on habitat fragmentation in 

the neotropics: Extending our knowledge from Puerto Rico. In: Asakura, A.; editor. New frontiers in 

crustacean biology. Proceedings of the TCS Summer Meeting. Tokyo, Japan. 

Snyder, N.; Wiley, J.W.; Kepler, C.B. 1987. The parrots of Luquillo: Natural history and conservation of 

the Puerto Rican Parrot. Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, Los Angeles, CA. 

Stickel, W.H.; and Cope, J.B. 1947. The home ranges and wanderings of snakes. Copeia (2) 127–135. 

Stork, N.E.; Coddington, J.A.; Colwell, R.K. [and others]. 2009. Vulnerability and resilience of tropical 

forest species to land-use change. Conservation Biology 23(6): 1438–1447. [doi:10.1111/j.1523-

1739-2009.01335.x]. 

Tiner, R.W.; Burke, D.G. 1995. Wetlands of Maryland. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological 

Services, Region 5, Hadley, MA and Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD, 

Cooperative publication, 193 pp. plus appendices. 

[http://www.fws.gov/northeast/EcologicalServices/pdf/wetlands/MD_wetlands85.pdf].

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Vicksburg: U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. The National Wetland Plant List. Hanover: U.S. Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center.

USDA Forest Service 1960. USDA Forest Service: Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. Washington DC. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

244

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Revised land and resource management plan, Caribbean National 

Forest/Luquillo Experimental Forest. Southern Region, Puerto Rico. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Ecological sustainability evaluation (ESE) tool; planning area element 

priority report. Planning area: El Yunque National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Planning Rule, 36 CFR Part 219. Federal Register 77(68), April 9. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Ecological assessment for the new Forest Plan (planning support document). 

Rio Grande, PR. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013a. Proposed Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 directives. El Yunque 

National Forest, Rio Grande, PR. 6 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013b. Proposed FSH 1909.12, Chapter 10, version February 14. 

USDA Forest Service. 2014a. Climate change effects in El Yunque National Forest, Puerto Rico and the 

Caribbean Region. General Technical Report GTR-SRS-193, USDA Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station, Ashville, NC.

USDA Forest Service. 2014b. El Yunque National Forest Assessment. San Juan, PR. 

USDA Forest Service. Undated. Plan maps: Contractor, Southern Region RIM (D. Jones). 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk and Puerto Rican sharp-shinned 

hawk recovery plan. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region office, Atlanta, GA. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Final rule to remove the American peregrine falcon from the 

Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Federal Register 64(164), Wednesday, August 25. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Population Viability Analysis of Puerto Rican Parrots by Britta 

Dace Muiznieks: an assessment of its current status and prognosis for recovery. North Carolina State 

University. Raleigh, NC. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Recovery plan for the Puerto Rican parrot (Amazona vittata). 

Atlanta, GA. 75 p. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. 5-year review of the Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk. USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service Southeast Region, Caribbean ecological service field office, Boqueron, PR. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Puerto Rican parrot population indices from biologist Pablo 

Torres. Rio Grande, PRP field office, PR. 

Velez J., 2016. US Fish and Wildlife Service email message of the status of parrots in the Iguaca aviary to 

Puerto Rican Parrot recovery members.

Weaver, P.L. 1972. Cloud moisture interception in the Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico. Caribbean 

Journal of Science 12: 129–144. 

Weaver, P.; Gould, W. 2013. Forest Vegetation along environmental gradients in the Northeastern of 

Puerto Rico. Ecological Bulletin 54.

Weaver, P.L. 1994. Baño de Oro Natural Area, Luquillo Mountains, Puerto Rico. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

245

Weaver, P.L. 2012. The Luquillo Mountains: Forest resources and their history. General Technical Report 

IITF-44, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

White et al, 2014. US Fish and Wildlife Service powerpoint presentation to the Executive Interagency 

Panel Committee. Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources. San Juan, PR 

White, T.H.; Jr., Collazo, J.A.; Vilella, F.J. 2005. Survival of captive-reared Puerto Rican parrots released 

in the Caribbean National Forest. Condor 107: 426–434. 

Wiley, J.W.; Bauer, G.P. 1985. Caribbean National Forest, Puerto Rico. American Birds 39: 12–18. 

Willig, M.R.; Bauman, A. 1984. Notes on bats from the Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico. CEER-T-194, 

Center for Energy and Environment Research, San Juan, PR. 12 p. 

Wunder, S. 2001. Poverty alleviation and tropical forests: What scope for synergies? World Development 

29(11): 1817–1833. 

Wunderle, J.M.; Arendt, W.J. 2011. Avian studies and research opportunities in the Luquillo Experimental 

Forest: A tropical rain forest in Puerto Rico. Forest Ecology and Management 262 (1): 33–48. 

Wunderle, J.M.; Mercado, B. P.; Terranova, E. 2004. Spatial ecology of Puerto Rican boas. Biotropica 

36(4): 555–571 

Aquatic Ecosystems

Ahmad, R.; Scatena, F.N.; Gupta, A. 1993. Morphology and sedimentation in Caribbean montane 

streams: Examples from Jamaica and Puerto Rico. Sedimentary Geology. 85: 157–169. 

Covich, A., & Crowl, T. (1990). Effects of Hurricane Storm Flow on Transport of Woody Debris in a Rain 

Forest Stream (Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico). in Tropical hydrology and Caribbean 

water resources. Proceedings of the International symposium on tropical hydrology and Fourth 

Caribbean Islands Water Resources Congress (pp. 197-205). Bethesda: American Water Resources 

Association.

Pike, A.S. 2008. Longitudinal patterns in stream channel geomorphology and aquatic habitat in the 

Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. 88 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Revised land and resource management plan, Caribbean National 

Forest/Luquillo Experimental Forest. Southern Region, Puerto Rico. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Arendt, W.J.; Qian, S.S.; Mineard, K.A., 2013. Population decline of the elfin-woods warbler Setophaga 

angelae in eastern Puerto Rico. Bird Conservation International, Birdlife International 2013 [doi: 

10.1017/S0959270913000166]. 11 p. 

Brash, A. R. (1987). The history of avian extinction and forest conversion on Puerto Rico. Biological 

Conservation, 39(2), 97-111.

Cruz, A.; Delannoy, C.A. 1984. Ecology of the elfin-woods warbler (Dendroica angelae). I. Distribution, 

habitat usage, and population densities. Caribbean Journal of Science 20 (1-2): 89–96. 

Cruz, A.; Delannoy, C.A. 1986. Status, breeding biology and conservation needs of the Puerto Rican 

sharp-shinned hawk. Final report submitted to the USFWS work contract no. 14-16-0004-82-031. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

246

Delannoy, C. A. 1997. Status of the broad-winged hawk and sharp-shinned hawk in Puerto Rico. 

Caribbean Journal of Science, 33, 21-33. 

Delannoy, C. A., & Tossas, A. G. 2002. Breeding biology and nest site characteristics of Puerto Rican 

Broad-winged Hawks at the Rio Abajo Forest. Caribbean Journal of Science, 38(1/2), 20-26. 

Delannoy, C.A. 1992. Status surveys of the Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk and Puerto Rican broadwinged hawk. Final report submitted to the USFWS in work contract no. 14-16-0004-91-031. 

Delannoy, C.A. 1995. Space requirements and nesting: Site habitat characterization of the Puerto Rican 

broad-winged hawk. Final report submitted to the USFWS. 

Dube et al., 2006. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: Ailments and ideas for 

redeployment. Environmental Management 37:153-161. 

Ewel, J.S.; Whitmore, J.L. 1973. Ecological life zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. USDA 

Forest Service Research Paper ITF-18, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical 

Forestry, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 72 p. 

Gallardo, J. C., F. J. Vilella. 2014. The Puerto Rican Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus vennator): an 

endangered insular species on the edge. Spizaetus: Neotropical Raptor Network Newsletter 17:2-13. 

Gochfeld, M.; Hill, D.; Tudor, G. 1973. A second population of the recently described elfin-woods 

warbler and other bird records from the West Indies. Caribbean Journal of Science 13(3-4): 231–235. 

Gould, W.A.; Alarcon, C.; Fevold, B. [and others]. 2008. The Puerto Rico gap analysis project. USDA 

Forest Service IITF-GTR-39, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, San 

Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Hengstenberg, D.W.; Vilella, F.J. 2004. Reproductive biology, abundance, and movement patterns of the 

Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk in a limestone forest of Puerto Rico. Final report submitted to the 

U.S. Geological Survey under Cooperative Agreement No. 14-45-009-1543-59. 

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2012. IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 

2012.2. [www.iucnredlist.org; downloaded April 29, 2013]. 

Kasomenakis, S. (1988). Native orchids of the Luquillo Mountains of eastern Puerto Rico. American 

Orchid Society Bulletin, 979-988. 

Kepler, C.B.; Parkes, K.C. 1972. A new species if warbler (Parulidae) from Puerto Rico. The Auk 89: 1–

18. [http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v089n01/p0001-p0018.pdf].

Krupnick, G.A.; Miller, J.S.; Porter-Morgan, H.A. 2012. Addressing target two of the global strategy for 

plant conservation by rapidly identifying Puerto Rican plants at risk. Pedro Acevedo-Rodriguez 

National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.; The New York 

Botanical Garden, Bronx NY. 

Miller, G.L.; Lugo, A.E. 2009. Guide to the ecological systems of Puerto Rico. General Technical Report 

IITF-GTR-35, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, San Juan, PR. 437 

p. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

247

NEPA, 1969. National Environmental Policy Act. Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, 

as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, § 

4(b), Sept. 13, 1982 

Quiñones, M.; Rivera, L.A.; Gould, W.A. 2013. El Yunque National Forest vegetation map. Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Assessment chapter of the land and resources management plan revision for El Yunque 

National Forest. Vector data. USDA Forest Service, San Juan, PR 

Raffaele, H. A., Wiley, J., Garrido, O., Keith, A., & Raffaele, J. 1998. A guide to the birds of the West 

Indies (p. 511). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Raffaele, H.A. 1989. A guide to the Birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Princton University 

Press. 

Rivero, J.A. 1998. Los anfibios y reptiles de Puerto Rico. University of Puerto Rico Press, Río Piedras, 

Puerto Rico. 510 pp. 

Snyder, N.; Wiley, J.W.; Kepler, C.B. 1987. The parrots of Luquillo: Natural history and conservation of 

the Puerto Rican Parrot. Western Foundation of Verebrate Zoology, Los Angeles, CA 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk and Puerto Rican sharp-shinned 

hawk recovery plan. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region office, Atlanta, GA. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Final rule to remove the American peregrine falcon from the 

Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Federal Register 64(164), Wednesday, August 25. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Population Viability Analysis of Puerto Rican Parrots by Britta 

Dace Muiznieks: an assessment of its current status and prognosis for recovery. North Carolina State 

University. Raleigh, NC. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Recovery plan for the Puerto Rican parrot (Amazona vittata). 

Atlanta, GA. 75 p. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. 5-year review of the Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk. USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service Southeast Region, Caribbean ecological service field office, Boqueron, PR. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Puerto Rican parrot population indices from biologist Pablo 

Torres. Rio Grande, PRP field office, PR. 

Velez J., 2016. US Fish and Wildlife Service email message of the status of parrots in the Iguaca aviary to 

Puerto Rican Parrot recovery members.

Vilella, F.J. 2016. Email from Dr. Vilella on the status of Puerto Rican Sharp Shinned and Broad-winged 

Hawk status on their surveys within El Yunque National Forest. USDA Forest Service, El Yunque 

National Forest, Supervisor’s Office.

White et al, 2014. US Fish and Wildlife Service powerpoint presentation to the Executive Interagency 

Panel Committee. Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources. San Juan, PR 

Wiley, J. (2003). Habitat Association, Size, Stomach Contents, and Reproductive Condition of Puerto 

Rican Boas (Epicrates inornatus). Caribbean Journal of Science, 39(2), 189-194. 

Wiley, J .W., Bauer, G.P. 1985. Caribbean National Forest, Puerto Rico. American Birds 39, 12– 18. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

248

Wunderle, J.M.; Mercado, B. P.; Terranova, E. 2004. Spatial ecology of Puerto Rican boas. Biotropica 

36(4): 555–571 

Forest Health

Drewry, G. E. 1970. A list of insects from El Verde Puerto Rico. In Odum, H.T.; Pigeon, R.F., eds. A 

tropical rain forest. Washington, DC: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission: E-129-150. 

Hodges, C.S.; Mc Fadden, M.W. 1987. Insects and diseases affecting forest plantations in tropical 

America. In: Figueroa, J.C.; Wadsworth, F.W.; Branham, S., eds. Management of the forests of 

tropical America. USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA. P. 

365–376. 

IAFN. (2012, January). Analog Forestry: A Practitioner’s Guide. Retrieved from 

http://www.analogforestry.org/wpsite/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/AF-Practitioners-Guide.pdf

Longo, A.V.; Burrowes, P.A.; Joglar. R.L. 2010. Seasonality of Batrachochytrium dendrobatis infection in 

direct-developing frogs suggests a mechanism for persistence. Diseases of Aquatic Organiusms 92: 

253–260. 

Richardson, B. (1999, June). The Bromeliad Microcosm and the Assessment of Faunal Diversity in a 

Neotropical Forest. Biotropica, 31(2), 321-336. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.1999.tb00144.x 

Richardson, B., & Hull, G. (2000, November). Insect colonisation sequences in bracts of Heliconia 

caribaea in Puerto Rico. Ecological Entomology, 25(4), 460-466. 

Torres, J. A. 1994. Insects of the Luquillo Mountains, Puerto Rico. General Technical Report S-105, 

USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experimental Station.

Weaver, P.L. 2012. The Luquillo Mountains: Forest resources and their history. General Technical Report 

IITF-44, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Socioeconomic Resources 

American Sportfishing Association (ASA). 2007. State and national economic effects of fishing, hunting 

and wildlife-related recreation on U.S. Forest Service-managed lands. Report prepared for the 

Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants, USDA Forest Service [accessed November 15, 2013; 

[http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/wildlife/usfs_wildlife_based_recreation_economic_con

tributions_1_03_07.pdf]. 

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico. 2013. Progreso económico. February. 4 p. 

Bram, J.; Martínez, F.E.; Steindel, C. 2008. Trends and developments in the economy of Puerto Rico. 

Current issues in economics and finance. Federal Reserve Bank of New York 14(2). 

CDC 2011. The Dengue update. Center for Disease Control Division of Vector Born Diseases 3(1). 

CDC. (2002). Births: Final Data for 2001. National Vital Statistics Reports, 51(2), 114. 

CDC. (2015, December 23). Births: Final Data for 2014. National Vital Statistics Reports, 64(12), 64. 

Census Information Center (UPR-Cayey). (2017). Huracán eleva nivel pobreza a más de la mitad del país. 

Retrieved May 8, 2018, from https://www.metro.pr/pr/noticias/2017/11/27/tasa-pobreza-tras-mariapodria-haber-aumentado.html
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

249

CEQ. 1997. Environmental justice guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Council on 

Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 

Cochrane, M.A.; Laurance, W.F. 2008. Synergisms among fire, land use, and climate change in the 

amazon. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 37(7): 522−527. 

Cohn, D., Patten, E., & López, M. (2014, August 11). Puerto Rican Population Declines on Island, Grows 

on U.S. Mainland. Retrieved from Pew Research Center: 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/08/11/puerto-rican-population-declines-on-island-grows-on-u-smainland/

Domínguez Cristóbal, C. 1997a. Historical synopsis of the Sierra de Luquillo (national forest in the 

Caribbean): part 1. Tiempo Libre. 

Domínguez Cristóbal, C. 1997b. Historical Synoposis of the Sierra de Luquillo (National Forest in the 

Caribbean): Part 2. Tiempo Libre, 11(2), 20'25. 

Estudios Técnicos, Inc. 2012. Simposium: La Economía Efectiva: Oportunidades 2013. Fourth annual 

symposium on Puerto Rico’s economy. November 29, 2012. San Juan, PR. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2013. Offenses known to law enforcement. Tables. 

[http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-knownto-law-enforcement]. 

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (2012). Report on the Competitiveness of Puerto Rico's Economy.

New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Retrieved from 

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/regional/PuertoRico/report.pdf

Gould, W. A., Martinuzzi, S., & Parés-Ramos, I. K. (2012). Land Use, Population Dynamics, and LandCover Change in Eastern Puerto Rico. In S. F. Murphy, & R. Stallard, Water Quality and Landscape 

Processes of Four Watersheds in Eastern Puerto Rico (p. 18). Reston: U.S. Geological Survey.

Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico. 2011. Puerto Rico factsheet: July 2011 (2010 Data). 

Office of Economic Studies and Analysis. 

Greene, D. 2013. ‘Don’t give up on us’: Puerto Ricans wrestle with high crime. NPR. February 7. 

[http://www.npr.org/2013/02/07/171071473/-don-t-give-up-on-us-puerto-ricans-wrestle-with-highcrime]. 

Hinojosa, J., Román, N., & Meléndez, E. (2018). Puerto Rican Post-Maria Relocation by States (Research 

Brief No. RB2018-03) (p. 16). Hunter College CUNY. 

Instituto de Estadísticas de Puerto Rico (2010). Nuevas estadísticas de mortalidad, 2000-08. San Juan, 

Puerto Rico. [Obtenido de www.estadisticas.gobierno.pr]. 

Kelman, I.; West, J.J. 2009. Climate change and small island developing states: A critical review. 

Ecological and Environmental Anthropology 5(1): 1−16. 

Lewsey, C.; Cid, G.; Kruse, E. 2004. Assessing climate change impacts on coastal infrastructure in the 

eastern Caribbean. Marine Policy 28(5): 393−409. 

Lim, Y.K.; Cai, M.; Kalnay, E.; Zhou, L. 2005. Observational evidence of sensitivity of surface climate 

changes to land types and urbanization. Geophysical Research Letters 32(22): L22712. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

250

López-Marrero, T.; Hermansen-Báez, L.A. 2011. Land cover within and around El Yunque National 

Forest. [Fact sheet]. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Gainesville, FL. 4 p. 

Lugo, A., Lopez, T., & Ramos Gonzalez, O. (2004). Urbanizacion de los terrenos en la periferia de El 

Yunque. San Juan: USDA Forest Service.

Maldonado, M.M.; Valdes-Pizzini, M.; Latoni, A.R. 1999. Owning and contesting El Yunque: Forest 

resources, politics, and culture in Puerto Rico. Berkley Journal of Sociology 44(1999−2000). p. 

82−100. 

McGinley, K. (2016). Human Dynamics and Forest Management: A Baseline Assessment of the 

Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Region Surrounding El Yunque National Forest. Caribbean 

Naturalist(1), 218-244. 

McKinney, M. (2002, October). Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation. BioScience, 52(10), 883-

890. 

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. World 

Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. 

Moody’s Investors Services. 2012. Puerto Rico rating action investor teleconference presentation 

summary report, December 17, 2012. 18 p. 

Policia de Puerto Rico. 2013. Delitos Tipo 1 en Puerto Rico por Municipio. 

Puerto Rico Banking Association (Asociación de Bancos de Puerto Rico). 2012. Puerto Rico housing 

market perspectives 2011−2015. Prepared by: Estudios Técnicos, Inc. 37 p. 

Robbins, A.M; Eckelmann, C.M.; Quiñones, M. 2008. Forest fires in the insular Caribbean. AMBIO: A 

Journal of the Human Environment 37(7): 528−534. 

Robinson, K. 1997. Where dwarfs reign: A tropical rain forest in Puerto Rico. University of Puerto Rico 

Press, San Juan, PR. 

Robles, F. 2012. Puerto Rico tackling fearful murder rate. Miami Herald. December 11. 

Rodríguez Ramos, R. 2010. Rethinking Puerto Rican precolonial history. University Alabama Press. P. 

288 

Saunders, N.J. 2005. The peoples of the Caribbean: An encyclopedia of archaeology and traditional 

culture. Santa Barbara, CA. ABC-CLIO.

Shoichet, C.E. 2012. Puerto Rico: A forgotten front in America’s drug war? CNN. June 10. 

[http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/09/justice/puerto-rico-drug-trafficking]. 

Telemundo. 2012. Puerto Rico es comparado con Mexico en la tasa de homicidios. 12 Febrero. 

The World Bank. 2013. World development indicators. Life expectancy at birth. 20 October 2013. 

[http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN]. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. American fact finder. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 

Office. 30 December 2013 [http://factfinder2.census.gov]. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

251

U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. American fact finder. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 

Office. 30 December 2013 [http://factfinder2.census.gov]. 

United Nations (UN). 2013. Demographic yearbook 2012. Sixty-third issue. Department of Economic and 

Social Affairs, New York. 

United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2013. Summary: Human development report 2013. The 

Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. UNDP, New York. 

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). 2012. Intentional homicide, count and rate per 

100,000 population (1995−2011). 30 November 2013. [https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-andanalysis/homicide.html] 

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Secure Rural Schools: Payments and Receipts, 15 November 2013. 

USDA. 2009. 2007 census of agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Puerto Rico Island and 

Municipio Data, San Juan, PR. 

USDA. 2012. USDA environmental justice strategic plan, 2012−2014. Washington, D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Forest Plan Assessment: El Yunque National Forest. El Yunque National 

Forest; Rio Grande. 

Valdés-Pizzini, M.; Maldonado, M.M.; Latoni, A.R. 2000. Owning and contesting El Yunque: Forest 

resources, politics, and culture in Puerto Rico. Berkeley Journal of Sociology: A Critical Review, 44. 

Valdés-Pizzini, Manuel. (2001). Por los caminos de la naturaleza: sociedad, tecnología y espacio natural 

en las ciencias sociales. In: Torres, L.; Torres, L.; editors. Introducción a las Ciencias Sociales: 

Sociedad y Cultura Contemporáneas (second edition). International Thompson. p. 420−450. 

Valdés-Pizzinni, M.; González-Cruz, M.; Martínez-Reyes, J.E. 2011. La transformación del paisaje 

puertorriqueño y la disciplina del Cuerpo Civil de Conservación 1933−1942: Centro de 

Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad de Puerto Rico. 

Van Middledyk, R.A. 2013. The history of Puerto Rico: From the Spanish Discovery to the American 

Occupation. CreateSpace Independent Publishing. 192 p. 

Weaver, P.L. 2012. The Luquillo Mountains: Forest resources and their history. General Technical Report 

IITF-44, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, San Juan, PR.

Forest Products

Brandeis, T. (2009). Diameter Growth of Subtropical Trees in Puerto Rico. Research Paper, USDA Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station, Southern Research Station.

Crow, T., & Weaver, P. (1977). Tree growth in moist tropical forest of Puerto Rico. USDA Forest Service, 

Intstitute of Tropical Forestry. Rio Piedras: Institute of Tropical Forestry.

Kicliter, V. (1997). Forest Products of Puerto Rico: An Overview of Trends in Forest Products Use. (E. A. 

Area, Ed.) 

Weaver, P. (1979). Tree Growth in Several Tropical Forests of Puerto Rico. USDA Forest Service, 

Southern Forest Experiment Station. New Orleans: Southern Forest Experiment Station. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

252

Weaver, P., & Birdsey, R. (1990). Growth of secondary forest in Puerto Rico between 1980 and 1985. 

Turrialba, 40(1), 12-22. 

Cultural/Historic Resources 

Barnes, M.; Walker, J.B.; Miele, F. 2007. New Deal Era construction in the forest reserves in Puerto Rico. 

National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPS) prepared by 

Southeast Regional Office-NPS and US Forest Service (MPS approved by NPS on November 11, 

2007), manuscript in Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office. 

Daubon, A. (1981). Phase I Caribbean National Forest cultural resources survey and literature 

search. State Historic Preservation Office. Study conducted under contract to US Dep. Agric, For. 

Serv., Southern Region., Atlanta, Ga. 

Domínguez-Cristóbal, C.M. 2000. Panorama histórico forestal de Puerto Rico. Editorial Universidad de 

Puerto Rico, San Juan. 

Hayward, M.; Cinquino, M.; Steinback, M.A. 2001. Prehistoric rock art of Puerto Rico. National Park 

Service, National Register of Historic Places, Multiple Property documentation Form, manuscript in 

the PRSHPO.

Oliver, J. 1995. Cultural overview. In: Garrow, P.H.; [and others]. La Iglesia de Maraguez (PO-39). 

Investigations of a local ceremonial center in the Cerrillos River Valley, Ponce, Puerto Rico, 

manuscript in the PRSHPO. p. 12–39. 

Rouse, I. 1992. The Tainos: Rise and decline of the people who greeted Columbus. Yale University Press, 

New Haven.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Forest Plan Assessment: El Yunque National Forest. El Yunque National 

Forest; Rio Grande. 

