March 4, 2022
Caneel Bay Redevelopment and Management Plan
Superintendent
1300 Cruz Bay Creek
St. John, VI 00830
Re: Caneel Bay Redevelopment and Management Plan Newsletter comments
Dear Superintendent Fields:
We are writing on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and its 1.6 million members and supporters nationwide, and the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks which is comprised of over 2,100 retired, former, and current employees of the National Park Service (NPS). We write to provide comments on the Caneel Bay Redevelopment and Management Plan Newsletter at Virgin Islands National Park (VIIS). NPCA and the Coalition share NPS’s vision to ensure that four primary objectives are achieved through any future redevelopment, namely by 1) bringing NPS personnel in for future on-site presence at Caneel Bay for interpretation, education, and resource protection, and ensuring that a space for cultural expression is provided; 2) expanding economic opportunities, especially for local communities; 3) upholding NPS’s primary conservation mandate by prioritizing the preservation of natural, cultural, and marine resources; and 4) ensuring the existing RUE footprint is appropriately taken into account and reconsidered alongside all relevant law and policy.1Caneel Bay Redevelopment and Management Plan Newsletter, National Park Service, January 2022 at pg 3.
In 2020, Virgin Islands National Park welcomed over 150,000 visitors that contributed about $24 million to local gateway economies and helped support nearly 300 jobs.22020 National Park Visitor Spending Effects: Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States, and the Nation. Natural Resource Report, National Park Service, May 2021. Available online at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm However, prior to the devastating hurricanes of 2017, the year 2016 saw visitors contribute nearly threefold beyond the 2020 amount – about $80 million – in economic gains to local gateway communities.3Id. These statistics, along with the fact that Caneel Bay Resort was previously the single largest employer on St. John, help underscore the important role that NPS must now serve as the Park Service works to re-envision the future of Caneel Bay. We have great respect for the people and communities of the U.S. Virgin Islands and St. John, and commend the resilience demonstrated by both NPS staff and local communities in rebuilding and revitalizing St. John since the 2017 hurricanes occurred.4Hurricane damages of 2017, and overviews of how NPS both sustained impacts and facilitated recovery were highlighted in testimony provided by NPS leadership in 2018, see https://www.doi.gov/ocl/virgin-islands-hurricane-recovery and in NPCA’s resource A Legacy Threatened, see https://express.adobe.com/page/Yy2sjuO47Avai/ In addition to the preliminary comments and recommendations outlined below, we urge NPS to center community engagement and inclusion in the process of re-envisioning what Caneel Bay can become in the future, and to do their utmost to ensure authentic inclusion of local communities in all decision-making processes. Furthermore, we believe the current redevelopment planning process provides a pivotal opportunity for NPS to increase the agency’s efforts to assess the structural, cultural, and socio-economic dynamics and potential impacts of their park planning decisions on the island’s communities.
We appreciate that NPS has explored three preliminary alternatives (in addition to the no-action alternative) for Caneel Bay at this pre-NEPA stage in the planning process, in order to garner public feedback that will inform the development of a draft environmental assessment (EA) anticipated for release in the Fall of 2022. While there are elements of the proposed alternatives (especially alternative
A) that NPCA and the Coalition could support, we believe it will be more constructive at this preliminary stage to provide specific recommendations and comments, and do not at this time support any of the proposed alternatives in their entirety. Our hope is that NPS will utilize the feedback provided in order to develop more robust alternatives, with detailed supporting analyses and disclosures of potential impacts, in the forthcoming draft EA.
We submit for your consideration our support of the following aspects of the preliminary proposal:
• We support the broadly stated goals of NPS to ensure that cultural and natural resource surveys, protection, and continued monitoring will be carried out under all future EA alternative scenarios. Given that the primary mandate of NPS is a conservation mandate, it is critical that resource protection is upheld as a primary guiding goal in all park planning efforts. We have identified opportunities, discussed in detail elsewhere in this letter, where resource study, protection, and monitoring efforts can and should be more robustly developed as planning progresses.
