Reporter’s Notebook Part 4: St. John Resident Submits FOIA Request Seeking Answers to Changes in Caneel Bay Development Plan
The Source US Virgin Islands | July 26, 2026 | By Amy H. Roberts | Editor’s Note: This is the third part of a series concerning the future development of a resort at Caneel Bay.
Part 1 is available here.
Part 2 is available here.
Part 3 is available here.
Aug. 10 was the deadline for developers to submit their proposals to the National Park Service to rebuild Caneel Bay, the hurricane-damaged resort within the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John.
Inquiring minds want to know: How many hotel developers applied?
So far, the NPS has not responded to a Source query seeking to learn the number of applicants, their names, and the anticipated date of the announcement of the selected developer.
Perhaps even more mysterious is the reason the National Park Service decided to issue a new Request for Proposals on May 7, tossing out a plan to build an environmentally sustainable resort that had been in place since 2023.
The 2026 plan has caused some alarm. It doubles the amount of property under the control of the future developer and eliminates promised conservation land; it contains no restrictions on the number of units or the height of the structures, and provides no mandates for community access or local business opportunities.
Why did the National Park Service eliminate so many constraints on Caneel’s future developer? Again, the answer isn’t clear, and at least one person is actively trying to find out why.
FOIA’s Purpose Foiled by an Overwhelming Number of Requests.
After learning about the May 2026 plan, St. John resident Thomas Moukawsher filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the hope of understanding the federal government’s reasons for the drastic change of plans.
Moukawsher, an attorney and former judge who has spent much of his career in Connecticut, sent his request to the National Park Service through the U.S. Department of the Interior on Aug. 12.
In his request, he asked for “copies of all records of any kind the National Park Service possesses or has access to” concerning the decision to alter conditions previously reflected in the 2023 Caneel Bay Redevelopment plan.
“My request includes but is not limited to records that reflect information gathered and analysis of that information concerning the impact that these changes could have on the natural environment on St. John…,” he wrote.
Within days, Moukawsher received a surprising response from the NPS. Yes, his request had been received, but the estimated completion date for fulfilling that request is April 2028!
A 21-month delay in providing time-sensitive information is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act, according to Moukawsher. Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966, FOIA’s purpose is “to ensure an informed citizenry, which is vital to the functioning of a democratic society,” according to its website. As Dr. Martin Luther King repeated back in that era, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
On Monday, Moukawsher filed an appeal to expedite his FOIA request.
The NPS did provide Moukawsher with an explanation for the delay. “Your request falls into the ‘Complex processing track,’” said Denise Ratajczak, Regional FOIA Officer. “There are 23 requests pending ahead of yours in this processing track. In addition, there are 6 ‘Simple’ and 66 ‘Normal’ requests ahead of yours. Please note that we currently have a significant backlog of requests but are working diligently to address the pending requests as quickly as possible.”
Moukawsher has spent considerable time reading up about the two and a half year process that led to the NPS’s 2023 plan. He noticed that the current 2026 plan is strikingly similar to Alternative C, a plan that was seriously considered by the NPS in 2022 but ultimately rejected in 2023.
Under Alternative C, “No visitor services would be provided at the site for non-resort guests, and the NPS would not provide a community space at the Caneel Bay area.” It was rejected in favor of the selected 2023 plan, which “1) aims to provide for a range of visitor use and experiences; (2) promotes economic activities by providing employment and business opportunities; (3) minimizes impacts on the Caneel Bay Historic District,” according to the 2023 plan.
Moukawsher wants to see the documents that explain the changes.
U.S. Department of the Interior Provides Ambiguous Responses to Questions About Policy Change
Virgin Islanders aren’t the only ones seeking answers from the NPS. In June, when the editor of National Parks Traveler sought an explanation for the change in Caneel’s redevelopment plans, the U.S. Department of the Interior responded, “Since July 2025, the National Park Service has worked with leaders from gateway communities in the U.S. Virgin Islands and reviewed the project to ensure consistency with Executive Orders, Secretary’s Orders and Department priorities focused on enhancing visitor experiences and expanding competitive investment opportunities.”
Moukawsher said more explanation is needed. The 2023 plan was based on studies, analyses, and public commentary, he said, while the 2026 plan only appears to reflect the current federal administration’s “change of philosophy without declaring a process.”