Valdés-Pizzini, M.; Maldonado, M.M.; Latoni, A.R. 2000. Owning and contesting El Yunque: Forest 

resources, politics, and culture in Puerto Rico. Berkeley Journal of Sociology: A Critical Review 44. 

Valdés-Pizzinni, M.; González-Cruz, M.; Martínez-Reyes, J.E. 2011. La transformación del paisaje 

puertorriqueño y la disciplina del Cuerpo Civil de Conservación 1933-1942: Centro de 

Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad de Puerto Rico. 

Wadsworth, F.H. 2012. Los bosques y el uso de madera en Puerto Rico. Instituto de Dasonomía Tropical. 

Wadsworth, F. (2014). A Forestry Assignment to Puerto Rico: Forestry Memoirs of Frank Wadsworth.

Aguas Buenas, Puerto Rico: Impresos Emmanuelli.

Walker, Jeff. (n.d.). [Citations from essay Pre-Columbian Use of the Sierra de Luquillo]. Unpublished raw 

data.

Weaver, P.L. 2012. The Luquillo Mountains: Forest resources and their history. General Technical Report 

IITF-44, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Recreation 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico National Parks. 2007. State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

(SCORP) 2008–2013. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

253

Cordell, H.K. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends and futures. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Green, G.T. 2008. Natural-based outdoor recreation trends, and wilderness. 

International Journal of Wilderness. 

Corredor Ecológico del Noreste. 2013. Turismo Libre–simple y espontanea. 

Louv, R. 2005. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin 

Books of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997a. Caribbean National Forest land and resource management plan. Caribbean 

National Forest, Southern Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997b. Final environmental impact statement for the Caribbean National Forest 

land and resource management plan. Caribbean National Forest, Southern Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. The recreation agenda. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. El Yunque National Forest national comprehensive evaluation report. El 

Yunque National Forest, Southern Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Interpretive and conservation education master plan. El Yunque National 

Forest, Southern Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. A framework for sustainable recreation. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Caribbean National Forest wild and scenic comprehensive river 

management plan. El Yunque National Forest, Southern Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Citizen task force–El Toro Wilderness Area limits of acceptable change. El 

Yunque National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. 2006. National visitor use monitoring (NVUM) report. Caribbean National 

Forest, Southern Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. 2011 national visitor use monitoring (NVUM) report. El Yunque National 

Forest, Southern Region. 

Weaver, P.L. 2012. The Luquillo Mountains: Forest resources and their history. General Technical Report 

IITF-44, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Scenic Resources 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape aesthetics: A handbook for scenery management. Agriculture 

Handbook 701. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Revised land and resource management plan, Caribbean National 

Forest/Luquillo Experimental Forest. Southern Region, Puerto Rico. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Caribbean National Forest national wild and scenic rivers comprehensive 

river management plan. El Yunque National Forest, Southwestern Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. 2006 National visitor use monitoring (NVUM) report. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

254

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. 2011 National visitor use monitoring (NVUM) report. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013a. Scenic character description: El Yunque National Forest. Hill, N.; 

unpublished. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013b. Scenery management system inventory report: El Yunque National Forest. 

Hill, N.; unpublished. 

Other Required Disclosures

Environmental Justice

Cohn, D., Patten, E., & López, M. (2014, August 11). Puerto Rican Population Declines on Island, Grows 

on U.S. Mainland. Retrieved from Pew Research Center: 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/08/11/puerto-rican-population-declines-on-island-grows-on-u-smainland/

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (2012). Report on the Competitiveness of Puerto Rico's Economy.

New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Retrieved from 

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/regional/PuertoRico/report.pdf

Gould, W. A., Martinuzzi, S., & Parés-Ramos, I. K. (2012). Land Use, Population Dynamics, and LandCover Change in Eastern Puerto Rico. In S. F. Murphy, & R. Stallard, Water Quality and Landscape 

Processes of Four Watersheds in Eastern Puerto Rico (p. 18). Reston: U.S. Geological Survey.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. American fact finder. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 

Office. 30 December 2013 [http://factfinder2.census.gov]. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. American fact finder. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 

Office. 30 December 2013 [http://factfinder2.census.gov]. 

Wetlands and Floodplains

Harris, N.L.; Lugo, A.E.; Brown, S.; Heartsill-Scalley, T.; editors. 2012. Luquillo Experimental Forest: 

Research history and opportunities. USDA Forest Service, EFR-1. 

Appendices

Daly, C., Helmer, E. H., & Quiñones, M. (2003). Mapping the climate of Puerto Rico, Vieques and 

Culebra. International Journal of Climatology, 23, 1359–1381. 

Department of Natural and Environmental Resources. 2005. Puerto Rico Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 

State Natural Heritage Plan
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

255

Appendix A: Public Involvement

Planning began with an assessment phase, where an Interdisciplinary (ID) Team, made up mainly of staff, 

managers, contractors and scientists, was organized. During the assessment phase, the ID Team evaluated 

all the existing information, data and resources in the planning area. Through the use of the ID team’s 

expertise and the best available scientific information, the Forest identified over 125 key findings that 

spanned social, economic and ecological issues as well as gaps of information. An exercise of establishing 

priorities helped point out the 25 most important -or major- key findings. These 25 major key findings 

were used to develop the Need for Change, where the Forest evaluated which findings were not addressed 

in the 1997 Forest Plan and support the need for a Forest Plan Revision. 

In September 2012, the Collaboration Cadre and Environmental Policy Solutions (EPS), an NGO that 

began the Forest collaboration process during the assessment phase, conducted a series of listening 

sessions to hear community members, stakeholders, and employees’ concerns, needs and desires for 

future forest conditions. Four public meetings were held in communities around the Forest for the public 

to learn more about the planning process and to provide comments on issues they felt were important in 

managing the Forest and to include in the Plan. An interactive mapping exercise helped participants 

identify locations where uses, issues, or opportunities occur in and around the Forest. In December 2012, 

about 100 stakeholders including representatives from communities, agencies, organizations and Forest 

Service employees attended a workshop to discuss collaboration and learn more about the collaborative 

process and their level of interest to participate in the planning effort.

As a result of this two day workshop, the citizens' collaboration committee (CCPP), made up of members 

of the community and stakeholders was assembled to work with the Forest Service to assist in public 

involvement and collaboration on issues throughout the planning process. The CCPP continued to support 

the Forest in the planning process and will assist in the new Forest Plan implementation. This group met 

every month with staff to be briefed on the progress of the plan and, based on the plan’s progress, 

coordinate to support the staff and begin preparations and outreach on the Forest Plan and 

implementation.

Community meetings were held to explain the Need for Change and present the major key findings and 

planning problems. The meetings were held by the Centro para la Conservación del Paisaje, a nongovernment organization, in different municipalities in El Yunque region. During these meetings, 

concerns regarding additional designations in the Forest were expressed regularly. Also, recommendations 

and support for more collaborative conservation, economic development and educational efforts was

articulated. All arguments presented supported the need for a new Forest Plan. Comments from the public, 

along with the 2014 Forest Plan Assessment, shaped the Proposed Action considering the need for 

change. The Proposed Action was made to address planning, collaborative, sustainability, social, 

economic and ecological needs. The Proposed Action was presented in community meetings, as well as 

focus groups, composed of different government agencies and interested parties such as municipal 

planners, protected area managers, outfitters and tour operators. 

By evaluating input from focus groups, community meetings and more in-depth analysis of the need for 

change, two alternatives for the Forest Plan were made, with the no-action as a third alternative. These 

alternatives were presented in different community meetings as well, where much support was expressed 

for alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative. Based on comments from Forest Service personnel, 

the public, other agencies and non-governmental organizations, the Planning Interdisciplinary Team (ID 

Team) developed a list of issues to address in this EIS. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

256

Table A- 1 displays the collaboration meetings and events that were undertaken to ensure a wide variety 

of methods to collect comments that would’ve been used to develop alternatives. 

Table A- 1. Public participation planning activities by date

Planning Outreach Activities Date

Listening Sessions September 18–19, 2012

Collaboration Workshop December 5–6, 2012

Citizens Participatory Group Meetings May 31, 2013 to current 

2013 El Tinglar Festival April 13, 2013

Ethnographic Appraisal July–August 2013

Meeting with International Institute of Tropical Forestry October 30, 2013

NEPA Workshop December 3–4, 2013

Community Meetings 2014: Naguabo January 28, 2014

El Yunque Employee Meeting February 19, 2014

Community Meetings 2014: Fajardo 1 March 27, 2014

Community Meetings 2014: Las Piedras 1 April 3, 2014

2014 El Tinglar Festival April 5, 2014

Community Meetings 2014: Río Grande April 10, 2014

Scientific Forum on El Yunque at the Department of Natural Resources in San 

Juan, PR

May 8, 2014

Employee Meeting at El Yunque August 13, 2014

Protected Areas Congress August 28–29, 2015

Focus Group Meetings: Municipal Planners 1 September 18, 2014

Focus Group Meetings: Protected Area Managers September 25, 2014

2014 El Yunque Festival October 4–5, 2014

Focus Groups Meetings: Outfitters and Tour Operators October 9, 2014

Focus Group Meetings: Municipal Planners 2 October 16, 2014

Community Meetings 2014: Fajardo #2 October 30, 2014

Department of Natural Resources Symposium, San Juan November 6–7, 2014

Community Meetings 2014: Luquillo #2 November 13, 2014

Community Meetings 2014: Las Piedras #2 November 25, 2014

Forest Products Symposium December 5, 2014

Community Meetings 2014: Canóvanas, Rio Grande #2 December 11, 2015

International Day of Forests in El Portal Visitor Center, El Yunque March 21, 2015

SHPO Planning Presentation March 26, 2015

2015 El Tinglar Festival April 11, 2015

"Para La Naturaleza" Environmental Fair April 18, 2015

Interamerican University Environmental Fair, Fajardo Campus April 30, 2015

Community Meetings 2015: Las Piedras #3 June 23, 2015
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

257

Planning Outreach Activities Date

Community Meetings 2015: Luquillo #3 June 24, 2015

Community Meeting 2015: Interamerican University Law School, San Juan June 25, 2015

2015 El Yunque Festival October 3, 2015

2016 International Day Of Forests in El Portal Visitor Center, El Yunque March 19, 2016

2016 El Tinglar Festival April 9, 2016

2016 “Para La Naturaleza” Environmental Fair April 16, 2016

After the new Presidential and Puerto Rico commonwealth government administration changes in 2017, 

El Yunque staff reconvened with several key agencies including the PRDNER and the PR Planning 

Board. These agencies were briefed on the Forest Plan’s progress and to make sure the planning direction 

still aligned with each of these agencies’ purposes and goals. Concurrent with the release of the draft EIS, 

a notice of availability (NOA), published in the Federal Register (September 30, 2016) initiated the

formal 90-day comment period on the draft EIS and proposed Forest Plan as required by Forest Service 

NFMA regulations 36 CFR 219. Only those individuals and entities who submitted substantive formal 

comments related to this plan revision during the opportunities provided for public comment were eligible 

to file an objection (36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219.53(a)). A total of 14 comment letters were 

received from different individuals, state, and federal agencies. None of the comment letters suggested the 

creation of a new alternative or to discard alternative 2 (the preferred alternative), rather some 

improvements and clarifications were considered necessary to be made on said alternative. 

Comments by the public on El Yunque National Forest DEIS and Proposed Forest Plan addressed a wide 

range of concerns but were largely focused on recreation opportunities, wildlife management and 

vegetation. Six individuals provided substantive comments on the Plan and DEIS. Puerto Rico Tourism 

Company provided no additional comments, in full support of the proposed action and DEIS. The letters 

received represent a total of 77 comments. We addressed all the comments received, including the nonsubstantive. 

A brief summary of the comments received is as follows:

Broad support for achieving the sustainable management of the current high level of developed 

recreation infrastructure and to continuing adapting to the stresses of high density recreational areas 

by dispersing recreational users to different parts of El Yunque National Forest. 

Broad support for contributing to the social and economic sustainability of the region through 

collaborative efforts, enhancing general forest management, environmental literacy and education and 

implementing the shared stewardship of small-scaled recreation development and small-scaled forest 

product areas. 

Concerns were expressed about the effects of human activities on flora and fauna. The forest is a 

protected area with high ecological value in Puerto Rico due to its size compared to the rest of the 

Island. The high population density, combined with intensive land and resource use increase the risk 

of invasive species introduction and dispersion. 

Concerns were expressed about the unknown immediate and long-term effects of the changing 

climate on the ecosystems services of El Yunque National Forest, such as water dynamics for both 

wildlife species and human use, possible forest type range changes, along with encouragement for 

continued research to improve understanding of this complex issue. 

The following table describes subjects addressed in the comments:
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

258

Table A- 2. Total of comments per category

Category No. of comments 

Recreation 14 

Wildlife 8 

Vegetation 7 

Communications Sites 7 

Forest Products 6 

Watersheds 5 

Lands 4 

Pests and Invasive Species 4 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 3 

Research 3 

Hazardous Material 2 

Planning 2 

Collaborations 2 

Education 2 

Aquatic Ecosystems 2 

Heritage/Cultural Resources 1 

Research Natural Area 1 

Scenic 1 

Wilderness Area 1 

Ecosystem Services 1 

Climate Change 1 

Total 77 

Table A- 3. Individuals/organizations that sent comment letters

Individual/ Position Organization

1 Enrique Hernández Prieto Individual Citizen

2 Rafael Nido Vázquez Individual Citizen

3 Francisco Watlington Linares Individual Citizen

4 Tamara Heartsill Individual Citizen

5 Peter Weaver Individual Citizen

6 Sheila Ward Individual Citizen

7 Diana de Ju Individual Citizen

8 Luis Rivera Individual Citizen

9 Chief of Sustainability and Multimedia 

Programs Branch, Clean Air and 

Sustainability Division

Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

259

Individual/ Position Organization

10 Acting Director Puerto Rico Tourism Company, 

(PR Government public 

corporation)

11 Regional Environmental Officer Department of Interior

12 State Historic Preservation Officer SHPO, (PR Government)

13 Marimar Bonet Individual Citizen

14 Manager of Environmental and Licensing 

Projects Department

PREPA (PR Electric Power 

Authority, Public Corporation) 

The following section was organized into broader comment categories: 

1. Ecological Sustainability and Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities

2. Social and Economic Sustainability

3. Multiple Uses 

Ecological Sustainability and Diversity of Plant and Animal 

Communities 

Comments under this category include concerns regarding climate change, vegetation composition and 

classification, at-risk species, invasive species and management strategies for these fore mentioned 

subjects.

1. Climate Change Response

1.1 Comment: Is the forest large enough to survive uncertain global warming changes? (5)

Forest Response: Based on the Forest Plan Assessment, changes in the climatic condition of 

Puerto Rico as well as El Yunque National Forest are expected. The changes in temperature 

and rainfall patterns that will affect Puerto Rico and the Forest are broad-scale in nature and 

have no relationship to the Forest size.

The impacts of extreme weather events, such as the hurricanes in 2017, have also been 

considered. Hurricanes in general are a natural stressor that is included in the analysis. The 

distiburance, vegetation defoliation, vegetation mortality, landslides, flooding, and other 

hurricane related changes in general are within the natural range of variability of ecosystems 

in the analysis. As is stated in the affected enviornment – Vegetation section, the hurricanes 

did not change the vegetation community types but rather changed the successional state and 

structure of plants within their natural range of variability.

Section 3.1.1 of the Forest Plan also addresses climate change response, which includes 

improved immediate and long-term resilience. 

2. Long-term land management effects

2.1 Comment: Will any of the proposed management interventions (logging and borderline 

recreational activities) cause potential long-term damage? Will these activities fragment 

the forest boundary?
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

260

Forest Response: The Forest Plan makes no site-specific determinations. Vegetation 

restoration and recreational activities will be subject to site-specific analysis in which the longterm resource damage will be evaluated. There will be no Forest boundary fragmentation 

because the Plan procures continuous vegetation cover.

3. Terrestrial Ecosystem: Vegetation

3.1 Comments concerning the composition of the Forest’s vegetation

3.1.1 Comment: Knowledge on ecological vegetation composition and ecological functions 

should be used to categorize the existing forest communities and ecosystems. (4)

3.1.2 Comment: The areas identified as “Plantation/Secondary Montane Wet Forest and 

Plantation/Secondary Submontane Moist Forest” are not actively managed Plantations, 

nor are they the only secondary forests in El Yunque. Many of the other forest types 

described/named contain and are Mature Secondary forests. Therefore, the currently 

used naming convention may lead to the erroneous idea that only these two categories 

“Plantation/Secondary Montane Wet Forest and Plantation/Secondary Submontane 

Moist Forest” contain Secondary forests. Different from the classification name given, 

the forest land areas under these two classifications contain a unique and novel 

combination of elements beyond those implied in their given name. (4)

3.1.3 Comment: There is a significant amount of area under this classification 

[Plantation/Secondary Montane Wet Forest and Plantation/Secondary Submontane 

Moist Forest], and the sustainable and adaptive management strategies applied to these 

lands must be in accordance with their unique values, functions and novel conditions. 

(4) 

3.1.4 Comment: Many of these forest lands are the edge and buffer at lower elevations, where 

visitors and community stakeholders experience the forest. Therefore, the scientific, 

cultural and interpretative resources presented about these forest lands must be in 

accordance with available information on their novel conditions. (4)

Forest Response: Our current categorization of the vegetation communities for El Yunque is 

based on the geospatial data created by the PRGAP 2000 analysis land cover map (Gould et al. 

2007) of the US Forest Service’s International Institute of Tropical Forestry (The Institute) 

GIS and Remote Sensing Lab with expertise from scientists and foresters from the Institute

and El Yunque National Forest. The land cover map was modified using information from the 

Holdridge ecological life zones (Ewel and Whitmore 1973), 600 m elevation line (USGS), and 

3300 mm precipitation line (Daly et al. 2003) to create the new vegetation classification. 

The areas classified as “Plantation/Secondary Montane Wet Forest and Plantation/Secondary 

Submontane Moist Forest” are not actively managed plantations nor are they the only 

secondary forest types on El Yunque. The composition and structure of these two forest types 

are unique because of the anthropogenic history of clearing, species introduction for 

reforestation and line planting (mahogany) and natural disturbance events such as hurricanes. 

There are no errors in having 2 categories of vegetation for secondary montane forest. Our 

final forest type classification has three types of secondary forests which encompass the 

unique vegetation of former plantations and mix of native and non-native species.

These lowlands areas are currently being evaluated to decide their best adaptive management 

strategies. In the plan assessment, there is a need for more data on the composition/structure 

for future general management knowledge, especially within the lower parts of the Forest. The 

Forest Plan contains a plan-level strategic vegetation monitoring strategy. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

261

3.2 Comments regarding reforestation and restoration 

3.2.1 Comment: It took about 70 years of reforestation and succession to achieve decent 

forest recovery at the base of El Yunque National Forest. (5)

3.2.2 Comment: On the Island and within El Yunque National Forest, more tabonuco forest 

has been destroyed than any other type. The amount of so-called “novel” (secondary) 

forest inside El Yunque National Forest boundaries substantiates that claim. Lowland 

tabonuco forest is a relatively rare. Should it be restored at lowest elevations where tree 

size and plant diversity were the greatest in the past? (5)

Forest Response: Section 3.1.2 of the Forest Plan strives for “restoration through natural 

succession and manage revegetation practices and to maintain the characteristics of the mature 

tabonuco montain wet and rain forest types.” 

Restoration activities will be subject to plan guidelines, which include enrichment planting of 

native species and the conservation of forest canopy preventing openings larger than 0.1 acre 

of the prevailing coverage. 

The Forest Plan contains a monitoring program that will be assessing the general Forest’s 

composition and structure. The data collected will serve to develop conservation and 

restoration strategies. 

3.3 Comment: You have classified some lands as "Secondary,” ecologically this means that 

this type of forest is developing into the original climatic forest but many new evolving 

forests include non-original species that have naturalized and are part of this new 

"secondary" forest thus they will become with time a mature forest that includes 

nonoriginal species creating a new type of forest. This new forest condition is term "Novel 

forest" in the most recent forest literature, why you do not term those forest as such??? 

Or is it that you plan to eliminate all individuals of all those species in such lands 

therefore attaining the original climatic condition?? (8) 

Forest Response: The new 2012 Planning Rule emphasizes the use of best available scientific 

information. The Forest Service considers this as scientific concepts that have been through 

peer-reviewed process and accepted in university-level textbooks. Thus the concept of Novel 

Forest is still in a phase of debate within the academic community. The use of one source from 

a recent publication or publications doesn’t provide widely accepted scientific information, at 

this time. The Forest Service use of a structured classification for forest types is the required 

means through the new 2012 Planning Rule in addressing vegetation types. Thus “Secondary” 

is accepted in the forest scientific community and in the agency for those areas with that 

designation. It meets the definition of composition of vegetation and not the function of such 

forest types. 

4. Invasive species

4.1 There is a need for the best scientific information regarding the management of pests

4.1.1 Comment: Information should be included on pests already identified with their status 

and how they might be managed. (1) 

4.1.2 Comment: Research information on their [pests] distribution, and areas where their 

control may be of utmost importance for both the native wildlife and for visiting 

humans should be included. (1)

4.2 Comment: When you realize that for years there has been the documentation of 

INCREASED NUMBER of MONGOOSE which are also invading the Forest and are 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

262

“TESTING POSITIVE” for the RABIES VIRUS,” the concern should profoundly 

increase since as stated in this Forest Plan- the population density surrounding the Forest 

has increased. (7)

Forest Response: In section 3.1.10 At-Risk Species: Fauna of the Forest Plan, there is a 

desired condition that establishes that invasive species shall be controlled. Under Table 4-1 of 

the Monitoring Chapter of the Forest Plan, the mongoose is listed for monitoring under 

management concerns.

4.3 Comments regarding establishing an animal shelter as part of invasive species control.

4.3.1 Comment: Again in pg 57 (S1 At-Risk Species: FAUNA) is has stated that “Invasive 

species shall be controlled.” Apparently the methods being utilized at present are not 

truly successful. I believe “this issue needs to be re-addressed” now more than ever. [...] 

Forest Service/Dept. of Agriculture/Wildlife Service/Animal Protection Groups and the 

P.R. Government need to cooperate and also make a joint effort with the surrounding 

Municipalities (due to this health issue) to proceed with the plan of PROMOTING the 

possibility of “making an ANIMAL SHELTER in El Yunque National Forest periphery 

to address this issue and to serve as an alternative to the communities where they could 

bring the unwanted animals to a close-by shelter and not abandon them at the Forest. 

(7) 

4.3.2 Comment: Note that on pg 16 (1.7 Issues) states increasing populations and 

developments near the forest etc. may influence Management Activities. Since now the 

Forest smiles upon the incorporation of the communities in the lower elevations of the 

Forest- which should reduce the pressure to the sensitive areas of the forest, the creation 

of a near-by Animal Shelter would go a long way also towards helping with this stray 

animal problem. (7)

Forest Response: The Forest Plan scope of management is legally applicable only to the 

planning area, which is the official El Yunque National Forest lands. Our public interests of 

structures outside of the Forest is better addressed through Puerto Rico Department of Natural 

and Environmental Resources because the Forest Service is not mandated to house feral 

animals. 

5. Wildlife

5.1 Comment: I am sure there are more than 166 species of animals in El Yunque National 

Forest, as established in the plan (page 21) [section 2.3.2.1 of the EIS]. (6)

Forest Response: “There are an estimated 166 animal species found in El Yunque” was 

removed from the section 2.3.2.1 (Wildlife) of the DEIS and replaced with: “For an 

administrative baseline, we began with approximately 180 animal species found in El Yunque; 

that number did change over time with additional scientific sources .” 

5.2 Comment: The arthropods probably need a lot more study. (6)

Forest Response: Studying the arthropods is a specific potential research topic and doesn’t fit 

this strategic management document. Also, this species group does not contain any Federallylisted species, but one aquatic invertebrate is a focal species (Atya lanipes). The use of partners 

in future monitoring of these types of animals are noted in the Plan Monitoring section. 

5.3 Comment: A description of appropriate species for reintroduction is herein proposed 

toward rehabilitation of biodiversity of the island’s most critically important forest. [See 

original letter below for listed proposed species] (3) 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

263

Forest Response: The Forest Plan scope of management is legally applicable only to the 

planning area, which is the official El Yunque National Forest lands. Wildlife species belong to 

the management of the State and not to the Federal government. Thus, the appropriate agency 

for reintroduction proposals resides with the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and 

Environmental Resources. 