• We support the approach of NPS to ensure that “context sensitive redevelopment” is advanced. Several of the specific ways NPS proposes to do this, such as via protecting the park’s viewsheds and dark night skies, are appreciated. However, we believe there are some elements of the proposal that are not in alignment with the aforementioned approach (see further comments in this letter, especially pages 5-8) and that significant improvements can be made to include specific areas of analysis and recommendations in the future EA that will enhance NPS’s stated goal of ensuring that sensitive redevelopment is achieved.
• We applaud the efforts of NPS in beginning to conceptualize preliminary alternatives that will provide for greater public access to the Caneel Bay area, including day use access by visitors and residents alike. Equitable access for all park visitors, including residents and community members, is of great importance and needs to be taken into serious account in re-envisioning the future of Caneel Bay. We appreciate the Park Service’s efforts to prioritize public access in the future, and yet we also believe there is significant room for improvement in this realm; to that end, have provided specific recommendations that follow in this letter.
We submit for your consideration our recommendations for the following topics that we believe merit additional consideration or revision, as well as full analyses and disclosures pertaining to these topics, as the draft EA is crafted:
• We urge NPS to include a “necessary and appropriate use” analysis in the forthcoming EA in order to establish the policy justification for moving forward with the proposed redevelopment of the Caneel Bay Resort. As background, The National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998,5Available online at: https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ391/PLAW-105publ391.pdf, emphasis added. Section 402(a) found that:
the preservation and conservation of park resources and values requires that such public accommodations, facilities, and services as have to be provided within such units should be provided only under carefully controlled safeguards against unregulated and indiscriminate use, so that— (1) visitation will not unduly impair these resources and values; and (2) development of public accommodations, facilities, and services within such units can best be limited to locations that are consistent to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the resources and values of such units.
Section 402(b) of the Act provided:
It is the policy of the Congress that the development of public accommodations, facilities, and services in units of the National Park System shall be limited to those accommodations, facilities, and services that— (1) are necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the unit of the National Park System in which they are located; and (2) are consistent to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the resources and values of the unit.
As a result, the EA should include a “necessary and appropriate use” analysis to establish the policy justification for moving forward with the proposed redevelopment of the Caneel Bay Resort. The fact that the already developed resort property was granted to the NPS decades ago is not sufficient justification by itself for the proposed action.
Consistent with the “necessary and appropriate” standard established under the Act, the EA should include and identify an environmentally preferable alternative that includes the following core concepts, consistent with other recommendations set out in this comment letter:
• Reduce the overall footprint of development
• Remove all lodging structures from the coastal flood zone, and restore native vegetation and habitat that will help impart resilience in the flood zones
• If new/replacement lodging units are deemed necessary and appropriate, ensure that all new construction is energy efficient and environmentally appropriate in terms of design and construction materials, and are appropriately sized for the sensitive coastal environment in which they would be located. For example, compact two-story multiplex units would be more appropriate than sprawling, single story individual units.
• Allow only low impact, low maintenance recreational facilities such as trails and picnic areas within the coastal flood zone
• Enhance public access to the shoreline within the resort zone; minimize the number of facilities within the resort zone where access is limited solely to resort guests.
• In addition, the EA should explain how the proposed development footprint would meet the law’s requirement for the preservation and conservation of the park’s resources and values.