By law, the government has to avoid “arbitrary and capricious” decision-making, he said.
The phrase “arbitrary and capricious” was recently used in a suit brought against the federal government involving the National Park Service. Earthjustice is representing a coalition of 10 conservation organizations challenging the Trump administration’s latest attempt to shrink the size of Utah’s Bears Ears National Monument.
Could that case serve as a model for a lawsuit to challenge the current Caneel redevelopment plan? Moukawsher was cautious with his answer. “It’s worth studying,” he said.
So far, the St. John Historical Society has registered its concern in an op-ed piece in the Source. But a successful challenge involves identifying not just groups but individuals who might be harmed if the NPS continues with its current plan.
Employment for Virgin Islands Residents Is No Longer a Priority.
By filing his FOIA request, Moukawsher said he was hoping to understand the Park Service’s justification for rejecting several provisions of the 2023 plan that community members said were important; one of them was “an overarching objective” to expand entrepreneurship opportunities for Virgin Islanders.
“Under the 2026 plan, the local workforce priority is gone,” Moukawsher said. There are no set targets for hiring Virgin Islands residents for management positions, and there is no requirement that any local hires be enacted.
Moukawsher added, “Individuals concerned about the vanishing commitments to local workers and businesses and the disappearance of development restrictions could certainly study the work of others in recent court cases involving NPS issues.”
What About Rockefeller’s Intentions for Caneel Bay?
There is at least one other potential basis for a lawsuit to be brought against the National Park Service for its current method of handling the redevelopment of Caneel Bay.
Through his land trust foundation, Laurance Rockefeller donated much of the land that became the Virgin Islands National Park in 1956, but Rockefeller retained ownership of Caneel Bay Resort through his company RockResorts. In 1983, Rockefeller crafted a document known as a Retained Use Estate, or RUE, that deeded the resort’s land to the National Park Service but left the resort’s structures under the management of a private operator for 40 years.
The Retained Use Estate Agreement states, “It is the Grantor’s expectation and intention that at some future time … the Retained Use Estate will be terminated and extinguished in order to carry out the long-standing objective of Grantor that the Premises ultimately be an integral part of the Virgin Islands National Park under the jurisdiction of the Secretary for the use and enjoyment by visitors to the Park of the outstanding scenic and other features of national significance located both within the Premises and in other areas of the Park.”
In 2023, the Retained Use Agreement was terminated, and after a contentious legal battle with the resort’s last operator, Caneel Bay was finally integrated with the park (although much of the property remains fenced off “for safety reasons”)
Several observers have noted that the 2026 Caneel Redevelopment Plan — which includes no provision for public access — conflicts with Rockefeller’s stated intention to preserve the property “for the use and enjoyment of visitors to the Park.”
The absence of a mandate for public access is “not consistent with Mr. Rockefeller’s intentions as expressed in the RUE,” according to David DiGiacomo, an attorney who filed claims alleging that the Caneel property was contaminated in ways that violated a number of federal laws.
“The language (of the 2026 plan) about access roughly says that if the vendor allows it, okay. This seems to ignore the thoughtful input of the people of the Virgin Islands, the values of the people who live here,” he added.
For Further Reading
Readers who want further insight into the details regarding the 2026 Requests for Proposals might want to look at the extended list of files published by the NPS regarding Caneel Bay’s redevelopment.
For a really good time, they may also enjoy perusing the 75 pages of questions posed by prospective developers (before the deadline passed for submitting their plans) and the National Park Service’s responses.
The file contains many useful pieces of information. For example, it clarifies that a developer does not have to disclose all the players on the development team:
“Question 237: Is it a requirement for each member of the development team to be named individually?
- No.”
This file includes the following Q and A involving the Freedom of Information Act:
“Question 33: What information about submitted proposals will be made available to the public prior to a final decision being made, and what opportunities will Virgin Islands residents, elected officials, local agencies, and other stakeholders have to review proposals, provide input, and help inform the final selection?
- Decision regarding disclosures will be made in accordance with all applicable laws including the Freedom of Information Act and decisions regarding the RFP will be made in accordance with the laws, statutes, regulations, and policy applicable to the NPS.”