6. Aquatic Ecosystems

6.1 Comment: Several times in the report there is a statement that reads like “development 

will improve aquatic habitat and more native species.” Could somebody please explain 

how human use of riparian sites will achieve that objective? (5)

Forest Response: Under section 3.3.5.8 Watershed Health: Watershed Condition Framework

Quality of the DEIS, there were statements in Table 3-9 where for both alternatives 2 and 3, in 

referring to CIRMA, it stated that improvements in aquatic habitat were expected and that a 

higher density of native speces is expected.

The Wildlife and Fisheries team worked with designated water/watershed personnel to rewrite 

this whole section. Removed: “1) Improvement in aquatic habitat is expected. 2) Higher 

density of native species is expected.” Provided variable results based on the CIRMA 

expectations of types of activities at each watershed.

6.2 Comment: Also, to establish conservation initiatives from Federal property to State and 

private areas- to improve the MANAGEMENT and MONITORING of Aquatic 

Ecosystems. (7)

Forest Response: Through the Forest Service State and Private Forestry programs, the action 

items of this comment are developed and executed. The management branch of the Forest 

Service (National Forest Systems) conducts day to day stewardship of public lands.

7. Water Resources 

7.1 Comment: There is no mention of the need of sustaining hydrologic connectivity for many 

of the aquatic species in the rivers of El Yunque. This is critical to maintain El Yunque’s 

aquatic resources in light of droughts and land cover change occurring outside of forest 

boundaries. The freshwater shrimp species need to migrate to saline and brackish waters 

to complete their life cycles. These shrimp species are amphidromous, they live in 

freshwater during their adult life but during early life stages they live estuarine or 

coastal/marine waters. There are many sources for this information, including Pringle, C. 

M. 2000. Threats to U.S. public lands from cumulative hydrologic alterations outside of 

their boundaries. Ecological Applications, 10(4):971-989. (4)

Forest Response: The following Desired Conditions were added in the 3.1.8 Water Resources 

section of the Forest Plan: 

Sustain the hydrologic connectivity of the rivers flowing from the forest to maintain a 

healthy aquatic fauna. 

Conserve the aquatic fauna through a healthy and continues hydrologic network flowing 

from the Forest during the planning period. 

8. At-risk species: Fauna

8.1 Puerto Rican Parrot and its habitat
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

264

8.1.1 Comment: Somebody has declared that El Yunque National Forest is not preferred 

habitat for the Puerto Rican Parrot. Therefore, that makes it okay to cut trees, develop 

recreation sites, and make new trails to communities along the border, and so on. If that 

is done, will the parrot ever return to lower elevation tabonuco forest? (5)

8.1.2 Comment: Should El Yunque National Forest not encourage recovery of the tabonuco 

forest with its native species as future parrot habitat? How could this be best done? (5)

8.1.3 Comment: Noel Snyder suggested prohibiting planes from flying at low elevation over 

the forest. That idea may benefit the parrots... Is it safe to fly at elevations lower than 

the mountain tops? (5) 

Forest Response: Tom White (USFWS) was referred to as the source for the parrot’s habitat 

preference on section 2.4 on the FEIS. In the Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Detailed Study, the Forest still considers the Puerto Rican Parrot recovery an important 

management objective. 

In regards to cutting down Tabonuco forest type, it is dictated in Desired Conditions 6 and 10 

of section 3.1.2 Terrestrial Ecosystem: Vegetation Desired Conditions of the Forest Plan that 

these types of forests will be conserved. 

Through the NEPA process any proposed action in the Tabonuco forest type, or any other 

forest type, shall go through biological analyses that if any significant impacts are found, 

mitigations or alternatives shall be included or recommended. The comment of using the new 

information of the Puerto Rican Parrot’s non-preference of El Yunque National Forest will not 

significantly change current management importance or NEPA analyses. 

El Yunque works collaboratively with the Federal Aviation Authority to provide guidance on 

both manned and unmanned aircraft systems. Presently, flights over the forest are addressed 

through a FAA recommendation to pilots of not flying below 2,000 feet while transecting El 

Yunque National Forest. The recommendation is one that FAA can only enforce if individuals 

can take identification information on non-compliance aircrafts. The Puerto Rican Parrot 

recovery project members report to the FAA the information collected at a specific time.

El Yunque is not mandated to enforce the airspace over National Forest System lands, as stated 

in US Forest Service’s official Fire & Aviation reference at 

.http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/fire/fam/aviation/uas/. “The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

has regulatory authority over all airspace.” “The FAA and the U.S. Forest Service consider all 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), regardless of size or weight, to be aircraft. All UAS flown 

on National Forest System lands must comply with FAA and U.S. Forest Service laws, 

regulations, and policies. U.S. Forest Service policy stipulates that UAS must be considered 

the same as manned aircraft in terms of acquisition, approval and carding of pilots and aircraft, 

inspections, maintenance, avionics, training, and operations.” 

There are some minor exceptions with Wilderness Areas regulations interpretations of UAS 

flights over Wilderness Areas.

Social and Economic Sustainability 

Comments under this category discuss the continuity of the conservation and acquisition of new lands 

outside of El Yunque National Forest, conservation education recommendations and other concerns and 

suggestions.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

265

9. Broader Landscape and Lands

9.1 Comment: Page 4 [Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study] of the 

Environmental Impact Statement: The reasoning for not pursuing wild and scenic status 

for additional rivers in El Yunque is weak, it states that there is little public interest in 

this. I believe that the public is not conscious of this option. (6)

Forest Response: During public meetings, the public expressed strong opinions opposing 

additional designations for El Yunque National Forest. The 1997 Land and Resource 

Management Plan resulted in formal designation of over ten thousand acres as wilderness, 

1,500 acres as Wild and Scenic Rivers and the protection for an additional five thousand acres 

as roadless areas. The public sees additional land designations as a limiting factor to land use. 

In section 2.4 of the FEIS, alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study reflects 

the process of addressing this issue.

9.2 Comment: Objectives- should also list something about acquiring lands to protect the Río 

Mameyes, and rivers other than the Río Espíritu Santo. (6)

Forest Response: The Forest Plan focuses on land acquisition along stream corridors. The 

1997 Forest Plan focuses on land acquisitions along the boundary. The Forest Plan is aligned 

with the comment.

9.3 Comment: FS should develop proposals to establish mitigation banks in the region (14).

Forest Response: The Forest Service does not have the authority outside of National Forest 

Systems Lands, thus if any interest for “mitigation banks” the Forest shall work with external 

partners and follow official Lands policy for the agency.

9.4 Comment: The proper and complete protection of El Yunque National Forest should be 

thought of as extending beyond their 29,000 acres. (7)

Forest Response: The Forest Plan scope of management is legally applicable only to the 

planning area, which is the official El Yunque National Forest lands. However, we do 

indirectly address out of forest issues through the following: 

Geographic Area El Norte Management Strategy (Section 2.1.3): Work with partners and/or 

other agencies to apply land conservation programs in forested areas of El Norte Region that 

include conservation agreements, state and private forest lands as “auxiliary forests,” and land 

acquisition or conservation easement strategies. 

9.5 Comment: These rivers [Pitahaya, Juan Martin, Sabana and Quebrada Fajardo] and 

“Riparian Zones” connect hydrologically the CEN Reserve and El Yunque Forest. 

Nearby projects should be minimal and eco-touristic to maintain its sustainability and 

ecologically appropriate management. (7)

Forest Response: The Forest Plan scope of management is legally applicable to the planning 

area, which is the official El Yunque National Forest lands. Some plan components that 

address this issue are the following:

Management Strategy for El Norte (Section 2.1.3): Establish collaborative watershed 

management strategies with the communities and municipalities of the geographic area.

Social Economic Sustainability Management Strategy (Section 3.2.1): Promote increased 

participation of local landowners, land management agencies, and other key stakeholders in 

conservation efforts at the landscape scale through an all-lands approach to conservation that 

identifies key areas for connectivity, multiple uses, and ecosystem services and related 

opportunities for conservation. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

266

Management Strategy for Riparian Management Zones (Section 3.1.5): Work with partners to 

recover riparian zones outside the Plan area. 

9.6 Comment: We are the owners of two properties that are found in El Barrio Sabana of 

Luquillo of El Yunque. [...] We want to know if our property will in any way be affected 

by the proposed Environmental Impact Statement. (2)

Forest Response: The Forest Plan scope of management is legally applicable only to the 

planning area, which is the official El Yunque National Forest lands. Therefore, your 

properties will not be affected by the Forest Plan and its accompanying Environmental Impact 

Statement. If you intend to do a project that implies significant changes to your land, you may 

want to notify the appropriate State agencies.

10. Social and Economic

10.1 Comment: We recommend development of NGOs. (14)

Forest Response: The Forest Plan is based on strong collaboration with current local nongovernmental organizations (NGO) such as Centro para la Conservacion del Paisaje, Para la 

Naturaleza, and Vitrina Solidaria for the development and support of community-based needs 

in the Forest Plan. The Management Area known as community interface resources 

management area (CIRMA) was a direct result of this collaboration.

10.2 Comment: [Please] note that it is imperative that our “Forest Service Volunteer 

Program” be given more attention and expanded, so as to be a vital key also, to the 

success of any new educational efforts. (7)

Forest Response: The Forest Plan states that integrating Geographic Areas will allow for the 

expansion of traditional Forest Service programs by integrating schools and municipal 

governments in planning and projects and adapting educational and interpretation materials to 

the local context. Additionally, identifying geographic areas permits the identification of and 

support for targeted volunteer and partnership opportunities related to environmental literacy 

and education. 

In section 3.2.3 Environmental Education, one of the goals is for El Yunque to foster 

“professional development and skills-based training to staff, volunteers, outfitters, and 

collaborators who are responsible for providing interpretive and environmental education 

programs within the Forest.” Finally, an objective in the same section is to “develop an 

interpretation and environmental education training plan within 3 years of Forest Plan 

approval that fosters professional development and enhances employee and volunteer learning 

opportunities in the areas of interpretation and environmental education”. 

Multiple Uses

Comments under this section cover concerns over timber harvesting viability, recreation, watershed use 

and general use of different management and geographic areas.

11. Ecosystem Services

11.1 Comment: The most important values and uses of El Yunque National Forest are for 

wildlife (plant and animal) protection, water supplies, passive recreation, and 

environmental education. All of these functions have greater value than disturbing the 

environment for other purposes. (5) 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

267

Forest Response: Through the new 2012 planning regulations, all values and uses from the 

public are noted and processed through public meetings. The Forest Service shall encourage 

all appropriate land uses as dictated in legislative acts such as the Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act of 1960. From the Forest Plan Assessment these values and uses stated above are 

consistent with the finding of the document. Management Strategies and Guidelines in the 

Forest Plan reflect many of these values and uses for partnerships to result in maintaining and 

improving the level of yield from the ecosystem services of the Forest. 

12. Recreation

12.1 Comment: There needs to be an intent for more inclusivity for recreation opportunities 

for people with disabilities. (6)

Forest Response: In the new 2012 planning rule, inclusiveness was a priority for the public 

collaboration period and many different needs were presented to the planning team. This 

resulted in plan components such as: Guidelines in section 3.3.8 in the Forest Plan states, 

“consider the needs for people with disabilities in the design of facilities”. 

12.2 Comment: Regarding page 30 [MA4, section 2.1.4 of the Plan]: It would be good to 

emphasize more the potential for recreational development in MA4 zones. Only dispersed 

camping is mentioned. I think there are areas in this zone that would potential for 

development as small group camping sites. I am not sure you actually want people 

camping anywhere in the forest on non-established or non-designated sites. High rainfall 

can result in high impacts, even in more level areas. The Asociación de Acampadores of 

Puerto Rico would be able to help evaluate areas for camping and hiking in MA4. (6) 

Forest Response: In this strategic document, Forest Plan, the Forest Service doesn’t limit 

recreational proposals, in so much these proposals comply with NEPA. In the Forest the 

Desired Condition section 2.1.4 which is the description of management areas, the following is 

stated: “Provide spaces and opportunity to offer new disperse camping prospects”. 

12.3 Conflicts with Management Area 3 for recreation and communications 

12.3.1 Comment: Why is the primary objective of Management Area 3 communications

facilities and not recreational and scenic value protection? When was this objective 

determined? Have the original needs of this objective been re-evaluated? (4) 

12.3.2 Comment: There is overlap between the Communications and Recreation Management 

Areas that occur along road 10 and trails that lead to various landmark scenic and 

recreation sites and communication facilities. This seems to be in conflict with the 

desired conditions statements to “provide special protection to species-at-risk, and for 

the most limited and unique forest types such as the Montane Rain Cloud Forest.” (4)

12.3.3 Comment: There is overlap between the Communications and Recreation Management 

Areas and unique forest types such as the Montane Rain Forest and the Montane Rain 

Cloud Forest. Access to recreational settings along road 10 provide unique scenic and 

natural experiences, this should not only be maintained, but also improved. How will 

this be achieved? (4)

12.3.4 Pages 27, 28 [MA3 of section 2.1.4, Forest Plan]; Management Area 3, Desired 

conditions should be more explicit. (4)

Forest Response: Management Area (MA) 3’s title is Communications and Recreation, 

however the description of the MA provides the viability of the communication apparatus and 

their access. Within the current MA occurs recreation trails and scenic opportunities, but these 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

268

recreational elements do not supersede the present communication structures found there. 

These communication structures have already been existing for multiple decades and are an 

accepted land use action. The recreational elements are intended to not be in conflict through 

providing to the extent such that their use do not directly clash with the primary 

communication facilities.

12.4 Regarding the communications facilities within Management Area 3

12.4.1 Comment: How will the facilities energy efficient standards be attained, evaluated and 

measured? (4)

12.4.2 Comment: Will energy efficiency apply to their communications services or to their 

building structure, or to both? How will the known and documented effects of light 

pollution be minimized or eliminated at these facilities? Will technology and 

infrastructure improvements be required continually from communication sites such as 

to minimize visual presence and impartment of recreational values? Will 

communication establishments/facilities located on Road 10 be required to have 

continuous maintenance for safety and visual compliance to scenic recreational goals?

(4) 

12.4.3 Comment: How will the following statement be evaluated? “The Forest accommodates 

communication uses that cannot be met off-Forest; however, communication sites will 

occupy the same or reduced areas on the peaks.” If communication sites will indeed 

become energy efficient, then reduced area occupation should be expected and achieved. 

(4) 

Forest Response: Energy efficiency shall be addressed through the special use process for the 

structures of the communication apparatus found in the two locations on the Forest. 

Light pollution is not addressed in this DEIS.

Technology and infrastructure improvements will be addressed on a case by case basis 

regarding the Special Use permit renewal process.

Regarding maintenance: No scenic goals established in the plan. The management should 

comply with the standards on the operation plan for the communications site area if there is 

one. 

Regarding reduced areas on the peaks: Consolidation of communications sites in fewer 

structures will be required when feasible (Goal 2). 

12.5 Recreation Trails

12.5.1 Comment: More recreation trails are suggested for the forest borders. El Yunque 

National Forest cannot maintain the current system. Will more trails encourage more 

motorcycles, mountain-biking, and disturbance along the lower forest boundary? The 

Angelito Trail is an example of a new trail in bad condition. Shortcuts have destroyed 

parts of the trail. (5)

12.5.2 Comment: El Yunque National Forest reopened a trail from the southern recreation site 

on route #191 so that people could enter the forest from that point. As Weaver recalls, 

that trail “re-reconstruction” deviated in areas from the old trail, and led hikers into the 

Wilderness Area. El Yunque National Forest cannot maintain its current trail system. 

Are more trails advisable? (5) 

Forest Response: In section 2.1.4 for MA 2 (El Yunque Recreation Zone) there is an 

objective: “facilities for recreation activities such as hiking, camping, and trails system are 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

269

maintained and restored appropriately during the plan period.” This means that although not 

all trails are currently maintained, the Forest shall make it into a priority whenever funding or 

the opportunity arises. In the CIRMA, the management area that occurs on the periphery of the 

Forest, recreation-related projects are within an acceptable range of activities. The significant 

difference is that any recreation-related structures are collaboratively managed. That means a 

reduction in costs to the government and a higher sense of being stakeholders by the public. 

There is a management strategy that emphasizes to include discussions from multiple sources 

during the NEPA process in trail planning. 

12.6 Safety Issues

12.6.1 Comment: The forest should consider the implementation of safety systems at 

recreation sites like alarms, sirens and warning notifications for incident prevention. 

(14) 

12.6.2 Comment: There is a safety and trash issue associated with proposed recreation area.

(14) 

Forest Response: The desired conditions for recreation management recognize the role of 

visitor safety. The establishment of safety systems are site-specific decisions to be analyzed 

during plan implementation. 

12.7 Comment: Should crowding be controlled for the sanity of people who go there because 

they love the forest? (5)

Forest Response: Under the Multiple Use Sustainable Yield Act of 1960, different uses such 

as recreational are accepted for National Forest use and the Wilderness Act provides for a 

recreation experience where humans have not trammeled the area. Therefore, you have the 

areas that are designated for general recreation use, where unfortunately there are periods of 

extreme use, but the Forest Plan anticipates the dispersal of visitor use in future projects. 

Recreation users also have the uncrowded areas of El Toro Wilderness Area for solitary 

enjoyment.

12.8 Comment: [Regarding the] need for New Trails System that will connect El Yunque

Forest with other adjacent lands in lower forest areas to help create new RECREATION 

opportunities at the more lower elevations of our Forest System. The interest in this 

project continues but [...] the collaboration with local towns, residents and organized 

regional groups needs to be strengthened. This focus would help satisfy the new increased 

necessities of the Dept. of Recreation and Tourism-for the over one million yearly visitors 

to the Forest by helping alleviate the “over density situation” being created, especially 

during the Forest high season. (7)

Forest Response: The Forest Plan does propose a new regional trail system for the 

Geographic Area of El Norte. Also, for El Norte, the plan has a Management Strategy that 

states that the Forest will develop collaborative, conservation and interpretation initiatives 

with the municipalities, residents, and organized regional groups through the plan duration, 

which will be applied in the further development of this trail system. Another management 

strategy for this area is to work with the communities in developing recreational alternatives 

outside the forest, which will also be a part of that. 

13. Forest Products

13.1 Comments regarding timber harvesting and profits to be made
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

270

13.1.1 Comment: Timber harvest should only be carried out if the government makes money, 

and simultaneously, other more meritorious objectives are implemented (for example, 

restoration of lowland tabonuco forest, an endangered forest type). Many of the favorite 

timber species for artisans are relatively rare. (5)

13.1.2 Comment: Logging means fragmentation, road damage, soil disturbance, impacted 

water supplies, economic studies, accounting, field supervision, possible damage to 

future parrot habitat, and so on. Do economic studies describe probable environmental 

impacts? How about a guaranteed profit for the government? (5) 

13.1.3 Comment: Cut for what purpose? Demonstration is not a justifiable reason. Making 

money is. Is there any money to be made? Is cutting El Yunque National Forest worth 

the effort? (5)

13.1.4 Comment: Support timber cutting on managed properties outside of El Yunque 

National Forest. El Yunque National Forest is practically sacred to many folks on the

Island. Let’s keep it that way. Forests outside of El Yunque National Forest could be cut 

by private owners. Can El Yunque National Forest help them? (5)

13.1.5 Comment: I do not agree in which any number of trees are cut in the forest of El 

Yunque. (13)

Forest Response: The Plan is not project specific, and is not suggesting that it would be 

undertaking any sort of program for solely timber management. In Chapter 2, under section 

2.3 Suitability for Timber Harvesting the following is stated: “It needs to be clarified here that 

lands classified as “suited for timber production” does not mean that they will be managed as 

“timber plantations.” The estimates presented in Table 2-7 are the acres that are potentially 

suitable for harvesting; however, it does not mean that harvesting activities will occur on all 

those acres.

The Community Interface Resources Management Area (Management Area 4) includes a 

Forest Product Strategy but it provides the guidelines and management strategy defining that 

the expected products will come from the utilization of wood products from post and pole 

sizes (less than 8 inches DBH). The management strategy is considered a silvicultural 

application of a low thinning promoting and enhancing the native species composition of the 

management area; not a profit results strategy for forest products. The efficient utilization of 

the viable forest products produced under this management regime will be considered to 

promote local businesses including local wood products that could be sold by local artisans 

according to the management area’s desired conditions and goals. In Table 2-7, the only land 

identified as being suitable for timber production are the ones in management area 4. 

The Plan defines the allowed tree cuttings in Management Area 4 Community Interface 

Resources Management Area (CIRMA) in guideline 5 (section 2.1.4 of the Forest Plan). 

Appendix B of the Forest Plan also identifies that it is anticipated that only around 22 acres 

within the CIRMA will be treated each year. 

In the Vision and Management Themes (section 1.7 of the Forest Plan), the development of 

sustainable and collaborative projects with the public and private sector is considered. One of 

the five core management themes is directed toward promoting a stronger regional identity. 

14. Watersheds

14.1 Comment: Correct: “Cloud elevation shifts” instead of cloud “evaluation” shifts on page

90 [section 3.3.4.2 of the EIS]. (4) 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

271

Forest Response: Yes, the word “evaluation” is corrected to state “elevation”

14.2 Comment: The section 3.3.5.1 [FEIS] Affected Environment: Watersheds, Conditions and 

Trends of the Current Land Management Plan Moving Toward the Desired Future 

Conditions could benefit from integrating the pertinent information available in HeartsillScalley and López Marrero 2014. (4) 

Forest Response: The reference was added with the following: “Additionally, Heartsill 

Scalley and López-Marrero (2014) present a landscape assessment quantifying land-cover 

composition at watershed and riparian-zone scales in El Yunque Region, correlating this 

information to water-quality parameters and showing a relationship between land-cover 

composition and water condition, especially regarding urban/built-up cover and forest land 

cover that could help prioritize watersheds and river sections for restoration or management 

projects for water condition improvement.”

15. Special Uses 

15.1 Comment: Baño de Oro is not identified as a National Natural Landmark in the DEIS. 

Recommend including the Designation. (11)

Forest Response: We corrected to identify Baño de Oro as National Natural Landmark.

15.2 Comment: El Toro Wilderness Area: No mention is made of the Limits of Acceptable 

Change committee for the wilderness area that met in 2011. A final report was produced, 

which José Ortega should have. Several of points on Pgs. 32-35 [Section 2.1.4, MA 5] 

coincide with the recommendations of the LAC committee. (6)

Forest Response: El Yunque National Forest currently has no Wilderness Plan. However, the 

Forest commits itself in the new Forest Plan to complete a Wilderness Plan within the first two 

years upon the Forest Plan approval. This Wilderness Plan will have a public review process 

and will take into consideration enabling legislation and previous assessments. 

15.3 Research activities

15.3.1 Comment: I believe the draft plan needs to include a component on addressing research 

needs at El Yunque National Forest. Forest managers will have an idea of further 

research needed to inform management. An outline or examples of these research needs 

should be included in the plan, with the general direction indicated and general 

prioritization of research needs. This would indicate that managers know that not all 

information is at hand, but a plan is at hand for progress. (6) 

15.3.2 Comment: I believe that the plan should also include the intent to form a scientific 

advisory committee, to promote the agenda of needed research in the academic 

community. Intention for an efficient permitting process should also be indicated, to 

help the needed research move forward in a timely way. (6) 

15.3.3 Comment: The plan does not mention certain research projects that are not in the 

designated research areas. These would include- 1) genetic trial and gene bank for a 

large mahogany study, 2) the arboretum located near Carr. 186 3) long term study sites 

such as the 400 series plots, and the Palm, Colorado, and Tabonuco plots. (6) 

15.3.4 Comment: It would be good for El Yunque National Forest to have a registry with the 

locations of all study locations in the forest. The Management Plan could refer to this 

database, and it should be accessible to the planning team. (6)
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

272

Forest Response: El Yunque National Forest has dual designation, where it manages the 

Forest along with the International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF). Thus, when specific 

research proposals arise, both IITF and El Yunque National Forest collaborate on its 

appropriateness and integration with other projects. The National Forest System doesn’t have 

authority to conduct Agency research. That function belongs to IITF, which is the research 

branch of the Forest service in Puerto Rico. Management area 6 is designated in the plan as 

focused for research on El Yunque. One of its desired conditions establishes the following: 

“Provide opportunities for long-term intensive scientific investigations including treatment vs 

controlled research.....etc.” The Research Working Unit Description, which entails future 

directions for studies, was considered during the assessment process. The assessment process 

considered all research activities that occurred or are occurring in the National Forest as part 

of the description of the current condition.