• Consider “appropriateness” with a special lens for the unique socio-economic setting of St. John, and in particular, carefully evaluate options for facilitating positive outcomes for local communities around employment and employee housing; given the well-known and increasing challenge of finding affordable housing on St. John, the appropriateness of any proposal to support – and not negatively impact – local conditions needs to be reasonably assessed. Furthermore, this recommendation is in alignment with the directives of the VIIS enabling legislation which state that “… [the DOI/NPS] is directed to the maximum extent feasible to employ and train residents of the Virgin Islands to develop, maintain and administer the Virgin Islands National Park.”6See Virgin Islands National Park enabling legislation, at §398d.(b), available online at: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title16/chapter1/subchapter44&edition=prelim
• We urge NPS to explore innovative ways to fully maximize the sustainability of the future redevelopment and to utilize this opportunity to demonstrate genuine environmental leadership at Caneel Bay, with a special emphasis on sustainable building and waste prevention and management. The preliminary proposal states that, applicable to any future alternative action, “[c]ommercial operations at the site would be operated in a manner consistent with the sustainability ethos of the NPS. Developers/operators would be selected through a competitive commercial services process by the NPS and would be required to demonstrate their ability to execute a sustainable commercial operations.”7Caneel Bay Redevelopment and Management Plan Newsletter, National Park Service, January 2022 at pg 6 (hereafter, “Newsletter”) While this demonstrates a positive approach towards prioritizing sustainability, given that the Virgin Islands are among the most climate-threatened insular areas in the country, as well as being an iconic tourism destination, we believe that systematic consideration of innovative ways to maximize the sustainability of any future redevelopment and associated commercial operations should be undertaken by NPS, and that the agency should provide the most stringent requirements and guidelines possible to future developers/operators to ensure compliance with a high sustainability standard.
We ask that NPS, “a world leader in…sustainable resource management,” makes a conscious effort to reduce its carbon footprint during the rebuilding process.8National Park Service, Sustainability website online at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sustainability/index.htm Sustainable building practices that are encouraged include working with LEED-certified contractors, guiding developers/contractors to use recycled materials to construct buildings, and adopting clean sources of energy whenever possible. Several areas administered by NPS such as Golden Gate National Recreation Area have LEED-certified buildings, and Santa Monica National Recreation Area’s visitor center has even achieved net-zero energy performance. Structures constructed during Caneel Bay redevelopment should aim to be just as “green” by minimizing the impact of park operations on the environment. We request that NPS prioritize sustainability to ensure this project is consistent with the agency’s broader aim of protecting and preserving natural resources.
Additionally, while the Park Service has a Green Parks Plan that outlines 10 strategic goals for the agency’s sustainability efforts,9See “Sustainability and Green Parks,” and the NPS Green Parks Plan of 2016 available for download online at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sustainability/green-parks.htm progress on achieving these goals lags agency-wide,10See performance briefs providing details on monitoring and tracking of Green Parks progress, last updated by NPS in 2017, online here: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sustainability/monitor.htm and yet the need for sustainable practices is arguably enhanced in the island setting of St. John where climate, energy, water, and waste issues are often amplified. Several of these 10 NPS Green Parks goal areas are articulated below with recommendations on avenues for further Caneel-specific consideration by NPS:
• Being climate ready: This area is discussed in detail throughout this letter and warrants systematic analysis and thorough consideration in the forthcoming EA.
• Being energy smart and greening the fleet: The proposal indicates that NPS will facilitate redevelopment that is energy efficient11Newsletter at pg 5 and we encourage NPS to guide developers/operators towards the use of renewable energy wherever possible in any new utility developments, as well as to ensure that the most fuel-efficient shuttles and vehicles are utilized on the site.
• Buying green, reducing waste, and recycling: We encourage NPS to provide detailed guidance, or specific concession or lease terms where possible, to ensure that the purchase of environmentally friendly products is prioritized, and that waste reduction and recycling measures are designed and implemented through innovative infrastructure and operations planning. Given that waste management infrastructure is severely limited on St. John, and waste needs to be shipped to a dump on St. Thomas that has been a site of serious environmental concern given its many prior violations of environmental regulations, the topic of waste management from any proposed development and subsequent operations should be proactively assessed with clear and stringent guidance provided by NPS in the forthcoming EA.
For example, pilot programs that exist at other national park sites including Grand Teton, Yosemite, and Denali through the “Zero Landfill Initiative” have helped identify and test practices to reduce overall waste generated in parks.12See waste reduction practices from Grand Teton online at: https://www.nps.gov/grte/getinvolved/zero-landfill-initiative.htm Such practices and lessons learned could provide helpful guidance to informing the development, future operations, and visitor services of Caneel Bay, especially as waste management is a significant challenge on St. John.
