DPS has already begun the destruction of the bio bay in St. Croix

Why are they clearing the land and what are they building?
Who are they?
Is there a posted permit?

They have been working on that area for several years, it should have been stopped a long time ago.

Judith's Fancy would not allow access through their property so the cut a new road further to the west.

Should be NPS National Park Service

Save Salt River Bay has a Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/savesaltriverbay/?fref=ts&ref=br_tf

The "Save Bio-Bay" movement is fraud of the highest order.

Facts you should know:

The current construction work at Salt River is cleaning up the last of the debris from the failed hotel that was started on the property. To facilitate this with minimal environmental impact the access road (a territorial road) is being improved to control erosion. All permits have been approved, even from entities whose approval is not strictly required.

In addition to the debris removal the NPS has conducted an exceedingly thorough archaeological survey of the entire peninsula, and is actively replanting the area with native vegetation that has been absent since the original profile of the site was destroyed in the 50s for the hotel development.

The bioluminescence is a direct result of poor water quality. Every analysis of every bioluminescent bay around the world has confirmed the point. The NPS funded a third-party survey of the biobay phenomenon. Not satisfied with that report, the detractors of the project funded their own survey, which agreed with all other biobay analyses around the world: the phenomenon is a result of poor circulation and over-rich nutrient chemical intrusion, in this case from the poorly maintained septic systems and manicured landscapes of Judith's Fancy among other sources. Interestingly, there is NO evidence that the work currently or ongoing at Salt River will impact the bay. But if it does impact the bay, it will IMPROVE the water quality in the bay, in the estuary, and in the adjacent reefs, which offer some of the best diving in the Caribbean.

There are two principle groups who are opposed to anything happening in Salt River. One is a small core of Judith's Fancy home-owners who are funding efforts to derail any work in the park. They have hired publicists/media people to taint the project at every opportunity because, according to their own internal correspondence, they do not want local kids running around in their front yard. Their claims of environmental sensitivity are completely bogus, as evidenced by their complacence and indifference regarding all the sunken vessels and derelict groundings elsewhere in the bay, or the chemical nightmare of a boat-building operation on the other side of the bay.

The other voice of opposition to the NPS and its mission comes from two of the kayak tour operators who take tourists into the biobay. They are concerned about the impact of clean water on their bioluminescent bay tour revenue. That is selfish but understandable. They have chosen to attack the NPS and its initiatives in misleading ways in public forums such as this because they have chosen NOT to become legitimate National Park concession operators. Park concessioners are required to meet high standards of safety and professionalism, and are vetted to ensure that visitors into National Parks enjoy a safe, enjoyable, and informative experience. One of the tour operators most vocally against the NPS likes to say that she has been threatened and intimidated by NPS Law Enforcement personnel. The reality is that the tour operators exploit a loop-hole that allows them to kayak in the waters around the bay. If, however, they land in the National Park while conducting commercial activity they are in violation of federal laws which protect our public lands from exploitation and destruction. These operators could become legal concession operators and have a legitimate voice as a stakeholder in the park, but they choose not to.

In summary, the arguments against the NPS plans for Salt River are based on 1) the bigotry and xenophobia we've come to expect from some of the more toxic voices in Judith's Fancy; and 2) the greed and complacence of tour operators who feel entitled to exploit public land, your land and mine, for their own personal gain.

But PLEASE don't take my word for it. Contact the Superintendent and learn about the park for yourselves.

Thanks for the clarification.
In my experiences, NPS always does its best for properties that it has been entrusted to administer.

Bravo! Finally a voice of clarity among all noise from all the NPS haters who are spreading false information. The work the NPS is doing will vastly improve this once derelict landscape and turn it into something we can all be proud of.

Thanks SunnyCaribe. I learned something today!! I will do my own research too of course because that's just who I am...haha.

SunnyCaribe,
I lived next to the propsed site for 8 years. I have walked around the site hundreds of times. I do not think it is the best location to put MERC:
- Salt Corrosion; this is the salt blast capital of the world. They have no idea what they are getting into when it comes to maintenance of anything metal or electrical
- the original plan had huge wind turbines....are they planning on serving up chopped Pelicans and Frigate Birds as the cruise up and down the coast? a Horrible idea to say the least.

MERC can be located in plenty of other spots that don't impact the environment / have easier access.

We've all heard the argument before against wind turbines...the poor birds. Should we ground all aircraft on the planet too?
What about every living thing being exposed to huge amounts of diesel / natural gas emissions pouring out of generating station exhaust stacks? How about fuel spills on land? Fuel spill contamination in both freash and salt water?
The Europeans have had offshore wind turbines sitting in the open ocean for decades, in far worse conditions (just as salty, much colder, howling winds, higher seas sustained more often).
We're never going to get beyond our dependence on petroleum products / natural gas if we keep blocking renewables with arguments like these. It's only a matter of time, as more and more electrical companies continues to convert to natural gas, that supplies of that get thinner and prices rise again.

We've all heard the argument before against wind turbines...the poor birds. Should we ground all aircraft on the planet too?
What about every living thing being exposed to huge amounts of diesel / natural gas emissions pouring out of generating station exhaust stacks? How about fuel spills on land? Fuel spill contamination in both freash and salt water?
The Europeans have had offshore wind turbines sitting in the open ocean for decades, in far worse conditions (just as salty, much colder, howling winds, higher seas sustained more often).
We're never going to get beyond our dependence on petroleum products / natural gas if we keep blocking renewables with arguments like these. It's only a matter of time, as more and more electrical companies continues to convert to natural gas, that supplies of that get thinner and prices rise again.

The stupidity of putting a wind turbine in that location is off the charts. Salt spray and moving parts....the repair techs are going to make a fortune......and the beauty of the pelicans cruising along the coastline....gone.

NIMBY alive and well it sounds like in DA VI

Hum, I'm no scientist but the dinoflagellates that create these glows can't live in heavly polluted water especially septic run off. The concentration and brightness is I'm sure due to the lack of flow. Were the water quality reports public? I'd like to see nitrate and phosphate levels measured - personally - if there is talk of septic leaks. Just knowing what I know of 15+ years being a reef nerd I'm finding it really hard to believe that the water, tested so bad and that is believed that construction - which means the movement of the anaerobic bacteria won't be devistating for all wildlife in the bay.

Not arguing just trying to understand.

Offshore wind generation is generally wildlife-friendly, according to a Danish report published last year.

Offshore wind power is thought to be environmentally friendly.
Danish energy companies and the Danish government carried out an eight-year study into the environmental impact of world's two largest offshore wind farms, Horns Rev and Nysted.

The study concluded that seabirds rarely collide with the turbine propellers and that fish and other sea life flourished in the artificial "reefs" created by the turbine undersea structures. And although seals and porpoises moved away from the wind farms when they were under construction, they are slowly returning.

Most importantly, supporters of offshore wind power say all forms of energy supply have environmental drawbacks. However, they say that compared to the risks of global warming or nuclear meltdown, wind power is the most environmentally-friendly option we have.

singlefin, its onshore wind turbines, not offshore.
and I lived there 8 or 9 years.....trust me, the Pelicans and Frigates will be chopped up into little pieces.....and the wind turbine will spend more time being repaired due to salt spray.

I've referenced "off shore" to emphasize the industry's ability to handle sever, natural environmental (open ocean) conditions, far more than just "salt spray".
And
I think the last paragraph of my last post, more or less, says it all.