15.4 Comment: The draft plan and the DEIS have taken a detailed look at the information 

available on target species. But I think one of the priority research needs is more 

biological inventory, including geolocation and habitat characterization information, 

reproductive information, food dependencies, interspecific relationships. This is 

particularly true for El Toro Wilderness Area, to know more about the occurrence and 

sustainability of sensitive species in relation to potential human use. More extensive 

inventory research would be ideal for undergraduate and graduate research projects and 

could be promoted by the scientific advisory committee suggested in Point 6, at various 

institutions in and out of Puerto Rico. (6) 

Forest Response: This is a thematic research study statement. These research specific 

proposals would not be included in a wildlife and fisheries management program planning 

component. For management we only do presence and absence monitoring to obtain focal 

species occurrences throughout the forest to observe if certain management strategies are 

effective. The operation of the national forest does not include the mandate to address or 

perform research. 

The main task of research is delegated to IITF and through collaborative research discussions 

this theme will be communicated to them. 

15.5 Comment: I understand the Com. Facilities at the east end of El Yunque Peak site have 

presented interference issues (which were being minimized). [...] I understand there is a 

proposal for the removal of this facility”? [...] So I understand the “NOISE 

POLLUTION” here “continues’ and the ever present concern re[garding] the amount of 

“RADIATION EMISSION LEVELS” also. The FCC –Federal Com. Commission- needs 

to MONITOR this closely, according to regulations. These problems need to be addressed, 

and explore what up-to-date (green-technology) exists now. This could help “minimize” 

the size of quantity of structures and the amount/frequency of radiation being emitted. To 

ultimately REDUCE the “negative impacts to the bio-diversity” of this pristine area! 

Though tourists may not see this area; our nature and different species can feel its 

probable adverse effects. (7)

Forest Response: Under the National Forest Management Act and the New 2012 Planning 

Rule, El Yunque National Forest ensures that all legitimate use of public lands are in 

compliance. Many components of this comment rely on FCC authorities. Under our current 

special use permits program, the Forest collaborates on relevant issues that may produce landuse conflict. Any new green energy proposals shall go through the NEPA analysis at the 

project level. In section 2.1.4 of the Forest Plan, under Management Area 3: Communication 

and Recreation, a desired condition states the following: “The Forest accommodates 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

273

communication uses that cannot be met off-Forest; however, communication sites will occupy 

the same or reduced areas on the peaks.”

15.6 Comment: A considerable segment of our infrastructure is found inside the lands of El 

Yunque. In the past, visitors of the Río Sabana Area frequently trespassed inside our area 

if operation. In 2010, the Naguabo Municipality built a recreational area know as: Sabana 

Picnic Area. This area is adjacent to the access entry area to the hydroelectric project of 

Río Blanco. This action increased the number of individuals that went into our area of 

operation, for which additional security measures had to be implemented to avoid 

possibility of access. [...] for this reason, we built a gate for access control, for which the 

keys have been available for inspection from US Forest Service staff. Additionally, we 

installed signs that read “entrance is prohibited,” however visitors still look for a way to 

enter the premises. AEE [PREPA] makes record of this security and trash issue that may 

arise in the proposed recreation areas; especially those that may be in proximity to 

sensitive zones of the forest system. Also, there is a high possibility that criminal activities 

may occur in the area along with detriment of ecosystems. The proposed action will need 

to establish in these recreational areas an aggressive plan the will possibly require the 

recruitment of personnel to perform a continuous and effective monitoring function in 

these areas. (14)

Forest Response: Under the Multiple Use Sustainable Yield Act of 1960, recreation is an 

accepted use on Forest Service Lands. Thus, in the past, significant public interest proposed 

the Rio Sabana Picnic Area development. It is unfortunate that the recreation area is resulting 

in visitors trespassing to the areas managed by PREPA (AEE) for the hydroelectric dam on Rio 

Blanco. The new Forest Plan looks forward to collaborating with partners, including PREPA, 

to further reduce land-use conflicts. 

16. Scenic Character

16.1 Comment: DEIS should include a more detailed description of how the scenic byway will 

be constructed. (9)

Forest Response: The Forest Plan establishes a scenic byway management area. Construction 

of a scenic byway is a site-specific decision. Such an action goes through an analysis, design 

and planning process which contains detailed descriptions. Specific constructions would be 

found in project-level proposals. The following plan components provide parameters for future 

action items to this section of designated roads: 

In section 2.1.4, Management objective for management area 9 it says, “Improve and maintain 

the corridor’s physical condition within the first 3 years of the Forest Plan’s approval.” A 

standard for the same management area says, “All road maintenance and alterations...should 

follow the stipulations of the State Historic Preservation Act...etc.” 

17. Cultural and Historic Resources

17.1 Comment: Recommend that under Standard 2 of the cultural and historic resources 

section to add the following texts: “MOA and binding documents.” (12)

Forest Response: The fore mentioned text was used with the acronym MOA spelled out to 

Memorandum of Agreement.

18. Facilities and Transportation

18.1 Concerns regarding fuel use and quality. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

274

18.1.1 Comment: Use of diesel equipment will be required. Clean diesel options should be

considered. (9)

18.1.2 Comment: Consider implementing diesel controls. (9)

Forest Response: Use of diesel is a project based activity, not a plan component. Activities on 

National Forest lands need to follow EPA regulations. 

19. Other

19.1 Comment: In general, the partnership needs to be better developed between El Yunque 

National Forest and the academic community, in addition to partnerships with local 

communities and other stakeholder groups. (6)

Forest Response: Although this comment is non substantive; the Forest Plan in section 2.1.4 

Management area 6 “Research” states that the Forest will coordinate with IITF, who are 

mandated for scientific work, and other cooperators to make the best use of the research 

opportunities provided by the Forest. In Management area 4 “CIRMA,” the entire desired 

conditions, standards & guidelines are developed for improved partnerships with local 

communities and other stakeholder groups. 

19.2 Comment: El Yunque National Forest (El Yunque National Forest) has piles of 

information on plants, animals, and the environment, probably more than any other 

national forest. El Yunque National Forest has a unique research-management 

relationship and is the only tropical forest in the system, but introductory statements gloss 

over what that means. Should it be pointed out better? (5)

Forest Response: Section 1.6 of the Forest Plan describes the unique and distinctive roles and 

contributions of El Yunque National Forest. Additionally, in the plan components, there are 

multiple references to the Forest’s inherent exceptionality through desired conditions, 

objectives, standards, guidelines and management strategies.

19.3 Comment: Developing a plan with duration of 15 to 20 years I do not consider 

appropriate. Everyone knows that effective development plans are short-lived. Those who 

work with nature know it is in constant motion. Therefore, their needs are variants. (13)

Forest Response: Under the National Forest Management Act, Forest Plans are supposed to 

be 10-15 years in length, instead of the 15-20 years as stated in the comment above. The new 

2012 planning rule continues the use of amendments to the Forest Plan if there is an identified 

need to do so. This has been and will be an important tool for managers to use whenever there 

are changes within nature or human-needs. In the Forest Plan we emphasize adaptive 

management. Thus our monitoring is designed to give short and long-termed scientific 

observations of current management strategies outcomes. Monitoring reports conducted every 

2 years will be important for Forest Service leadership making decisions on any changes to 

meet desired conditions.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

275

Comment Letters Submitted 

Marimar Bonet Arroyo

Po.Box 1005, Rincon, Puerto Rico 00677 

maribon15@yahoo.es 

12/26/2016 

Subject: Proposed Plan for Forest Management 

Attention: Mrs. Sharon Wallace

El Yunque National Forest

Distinguished Mrs. Wallace

Anyone who has understanding and respect for himself and towards nature understands that each tree is 

important for the effective development of the forest and the diversity of life there. 

I do not agree in which any number of trees are cut in the forest of El Yunque. 

Developing a plan with duration of 15 to 20 years I do not consider appropriate. Everyone knows 

that effective development plans are short-lived. Those who work with nature know it is in constant 

motion. Therefore, their needs are variants. 

The earth, their lands and the planet do not have owners, it is our home. The home of all species and 

living things that we should treat with the same respect that we wish to be treated. Only those who 

understand their nature can understand the nature of everything around them. 

Research in the educational and scientific areas can be developed more widely. There is much that can be 

developed in these areas. At the tourism level, work can be done more widely, programs for conservation 

and make aware on the importance of forests and their positive effects on the therapeutic areas can be 

developed. Instead of taking away from the forest that gives us so much, let us honour and learn from it. 

Thank you for your understanding and respect for the life of nature and other living things.

Respectfully,

Marimar Bonet Arroyo
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

276

Date submitted (SA Western Standard Time): 10/7/2016 2:20:45 PM 

First name: Enrique

Last name: Hernandez-Prieto

Organization:

Title:

Official Representative/Member Indicator:

Address1: P.O. Box 1807 

Address2: 

City: Juncos,

State: PR

Province/Region: 

Zip/Postal Code: 00777 

Country: United States

Email: enrique.hernandez1@upr.edu 

Phone: 787 850-9388 

Comments: 

I attended the Las Piedras Meeting on the proponed El Yunque Management Plan (October 6, 2016). I 

found the presentation enlightening and well organized. Much of the information on how our 

understanding of the forest has changed was new and convincing, and many questions were clarified. I 

applaud the effort of the personnel present. 

As a wildlife biologist, I would like the proposed management plan to include information on pests (both 

plant and animals) already identified at El Yunque, the status (widespread, localized, etc.) and information 

on how they might be managed. Aa an example, the mongoose seems to be widespread and presents a risk 

to human visitors, but cats may not be so.Their effects on landbirds of the forest is important, but there is 

no information on how will they be managed. This may require research by the forest service on 

distribuci?ns, and ?reas where their control may be of utmost importance for both the native wildlife as 

for the visiting humans. A list of identifica pests should be included and if possible, any available 

information on their distribuci?n through the forest (at least of sightings).

I agree that the second alternative of the three presented is the best one.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

277
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

278
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

279
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

280
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

281

By Tamara Heartsill-Scaley:
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

282
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

283
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

284
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

285
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

286
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

287
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

288
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

289
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

290
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

291
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

292
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

293
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

294
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

295

The following comment letter addresses the proposal for the introduction of extinct fauna species on El 

Yunque National Forest. The proposed species include a few mammals, the white-necked crow, the redfooted tortoise, among other species, along with background information on each of these species. 

RETORNO AL FUTURO: EL YUNQUE

Y LA FAUNA PERDIDA DE PUERTO RICO

Francisco Watlington Linares, PhD. 

Catedrático de Geografía

Universidad de Puerto Rico 

RESUMEN

El Yunque es la mayor reserva forestal de Puerto Rico. Es manejada por el gobierno de Estados Unidos 

siguiendo una política pública conservadora que no ha reconocido la deseabilidad de restaurar la fauna 

perdida por el desgaste ambiental antropocéntrico. Se propone un desglose de especies apropiadas para la 

reintroducción a fin de rehabilitar la biodiversidad del bosque más críticamente importante del país. 

Palabras clave: mitigación biogeográfica; translocación de especies claves 

ABSTRACT

El Yunque is the largest forest reserve of Puerto Rico. It is managed by the United States government 

following a conservative public policy that has not recognized the desirability of restoring a faunal 

community lost by anthropic environmental attrition. A description of appropriate species for 

reintroduction is herein proposed toward rehabilitation of biodiversity of the island’s most critically 

important forest. 

Key words: biogeographic mitigation; translocation of keystone species 

Introducción 

El Yunque es el mayor bosque de Puerto Rico y el mejor custodiado por estar encomen-dado al gobierno 

federal como legado del gobierno español. El Yunque comprende unas 11,100 hectáreas de terreno. 

Protegido en parte desde 1876 por el gobierno español, contiene remanentes de vegetación primaria 

imperturbada (López marrero y Villanueva Colón 2006). Ambas administraciones concibieron El Yunque 

como reserva forestal de árboles maderables. Con el tiempo reconocieron su valor como fuente de agua 

potable y refugio de vida silvestre. Sin embargo, el perdurable régimen colonial impone criterios de 

manejo propios de una ideología atávica que impide la restauración biogeográfica de la fauna perdida de 

Puerto Rico. 

Especies a considerar 

El caso más notorio es la renuencia de restituir la última especie en extinguirse, el cuervo de collar blanco 

(Corvus leucognaphalus) desaparecido a mediados del siglo pasado y fácil de reintroducir de la República 

Dominicana donde también son nativos.1 El rotundo éxito del aviario Vivaldi en Río Abajo, Arecibo, del 

Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (DRNA) en restaurar al estado silvestre la cotorra 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

296

jíbara (Amazona vittata) hace innecesario las costosas facilidades de aviario y laboratorio federal 

destinados a rescatarla. El desdichado proyecto mantiene las apariencias con subsidios de pichones de Río 

Abajo. (Watlington 2008). 

Otro caso de fácil resolución es el de la tortuga terrestre de patas rojas (Geochelone carbonaria). Nativa 

de Venezuela, habría sido introducida por los indígenas y sigue naturalizada en Islas Vírgenes y otras 

Antillas Menores. Es reproducida en Estados Unidos e importada legal-mente para el mercado de 

mascotas. Su dieta herbívora incluye plantas, frutas, carroña, y hasta excremento de animales. Bastaría la 

iniciativa de algún grupo ambientalistas para reintroducirla. 

Algunas especies de mamíferos cuadrúpedos arbóreos y terrestres que fueron elementos notables de la 

antigua fauna puertorriqueña todavía abundan en Suramérica y podrían ser objeto de introducción 

planificada. Se destaca el perezoso “de dos dedos” (Choloepus hoffmanni), o sea de dos garras por brazo 

con los que trepa y se sujeta de las ramas de su árbol favorito, el yagrumo (Cecropia peltata) cuyas hojas 

lo alimentan. Es tan manso que en Venezuela los mantienen como mascotas virtuales en parques y plazas 

urbanas. Son muy aseados, bajando semanalmente de su árbol residencial para depositar sus carrutas de 

excremento al pié del mismo. Su presencia en la Isla antecede por millones de años la de los aborígenes 

que acabaron con ellos.2 

Diversos géneros de roedores caviomorfos terrestres de la América tropical fueron endémicos o 

naturalizados en el Puerto Rico prehistórico (Watlington 2003). El más conocido es la jutía (Isolobodon 

portoricensis), especie domesticada en La Española e introducida por los aborígenes a la Isla donde se 

asilvestraron. Su tamaño apetecible adulto de sobre 2 kg (5 lbs) lo condenaron a la cacería que acabaría 

con ellos a comienzos del siglo pasado. El rol ecológico que habría realizado es la dispersión de semillas 

de árboles frutales y palmas que almacenaban enterrándolas y luego olvidaban. Sus parientes más 

cercanos del mismo porte y hábitos son los agutíes de Suramérica y las jutías caprómidas de Cuba. En los 

parques urbanos del continente los mansos animalitos mendigan migajas de los visitantes con el 

beneplácito de las autoridades pues contribuyen al aseo público. 

A todas luces las ratas espinosas suramericanas llegaron a la Isla en canoas aborígenes. Cumplían las 

mismas funciones ecológicas que las ratas euroasiáticas que las desplazaron. Se cebaban en las hortalizas 

para acabar en el puchero indígena. Aunque la taxonomía tradicional le adscribía nomenclatura endémica,

un estudio reciente integra la nativa a la especie suramericana (Proechimys semispinosus) más común 

(Watlington Linares 2007). No está claro si realmente se ha extinguido, pues hay indicios de poblaciones 

remanentes en islitas periferales. Cualquiera puede distinguirlas de las ratas comunes actuales sobándolas 

para sentir sus finas espinas. 

El roedor caviomorfo endémico más grande (sobre 10 kg) que hubo en la Isla lo fue el castor 

puertorriqueño, que habitó los humedales, ríos y quebradas del país incluyendo El Yunque. Se estima que 

el antepasado de Elasmodontomys obliquus llegó por la corriente ecuatorial del Atlántico norte en balsa 

de vegetación expulsada por el paleo-río Niger hace más de 25 millones de años cuando la separación 

entre África y América era la mitad de lo que es actualmente.3 Sus osamentas aparecen en depósitos 

paleontológicos pero escasean en yacimientos aborígenes tardíos, lo que supone una temprana extinción a 

manos de los primeros humanos en llegar al país. 

Por extraño que parezca, existen algunas especies de roedor caviomorfo de tamaño y biogeografía similar 

al castor endémico extinto. Uno es el capibara (Hydrochaeris), herbívoro de los pantanales descampados. 

El otro es el coypu (Myocastor coypus), la única especie de la familia de jutías caprómidas antillanas 

nativa de Suramérica. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

297

Existen varias especies de roedor caviomorfo de tamaño y biogeografía similar al castor endémico 

extinto. El de afinidad más ancestral podría ser el coypu, la única especie de la familia de jutías 

caprómidas antillanas nativa de Suramérica y translocada por humanos a Estados Unidos, Europa, Asia y 

África (Macdonald 2006; Felipe 2008). En el viejo mundo ha sido domesticado por la calidad de su piel, 

donde poblaciones cimarronas se han naturalizado con mucho éxito. De los caprómidos antillanos que 

aún existen se destacan las jutías grandes de Cuba con peso adulto de 8.5 kg (casi 20 lbs). La mayor y 

más común es la jutía conga (Capromys pilorides) con subespecies que prefieren merodear los cursos de 

agua en áreas de bosques. Del mismo tamaño es la jutía arbórea de rabo prehensil (Mysateles prehensele). 

Ambas especies son mansas vegetarianas con suplemento de insectos y lagartijas ocasionales y 

domesticables. Los roedores caviomorfos producen un pequeño número de crías precociales. Nacen con 

ojos abiertos, pelambre adolescente y hábiles al caminar. Aunque la madre los lacta por un tiempo, si un 

humano interviene para alimentarlos lo aceptan como nodriza y se domestican por improntación. 

El caviomorfo continental más prometedor, aparte del coypu, como reemplazo del castor boricua es sin 

duda la paca (Agouti paca) cuyos adultos promedian 13 kg (más o menos 30 lbs). Es el roedor de caza 

más apreciado por su carne que se compara con la de ternera. Vegetariano, hace sus madrigueras en las 

márgenes de riachos y quebradas en los bosques. Animal manso, fácilmente domesticable por 

improntación aunque no es muy prolífico. 

De antigüedad comparable al castor criollo es el pequeño carnívoro Nesophontes edithae, que habría 

llegado desde África occidental balseando para la misma época sino antes. Pertenece a la orden 

Tenrecoidea con las musarañas-nutrias de África occidental (Potomogale velox) y Madagascar 

(Limnogale mergulus). Ambas especies son tan pequeñas como el Nesophontes de aquí (300 a 950 g) y 

viven en cursos y cuerpos de agua dulce donde se alimentan de insectos, sapos, moluscos, cangrejos, 

peces y camarones. En sus regiones de origen se ven amenazados por el desmonte y la contaminación de 

las aguas. 

El último mamífero terrestre de la fauna perdida de Puerto Rico es el más problemático de confirmar 

porque la evidencia de su existencia es circunstancial. La presencia de monos neotropicales (platirrinos) 

en todas las Antillas Mayores menos la Isla ha sido comprobada para la misma época en el Mioceno, hace 

26 millones de años, que aparecieron en Suramérica, proveniente sin duda de África por el mismo 

corredor que balsearon los roedores y musarañas. ¿Pasaron de largo la Isla, la primera recalada firme de la 

corriente ecuatorial del Atlántico norte? 

¿O se trata de prospección paleontológica y arqueológica deficiente? Presumiendo lo último, hay razones 

de peso para postular la necesidad de tener especies de monos inofensivos de América que ocupen la 

vacante biogeográfica amenazada por los problemáticos Rhesus asiáticos (Macaca mulatta) con una 

poblacion cimarrona naturalizado en el oeste de la Isla. 

Los monos neotropicales, o sea de América, son vegetarianos, alimentándose mayormente de frutas, 

hojas, nueces y resinas (Macdonald 2006). Con una excepción todas las especies son de hábitos diurnos, 

fáciles de observar y manejar. Los de mayor tamaño son los aulladores del género Alouatta (hasta 8 kg. ó 

15 lbs) con especies desde el sur de México hasta la gran cuenca amazónica. Sus rugidos mantienen la 

separación territorial de sus clanes y facilita su localización. La mitad de su alimentación es el follaje 

tierno de árboles y el resto frutas y sabandijas. Curiosamente, el presumible ancestro de las especies de 

tierra firme continental lo sería el Paralouatta del Mioceno de Cuba. 

Los monos capuchinos del género Cebus (2 a 4 kg. 5 a 6 lbs) son los más inteligentes y versátiles de los 

primates americanos. Utilizan herramientas rudimentarias para obtener la mayor diversidad de alimentos 

de cualquier otro mono neotropical. Su amplia distribución es compartida en alianza mutualista con el 

asustadizo monito ardilla (Saimiri sciureus) que pesa entre 600 gr y 1.4 kg (1 a 2 lbs). Bandas de cada 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

298

especie comparten la búsqueda de alimentos, sirviendo los Saimiri de centinelas que aprovechan los 

bocadillos expuestos por los capuchinos. El consorcio de ambas especies ocuparía la vacante 

biogeográfica de los primates y sería fácil establecer porque ya existe una presumible especie endémica

de mono ardilla naturalizada en Puerto Rico. 

Interesantemente, el ancestro de los monos ardillas modernos podría haber sido el Antillothrix de La 

Española del Mioceno. La nueva especie criolla surgió de un incidente a principios de la década de 1970 

en el Centro de Primatología de la Universidad de Puerto Rico en Sabana Seca, Toa Baja. Aunque 

protegido por una cadena de mogotes impenetrables en un rincón cercado de la base naval, los 

laboratorios del Centro fueron escalados en horas no laborables por vándalos que no contentos con el robo 

de equipo abrieron las jaulas exteriores de los monos Rhesus y ardillas residentes permitiendo su fuga. 

Al día siguiente los científicos se toparon con una escena insólita. Los inteligentes Rhesus esperaban 

impasibles su desayuno dentro de las abiertas jaulas. Los monitos ardilla por el contrario habían huido en 

masa a la libertad de los mogotes atizados por su instinto básico. 

Aquí comienza una épica evolución biogeográfica. Resulta que los monitos en fuga pertenecían a dos 

subespecies distintas de Saimiri, diferenciables por su apariencia. Saimiri sciureus provenía de Guayana y 

es nativa de la mayor parte del norte de Suramérica. Al extremo oeste de la misma región en el 

piedemonte andino es parapátrica con S. oerstedii, la otra especie fugitiva con la que es interfértil. 

Evidentemente ambas especies, o si se prefiere subespecies, se acomodaron a la vida compartida y se 

hibridaron. La selección ambiental y sexual se encargó de generar la población actual observada por los 

primatólogos del Centro. Casi medio siglo de naturalización ha consolidado el endémico Saimiri 

portoricensis a despecho del atavismo paradigmático colonial que niega su existencia por las autoridades 

federales y sus edecanes estatales. Nuestro monito ardilla debe ser translocado de su “isla” de mogotes a 

El Yunque donde cumpliría su destino en el remplazo de la fauna perdida. 

NOTAS 

1. Como joven explorador de la tropa 91 de Niños Escuchas tuve el privilegio de observar la última 

bandada de unos cincuenta cuervos mientras acampaba a orillas del alto Río Espíritu Santo a principio de 

los años 1970. Su desaparición posterior es un misterio sin resolver. 

2. La formación Juana Díaz de Yauco confirma en su estratigrafía la existencia del perezoso Acratocnus, 

casi idéntico en tamaño y anatomía a la especie megalonichyda moderna. Su presencia en el Oligoceno 

temprano, 30 a 35 millones de años antes del presente lo convierte en el primer mamífero cuadrúpedo 

terrestre en colonizar la Isla. De aquí llegaría por balsa a las demás Antillas Mayores evolucionando a 

formas de mayor tamaño hasta llegar a Norteamérica donde derivó en especies gigantescas que emigraron 

a Suramérica cuando se conectaron por Panamá ambos continentes. 

3. La distancia actual entre Recife, Brasil y Lagos, Nigeria (“enchufe” original de ambos continentes) es 

de 4,545.94 km. La distancia antigua era 2,273 km. La distancia entre Mayagüez y Cancún, México, 

arribada continental más probable por el rumbo de la corriente caribeña es de 2,090 km. Pruebas con 

botellas a la deriva (“drift bottles”) indican una traslación de 44 km./día, con duración de de 67 días (6 ó 7 

semanas) para llegar a tierra firme. Sin embargo, el transporte faunístico en balsas y los insumos 

recíprocos desde los ríos de La Española y Jamaica reducen a un tercio en cada caso el tiempo necesario 

para la translocación de especies a entre dos a tres semanas por tramo. Animales vegetarianos en balsas de 

vegetación viajarían sin pasar hambre. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

299

LITERATURA CITADA

Felipe, AE. 2008. “El coipo (Myocastor coypus), un roedor sudamericano muy explotado pero 

poco conocido” (www.biologia.org. 2015). 