There is increasing momentum for eliminating the sale and distribution of single-use plastics and polystyrene foam products in national parks, as evidenced by a detailed letter submitted to Secretary Deb Haaland last July,13See “300+ Organizations, Businesses Urge U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to Ban Single-Use Plastics in National Parks” and the detailed letter online at: https://usa.oceana.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/4/2021/07/22/letter_to_secretary_haaland_on_plastic_pollution_7.22.21_final96.pdf and a clear opportunity for NPS to facilitate installation of drinking water stations and the exclusive sale of reusable water bottles (instead of single-use bottles) on-site in order to significantly reduce plastic bottle waste generation at the future redeveloped Caneel Bay.
• Greening the grounds: We encourage NPS to direct any future developers or operators to ensure that primarily native, regionally-sourced plant stock is utilized for all landscaping purposes. If insufficient native plant stock is available, we encourage NPS in their natural resource leadership role to explore local partnership possibilities to help increase the cultivation of locally native species. Furthermore, no invasive or potentially invasive plant species should be permitted to be utilized in landscaping, and the current opportunity to replace any existing landscaping at Caneel that consists of invasive exotic species should be utilized, with invasive plants removed and replaced with native species. This oft-overlooked area of green practices is especially important in St. John, which has been hit so hard with invasion of exotic plant species following natural area fragmentation and disturbance in part caused by the destructive hurricanes of 2017.
• We urge NPS to utilize a lens of climate resilience as well as all available climate-related assessments and science when developing robust alternatives analysis in the forthcoming EA. A vulnerability assessment should be conducted for VIIS, or at minimum, a preliminary Coastal Facility Vulnerability Assessment in alignment with NPS standards should be conducted for the Caneel Bay site, with analysis and disclosure of the results of a preliminary study shared with the public, to ensure that best available information and practices are used to inform robust, climate-ready alternatives in the forthcoming EA. This should be a feasible recommendation for NPS to advance given that NPS recognizes and states that:
Climate change impacts on sea level, storm surge, and shoreline erosion present unique hazards for coastal units of the National Park System. Visitor centers, roads, historic structures, and other park facilities are of particular concern, as they are often fixed in place, provide important services, and represent significant investments… The National Park Service partnered with the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University to create a Coastal Hazards and Sea-Level Rise Asset Vulnerability Assessment Protocol, which establishes a standard methodology and set of best practices for conducting vulnerability assessments for coastal facilities.1414 See Climate Change, Assessing Vulnerability NPS webpage online at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/vulnerabilityandadaptation.htm, emphasis added.
The U.S. Virgin Islands are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Sea level rise, intense storm events, storm surge, and flooding all threaten serious damage to the islands’ built infrastructure, cultural resources, and natural environments. A 2004 coastal USGS vulnerability assessment found that low slope areas in Virgin Islands National Park, such as gravel and sandy beaches, are at high risk of climate impacts.1515 Pendleton, E. A., Thieler, E. R., Williams, S. J. (2004). Coastal vulnerability assessment of Virgin Islands National Park (VIIS) to sea-level rise [Report]. U.S. Geological Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1398/html/images/pdf/report.pdf We are concerned that NPS has not released detailed alternatives maps that include layers indicating near-term sea level rise data, storm surge zones, or flood zones, in addition to layers indicating the presence and locations of important natural or cultural resources. Provision, analysis, and disclosure of these map layers, in combination with NPS’s proposed development and zoning alternatives, are necessary in order for the public to be able to conduct well-informed assessments of NPS’s proposal. In contrast, putting the burden on the public to compile and analyze such data is an unacceptable approach to NEPA analysis. It inappropriately shifts the burden to the public to consolidate and sort through NPS’s and other relevant federal agencies’ data— to determine, among other things, (1) whether the data is relevant, (2) how the proposed buildings, roads/parking, and zoning may be impacted by relevant factors such as flooding, or (3) how the proposed features may impact other important natural or cultural resources. It is NPS’s—not the public’s—burden to organize this information and data as part of the agency’s informed decision-making mandate under NEPA, and make it available to the public in the forthcoming EA.1616 See WildEarth Guardians v Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d at 69 (holding that BLM wrongly placed the burden of analyzing the data on the public and stating, “it did not relieve BLM of its burden to consolidate the available data as part of its‘informed decision-making”).