López Marrero T, Villanueva Colón N. 2006. Atlas Ambiental de Puerto Rico. Ed. U.P.R. 

Macdonald, D. ed. 2006. The Encyclopedia of Mammals. London, Brown Reference Grp. 

Watlington, F. 2003. “The physical environment: biogeographical teleconnections in Caribbean 

prehistory.” Pages 30-92 en Sued-Badillo J. ed. General History of the Caribbean, Vol. I, 

Authoctonous Societies. London: UNESCO Publishing. 

Watlington Linares, F. 2008. “La última iwaka de Palo Hueco: crónica de las cotorras jíbaras de 

Puerto Rico” . Revista Cayey 85 (4): 15-33.. 

Watlington Linares, F. 2007. “Presuntos implicados: ratas y mangostas ¿plagas ecológicas?” Acta 

Científica 21 (1-3): 53-60 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

300

Date submitted (SA Western Standard Time): 12/12/2016 11:33:31 AM 

First name: Luis

Last name: Rivera

Organization:

Title:

Official Representative/Member Indicator:

Address1: PO Box 2102 

Address2: 

City: Fajardo

State:

Province/Region: Puerto Rico 

Zip/Postal Code: 00738 

Country: United States

Email: lsrvr001@gmail.com 

Phone: 

Comments: 

You have classified some lands as "Secondary,” ecologically this means that this type of forest is 

developing into the original climatic forest but many new evolving forests include non-original species 

that have naturalized and are part of this new "secondary" forest thus they will become with time a mature 

forest that includes nonoriginal species creating a new type of forest. This new forest condition is term 

"Novel forest" in the most recent forest literature, why you do not term those forest as such??? Or is it 

that you plan to eliminate all individuals of all those species in such lands therefore attaining the original 

climatic condition??
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

301

The following comment letter is a concern from residents who own land adjacent to the Forest. Their 

concern was whether the proposed EIS somehow affected their land and the purpose to use the land for 

smale-scale farming and ecotourism. 

Date submitted (SA Western Standard Time): 12/4/2016 7:31:06 PM 

First name: Rafael

Last name: Nido Vazquez

Organization:

Title:

Official Representative/Member Indicator:

Address1: 1720 Calle Lilas, San Francisco 

Address2: 

City: San Juan

State:

Province/Region: Puerto Rico 

Zip/Postal Code: 00922 

Country: United States

Email: rjn@nidogroup.net 

Phone: 787-397-4247 

Comments: 

Somos due?os de dos fincas que se encuentran en El Barrio Sabana de Luquillo del Yunque. 

A. R?stica , predio de terreno de 16.30 cuerdas, inscrita en el folio 158 del tomo 29, finca numero 1,100. 

B. R?stica, predio de terreno de 17.50 cuerdas, inscrita en el folio 253 del tomo 29, finca numero 1,099. 

La propiedad fue tasada por Pedro Lu?s Jimenez de Fasr Appraisal Service, Inc. en abril 2002 el 

documento indica que la propiedad est? localizada en state road 983, km 6.2 (interior) La Viuda Sector, 

Sabana Ward, Luquillo, PR property code 149-000-007-08-001, county code number 72089, census tract 

number 7440- 1403.00, zoning B-I , agricultural use.

Queremos saber si nuestra propiedad en alguna forma de vera afectada por la declaraci?n de impacto

ambiental propuesta? 

Nuestro inter?s futuro es utilizar la propiedad para agricultura liviana y desarrollar un proyecto tur?stico 

ecoamigable.

Atentamente

Rafael J. Nido
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

302

The following letter was submitted from the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). In it, they 

support the preferred alternative with some additional recommendations. First, they suggest that the 

Forest provide geo-referenced maps that show where historical or archaeological sites can be found as 

well as threatened and endangered species as an additional tool for planning. They recommend the 

establishment of mitigation banks outside of the Forest and the creation of independent non-government 

organizations to support management outside Forest boundaries. They also recommend the establishment 

of alarm and security systems in recreation areas adjacent to rivers and streams in case of sudden flash 

floods. The potential land-use conflict of a recreation site on the Forest (Sabana Rec Area), which is 

adjacent to the entrance to a PREPA facility, where visitors often cross to that area, is pointed out in this 

letter. Finally, PREPA presents their proposal for the installation of new underground lines. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

303
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

304
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

305
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

306
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

307
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

308
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

309
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

310
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

311
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

312
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

313

Appendix B: Ecological Sustainability Evaluation and 

Species of Conservation Concern

Introduction 

The 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) contains guidance providing for sustainability (CFR 219.8) and 

diversity of plants and animals (CFR 219.9). This guidance uses a complementary ecosystem and speciesspecific approach to maintaining the diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence of 

native species in the plan area. Specifically, forest plans must contain components designed to maintain or 

restore the following elements:

The diversity of ecosystems, including the following: 

a. Key characteristics associated with terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem types;

b. Rare aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal communities; and

c. The diversity of native tree species similar to that existing in the plan area.

The ecological conditions to contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered 

species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of each species of 

conservation concern within the plan area. Collectively these species groups are referred to as at-risk 

species, consistent with Forest Service planning direction (FSH 1909.12). 

The ecological sustainability analysis process used in developing the revised forest plan also followed the 

direction in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 10 and Chapter 20. The process addressed at-risk 

species via ecosystem sustainability and integrity from species identification through to plan components. 

Using the coarse-filter/fine-filter approach, at-risk terrestrial and aquatic species, species groups, 

ecological systems and watersheds were carried through the preliminary assessment, assessment, planning 

frameworks (including strategies and plan alternatives), and expected outcomes phases, along with 

providing a basis for monitoring. Throughout this process, the best available scientific information and 

collaborative efforts were used to provide the basis and support for each step, including disclosing any 

data gaps and associated baseline inventory needs.

The planning area ecosystems and watersheds were identified, conditions assessed and departure ratings 

were provided using reference conditions and the natural range of variability, as well as taking into 

account the habitat requirements of associated biodiversity. Stresses and threats, including scope and 

severity, to these systems and species were identified. The at-risk species were identified and species were 

grouped as needed or when possible, considering group weights, and ecological needs and conditions. 

The Species Groups names were indicative of the ecological conditions needed for those species. The 

Species Groups were linked to their appropriate habitat (identified as Ecosystems or Watersheds), and 

linked to appropriate Key Characteristics and Indicators of their habitat which were then used to monitor 

the species. If species required specific needs outside of a species group, they were considered in the 

planning process as individual species (fine-filter). Criteria for sustainability were assigned to each 

Indicator and then Strategies were developed to work toward meeting sustainability. These Strategies are 

included in the forest plan components, and where applicable, plan alternatives. The Expected Outcome 

information is considered in time periods, 10 and 50 years out. 

The ecological sustainability framework described below provides information to make strategic 

decisions in the forest planning framework. By restoring and maintaining the key characteristics, 

conditions, and functionality of native ecosystems, El Yunque National Forest should be able to not only 

improve ecosystem diversity, but also provide for the needs of diverse plant and animal species on El 

Yunque. Most plant and animal species needs are expected to be met by sustaining ecosystem diversity, 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

314

but species-specific analyses were conducted to evaluate whether additional provisions were needed for 

federally listed species, and species of conservation concern. 

Public Involvement

There have been multiple opportunities provided for the public to provide input on the ecosystem and 

species diversity process used in the revision of El Yunque Forest Plan.

At-risk species (March 6, 2014; May 8, 2014; and March 15, 2016) 

Preliminary need for change (October 30, 2014 through December 12, 2014) 

The new proposed plan alternatives (June 23, 2015 through June 25, 2015) 

Opportunities for the Public to Submit Comments included:

45-day Scoping on the proposed action (September 19, 2014 through November 3, 

2014).https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3820485.pdf. Information on the 

ecological sustainability and species of conservation concern used for scoping is contained in the 

following documents posted on the forest’s website: 

El Yunque National Forest, Draft Forest Plan Assessment

El Yunque Plan Revision: Proposed Management Strategies 

90-day Comment Period on the Draft Forest Plan (September, 2016) and DEIS 

To view all written public comments received during scoping and the 90-day comment on the draft forest 

plan, go to https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44662

Overview of Ecological Sustainability analysis 

The need of a standardized regional approach for ecological and biological planning for the Forest 

planning process was the main reason to develop a collaborative initiative to create what is known as the 

ecological sustainability evaluation (ESE) tool. The ESE tool is a strategic conservation planning tool 

used by the USDA Forest Service Southern Region for forest planning. Ecological systems, watersheds, 

terrestrial and aquatic species are carried through the preliminary assessment, sustainability framework 

(including strategies and plan alternatives), and expected outcomes. The tool utilizes a standardized 

process while being flexible, efficient, and adaptable to Forest-specific priorities and needs. The ESE tool 

employs prioritization algorithms utilizing rank, importance rating, attributes and indicators, stresses and 

threats, scope and severity ratings, and management opportunities to assist and support management 

decisions while creating a standardized, credible, and defensible process record. The ESE tool analysis 

also considered the short term (1 to 10 years) and the long term (1 to 50 years) scenarios in the Forest. 

The ecological sustainability evaluation (ESE) manual (see admin file), describes the analysis process 

used to identify, evaluate, and develop guidance for sustaining ecological diversity. This report and the 

ecological sustainability evaluation database from which it was derived not only provide the overall 

framework for many of the forest plan components and the systems-based direction in the revised forest 

plan, but also provide an important source of data and guidance for sustaining native ecological systems 

and species when implementing the forest plan.

The ecological sustainability framework is based on The Nature Conservancy Conservation Action 

Planning (CAP) process (TNC 2006) with changes in terminology to match Forest Service planning 

regulations. Using a coarse-filter/fine-filter approach, El Yunque National Forest identified ecosystems 

and associated at-risk species, key ecological characteristics for ecosystems, forest plan level indicators 

for evaluating their status, forest plan strategies, and resulting ecosystem sustainability ratings. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

315

In regards to El Yunque, which is the only tropical rainforest in the National Forest System of the USDA 

Forest Service, the forest was presented with a dilemma due to its unique location and natural resources. 

El Yunque’s vegetation specialist developed the type of ecosystem (forest types) and the Forest Biologist 

worked with other local wildlife specialists to provide a list of possible species of conservation concern 

that would meet the criteria that NatureServe uses for species selection.

El Yunque National Forest received assistance and technical advice from the regional office. The process 

included training for the vegetation and wildlife specialists to discuss the necessary information and 

process to integrate the data in the ESE tool format. The information was collected, identified, and 

integrated in the ESE tool by the Forest and wildlife program managers with the support of the regional 

office contractor and personnel. 

The following steps were used to build an ecological sustainability framework, with each step 

documented within the ESE tool. This iterative process was methodical and utilized sequential steps, as 

described below. 

1. Identify and define ecosystems

To define terrestrial ecological sustainability, all terrestrial ecosystems on El Yunque National Forest were 

identified using a modified PRGAP 2000 land cover map (Gould et al. 2007). This version includes 

several modifications, such as integrating the Holdridge ecological life zones (Ewel and Whitmore 1973), 

a 1969-feet elevation line (USGS), which determines cloud formation in the Forest and where the Cloud 

Forest community begins (Harris et al. 2012), a 130-inch precipitation line (Daly et al. 2003) and a 100-

foot buffer around the rivers (National Hydrography Dataset) inside El Yunque to identify riparian forests. 

Our current vegetation classification map follows the hierarchy of the National Vegetation Classification

down to “groups.” Current area of each ecosystem was calculated based on associated ecological 

classification units using Forest Service geographic information system (GIS) data.

2. Identify species

To assess species diversity, an initial comprehensive list of at-risk plant and animal species was compiled 

by combining species lists from a variety of sources, including: federally-listed threatened and 

endangered species including proposed and candidate species obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, State species of concern obtained from the Puerto Rico’s version of a Natural Heritage Program, 

the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and the Regional Forester’s sensitive species. 

The list of potential species of conservation concern was included in the assessment. Additional species 

were added based on input from recognized conservation experts within the state. Species were then 

screened for inclusion in the framework and designated as threatened and endangered or species of 

conservation concern.

3. Identify and define key characteristics of ecosystem sustainability

To identify key characteristics for terrestrial and riparian ecosystems, subject matter experts reviewed lists 

and concepts of ecosystems and suggested important ecological characteristics and performance measures 

to be addressed during planning. Final determinations of ecological sustainability components were based 

on expert input, additional information from scientific literature and technical reports, and habitat needs 

of associated species. Performance measures were identified for both terrestrial and riparian systems. To 

produce a quantitative result, ratings were scored as integers 1 to 4 for each element, with multiple 

elements producing an overall score for the conservation measures being evaluated (Table B- 10). 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

316

Based on the indicator values, we calculated overall condition scores for each ecosystem group for each 

management alternative for 10 and 50 years’ time periods. These scores were calculated by multiplying 

indicator values (1 to 4) by indicator weights (1 to 4) then averaging. 

4. Link species to the ecosystems and watersheds and identify any 

additional needs of species

El Yunque biological and botanical specialists linked terrestrial and aquatic species to ecosystems and 

watersheds in which they occur. It was determined that species’ needs were best met when species were 

grouped before linking them to ecosystems and, in particular, when key characteristics of ecosystems are 

linked to a given species groups’ needs. This linkage allowed us to assess how well the ecosystem and 

watershed frameworks covered needs of these species. Where ecological conditions for these species were 

not covered by the ecological sustainability framework, additional characteristics, performance measures, 

and rating criteria were added so these species would be covered. Therefore, all “at-risk” species have 

their needs covered by ecological sustainability framework, or by a combination of the ecological 

sustainability framework and other additional forest plan components. 

5. Develop Forest Plan components

Forest plan components were developed to provide ecosystem sustainability and ecological conditions for 

identified species based on the ecological sustainability evaluation framework. In some cases, current 

requirements and processes outside of the planning process were identified that address this goal. All 

elements of the ecological sustainability framework will be addressed by appropriate management 

direction in the forest plan.

6. Evaluate Ecological Sustainability Ratings to assess future outcomes at 

both 10- and 50-year time intervals.

To assess ecological sustainability we calculated a composite condition score for each ecosystem from all 

key characteristics. Rankings for all indicators were defined, weighted for each ecosystem based on 

expected outcomes under the three alternatives over 10- to 50-year time periods. Predictions were based 

on estimated acreage in coarse filter maintenance and with management trends in activities at 10- and 50-

year intervals. Ecological composite scores were developed by multiplying indicator values by indicator 

weights then averaging. We then calculated overall scores for each ecosystem group and alternative 

combination. In general, declining overall scores over time indicate that alternatives may not adequately 

protect ecosystem sustainability and the diversity of associated species.

At-risk Species

A process parallel to the development of an ecosystem framework was the consideration of species, most 

of them “at risk,” from extirpation in the foreseeable future, their distribution and habitat on El Yunque 

National Forest, drivers, threats, and ecological needs. Based on the final directives, the list of “at-risk” 

species for El Yunque includes: 

Federally -listed threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species; and 

Species of conservation concern. Species of conservation concern are those plant and animal species 

whose long-term persistence within the plan area is of known conservation concern. 

Species of Conservation Concern

The 2012 National Forest Planning Rule requires that species of conservation concern be “known to occur 

in the plan area” and that the Regional Forester identify the species of conservation concern for which 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

317

“the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to 

persist over the long term in the plan area.” During the assessment phase of forest plan revision, a team 

consisting of a botanist/ecologist, and wildlife biologist developed a comprehensive list of plant, wildlife, 

and aquatic species with the potential to occur on El Yunque National Forest. This list was based on a 

variety of sources, including: federally-listed threatened and endangered species occurring in the 

municipalities in northeastern Puerto Rico, obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State 

species of conservation concern obtained from the Puerto Rico Department of Natural & Environmental 

Resources, which included species in the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and the 

Forest Service’s list of sensitive species. El Yunque met with Edwin Muñiz and his staff of the Boquerón 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in January, 2015, to review the most updated process of reaching 

the finalized list of threatened and endangered species that would be addressed through preliminary forest 

plan direction.

Hurricane María and Hurricane Irma 

The hurricanes in 2017 occurred after the ecological sustainability evaluation (ESE) tool analysis was 

completed. Hurricanes in general are a natural stressor included in the analysis. The effects of the 

disturbance, which include, vegetation defoliation, vegetation mortality, landslides, flooding, and other 

hurricane related changes in general are within the natural range of variability of ecosystems in the 

analysis. As stated in the Vegetation affected environment section, the hurricanes did not change the 

vegetation community types but rather it may have changed the successional state of plant communities 

and temporarily, their structure. The vast majority of the forest was severly defoliated and many trees lost 

their branches, thus temporarily altering the forest structure. 

Since the effects from Hurricanes Irma and Maria did change the successional and structural states of 

many of the vegetation communities, the question was then raised as to whether or not the ESE tool 

analyses needed to be updated. It was decided that since this affected all the alternatives equally, the ESE 

tool analysis describing the relative differences between the alternatives was still valid. In addition, while 

the hurricanes have affected the current situation of the vegetation communities, these are short-term 

impacts. Over the long-term, the vegetation communities will recover and will still be able to contribute 

to the ecological needs of the Forest’s at-risk species as analyzed in the ESE tool model. 

Flora

To select the flora species for the ecological sustainability evaluation tool assessment, the current list of 

species reported for the Forest was the first source of information. To revise and enhance the list, a 

detailed review of the current and actual botanical literature was done to review and include any species 

reported for El Yunque. A total of 636 species of flora were included in the assessment and were appraised 

according to the criteria applied in the evaluation. Bibliographical and web-based botanical references 

were used to consider distribution, stress and threats, environmental concerns and other indications for the 

species.

After these species were considered, a sub-set group of species of conservation concern were identified 

and confirmed by botanical experts and a current literature review. These species of conservation concern 

were used to inform and identify plan components and for the final EIS to consider the impacts of the 

different Forest Plan alternatives.

Fauna 

The wildlife selection process was unique due to the fact that from the approximate 182 fauna species that 

were initially assessed, many are not included in either NatureServe or their Latin American affiliate, 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

318

InfoNatura. These two data warehouses are the accepted source of the most up-to-date information on 

species occurrence and status. 

The selection process for El Yunque National Forest answered two questions in identifying those species 

that were not included in the standard NatureServe provided data. First, what is the description of the 

methodology used to assign ranking to evaluate species; and second, how was the process conducted on 

those species that did not get identified as species of conservation concern, but were part of the initial list 

of evaluated species.

The rationale to assigning conservation status ranking was similar to the NatureServe’s framework and 

core methodology. El Yunque biologists mimicked the Global, National, and State-ranks with the 

collected information by focusing on extinction risk on the global scale, and their extirpation risk at 

national and subnational levels. All species were considered in the design of ecological conditions within 

the plan area.

Much of the information found in the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the State 

Natural Heritage Plan (Puerto Rico wildlife conservation strategy) are interpreted to fulfill these ranks. 

Adhering to the same NatureServe factors such as range extent, area of occupancy, population size, and 

number of occurrences the biologists cumulated with a working ranking system. As a caveat, many 

species did not have all of these factors documented, but many other biologists on the Island acknowledge 

these data gaps.

The biologist then used the selected species to be incorporated into the prioritization elements found in 

both the preliminary assessment and sustainability planning framework of the ecological sustainability 

evaluation tool by inputting values into the tool’s matrix. The matrix contains the following planning 

elements: conservation target, status, condition, stresses and threats, and priority. This populated 

ecological sustainability evaluation tool can then be used as a management monitoring tool for the Forest 

wildlife and fisheries program manager. 

The list of species of conservation concern is located in the sections dealing with the species of 

conservation concern within the EIS document (see Chapter 3, Sections 3.4.3.3 and 3.4.3.6). 

Watersheds 

Information from the watershed condition framework (WCF) and El Yunque Watershed Condition 

Classification Supplemental Guidance (2010) completed for El Yunque National Forest were the main 

source of information for the ecological sustainability evaluation tool assessment. The 2014 Forest Plan 

Assessment, completed as part of the Forest Plan revision, also provided updated information for the 

watershed conditions within and outside the Forest boundaries. 

The parameters in the watershed condition framework are presented in the following table. These 

parameters were considered and analyzed for the Plan alternatives considering short (1 to 10 years) and 

long (1 to 50 years) scenarios in the Blanco, Canovanas, Espiritu Santo, Fajardo, Mameyes, Pitahaya, 

Sabana and Santiago watersheds.

The ecological sustainability evaluation tool reports include a planning area score based on current 

conditions and a rating for a 10 and 50 years scenario by alternative considered in the Plan. The 

ecological sustainability evaluation tool also produces graphic representation by sustainability rating, plan 

alternatives, and the 10- and 50-year scenarios.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

319

Table B- 1. Measurement criteria for watershed attributes

Key Attribute Name What measure

Hydrologic Function Flow Characteristics

Water Quality Sediments Forest Coverage Rating

Water Quality Sediments Riparian Road Density

Water Quality Sediments Road Density Rating

Water Quality Sediments Road Maintenance Index

Water Quality Toxics Impaired Water Listed as 303D

Water Quality Toxics Water Quality Problem (Not 303D listed)

Ecological Conditions for At-risk Species

The new vegetation classification for El Yunque resulted in 15 different forest types; however, the link 

between at-risk species and associated ecosystems was done with 5 forest types. Ecosystems were 

grouped according to similarities in forest types, e.g. under the ecosystem mature Tabonuco we grouped 

mature Tabonuco montane rain forest and mature Tabonuco montane wet forest, for secondary forest we 

grouped secondary montane wet, secondary montane wet cloud and secondary submontane moist forest, 

for mature Palo Colorado, we grouped mature Palo Colorado rain and mature Palo Colorado wet cloud 

forests, for mature Sierra Palm we grouped mature Sierra Palm montane wet, mature Sierra Palm montane 

wet cloud and mature Sierra Palm montane rain cloud forests and under mature Tabebuia/Eugenia we 

grouped mature Tabebuia/Eugenia montane rain cloud and mature Tabebuia/Eugenia montane wet cloud 

forests. These groupings were made due to the lack of specific and accurate plant distribution information 

available. No at-risk plant species were associated with riparian forests. The ecosystem acres presented is 

the sum of each forest type under its grouping. 

Table B- 2. At-risk species groups and associated ecosystems, El Yunque National Forest

Species Group Ecosystems Ecosystem Acres

Mature Palo Colorado Montane Cloud Forest Mature Palo Colorado Montane Forest 7,726

Mature Sierra Palm Montane Forest Mature Sierra Palm Montane Forest 4,673

Mature Tabebuia/Eugenia Cloud Forest Mature Tabebuia/Eugenia Cloud Forest 640

Mature Tabonuco Montane Forest Mature Tabonuco Montane Forest 6,090

Secondary Forest Secondary Forest 7,074

Table B- 3. At-risk species, mature Tabebuia/Eugenia woodland associate

Taxonomic Group Scientific name Common name

Bird Setophaga angelae Elfin woods warbler

Bird Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus eneidae Eneida’s Coqui

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus gryllus Cricket Coqui

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus portoricensis Upland Coqui

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus unicolor Dwarf Coqui

Mollusk Luquilia luquillensis Luquillo mountain snail

Vascular Plants Ardisia luquillensis Bádula, mameyuelo
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

320

Taxonomic Group Scientific name Common name

Vascular Plants Banara portoricensis Caracolilo, Palo de Ramón, Tostado

Vascular Plants Brachionidium ciliolatum 

Vascular Plants Brachionidium parvum 

Vascular Plants Brunfelsia lactea Jazmín de monte, Aguacero, Vega Blanca 

Vascular Plants Calyptranthes woodburyi 

Vascular Plants Conostegia hotteana Camasey peludo

Vascular Plants Cybianthus sintenisii 

Vascular Plants Eugenia egersii Palo de murta

Vascular Plants Gonocalix portoricensis 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes caritensis Carite babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes dodiana Dodiana babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes stimsonii Stimson babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes veleziana Velez babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes woodburyana Woodbury babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Marlierea sintenisii Beruquillo 

Vascular Plants Maytenus elongata Cuero de Sapo 

Vascular Plants Miconia foveolata Camasey

Vascular Plants Miconia pycnoneura Camasey

Vascular Plants Mikania pachyphyla 

Vascular Plants Morella holdrigeana Palo de Cera 

Vascular Plants Pilea multicaulis 

Vascular Plants Pilea yunquensis 

Vascular Plants Psidium sintenisii Hoja Menuda

Vascular Plants Symplocos lanata Nispero cimarrón

Vascular Plants Ternstroemia heptasepala 

Vascular Plants Urera chorocalpa Ortiga

Vascular Plants Varronia wagnerorum 

Vascular Plants Eugenia haematocarpa Uvillo

Vascular Plants Ilex sintenisii Guayabota pequeña

Vascular Plants Ternstroemia luquillensis Palo Colorado 

Vascular Plants Ternstroemia subsessilis 

Table B- 4. At-risk species, secondary forest associates

Taxonomic Group Scientific name Common name

Mammal Stenoderma rufum Red –fig eating bat

Bird Buteo platypterus brunnescens Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk

Bird Accipter striatus venator Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

321

Taxonomic Group Scientific name Common name

Reptile Epicrates inornatus Puerto Rican boa

Vascular Plants Brachionidium parvum 

Vascular Plants Brunfelsia portoricensis Jazmin Portoricensis

Vascular Plants Callicarpa ampla Capá Rosa

Vascular Plants Calyptranthes woodburyi 

Vascular Plants Coccoloba rugosa Ortegón

Vascular Plants Conostegia hotteana Camasey Peludo

Vascular Plants Cybianthus sintenisii 

Vascular Plants Eugenia egersii Palo de Murta

Vascular Plants Laplacea portoricensis Maricao Verde 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes dodiana Dodiana babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes woodburyana Woodbury babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Magnolia splendens Laurel Sabino

Vascular Plants Maytenus elongata Cuero de Sapo

Vascular Plants Morella holdrigeana Palo de Cera 

Vascular Plants Pleodendron macranthum Chupacallos

Vascular Plants Ravenia urbanii Tortugo Prieto

Vascular Plants Styrax portoricensis Palo de Jazmín

Vascular Plants Ternstroemia stahlii Palo de Buey

Vascular Plants Xylosma schwaneckeana Palo de Candela 

Table B- 5. At-risk species, Palo Colorado associates

Taxonomic Group Scientific name Common name

Bird Accipter striatus venator Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk

Bird Amazona vittata Puerto Rican parrot

Bird Buteo platypterus brunnescens Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk

Bird Setophaga angelae Elfin woods warbler

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus richmondi Richmond’s coqui

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus unicolor Dwarf Coqui

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus hedricki Tree-hole coqui

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus locustus Locust coqui

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus eneidae Eneida’s Coqui

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus gryllus Cricket Coqui

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus karlschmidti Web-footed Coqui

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus wightmanae Melodious Coqui

Reptile Anolis cuvieri Puerto Rican giant anole

Reptile Anolis occultus Dwarf anole
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

322

Taxonomic Group Scientific name Common name

Vascular Plants Ardisia luquillensis Bádula, mameyuelo

Vascular Plants Banara portoricensis Caracolillo

Vascular Plants Brachionidium parvum 

Vascular Plants Brunfelsia lactea Jazmín de monte

Vascular Plants Brunfelsia portoricensis

Vascular Plants Calyptranthes luquillensis 

Vascular Plants Calyptranthes woodburyi 

Vascular Plants Conostegia hotteana Camasey Peludo 

Vascular Plants Cybianthus sintenisii 

Vascular Plants Eugenia egersii Palo de Murta 

Vascular Plants Gonocalix portoricensis 

Vascular Plants Laplacea portoricensis Maricao Verde 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes caritensis Carite babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes dodiana Dodiana babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes eltoroensis

Vascular Plants Lepanthes stimsonii Stimson babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes veleziana Velez babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes woodburyana Woodbury babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lindsaea stricta var. jamesoniformis 

Vascular Plants Magnolia splendens Laurel Sabino

Vascular Plants Marlierea sintenisii Beruquillo 

Vascular Plants Maytenus elongata Cuero de Sapo 

Vascular Plants Miconia foveolata Camasey

Vascular Plants Mikania pachyphyla 

Vascular Plants Morella holdrigeana Palo de cera

Vascular Plants Pilea multicaulis 

Vascular Plants Psidium sintenisii Hoja Menuda

Vascular Plants Ravenia urbanii Tortugo Prieto

Vascular Plants Solanum woodbury 

Vascular Plants Ternstroemia heptasepala 

Vascular Plants Ternstroemia luquillensis Palo Colorado

Vascular Plants Ternstroemia subsessilis

Vascular Plants Urera chorocalpa Ortiga 

Vascular Plants Varronia wagnerorum 

Vascular Plants Xylosma schwaneckeana Palo de Candela 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

323

Table B- 6. At-risk species, Sierra palm associates

Taxonomic Group Scientific name Common name

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus locustus Locust coqui

Bird Buteo platypterus brunnescens Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk

Bird Accipter striatus venator Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk

Vascular Plants Ardisia luquillensis Mamayuelo

Vascular Plants Banara portoricensis Caracolillo

Vascular Plants Brachionidium parvum 

Vascular Plants Conostegia hotteana Camasey peludo 

Vascular Plants Cybianthus sintenisii 

Vascular Plants Eugenia egersii Palo de Murta

Vascular Plants Gonocalix portoricensis 

Vascular Plants Laplacea portoricensis Maricao Verde 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes caritensis Carite babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes dodiana Dodiana babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes stimsonii Stimson babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes veleziana Velez babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes woodburyana Woodbury babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Marlierea sintenisii Beruquillo 

Vascular Plants Maytenus elongata Cuero de Sapo 

Vascular Plants Mikania pachyphyla 

Vascular Plants Morella holdrigeana Palo de Cera 

Vascular Plants Pilea yunquensis 

Vascular Plants Psidium sintenisii Hoja Menuda 

Vascular Plants Symplocos lanata Nispero Cimarrón 

Vascular Plants Ternstroemia heptasepala 

Vascular Plants Ternstroemia subsessilis 

Table B- 7. At-risk species, Tabonuco associates

Taxonomic Group Scientific name Common name

Mammal Stenoderma rufun Red –fig eating bat

Bird Buteo platypterus brunnescens Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk

Bird Accipter striatus venator Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk

Bird Icterus portoricensis Puerto Rican oriole

Reptile Epicrates inornatus Puerto Rican boa

Reptile Anolis cuvieri Puerto Rican giant anole

Reptile Anolis occultus Dwarf anole

Amphibian Eleutherodactylus locustus Locust coqui

Vascular Plants Callicarpa ampla Capá Rosa
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

324

Taxonomic Group Scientific name Common name

Vascular Plants Brunfelsia lactea Jazmín de Monte

Vascular Plants Calyptranthes woodburyi 

Vascular Plants Coccoloba rugosa Ortegón 

Vascular Plants Conostegia hotteana Camasey Peludo 

Vascular Plants Cybianthus sintenisii 

Vascular Plants Eugenia egersii Palo de Murta

Vascular Plants Eugenia haematocarpa Uvillo

Vascular Plants Laplacea portoricensis Maricao Verde 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes dodiana Dodiana babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes selenitepala spp ackermanii Ackerman babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes veleziana Velez babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Lepanthes woodburyana Woodbury babyfoot orchid 

Vascular Plants Magnolia splendens Laurel Sabino 

Vascular Plants Maytenus elongata Cuero de Sapo 

Vascular Plants Morella holdrigeana Palo de Cera 

Vascular Plants Pleodendron macranthum Chupacallos

Vascular Plants Psidium sintenisii Hoja menuda

Vascular Plants Styrax portoricencis Palo de Jazmín

Vascular Plants Ternstroemia luquillensis Palo Colorado

Vascular Plants Ternstroemia stahlii Palo de Buey

Vascular Plants Xylosma schwaneckeana Palo de Candela

Table B- 8. At-risk species, riparian associates

Taxonomic Group Scientific name Common name

Aquatic Invertebrate Macrobrachium carcinus Bigclaw river shrimp

Aquatic Invertebrate Macrobrachium crenulatum Crenulated river shrimp

Fish (Eel) Anguilla rostrata American eel

Fish Awaous banana Yellow river goby

Fish Dormitator maculatus Fat sleeper

Fish Eleotris pisonis Spinycheek sleeper

Fish Gobiomorus dormitor Bigmouth sleeper

Overall Ecological Sustainability Ratings 

Based on the indicator values presented in the tables below, we calculated overall condition scores for 

each ecosystem group for each alternative. These scores are the basis for assessing ecological 

sustainability under the alternatives. These scores were calculated by multiplying indicator values (1 to 4) 

by indicator weights (1 to 4) then averaging. Condition scores ranging from 1.00-1.50 indicates poor 

condition; element conditions are severely inadequate and species populations are expected to severly 

decline. Scores ranging from 1.51-2.50 indicate fair conditions; element conditions are slightly 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

325

inadequate, but species may persit for some time. Scores in the range of 2.51-3.50 are in good condition; 

element conditions are acceptable; species’ populations should remain stable. Scores that range from 

3.51-4.00 are in very good condition; element conditions are optimal and species’ populations should 

remain robust and potentially even expand. Table B- 9 summarizes these results.

Table B- 9. Overall ecological sustainability ratings

Ecosystem group Alt 1 – 10 yr Alt 1 – 50 yr Alt 2 – 10 yr Alt 2 – 50 yr Alt 3 – 10 yr Alt 3 – 50 yr

Mature Palo Colorado 

montane rain cloud 

forest

2.833333 2.550000 2.625000 2.550000 2.833333 2.625000

Mature Palo Colorado 

montane wet cloud 

forest

2.550000 2.550000 2.550000 2.550000 2.550000 2.550000

Mature Sierra Palm 

montane rain cloud 

forest

2.250000 2.400000 2.300000 2.300000 2.300000 2.300000

Mature Sierra Palm 

montane wet cloud 

forest

2.187500 2.187500 2.187500 2.187500 2.187500 2.187500

Mature Sierra Palm 

montane wet forest

2.312500 2.312500 2.312500 2.312500 2.312500 2.312500

Mature Tabebuia/ 

Eugenia Elfin 

woodland montane 

wet cloud forest

2.550000 2.550000 2.550000 2.291666 2.550000 2.500000

Mature 

Tabebuia/Eugenia 

Elfin woodland 

montane rain cloud 

forest

2.687500 2.687500 2.687500 2.687500 2.687500 2.687500

Mature Tabonuco 

montane rain forest

1.812500 1.812500 1.812500 1.812500 1.900000 1.812500

Mature Tabonuco 

montane wet forest

2.250000 2.150000 2.250000 1.687500 2.250000 2.150000

Riparian montane rain 

and wet cloud forest

2.312500 2.312500 2.312500 2.312500 2.312500 2.312500

Riparian montane rain 

and wet forest

2.312500 2.250000 2.833333 2.300000 2.833333 2.833333

Riparian submontane 

moist forest

2.312500 2.150000 2.312500 2.312500 2.312500 2.312500

Secondary montane 

wet cloud forest

2.250000 2.250000 2.250000 2.041666 2.250000 2.250000

Secondary montane 

wet forest

2.187500 1.950000 1.625000 1.500000 2.250000 1.666666

Secondary 

submontane moist 

forest

2.050000 2.083333 2.200000 2.050000 2.350000 2.375000
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

326

Forest Plan Components and Strategies 

We evaluated plan area conditions needed for all species using a coarse-filter/fine-filter approach.

Desired conditions, objectives, and design criteria for maintaining and restoring ecosystem integrity 

provide coarse filter habitat provisions for all species. Fine-filter strategies for species were developed 

where needed to contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and 

candidate species, and maintain or restore ecological conditions for sustaining a viable population of each 

species of conservation concern where possible and ecologically feasible, given the capabilities of our 

land base. See Table B- 10 for a summary of forest plan components. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

327

Table B- 10. At-risk species and associated ecological conditions, key characteristics, and forest plan components, El Yunque National Forest. 

Ecological conditions refer to the different forest types: Secondary-all plantation/secondary forest types, tabonuco-all tabonuco types, sierra palm-all 

Sierra palm forest types, palo colorado-all palo colorado forest types and Tabebuia/Eugenia-all Tabebuia/Eugenia forest types.

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Amazona vittata Palo Colorado Forest 

types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 7, 14 

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna

DC1, 2, 3;

3.1.9 Wildlife 

and Fisheries 

DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1-3 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna 

S1, S2, G1, 

G2,

Buteo platypterus 

brunnescens

Tabonuco, Sierra Palm, 

Palo Colorado and 

Secondary Forest 

types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 5, 6, 7, 

8, 11, 12, 14 

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna 

S1, S2, G1

Accipiter striatus 

venator

Tabonuco, Sierra Palm, 

Palo Colorado and 

Secondary Forests

types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 5, 6, 7, 

8, 11, 12, 14 

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna

S1, S2, G1

Setophaga angelae

Palo Colorado and 

Tabebuia/Eugenia 

Forest types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, , 7, 9, 

13, 14 

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1-3 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna

S2, G1, G2, 

G4

Epicratus inornatus Tabonuco & Secondary 

Forest types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 5, 6, 11, 

16 

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna

S2, G1
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

328

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Eleutherodactylus 

brittoni

Sierra Palm, Palo 

Colorado Forest types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 8, 

12, 13,14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna S2, G1; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries S1, 

S2, G1, G2

Eleutherodactylus 

eneidae

Palo Colorado and 

Tabebuia/Eugenia 

Forest types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 9, 

13, 14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1-3 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna: S2, 

G1; Wildlife 

and Fisheries: 

S1, S2, G1, 

G2 

Eleutherodactylus 

gryllus

Palo Colorado and 

Tabebuia/Eugenia 

Forest types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 9, 

13, 14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1-3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna 

S2, G1; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries: S1, 

S2, G1, G2

Eleutherodactylus 

hedricki

Tabonuco & Palo 

Colorado Forest types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 6, 7, 11, 

13,14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1-3 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna S2, 

G1; Wildlife 

and Fisheries: 

S1, S2, G1, 

G2

Eleutherodactylus 

karlschmidti

Palo Colorado Forest 

types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1-3 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna S2, 

G1; Wildlife 

and Fisheries: 

S1, S2, G1, 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

329

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Eleutherodactylus 

locustus

Palo Colorado and 

Sierra Palm Forest 

types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 8, 

12, 14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1-3 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna S2, 

G1; Wildlife 

and Fisheries: 

S1, S2, G1, 

G2

Eleutherodactylus 

portoricensis

Tabebuia/Eugenia 

Forest types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 9, 

1314

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1-3 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna S2, 

G1; Wildlife 

and Fisheries: 

S1, S2, G1, 

G2

Eleutherodactylus 

richmondi

Palo Colorado and 

Tabebuia/Eugenia 

Forest types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 9, 

12, 13, , 14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1-3 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna S2, G1; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries: S1, 

S2, G1, G2

Eleutherodactylus 

unicolor

Palo Colorado and 

Tabebuia/Eugenia 

Forest types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 9, 

12, 13 14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1-3 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna S2, G1; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries: S1, 

S2, G1, G2

Eleutherodactylus 

wightmanae Palo Colorado types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1-3 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna S2, 

G1; Wildlife 

and Fisheries: 

S1, S2, G1, 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

330

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Anguilla rostrata Riparian

Percentage of or 

amount of forest 

cover, riparian area 

tree and shrub 

distribution, aquatic 

biota composition,

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 3, 5, 8

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC1 

3.1.9 Wildlife 

& Fisheries: 

MS1, 3, 7

3.1.9 

Fisheries and 

other aquatic 

species: S1, 

G1, G2

Awaous banana Riparian

Percentage of or 

amount of forest 

cover, riparian area 

tree and shrub 

distribution, aquatic 

biota composition,

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 3, 8

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC1 

3.1.9 Wildlife 

& Fisheries: 

MS1, 3

3.1.9 

Fisheries and 

other aquatic 

species: S1, 

G1, G2

Dormitator maculatus Riparian

Percentage of or 

amount of forest 

cover, riparian area 

tree and shrub 

distribution, aquatic 

biota composition,

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 3, 8

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC1 

3.1.9 Wildlife 

& Fisheries: 

MS1, 3

3.1.9 

Fisheries and 

other aquatic 

species: S1, 

G1, G2

Eleotris pisonis Riparian

Percentage of or 

amount of forest 

cover, riparian area 

tree and shrub 

distribution, aquatic 

biota composition,

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 3, 8

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC1 

3.1.9 Wildlife 

& Fisheries: 

MS1, 3

3.1.9 

Fisheries and 

other aquatic 

species: S1, 

G1, G2

Gobiomorus dormitor Riparian

Percentage of or 

amount of forest 

cover, riparian area 

tree and shrub 

distribution, aquatic 

biota composition,

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 3, 8

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC1 

3.1.9 Wildlife 

& Fisheries: 

MS1, 3

3.1.9 

Fisheries and 

other aquatic 

species: S1, 

G1, G2

Macrobrachium 

carcinus Riparian

Percentage of or 

amount of forest 

cover, riparian area 

tree and shrub 

distribution, aquatic 

biota composition,

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 3, 8

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC1 

3.1.9 Wildlife 

& Fisheries: 

MS1, 3

3.1.9 

Fisheries and 

other aquatic 

species: S1, 

G1, G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

331

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Macrobrachium 

crenulatum Riparian

Percentage of or 

amount of forest 

cover, riparian area 

tree and shrub 

distribution, aquatic 

biota composition,

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 3, 8

3.1.4 Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC1 

3.1.9 Wildlife 

& Fisheries: 

MS1, 3

3.1.9 

Fisheries and 

other aquatic 

species: S1, 

G1, G2

Falco peregrinus Tabebuia/Eugenia 

Forest types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 9, 

12, 13, 14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna S2, G1; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries: S1, 

S2, G1, G2

Icterus portoricensis Tabonuco, Secondary 

Forest types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 5, 6, 11, 

16 

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna

S2, G1

Stenoderma rufum Tabonuco,& Secondary 

Forest types

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 5, 6, 11, 

16 

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna

S2, G1

Luquillia luquillensis Tabebuia/Eugenia 

Forest type

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 9, 12, 

13, 14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna S2, G1; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries: S1, 

S2, G1, G2

Anolis cuvieri Tabonuco, and Palo 

Colorado forest types 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 6, 7, 

10, 11,13, 14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna S2, 

G1; Wildlife 

and Fisheries: 

S1, S2, G1, 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

332

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Anolis occultus Tabonuco, and Palo 

Colorado forest types 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 6, 7, 

10, 11, 13, 14

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna DC1, 2; 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries DC2 

3.1.10 At Risk 

species 

Fauna

O1, 

MS1, 3

3.1.10 At Risk 

species: 

Fauna S2, 

G1; Wildlife 

and Fisheries: 

S1, S2, G1, 

G2

Ardisia luquillensis 

Secondary, Sierra 

Palm, Palo Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 

13

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS 2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Banara portoricensis

Palo Colorado, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 8, 

9, 12, 13, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species:

Flora, G2

Brachionidium 

ciliolatum Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 9, 13 

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

S1, G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

333

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Brachionidium parvum

Secondary, Palo 

Colorado, Sierra Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 

134 

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

S1, G2

Brunfelsia lactea

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Palo Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance,

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 9, 10, 12, 

13, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

334

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Brunfelsia 

portoricensis

Secondary, Palo 

Colorado

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 7, 

14, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Callicarpa ampla Secondary, Tabonuco

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 5, 6, 11, 

16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

O1, 2 and 

MS1, 2, 3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G1, 2 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

335

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Calyptranthes 

luquillensis

Secondary, Palo 

Colorado

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 7, 

14, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Calyptranthes 

woodburyi

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Palo Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 9, 10, 12, 

13, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

336

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Coccoloba rugosa Secondary, Tabonuco 

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 5, 6, 11, 

16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Conostegia hotteana

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Palo Colorado, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

337

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Cybianthus sintenisii

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Palo Colorado, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Eugenia eggersii

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Palo Colorado, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2 5, 6, 7, 

8, 9, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

338

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Eugenia 

haematocarpa Secondary, Tabonuco

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 5, 6, 11, 

16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3, 4 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

O1, 2 and 

MS1, 2, 3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G1, 2 

Gonocalyx 

portoricensis

Palo Colorado, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 8, 

9, 11, 12, 13 

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Ilex sintenissii Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 9, 13 

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3, 4 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

O1, 2 and 

MS1, 2, 3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G1, 2 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

339

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Laplacea 

portoricensis

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Sierra Palm, Palo 

Colorado 

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 10, 11, 

13, 14, 16 

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Lepanthes caritensis

Sierra Palm, Palo 

Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 8, 

9, 11, 12, 13, 

14 

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

S1, G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

340

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Lepanthes dodiana

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Sierra Palm, Palo 

Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 14, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

S1, G2

Lepanthes eltoroensis Palo Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 9, 

13, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

O1, 2 and 

MS1, 2, 3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

S1, G1, 2 

Lepanthes 

selenitepala spp. 

ackermanii

Tabonuco

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 6, 11 

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

S1, G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

341

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Lepanthes stimsonii

Palo Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia, 

Sierra Palm

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 8, 

9, 12, 13, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

S1, G2

Lepanthes veleziana

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Palo Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia, 

Sierra Palm

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 14, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

S1, G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

342

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Lepanthes 

woodburyana

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Palo Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia, 

Sierra Palm

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests 

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 14, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

S1, G2

Lindsaea stricta var. 

jamesoniiformis Palo Colorado 

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

343

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Magnolia splendens Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Palo Colorado

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 10, 14, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Marlierea sintenisii

Palo Colorado, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 8, 

9, 12, 13, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

344

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Maythenus elongata

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Palo Colorado, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

12, 14, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Miconia foveolata Palo Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 9, 

12, 13, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Miconia pycnoneura Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 9, 13

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

345

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Mikania pachyphylla

Palo Colorado, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 8, 

9, 11, 12, 13,

14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Morella holdrigeana

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Palo Colorado, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 14, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Pilea multicaulis Palo Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 9, 

12, 13, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

346

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Pilea yunquensis

Secondary, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia 

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 8, 

9, 11, 12, 13, 

14, 16 

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Pleodendron 

macranthum Secondary, Tabonuco

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 5, 6, 11, 

16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

O1, 2 and 

MS1, 2, 3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G1, 2 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

347

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Psidium sintenesii

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Palo Colorado, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 14, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Ravenia urbanii Secondary

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 5, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Solanum woodburyi Palo Colorado

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 7, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

348

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Styrax portoricensis Secondary, Tabonuco

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 5, 6, 11, 

16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

O1, 2 and 

MS1, 2, 3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G1, 2 

Symplocos lanata Sierra Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 8, 9, 12, 

13

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Ternstroemia 

heptasepala

Palo Colorado, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 8, 

9, 11, 12, 13, 

14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

349

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Ternstroemia 

luquillensis

Secondary, 

Tabonuco,Palo 

Colorado

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 10, 14, 16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

O1, 2 and 

MS1, 2, 3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G1, 2 

Ternstroemia stahlii Secondary, Tabonuco

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

Species abundance, 

stem density, basal 

area and species 

density of 

secondary forests

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 5, 6, 11, 

16

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS2, 

3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

350

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Ternstroemia 

subsessilis

Palo Colorado, Sierra 

Palm, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 7, 8, 9, 

11, 12, 13, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

O1, 2 and 

MS1, 2, 3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Urera chlorocarpa Palo Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 9, 

12, 13, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

Varronia wagnerorum Palo Colorado, 

Tabebuia/Eugenia

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 7, 9, 

12, 13, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

351

Coarse-filter Fine-filter 

Scientific Name Ecological Conditions

Key 

Characteristics 

and Indicators

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Desired 

Conditions

Objectives & 

Mgmt. 

Strategies 

Standards & 

Guidelines

Xylosma 

schwaneckeana

Secondary, Tabonuco, 

Palo Colorado 

Native species 

abundance, basal 

area, species 

density, and percent

closed canopy 

Components of 

distribution, 

structure and 

composition of 

forest types

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

DC1, 2, 5, 6, 

7, 10, 13, 14

3.1.2 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

O1 and MS3

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora

DC1, 2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

O1 and MS1, 

2 

3.1.11 At-risk 

Species: Flora 

G2

El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

353

Appendix C: Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and 

Study Process

Introduction 

This appendix addresses the suitability and eligibility of rivers located in El Yunque National Forest for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. An eligibility study of the Forest’s rivers was 

completed for the 1997 Forest Plan.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 (public law 90-542; 16 

U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in 

a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act protects the special character of these rivers, while also recognizing the potential for their appropriate 

use and development. 

Selected rivers in the United States are preserved for possessing outstandingly remarkable values, which 

include scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. 

Designated rivers, or rivers segments, are preserved in their free-flowing condition and are not dammed 

or otherwise impeded. 

The process of determining whether a river should be recommended for inclusion into the National Wild 

and Scenic River System has three steps: an eligibility determination with assigned potential 

classification, a suitability determination, and recommendation to Congress. Any river deemed eligible 

may be studied for its suitability for inclusion in the national system at any time. Rivers may be studied 

for suitability as a part of land management plan development, revision, or amendment; in conjunction 

with a project decision, or in a separate study. A suitability study is done after an eligibility study is 

completed. A suitability study provides the basis for determining which eligible rivers or river segments 

should be recommended to Congress as potential additions to the national system. Suitability studies are 

analyzed and completed in an environmental impact statement; they may or may not be completed with 

revision of a land management plan.