One specific example that illustrates the need outlined above relates to NPS’s proposal to rebuild lodging and/or develop new roads in what appear to be flood zones, or at least areas adjacent to floodplains (as detailed above, without disclosure of full data and map layers, it is difficult to ascertain this with certainty). While the NPS preliminary proposal mentions that “[f]uture redevelopment would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Program, and new development would only occur outside of the existing floodplains,”1717 Newsletter at 5, emphasis added the proposal also acknowledges that “[p]art of the study area near Scott Beach and Hawksnest Beach are within a designated FEMA floodplain.”18Id at 14, emphasis added
In all three proposed alternatives, beach cottages/lodging is sited at both Scott Beach and Hawksnest Beach, and this is cause for concern. In Alternative A, there is additionally a newly proposed road with pedestrian access located very close to the coast and in an area that is otherwise proposed as a Natural Zone (see figure 1 below). While we appreciate that increased public access is needed to the site overall, we strongly urge NPS not to continue advancing any alternative that includes this road to Hawksnest Beach (or any road similar to it) and to develop a new alternative that altogether avoids rebuilding in flood zones or developing any new impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, parking) in such areas, and instead to restore native vegetation and climate-resilient habitat in such areas. Furthermore, fragmentation of Natural Zones (such as would occur with the proposed road/trail in Alt. A) should be avoided or reduced. If park features are rebuilt without relevant climate analyses and climate resilience in mind, NPS could be missing an important opportunity to mitigate climate-related damage.
Figure 1. From Alt A: areas of concern (highlighted in orange) due to the
location of proposed redevelopment in proximity to, or within, designated FEMA floodplains.19Id.
• Additionally, alternatives that specifically identify the integration of green infrastructure, ecological restoration, and/or nature-based resiliency solutions should be included in the forthcoming EA. Examples of nature-based resiliency solutions that can be implemented include beach habitat, seagrass, and coral reef restoration. The proposal does not explicitly identify ecological restoration opportunities that would help make the site more climate resilient but does state that “[c]oral reefs and seagrass beds may be impacted by the increased presence of humans at Caneel Bay.”20Newsletter at 14 Federally-listed endangered species make their homes in the marine and coastal areas of Caneel Bay, including staghorn and elkhorn coral and green sea turtles. The potential impacts to these species should not only be considered in any forthcoming proposed alternative, but additionally, opportunities to restore their habitat and enhance their long-term survival outlook should be prioritized given NPS’s primary conservation mandate.
• As described in Public Law 111-261, the EA should include an analysis as to whether the long-term benefit to the park would be greater by entering into a lease rather than allowing the retained use estate (RUE) to expire and subsequently issuing a concessions contract.21See Section-by-section Analysis in Senate report # 111-146 at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-111srpt146/html/CRPT- 111srpt146.htm Additionally, we urge NPS to develop and consider an alternative wherein feasibility of NPS managing and protecting more total area and amenities of the Caneel Bay area is explored. Considerations of increased benefits to the park’s resources and to NPS’s ability to manage the park – such as through possible improved income to NPS via well-enforced collection of amenities fees – should be fully explored as NPS works to re-envision possible futures for Caneel Bay that maximize resource protection and equitable access to park experiences.
• We urge NPS to include an alternative that would provide an accessible range of accommodations and prices, with no more than 30% being “traditional resort rooms”; 40% being “standard rooms”; and 30% being “basic economy rooms.” Historically, the resort had the • Additionally, alternatives that specifically identify the integration of green infrastructure, ecological restoration, and/or nature-based resiliency solutions should be included in the forthcoming EA. Examples of nature-based resiliency solutions that can be implemented include beach habitat, seagrass, and coral reef restoration. The proposal does not explicitly identify ecological restoration opportunities that would help make the site more climate resilient but does state that “[c]oral reefs and seagrass beds may be impacted by the increased presence of humans at Caneel Bay.”20 Federally-listed endangered species make their homes in the marine and coastal areas of Caneel Bay, including staghorn and elkhorn coral and green sea turtles. The potential impacts to these species should not only be considered in any forthcoming proposed alternative, but additionally, opportunities to restore their habitat and enhance their long-term survival outlook should be prioritized given NPS’s primary conservation mandate.