When the Forest Service determines a river is eligible for inclusion in the national system, they must 

ensure the river has interim protection measures (Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, chapter 80). 

These protection measures apply until a decision is made on the future use of the river and adjacent lands 

through an act of Congress, or until a determination is made that the river is not suitable.

Eligible wild and scenic rivers (or river segments) are assigned one or more potential classifications: wild, 

scenic, or recreational. These classifications are based on the developmental character of the river on the 

date of designation and dictate what level of interim protection measures to apply. Wild rivers are the 

most remote and undeveloped while recreational rivers often have many access points, roads, railroads, 

and bridges, and may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. A river’s classification 

is not necessarily related to the value that made it worthy of designation. That is, for a river to have a 

scenic classification, scenery does not have to be an outstandingly remarkable value.

When developing a plan or plan revision, the responsible official shall identify the eligibility of rivers for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, unless a systematic inventory has been 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

354

previously completed and documented, and there are no changed circumstances that warrant additional 

review ((36 CFR sec. 219.7(c)(2)(vi))). 

A systematic inventory of all potential study rivers was previously completed in the 1997 Forest Plan for 

the Caribbean National Forest/Luquillo Experimental Forest. Fifteen rivers/perennial streams, totaling 

over 52 miles, were studied (see FEIS for the 1997 Forest Plan, Appendix D, and Table D-1). The result 

of this analysis was that of the 15 rivers studied, 6 rivers were determined to be eligible for designation. 

These rivers were the Rio Espiritu Santo, Rio Mameyes, Rio de la Mina, Rio Fajardo, Rio Icacos, and Rio 

Sabana. This plan revision was limited to the evaluation of any rivers that were not previously evaluated 

for eligibility and those with changed circumstances. There are no changed circumstances and all 

potential rivers were evaluated; therefore, no additional review is warranted.

Utilizing the 1997 Plan EIS Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Summary, the Rio Mameyes, Rio de la 

Mina and Rio Icacos were selected as rivers to be recommended for designation as wild and scenic rivers. 

The Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2002 designated these rivers as part of the 

National Wild and Scenic River System. 

Table C- 1. Wild, scenic, and recreation rivers (designated December 2002)

River Classifications Length (miles)

Río Mameyes Wild 1.6

Scenic 1.4

Recreation 1.0

Río de la Mina Scenic 1.2

Recreation 0.9

Río Icacos Scenic 2.3

ID Team and Public Involvement 

During this plan revision process, community outreach planning meetings were held. During these 

meetings the participants were informed of the designated wild and scenic rivers and that currently the 

Forest has three such rivers. The wild and scenic river designation process was explained during these 

meetings and during these meetings no community or participant indicated that recreational or other 

outstandingly remarkable values had changed from the previous study in the 1997 Forest Plan. 

Inventoried Rivers 

Appendix D of the 1997 Forest Plan contains a description of rivers. The 2014 Forest Plan Assessment 

and subsequent public involvement indicated no changed condition in regards to previously studied 

rivers. Table C- 2 summarizes the analysis. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

355

Table C- 2. El Yunque National Forest rivers analyzed

Potential classification of Eligible Rivers 

The potential classification of a river is based 

on the condition of the river and the adjacent 

lands as they exist at the time of study. The 

Wild and Scenic River Act specifies the 

following three classifications categories for 

eligible rivers. 

Wild

Those rivers or sections of rivers 

that are free of impoundment and 

generally inaccessible except by 

trail, with watersheds or shorelines 

essentially primitive and waters 

unpolluted. These represent 

vestiges of primitive lands. 

Scenic

Those rivers or section of rivers 

that are free of impoundment, with 

shorelines or watersheds still 

largely primitive and shorelines 

largely undeveloped, but 

accessible in places by roads. 

Recreation

Those rivers or section of rivers 

that are readily accessible by road 

or railroad, that may have some 

development along their 

shorelines, and that may have 

undergone some important 

impoundment or diversion in the 

past. 

Rio Espiritu Santo From headwaters of Rio Espiritu 

Santo to water supply intake 

immediately upstream from FDR 12 

road crossing, 2.94. From 

headwaters of both Quebrada 

Sonadora tributaries to 100 yards of 

Route 186, 1.98 miles. 

From water supply intake on Rio 

Espiritu Santo near FDR12 to 100 

yards south of Route 186, 0.78 

miles. 

On Rio Espiritu Santo from 100 

yards south of Route 186, north to 

Forest boundary, 1.96. On 

Quebrada Sonadora, from 100 

yards south of Route 186, north to 

Rio Espiritu Santo, 0.28 miles. 

Rio Mameyes From its headwaters in the Baño de 

Oro Natural Area to the crossing 

points of Trail #24 and Trail #11, just 

upstream from the confluence with 

Rio La Mina, 2.1 miles. 

From the crossing point of Trail 

#24 and #11 to the access point 

of Trail #7, 1.4 miles. 

From the access point of Trail #7 

to the Forest boundary west of the 

bridge on PR 191, 1.0 miles. 

Rio La Mina The La Mina has no wild 

component.

From its confluence with the Rio 

Mameyes upstream to the La 

Mina Falls, 1.2 miles. 

From La Mina Falls to its 

headwaters located east of PR 

191 between Km. 12 and Km. 12 

in El Yunque Zone, 0.9 miles. 

Rio Fajardo The total length of the river corridor 

from its headwaters approximately 

0.5 mile north of West Peak to the 

Forest boundary approximately 1.5 

miles east of Pico del Este, 3.4 

miles. 

The Rio Fajardo has no scenic 

components.

The Rio Fajardo has no 

recreational component. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

356

Potential classification of Eligible Rivers 

The potential classification of a river is based 

on the condition of the river and the adjacent 

lands as they exist at the time of study. The 

Wild and Scenic River Act specifies the 

following three classifications categories for 

eligible rivers. 

Wild

Those rivers or sections of rivers 

that are free of impoundment and 

generally inaccessible except by 

trail, with watersheds or shorelines 

essentially primitive and waters 

unpolluted. These represent 

vestiges of primitive lands. 

Scenic

Those rivers or section of rivers 

that are free of impoundment, with 

shorelines or watersheds still 

largely primitive and shorelines 

largely undeveloped, but 

accessible in places by roads. 

Recreation

Those rivers or section of rivers 

that are readily accessible by road 

or railroad, that may have some 

development along their 

shorelines, and that may have 

undergone some important 

impoundment or diversion in the 

past. 

Rio Icacos The Rio Icacos has no wild 

component.

From its headwaters, 

approximately 0.5 mile south of 

the intersection of the Mt. Britton 

Road (#9938) with PR 191 to the 

point where the river leaves 

National Forest ownership 

(approximately 0.25 mile 

upstream of the PREPA 

hydroelectric dam), 2.3 miles. 

The Rio Icacos has no 

recreational component. 

Rio Sabana From its headwaters, approximately 

0.75 of a mile east of El Cacique 

Peak to 0.25 mile north of the PR 

191 crossing near the southern 

Forest boundary, 1.8 miles. 

The Rio Sabana has no scenic 

component 

From approximately 0.25 mile 

north of the PR 191 crossing to 

the southern Forest boundary, 0.3 

miles. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

357

Eligible Rivers 

Appendix D of the 1997 Forest Plan contains a description of eligible rivers and documentation of 

previous study process. The 2014 Forest Plan Assessment and subsequent public involvement indicated 

no changed condition in regard to previously studied rivers. The list of eligible rivers is:

Rio Espiritu Santo/Quebrada Sonadora 

Rio Fajardo

Rio Sabana 

Suitability 

Recommendations for wild and scenic river designation is part of the Forest Plan revision. The effects of 

designation are analyzed in chapter 3 of this document.

The identification of a river for study through the Forest planning process does not trigger any protection 

under the Act until designation by Congress. Importantly, identifying rivers as eligible, or eligible and 

suitable, does not create any new agency authority; rather, it focuses the management actions within the 

discretion of the Forest Service on protecting identified river values. For eligible rivers, the preliminary 

(inventoried) classification is to be maintained absent a suitability determination. The recommended 

classification is to be maintained throughout the duration of the Forest Plan. Protection of rivers and 

streams through the Forest planning process helps to assure high-quality, free-flowing rivers and streams, 

as well as river-related recreation opportunities. 

Management emphasis for the eligible rivers and their corridors is focused on protection and enhancement 

of the values for which they were established, without limiting other uses that do not substantially 

interfere with public use and enjoyment of those values. The establishment values (ORVs) for the rivers 

on El Yunque National Forest include scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural 

or other values including ecological. 

Most impacts to all rivers come from upland activities outside the river corridor. However, Forest

management would be subordinate to the river’s ORVs. Vegetation management, road construction and 

construction or removal of recreation facilities could cause erosion along the river, sedimentation from 

soil runoff, visual intrusions or noise from nearby activities 

Search and rescue operations may cause some impact from the use of equipment in the river corridor, but 

these are predicted to be minimal. Increased public interest and use may result with the creation of 

CIRMA by having additional trailheads and trails and access points to the river to accommodate 

additional public interest and use of the river. However, increased recreation use due to designation may 

also result in more river-related activities and cause localized increases in soil compaction and erosion of 

stream banks and the need for limited public access.

River sections classified as “scenic” or “recreational” are managed with a wider variety of activities 

allowed within the river corridor. However, Forest management would be subordinate to the river’s 

ORVs. Sights and sounds of man’s activities would be more apparent. Management activities that have 

the greatest potential of affecting rivers and their potential suitability for wild and scenic designation are 

road construction, vegetation management, insect and disease control, special use utility right-of-ways 

and mineral extraction. Other management activities that also can affect the river resources to a degree are 

threatened and endangered species habitat management, range management, recreation and administrative 

site facilities. Classification as “wild” would therefore be expected to have a smaller range of effects from 

activities within the river corridor, (e.g., no new roads, no new rights-of-way or wildlife openings). 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

358

Non-eligible Rivers. 

Rivers determined to be not eligible may be managed on El Yunque National Forest under a variety of 

management areas, geographic zones, and special designations. These prescriptions will allow a wide 

variety of activities within the river corridor. Management activities may include road construction, 

vegetation management, insect and disease control, special use utility right-of-ways and mineral 

extraction. Other management activities that also can affect the river resources to a lesser degree are 

threatened and endangered species habitat management, recreation and administrative site facility 

construction and wildlife and fisheries management. 

Effects Common to all Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, the three eligible wild and scenic rivers would retain their eligibility in accordance 

with Forest Service manual and handbook direction until they are evaluated for suitability and either 

designated or released. This means that they would be maintained in their free-flowing condition and their 

identified ORVs would be retained. 

Faced with the challenge of managing the recreation segments of these rivers the Forest would not have 

the management capacity and resources to pursue additional wild and scenic river designations. All of the 

streams and rivers that originate in the Forest maintain their free-flowing condition, water quality, and 

their “outstandingly remarkable values” so in essence they are managed as wild and scenic rivers. River 

conditions within the Forest were analyzed and determined to be in good state (see El Yunque Plan 

Assessment 2014). 

The analysis of wild and scenic river eligibility was conducted for the previous Forest Planning process 

(1997) and has been updated to ensure that this could be considered within the public comments. 

Although the Forest has not requested more designation of wild and scenic rivers. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

359

Map C- 1. Congressionally designated wild and scenic rivers on El Yunque National Forest

El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

361

Appendix D: Roadless Area and Wilderness

Introduction 

This appendix describes the process for identifying and evaluating lands that may be suitable for inclusion 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System and determining whether to recommend any such lands 

for wilderness designation. The process occurs in four primary steps: inventory, evaluation, analysis, and 

recommendation. 

Inventory 

Areas qualify for placement in inventory if they meet the statutory definition of wilderness. The Forest

used the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 Chapter 70 inventory criteria to determine if an area 

meets the statutory definition of wilderness. The 1997 Plan EIS Roadless Area Evaluation identified two 

areas as lands that may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, El Toro 

Roadless Area (12,600 acres) and the Mameyes Roadless Area (11,000 acres). In 2005, El Toro roadless 

area became El Toro Wilderness Area (10,352 acres). 

These two inventoried areas total 23,600 acres out of the total 28,223 acres on the Forest. None of the 

remaining acres meet the criteria for being included in an inventory of areas that may be suitable for 

wilderness designation. 

The Mameyes Inventoried Area

The Mameyes Inventoried Area, located in the eastern half of El Yunque National Forest, is named for the 

Mameyes River which runs through the west-central portion of the area. It is bounded in the north by the 

PR Highway 988, on the east and south by the Forest boundary, and on the west by PR Highway 191. It 

includes 11,000 acres of the National Forest. 

The area is accessible by vehicle from PR Highways 191 and 988. It may be entered from the west side 

by several foot trails and one service road, which branches from PR 191, and on the north side by several 

trails and two roads which are closed to vehicular use. No trials enter the area from the east or south, 

where the area is bounded by private land. 

The area lies at Latitude 18 North in an equable maritime climate. The weather is rainy for about 9 

months of the year, generally with showers of high intensity. 

The area lies on the eastern half of conical Sierra de Luquillo region, with major rivers flowing north, east 

and south. The slopes in the southern portion are steep to precipitous, and the northern portion includes 

much land with more moderate slopes. The range in elevation is from 100 meters above sea level where 

the Mameyes River leaves the Forest, to 1000 meters elevation at Pico del Este (Pico del Este). 

The soils are derived from volcanic sediments typically resulting in red clays. The southern portion of the 

area has sandy soils derived from granodiorite. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

362

Map D- 1. Designated areas, El Yunque National Forest
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

363
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

364

Map D- 2. El Toro and Mameyes inventoried area
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

365

Evaluation of the Mameyes Area

Degree to which the area appears to be affected primarily by the forces of nature, with 

the imprints of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.

The vegetation is dense, mix evergreen forest ranging from 3 meters in height on the peaks to 20 meters at 

lower elevations. Included are Lower Montane and Subtropical Rainforest and Lower Montane and 

Subtropical Wet Forest life zones, with 12 forest types and 3 riparian zones. In total there are over 200 

tree species native to the area. Although most of the area can be considered mature forest, much of the 

land is secondary forest lands. On these lands timber has been extracted and some lands were clear for 

agricultural purposes chiefly in the 1800s and the first four decades of the 20th Century. These lands 

again are forest with some being monocultures of native or invasive tree species. Understory vegetation 

structure ranges from very dense to fairly open. There are approximately 1,660 acres of mahogany 

plantations, primarily in the Bisley and Chiquito areas. 

Several species of bats are common to the area, but there are no native terrestrial mammals. Feral 

mongooses, rats, mice and cats are present. The most evident native wildlife are numerous lizard and tree 

frog species. Species of birds are present, most are year-round residents. Snails, crabs, fresh water shrimp 

and fish are found in the streams and rivers. Numerous species are endemic to the island. 

The peaks in the area offer views of the most extensive uplands in the Forest to the west, the distant 

coastal lowlands, and the Atlantic Ocean and the Vieques Passage. Seen from above, the Forest is a 

mosaic of emerald tree colors and tree crown shapes. The major rivers of the area pass over spectacular 

falls and through canyons. 

Old home sites and areas still recovering from farming, lumber, and charcoal logging are evident. Within

the depths of the Forest evidence of past modification might escape the untrained eye, but in parts of the 

area along the western and northern borders the noise of traffic along PR 191 and 988 as over a million 

visitors drive within the Forest recreation areas. Because of the dense vegetation and steep terrain, it is 

relatively easy to leave behind the sights, and most of the sounds, of civilization after penetrating only a 

few hundred meters in the area. 

Pico del Este, in the center of the area, and nearby El Yunque Peak have communication towers, which 

are visible from some of the area, and paved road to this peak (Forest Development Road 27) although 

excluded from the area almost bisects the area. The vistas towards the Forest to west include several tall 

tower in the vicinity of El Yunque. 

Some of the lands of the Mameyes Area have been managed as part of the then Luquillo Forest Reserve 

since 1903. Even before that, since 1876 the central portion of this area had been proclaimed a Forest

reserve by Spain. To these “Crown lands” many more acres were added to the Forest through acquisition 

staring in 1931. In 1949 the Secretary of Agriculture designated 2,172 acres within the area as the Baño 

de Oro Research Natural Area. This portion of the area has since been managed in its natural condition 

with only non-manipulative research allowed. Prior to acquisition by the Forest Service, some of the

northern half was exploited for timber and agriculture. 

Degree to which the area has outstanding opportunities for solitude or for a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. 

Much of the area is mature forest, especially the central core, and the natural integrity of these areas is 

very high. Most of the area offers a high degree of solitude to the visitor, because of the denseness of 

forest vegetation. Portions that border PR 191 on the west side are subject to considerable vehicular noise, 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

366

especially from truck and buses in the vicinity of the visitor’s information centers. Solitude is highest in 

the south, east, and central parts of the area. 

There currently is a very low level of human activity in the area consisting primarily of research activities 

and trails hiking.

Excellent opportunities are available to test one’s ability and stamina in traversing steep, slippery, forested 

terrain. Forest travel off the trail is extremely difficult. Disorientation caused by dense vegetation is very 

common when traveling off the trails. The most remote and challenging areas are in the south, east, and 

central portions. 

There are about 7 miles of trails, all in the northern half. There are very good opportunities for hiking, 

nature study, and photography in a wilderness environment. Opportunities also exist for swimming in the 

Mameyes, Fajardo, and Icacos Rivers. Although good access is limited fishing for fresh water shrimp is 

locally common. Because of the steep terrain and abundant rainfall, good camping opportunities are 

limited to a few areas during the dry season. 

The size of the area is adequate to maintain many of the area’s wilderness characteristics, but the shape 

and some external influences do limit wilderness quality. Pico del Este road, a special-use paved road, 

penetrates 3 miles in the area where it is only 4 miles wide. In general, the area averages only 3 miles 

wide, making it susceptible to some external influences, particularly traffic noise on the west and north 

sides. 

Degree to which the area may contain ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic or historic value.

The Forest of the most remote uplands and the area are mature, some of the best examples of mature 

forests in Puerto Rico. The northern one-third and the southern one-quarter of the area consist of cutover 

forest and land, which was formerly farmed. Much of the lands has been reforested artificially with 

mahogany, an introduced species. About 3 miles of stone-surfaced roads penetrate the area from the north. 

Several water catchments and water pipelines used by municipality and private users occur in the area. 

They are generally near the boundary, but some penetrate well into the Forest. 

The area provides very good formal and informal outdoors education and scientific study opportunities. 

The core 2,200 acres of the area has been designated as the Baño de Oro Research Natural Area since 

1949. In the Central portion of the area, stands of very large, old Palo Colorado trees and large mature 

Tabonuco trees are common in the research natural area. 

Known resources include petroglyphs, mostly on rocks along rivers, and some man-made structures. 

Opportunities to better discover, protect and interpret cultural resources in the roadless area may be 

limited due to access restriction under wilderness designation. Actual investigations might be lower under 

wilderness designation as other areas receive higher priorities for cultural surveys due to other resource 

management activities. 

Degree to which the area may be managed to preserve its wilderness characteristics.

The Mameyes Area boundary is not defined by natural features. It is defined by a series of manmade 

features, such as already established landlines and paved roads. There are few threats to the wilderness 

values of the area on the south and east sides, primarily due to the lack of public access to the Forest 

boundary. Non-wilderness types of activities will continue on adjacent private lands in those areas, but 

they primarily are small farm, pasture, and private residences with relatively little current effect on 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

367

wilderness characteristics. Nevertheless, such development is expected to increase, and with it impacts on 

the natural character of the area. 

The north side of the area also has such influences, but there is public and administrative access as well. 

There is some non-wilderness activity and influence from vehicles. This access would facilitate 

administration of potential wilderness. Influences on the west side are primarily from recreational use 

along PR 191, and in the recreational areas. Activities along this boundary, which effect wilderness 

values, are noise from vehicles and from visitors using picnic areas and other developed recreation sites. 

Within the area there are numerous ridges and streams, which can serve as manageable boundaries 

between lands of similar elevation. However, there are few good manageable boundaries between the 

upper elevation and the lower elevations. Best opportunities to enhance wilderness characteristics exist in 

the south and north portions, where ridges occur in appropriate locations. 

The size of the area is adequate to maintain many of the area’s wilderness characteristics, but the shape 

and some external influences do limit wilderness quality. Pico del Este road, a special-use paved road, 

penetrates three miles in the area where it is only four miles wide. In general the area averages only 3 

miles wide, making it susceptible to some external influences, particularly traffic noise on the west and 

north sides. 

Public Input

During the plan revision, community outreach planning meetings were held. During these meetings the 

participants were informed of the Wilderness Act and that currently the Forest has one federally 

designated wilderness area, El Toro Wilderness Area. The wilderness designation process was explained 

during these meetings and at no time was there any interest from the communities or participants in 

requesting that the Forest pursue designating additional wilderness areas. The public is more interested in 

having access to more Forest lands to address recreation, environmental education and agroforestry needs.

The demand for wilderness was addressed with the Caribbean National Forest Act of 2005 that designated 

El Toro Wilderness Area, the only tropical wilderness in the National Forest System. The need to have 

additional areas designated as wilderness is currently not a priority because of the lack of public interest 

that has been expressed in pursuing additional wilderness designations.

Analysis

Designation would preclude certain types of wildlife habitat improvement activities that could be 

designated to increase the number and type of wildlife that use the area including endangered species. 

Habitats along most of the lowers slopes of the area have been very significantly modified and active 

programs of tree planting and tree cutting to favor more desirable native tree species for wildlife use have 

been conducted in the past and continue to be useful in meeting wildlife habitat objectives. Opportunities 

to establish native plants favorable for wildlife and to accelerate secondary plant succession are desirable 

to increase habitat productivity and support wildlife populations. 

On the upper slopes, which include areas where the Puerto Rican parrot nest, artificial nest structures are 

provided for parrot use. Constructed blinds for monitoring parrot activities are also used. These types of 

activities could continue under wilderness designation, but other types of habitat alteration, such as 

favoring some tree or vine species over other by selective tree thinning or cutting, would not be 

compatible with designation. However, at this time it is not foreseen that such habitat alterations will be 

needed to recover the parrot. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

368

About one-third of the land within the area was acquired by the Forest Service under the Weeks Law, for 

producing timber and for watershed protection. Management of these acquired lands during the 

subsequent 50 years had been directed toward timber production. About 1,600 acres of lands in this area 

have been managed for timber production and other uses. The timber volume of this area has been 

inventoried in 1937, 1948, and 1968. Below 2,000 feet elevation, mature trees had been harvested 

selectively in the past on thousands of acres; immature stands were liberated and thinned repeatedly. 

Lands that had been deforested prior to purchase were planted with timber tree species, some pure and 

others intermixed with native tree species. 

A prototype rural industry, using artisans and craftsmen to manufacture saleable articles from timber 

species, is being considered. Wilderness designation of these lands, which are highly capable of providing 

wood products on a sustained level, would preclude these acres from being used to help contribute to the 

high demand for these local wood products. 

The National Forest was formally designated the Luquillo Experimental Forest because the complex 

nature of the Forest required an integrated research program. Scientists have located “representative 

areas” within the Forest to conduct studies. Two general approaches have been planned and followed to 

date in order to provide Forest managers with important, necessary information: basic studies to 

determine how ecosystems function, and applied studies of silvicultural treatments to enhance ecosystem 

stability, sustainable production of timber, wildlife habitat, water and other Forest resource. Several basic 

study sites are located in the Mameyes inventoried area. An example is the Baño de Oro Research Natural 

Area, where research monitoring has been in progress since 1946. 

In several areas both basic and applied studies have been done, are continuing, or could be done. One is 

the 540-acre watershed of the upper Rio Sabana and Rio Camandulas, the only entire watershed in the 

mature Tabonuco forest. In the Mameyes Valley are three small watersheds (45 acres) already under 

calibration for studies of the impact of timber harvesting on soil and water resources. North of Pico del 

Este is a 200 comparative studies of this type of forest are possible, since the rest is within the research 

natural area, not available for manipulation. The 820-acre east side of the Rio Icacos Valley is the only 

lower montane wet forest available for comparative research. 

The possibility of conducting selective vegetation treatments in some of these areas would be precluded 

by wilderness designation, and access for researchers to areas like Baño de Oro Research Natural Area to

conduct non-manipulative research activities would be significantly hindered because the Bisley Road 

could not be used or possibly extended for vehicular access. 

Although wilderness designation would make this area unavailable for many of the above uses, nondesignation would not automatically result in significantly reduction or degradation of the wilderness 

attributes of the area. Under a non-wilderness designation, it is expected that several activities would 

occur on some acres including water and recreation developments, and timber management demonstration 

treatments and manipulative research treatments, both in secondary forest. Such treatments would require 

the use of some motorized equipment on well establish secondary roads within the inventoried area. 