• As described in Public Law 111-261, the EA should include an analysis as to whether the long-term benefit to the park would be greater by entering into a lease rather than allowing the retained use estate (RUE) to expire and subsequently issuing a concessions contract.21 Additionally, we urge NPS to develop and consider an alternative wherein feasibility of NPS managing and protecting more total area and amenities of the Caneel Bay area is explored. Considerations of increased benefits to the park’s resources and to NPS’s ability to manage the park – such as through possible improved income to NPS via well-enforced collection of amenities fees – should be fully explored as NPS works to re-envision possible futures for Caneel Bay that maximize resource protection and equitable access to park experiences.
• We urge NPS to include an alternative that would provide an accessible range of accommodations and prices, with no more than 30% being “traditional resort rooms”; 40% being “standard rooms”; and 30% being “basic economy rooms.” Historically, the resort had the reputation of being an exclusive “four-star eco-resort” where “guests spent an average of $727 a night — and up to almost $2,000 during the period around Christmas.”22https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/travel/st-john-caneel-bay-resort.html At the end of the Retained Use Estate (RUE), we believe that such exclusivity will no longer be appropriate in a unit of the National Park System that essentially belongs to the American people.
• We urge NPS to undertake detailed analysis and disclosure of the important areas identified as “additional issues considered” in the Newsletter, namely sea turtles, vegetation, wildlife, environmental justice, soundscapes, and socioeconomics. Rather than dispensing with detailed impacts analysis of these topics, analysis of potential impacts upon sea turtles, vegetation, wildlife, environmental justice and socioeconomics in particular should be elevated.
• We urge NPS to undertake detailed new analysis and disclosure of the ethnographic and cultural resources present at the Caneel Bay site, with an eye towards filling research gaps and prioritizing the preservation and interpretation of key cultural resources including those that tell lesser-known stories of the site’s history and resources. The newsletter states that:
Although not thoroughly documented, the Park potentially possesses ethnographic recourses which may be of value to traditionally associated people such as descendants of the Taino, Carib, Kalinago or other Caribbean indigenous groups and the descendants of Maroon communities. These resources include pre-contact ceremonial sites, colonial era plantation sites of enslavement, and natural resources such as heritage trees. NPS Management Policies 5.3.5.3 states that the NPS is responsible for identifying ethnographic resources and considering the effects that NPS actions may have on them.23Newsletter at 13
Full research should be undertaken by NPS to identify and ensure the protection of cultural resources on the Caneel Bay site. Additionally, new and revitalized means for interpreting and elevating important stories, such as that of the 1733 uprising of enslaved peoples wherein Caneel Bay was a deeply significant site of revolt,24See NPS: Research in the Parks, Making Contact with the Archeological Record: Identifying Contact Period Sites on St. John USVI https://www.nps.gov/archeology/SITES/npSites/stJohn.htm should be elevated during the EA planning process.
We thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and appreciate your consideration of our feedback and recommendations. NPCA and the Coalition remain committed partners to NPS in its work to protect and enhance the resources and visitor experience at Virgin Islands National Park. At the same time, we strongly advocate for NPS to consider a more robust range of alternatives in a future EA that take into account the serious issues and recommendations we have raised in this letter. We appreciate NPS taking a proactive approach to facilitating inclusion of local communities in the decision-making process, and strongly urge NPS to uphold an ethic of equity and authentic inclusion in prioritizing the input of the local communities that will be most affected by park planning decisions. We urge NPS to center this planning process with the full recognition that all development decisions made by the Park Service regarding Caneel Bay will significantly impact St. John, its communities, and its future for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Melissa E. Abdo, Ph.D., Regional Director
Sun Coast Region
National Parks Conservation Association
4429 Hollywood Blvd., # 814990
Hollywood, FL 33081
Michael B. Murray, Chair
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
2 Massachusetts Ave NE, Unit 77436
Washington, DC 20013