Under direction currently being considered the maximum number of acres that could be treated during the 

next 10 years is less than 200 acres over the entire Forest, with the best areas located within the 

inventoried area. Such uses would interrupt some naturally occurring processes (such as secondary 

succession), and temporarily reduce the level of solitude and challenge in areas where such activities took 

place. 

Several water catchment and transmission lines provide water and power to private landowners adjacent 

to the Forest. Water from two-thirds of the area currently enters municipal supply systems, including 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

369

Luquillo, Fajardo, Humacao, Vieques and during emergencies, San Juan. A major transmission pipeline 

takes water from Rio Cristal to supply the entire town of Luquillo. A public hydroelectric plant operates 

with the waters of Rios Prieto and Icacos, which drain the southern slopes of the area. Although these uses 

and improvement are not incompatible with current wilderness management direction, more facilities for 

water diversion can be expected to be needed and proposed in the future. 

The entire Forest also is a Biosphere Reserve, an internationally designated protected area managed to 

demonstrate the value of conservation. Management of lands within Biosphere Reserves can range from 

intense human use, including exploitation and site modification, to complete protection from non-natural 

modifications a management strategy identical to that of wilderness. 

Opportunities exist to developed recreation facilities on some sites, which would help meet current and 

project demand. These include developing water, sanitary facilities, and picnic and/or campsites along Rio 

Chiquito and Rio Mameyes. The Forest currently is the second most visited tourist site in Puerto Rico, 

and half of the demand for recreation use is for developed recreation. Current demand is not being met 

with existing facilities. 

It also needs to be considered that only about 1 percent of the land surface of the Island is unmodified, 

and no unmodified tracts larger than those in the Forest exist elsewhere. Moreover, other than the 

companion El Toro Wilderness Area, there are no other declared or prospective wilderness areas readily 

available to the millions of citizens in Puerto Rico. Although, El Toro Wilderness Area is over one-third of 

El Yunque National Forest’s acreage. 

El Toro Wilderness within El Yunque is the only tropical forest wilderness within the National Forest 

System and the only within the U.S. Wildlife species such as the broad-winged hawk and the Puerto 

Rican parrot also depend to a certain extent on the undisturbed habitat. 

The present demand for wilderness visitation is low considering the large number of people that visit the 

Forest. Lack of prior exposure to the interested users and the absence of an existing established concept of 

wilderness values in the general population are likely the main reasons for this lack of interest. When 

communicating with the public to explain this concept; acceptance of wilderness was vast; but no further 

desired designation was requested or desired.

The 11,000 acre Mameyes Area from the inventory compared to the 6,441-acre 

Inventoried Roadless Area

The Mameyes Inventory Area contains 11,000 acres. The area includes the Baño de Oro Research Natural 

Area (6,441 acres) as well as lands surrounding the research natural area (11,000 acres ˗ 6,441 acres = 

4,559 acres). The inventoried roadless area is the same as the research natural area and this is the area that 

is proposed for wilderness in alternative 3. The remaining 4,559 acres in the Mameyes Area were not 

recommended for wilderness in alternative 3 because they include another area set aside for research, but 

where the research activities would not be compatible with wilderness designation. For the other 

remaining acres, it was determined that these lands could provide better opportunities for meeting local 

community needs by placing them in the Community Interface Resource Management Area.
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

370

Table D- 1. Summary of proposed wilderness by alternative1

Existing Area

Alternative 1 

1997 Plan

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

El Toro Wilderness (acres) 10,363 10,3521 10,352

Inventoried Roadless Area (acres) 6,441 6,441 - 

Proposed Additional Wilderness 

(Baño de Oro) (acres)

0 0 6,441

1 New acreage based on GIS Delineation process. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

371

Appendix E: Puerto Rico Land Use Plans and Policy

The Forest reviewed various Planning and Land Use Policies for the eastern part of Puerto Rico. The 

forest also established comunication with the Puerto Rico Planning Board (PRPB) to ensure compatability 

and to work collaboratively on land use which could assist conservation efforts on the Island. This 

information was first documented within the Forest Plan Assessment in order to have a comprehensive 

understanding of the region’s current condition in terms of land use. The forest detailed the history of land 

use, current land use policies and the current land use plans. All that served as the base line for the 

planning process when considering land use within forest boundaries and at a broad-landscape level. The 

forest also considered land uses at the local level when developing proposed actions such as: 

Provide updated guidance for managing the Forest within the context of the larger landscape and for 

addressing local land use changes and the associated impacts on the Forest. For example, developing 

management strategies for partnership opportunities, collaborative efforts, and coalitions of support to 

promote sustainability and to solve existing and future challenges at the landscape level. 

Collaborate with the Municipalities' Territorial Plan and Puerto Rico Land Use Plans by fostering an 

All Lands Regional perspective. 

Create a land acquisition plan that promotes conservation initiatives for protection of surrounding 

hills, stream corridors, riparian zones, Wild and Scenic River corridors, and connections to the 

Northeast Reserve. 

The compatibilities between land use plans and conservation, water use, recreation, and other uses were 

considered when developing the forest plan. Finally, the forest used information from municipal land use 

plans and commonwealth land use plans to express the current condition of the lands in the region when 

developing effects analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement. Both the Revised Forest Plan and the 

Environmental Impact Statement considered the local land use policies and land use plans to ensure 

compatibility. 

The Forest used the following Land Use Plans and Commonwealth Land Use Policies: 

Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, Comprehensive Wildlife 

Resources Assessment

Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, Forest Resources State-wide 

Assessment 

Puerto Rico Planning Board Land Use Plan 

Municipality Territorial Order Plans 

Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources Water Plan 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

372

The land use plans for municipalities that were considered include: 

Municipality Applicable Land Use Plans

Applicable Land Use 

and Zoning Regulations

Canóvanas Municipal Land Use Plan (2000)

PRPB Region 9 Land Use Plan (draft 2012)

Municipal Land Use 

Regulation (2000)

PRPB Joint Regulation 

(2010)

Río Grande Municipal Land Use Plan (2012)

PRPB Region 11 Land Use Plan (draft 2012) 

PRPB Joint Regulation 

(2010)

Luquillo No municipal land use plan

Zoning established through El Yunque Special Zoning Regulation 

(1983/1996)

Special Plan for the Gran Reserva Natural Special Planning Area 

(2011)

PRPB Region 11 Land Use Plan (draft 2012) 

PRPB Joint Regulation 

(2010)

Special Regulation for the 

Gran Reserva Natural 

Special Planning Area 

(2011)

Fajardo Municipal Land Use Plan (2010)

PRPB Region 11 Land Use Plan (draft 2012) 

PRPB Joint Regulation 

(2010)

Ceiba No Municipal Land Use Plan

Zoning established through El Yunque Special Zoning Regulation 

(1983/1996)

Master Plan for the Former Roosevelt Roads Naval Base (2011)

PRPB Region 11 Land Use Plan (draft 2012) 

PRPB Joint Regulation 

(2010)

Naguabo No municipal land use plan

Zoning established through El Yunque Special Zoning Regulation 

(1983/1996)

PRPB Region 11 Land Use Plan (draft 2012) 

PRPB Joint Regulation 

(2010)

Las Piedras No municipal land use plan

Zoning established through El Yunque Special Zoning Regulation 

(1983/1996)

PRPB Region 10 Land Use Plan (draft 2012) 

PRPB Joint Regulation 

(2010)

Juncos Municipal Land Use Plan (2007)

PRPB Region 10 Land Use Plan (draft 2012) 

PRPB Joint Regulation 

(2010)

Municipal Land Use Laws and Regulations 

It was necessary to consider that in Puerto Rico, decentralization through regionalization and shifting of 

powers to municipalities is “recommended to respond faster and more efficiently to the challenges of 

sustainability as it is being done in other parts of the world and suggested by the United Nations” (CSDS 

2009). Regionalization, by virtue of public policy, should emphasize cooperation and shared 

responsibilities for those social, economic and environmental activities that are more regional in scope 

and impact (CSDS 2009). 

The Autonomous Municipalities Act (Law 81 of 1991, as amended) provided for a gradual 

decentralization process in land use planning in Puerto Rico, allowing municipalities to determine land 

uses within their jurisdictions, subject to a series of procedural and substantive conditions. This law 

enabled municipalities to prepare municipal land use plans (Plan de Ordenación Territorial), to be adopted 

by the PRPB and approved by the governor, and to assume the task of regulating land use within their 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

373

boundaries. Nevertheless, without a comprehensive Island-wide land use plan or framework, municipal 

governments have lacked crucial information necessary to navigate the land use planning process, which 

would have provided direction and coherence to all municipal land use plans. If approved, the regional 

land use plans should provide this guidance and direction. Within El Yunque Region, four municipalities 

had approved municipal land use plans as of October 2012 (i.e., Canovanas, Fajardo, Juncos, and Rio 

Grande). At that time, Luquillo, Naguabo and Las Piedras were in the final stages of development, while 

Ceiba was in the early stages of development of its municipal land use plan. All land use planning and 

zoning regulations that apply in El Yunque Region are summarized in the Forest Plan Assessment (2014). 

Land Use and Land Ownership in El Yunque Region 

El Yunque National Forest land ownership has remained stable in recent years, though priority acquisition 

areas remain largely unprotected on private lands. Total El Yunque National Forest acreage has held at 

approximately 29,000 acres for many years, consisting of one large block of forest and several small 

isolated parcels. Several parcels of land were identified in the 1997 Land Management Plan as priority 

acquisition areas for the consolidation of the Forest, protection of wildlife, expansion of recreational 

opportunities, among other purposes. However, very few of these have been obtained through the 

National Forest or its partners, nor have they been submitted to formal conservation programs by private 

landowners, essentially leaving them open to possible degradation or conversion. 

El Yunque National Forest has several designated land uses, which contribute to forest conservation and 

socio-ecological sustainability. Special designated land uses within El Yunque National Forest include the 

federally-designated experimental forest, a research natural area, wild and scenic river segments, and a 

wilderness area. The Forest, in its entirety, also is internationally recognized as a UNESCO Biosphere 

Reserve. Finally, the Forest is recognized by the government of Puerto Rico as a priority conservation area, 

having a scenic byway and a critical wildlife area.

El Yunque National Forest encompasses over 30 miles of roads and 36 miles of trails, but given its 

popularity, there is frequent congestion and overcrowding of the Forest during high use times. More than 

30 miles of roads transect the Forest, though vehicular access is limited to a single point of entry at the 

intersection of PR 191 and PR 9966. Within the boundaries of El Yunque National Forest, there are 24 

miles of recreational trails and 12 miles of administrative trails, which are restricted to foot traffic only. 

Given the heavy concentration of recreation opportunities along PR 191, there is a tendency toward 

overcrowding of recreation sites and parking areas.

El Yunque National Forest region spans nine municipalities in eastern Puerto Rico, stretching over 29,000 

acres, encompassing about 15 percent of their total area. The nine municipalities that comprise El Yunque 

Region total more than 220,000 acres (347 square miles), which is about 10 percent of the Island’s total 

area.

Forested areas represent the largest portion of land cover in the region surrounding El Yunque National 

Forest, and forested cover has increased over the past several decades. Nonetheless, urban cover is 

increasing at a much more rapid pace, resulting in landscape fragmentation and negative impacts on the 

Forest and other natural areas in the Region. Forested areas account for 43 percent of El Yunque Region; 

followed by pasture (including agricultural lands), 36 percent; and urban areas (10 percent). Inconsistent 

land use planning and enforcement have resulted in haphazard urban expansion in the region, as across 

the Island, oftentimes in areas not suitable for urban development. Urban and built-up areas lead to 

landscape fragmentation or removal of forested lands, which in turn affect ecosystem structure and 

function and the services provided by forests within and around El Yunque National Forest. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

374

Land dedicated to farms in the region surrounding El Yunque National Forest is decreasing, while also 

being increasingly “parcelized” and fragmented. Farmland is important for the production of food and the 

preservation of open space, scenic vistas, and wildlife habitat, but these areas are increasingly susceptible 

to urban development and other macro- and socio- economic forces. Between 2002 and 2007, the land 

area covered by farms decreased in El Yunque Region; however, the number of farms itself increased 

(from 628 to 834 farms). While some of the fluctuation in farm numbers likely comes from small 

operations that enter and exit agricultural activity in response to fluctuations in the marketplace, much of 

the change in the number and area of farms is an indication of the “parcelization,” conversion, and 

ultimate fragmentation of larger agricultural landholdings within El Yunque Region. 

Puerto Rico Land Use and El Yunque’s Planning Process 

When analyzing the current condition of the use of the surrounding lands, the forest developed a Revised 

Plan and its Environmental Impact Statement that is compatible and considers the broader-landscape 

perspective in its management decisions. 

Desired conditions, objectives, goals, standards and management strategies in the revised plan promote an 

“all-lands approach,” which encourages working with local governments to achieve common goals and 

maximizes resources. The revised plan recognizes the importance of its surrounding communities and 

stakeholders as well as the opportunities to improve the quality of life for people living within the area 

adjacent to the national forest. Quality of life is affected by adequate access, sustainable economic 

opportunities, sustainable recreation, and ecological sustainable practices. Some coordination needs 

identified in the Revised Forest Plan include the following statements:

Create a collaborative process with local partners from the surrounding municipalities to develop 

conservation projects that extend beyond the forest. (FEIS, Chapter 2, “Comparisons among 

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3” section). 

Work with private land owners to consider conservation iniatives that could both benefit them and 

increase forest resource protection through programs such as conservation easements and other land 

conservation and restoration programs. (Revised Plan, Chapter 3, Social and Economic Sustainability 

and Multiple Use).

This decision, through the revised land management plan, creates opportunities for interconnected 

trail systems through partnerships with local, State and Federal agencies and nonprofit organizations 

(Revised Plan, Chapter 3 Social and Economic Sustainability and Multiple Use). 

Acquisition of lands to ensure the protection and connection of riparian zones with forest river 

corridors and the acquisition of abandoned agricultural lands, are identified as a priority. Such 

acquisition will only occur when there are willing sellers (Revised Plan, Chapter 3 Social and 

Economic Sustainability and Multiple Use). 

Provide assistance or education to agricultural landowners in the region surrounding El Yunque to 

help them understand that agricultural lands also represent an opportunity for conservation, for 

providing habitat for wildlife, and providing employment through recreation. (Revised Plan, Chapter 

3 Social and Economic Sustainability and Multiple Use).

The forest concluded that the approach for an all-lands perspective should be collaborative in terms of 

coordinating with State and municipal land use plans. This effort will improve the possibilities for the 

sustainable management of forest lands throughout the region. 
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

375

Index

C

CIRMA, ix, 3, 5, 6, 7, 14, 18, 22, 25, 29, 32, 33, 43, 57, 66, 

67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 98, 100, 108, 109, 118, 123, 

124, 126, 128, 129, 135, 138, 140, 143, 144, 146, 147, 

163, 165, 167, 170, 171, 172, 173, 177, 179, 180, 181, 

182, 193, 194, 201, 206, 211, 215, 220, 263, 266, 269, 

270, 274, 357, 369

climate change, ii, iii, 12, 16, 20, 47, 50, 63, 117, 133, 136, 

214, 223, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 241, 244, 249, 258, 

259 

extreme weather, ii, 16, 47, 48, 49, 50, 63, 117, 186, 

204, 214, 259

community collaboration, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 

22, 32, 35, 42, 47, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100, 

101, 103, 112, 117, 124, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 

135, 138, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 148, 162, 163, 165, 

166, 168, 169, 173, 181, 182, 191, 192, 193, 194, 209, 

210, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 219, 220, 255, 256, 257, 

260, 265, 266, 267, 269, 270, 272, 313, 314, 371, 374

cultural resources, ii, 174, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 193, 

205, 214, 258

E

ecological themes, 20

ecology

sustainability, i, iii, iv, v, vi, ix, 5, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 64, 

74, 76, 92, 104, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 

122, 170, 259, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 324, 

325, 373

ecosystems

aquatic ecosystems, ii, iii, 17, 49, 55, 59, 61, 63, 102, 

103, 147, 245, 258, 263

integrity, 92, 326

terrestrial ecosystems, 48, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 

131, 142, 143, 315

environmental education, 1, 3, 5, 14, 21, 22, 57, 125, 127, 

128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 138, 140, 142, 164, 165, 

167, 191, 218, 219, 220, 257, 266, 367

F

flora, 142, 367

flora – federally listed

Chupacallos, 121, 127, 321, 324

Guayabota pequeña, 125, 320

Lepanthes eltoroensi, 121, 126, 322, 340

Ternstroemia subsessilis, 121, 131, 320, 322, 323, 350

Uvillo, 121, 124, 320, 324

flora – species of conservation concern

ferns and herbs, 141

orchids, 132, 133

shrubs, 137

trees, 139, 321, 322, 324

vines, 136

forest

secondary, 84, 95, 98, 100

forest health, 144

Forest products

non-timber, 172

timber, 34, 169, 171, 172, 243

forestry, 17, 22, 109, 144, 167, 172, 174, 204, 220, 367

G

geographic areas

El Este, 3, 11, 22, 27, 46, 55, 57, 60, 70, 126, 143, 148, 

149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 

165, 166, 195, 218, 225, 242, 256, 265, 300, 318, 

366, 369, 372, 373

El Norte, i, 1, 3, 4, 11, 14, 19, 22, 27, 31, 46, 47, 61, 63,

77, 80, 84, 86, 89, 104, 109, 111, 115, 119, 122, 124, 

132, 133, 137, 139, 148, 149, 150, 152, 154, 155, 

157, 158, 160, 165, 166, 171, 174, 194, 225, 232, 

234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 243, 244, 245, 

246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 257, 

265, 266, 269, 301, 319, 354, 361, 365, 368, 369, 

372, 373

El Suroeste, 11, 22, 27, 46, 66, 74, 104, 122, 148, 149, 

150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 165, 

166, 195, 218, 225, 227, 256, 273, 276, 318, 369, 

372, 373

I

Infrastructure, 213, 214, 215, 216

insects and disease, 144

invasive species, 4, 7, 16, 18, 21, 27, 32, 49, 92, 94, 95, 98, 

101, 103, 123, 125, 128, 129, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 

140, 142, 143, 147, 151, 163, 166, 198, 257, 259, 260, 

262 

inventoried roadless areas, ii, 196, 198, 199
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │Final Environmental Impact Statement

376

L

land use and ownership, ii, 166, 167

Luquillo Mountains, 11, 47, 61, 63, 77, 80, 84, 86, 89, 111, 

132, 133, 137, 139, 171, 174, 235, 236, 238, 239, 244, 

245, 246, 248, 251, 252, 253

M

management areas

MA 1 administrative sites, 25, 29, 33, 209

MA 2 El Yunque Recreation Zone, 25, 29, 194, 209, 210, 

268 

MA 3 Communication and Recreation Sites, 25, 29, 209

MA 4 Community Interface Resource Management 

Area, ix, 3, 5, 7, 22, 25, 29, 33, 43, 100, 118, 143, 

163, 165, 167, 170, 206, 209, 211, 215, 220, 369

MA 5 El Toro Wilderness, 12, 22, 25, 29, 33, 34, 96, 99, 

109, 112, 118, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 180, 

182, 185, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 209, 211, 

253, 269, 271, 272, 361, 367, 369, 370

MA 6 Research Bisley and El Verde Station, 25, 29, 209

MA 7 Baño de Oro Expanded Research Natural Area, 25, 

29, 209

MA 8 Wild Scenic Recreation River Corridors, 25, 29, 

209 

MA 9 El Verde-Scenic Byway Management Area, 3, 4, 

25, 27, 58, 63, 209, 211

Mature Tabebuia/Eugenia (Elfin) Woodland Associates, 

119 

Montane Rain Cloud Forest, 79, 80, 90, 267

Montane Wet Cloud Forest, 79, 80

P

Palo Colorado, v, vi, 49, 79, 80, 90, 110, 111, 113, 116, 120, 

121, 126, 128, 130, 131, 184, 186, 187, 212, 319, 320, 

321, 322, 324, 325, 327, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 334, 

335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 

347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 366

Palo Colorado and Tabonuco Associates, 116, 120

priority watersheds, 3, 33, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64

Puerto Rican boa, 21, 113, 114, 245, 248, 321, 323

Puerto Rican broad-winged and sharp-shinned hawks, v, 

21, 109, 110, 111, 240, 241, 244, 245, 246, 247, 320, 

321, 323

Puerto Rican parrot, i, vi, 4, 21, 31, 50, 106, 107, 108, 109, 

110, 203, 205, 233, 244, 245, 247, 321, 367, 369

R

rain forest

lower montane, 89

montane, 89

Tabonuco montane, 79, 82, 89, 90

recreation

capacity, 185

cultural resources, 193

environmental education, 191, 193

facilities and transportation, 193, 195

geographic areas, 194, 196

infrastructure, 184

law enforcement, 191

management areas, 191, 194, 195

PR Road 191, 188

special uses, 193

visitor use and recreation settings, 182

wetlands, 193

wild and scenic rivers, 191

Rio de la Mina, 12, 187, 192, 194, 200, 354

Rio Espiritu Santo, vi, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 67, 74, 354, 

355, 357

Rio Fajardo, 52, 60, 70, 75, 200, 354, 355, 357

Rio Icacos, 12, 200, 354, 356, 368

Rio Mameyes, v, 12, 52, 56, 59, 61, 68, 74, 118, 119, 184, 

192, 194, 200, 354, 355, 369

Rio Mameyes associates, 118

Rio Sabana, 52, 69, 75, 200, 273, 354, 356, 357, 368

S

scenery

developed recreation, 209, 210

geographic areas, 211

management areas, 209, 210, 211

riparian zones, 210

wild and scenic rivers, 209, 210

wilderness, 209, 210

socioeconomics

age and gender, 152

education, 21, 154, 161, 177, 179, 223, 224, 227, 258, 

266 

forest budgets, 162

income and poverty, 154, 156, 218, 245

payments to local governments, 163

population, 149, 150, 151, 162

sustainability, i, iii, 5, 9, 20, 35, 103, 129, 170, 217, 218, 

257, 259, 264, 374
El Yunque Forest Plan Revision │ Final Environmental Impact Statement

377

special uses

Baño de Oro as wilderness, 207

cultural resources, 205

developed recreation, 203

ecosystem services, 205

facilities and transportation, 203, 205

forest products, 205

geographic areas, 207

management areas, 204, 206, 207

minerals, 203, 205

permits, 203, 205

recreation, 203, 205

research, 204, 206

socioeconomics, 205

vegetation, 203

water, 203, 204

wild and scenic rivers, 204

wildlife, 204

sustainability

ecological, i, iii, iv, v, vi, ix, 5, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 64, 74, 

76, 92, 104, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 

170, 259, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 324, 325, 373

social and economic, i, iii, 5, 9, 20, 35, 103, 129, 170, 

217, 218, 257, 259, 264, 374

V

vegetation types, 82, 84, 86, 90, 104, 122, 130, 170, 242, 

261 

W

water quality, 16, 20, 55, 56, 61, 62, 63, 68, 94, 96, 98, 

101, 118, 167, 194, 195, 198, 200, 202, 222, 249, 254, 

319, 358

watershed health, 63, 64, 168, 263

wetlands, iv, 20, 41, 80, 93, 96, 99, 222

montane, 80, 93, 96, 99

wild and scenic rivers, i, 4, 15, 31, 201, 358 

designated

Rio de la Mina, 12, 187, 192, 194, 200, 354

Rio Icacos, 12, 200, 354, 356, 368

Rio Mameyes, v, 12, 52, 56, 59, 61, 68, 74, 118, 119, 

184, 192, 194, 200, 354, 355, 369

eligible rivers

Rio Espiritu Santo, vi, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 67, 

74, 354, 355, 357

Rio Fajardo, 52, 60, 70, 75, 200, 354, 355, 357

eligiblerivers

Rio Sabana, 52, 69, 75, 200, 273, 354, 356, 357, 368

ineligible rivers, 200, 201, 358

wilderness, 195, 197, 198, 199

wildlife, v, 21, 79, 115, 118, 119, 144, 239, 243, 248, 262, 

319 

at risk, 5, 12, 18, 21, 103, 106, 114, 115, 117, 132, 133, 

259, 313, 314, 317, 319

federally listed, v, 21, 61, 94, 102, 104, 105, 106, 109, 

116, 121, 122, 147, 313, 314

focal species, 21, 262, 272

species of conservation concern, 3, 21, 94, 95, 98, 101, 

114, 115, 116, 117, 121, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139, 

313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 326