Environmental impacts associated with the planned
expansion of Karel’s Beach Bar, Bonaire
October 2011
By Dr Mark Vermeij
Carmabi Foundation
Piscaderabaai z/n
Curaçao
Web: http://www.carmabi.org

1

Contents
1.0 CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Project Setting .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Summary of Project Need ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Similar Projects ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Project Concerns .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
3.0 OBSERVATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Physical Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Environmental Impacts .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
3.2.1. Placement of the 36 pilings ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2. Future construction of the pier, deck and other facilities ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.3. Debris, waste and trash entering the ocean .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.4. The effects of storms ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
3.2.5. Contaminants from treated wood used for decks ................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
3.2.6 Effects from boats using the docks......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.7 Artificial beach construction................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.8 Boating and navigational issues ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.9 Existing water quality issues ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.3. Mortality of in-situ Organisms....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.4Compliance with Environmental Requirements.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
3.5 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Significance .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.6 Navigational Concerns.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
4.0 ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
5.0 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
6.0 CONSULTED LITERATURE .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

2

1.0 CONTEXT
Coral reefs are one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems in
the world – they occupy less than 1% of the ocean floor, but are
inhabited by at least 25% of all marine species. Thirty-two of the 33
animal phyla are found on coral reefs, compared with nine in
tropical rain forests. The island of Bonaire is completely surrounded
by coral reefs that extend between the low water mark to a
maximum recorded depth of 132m. There is an overwhelming
concern that coral reefs are in worldwide decline through the
activity of man. Coral bleaching, coral diseases, global change,

Figure 1. Change in coral cover from 1982 (estimated range

environmental degradation and over-fishing are listed as the prime

calculated from Van Duyl 1985) to 2009 (values are average cover as

factors. Much of the acute anthropogenic influence is at present

calculated by an IUCN expedition to Bonaire in 2009; error bars are

limited to shallow water reefs. The effects of shoreline

95% confidence intervals). In total 17 sites were monitored from

development, physical destruction of corals, land-based changes

North to South on Bonaire (sites 1 to 17) and 4 on Klein Bonaire (20

such as increase in runoff and pollution, artisanal fisheries and even

to 23). All measurements were taken between 8 and 10m.

global change such as ocean warming are at present largely limited

indicating that the current degree of development and resource

to the most superficial layers of the ocean (Bak et al. 2005).

extraction on Bonaire is presently too high to allow coral reef

Bonaire is no exception to this worldwide pattern of reef

systems to persist. Because coral reefs form a base for tourism and

deterioration (Figure 1) and coral cover has decreased in shallow

local fishing activities, people have recently began to estimate their

water (<20m) from ~44% to ~18% between 1973 and 2003. These

monetary value. Reefs also contribute to coastal protection and

trends have been confirmed by other studies (e.g. Steneck and

generate the sand that forms tropical beaches. Caribbean countries,

Arnold 2009, Bal et al. 2005, Grimsditch et al.

which attract millions of visitors annually to their beaches and reefs,

2011) clearly
3

derive half of their gross national product (GNP) from the tourism

a zoning plan, the formation of no-fishing zones and the

industry, valued at US$8.9 billion in 1990 (Jameson et al. 1995).

construction of a sewage treatment plant.

Because reefs provide so many benefits, their degradation is costly.

2.0 PURPOSE

A recent study found that the costs of destroying just 1 kilometer of

This document overviews the expected impacts on the marine

reef range from about US$137,000 to almost US$1.2 million over a

environment of the proposed construction of a pier and a

25-year period, just counting the economic value of fisheries,

bar/(temporary) restaurant/dive school next to Karel’s Beach Bar as

tourism, and shoreline protection (Barber and Pratt 1997). These

visualized on blueprints provided by Ir. K. Visser to Carmabi on

estimated are now believed to be a gross underestimation of the

October 18th 2011. The future usages of the pier were explained in

true value that reefs represent.

subsequent communications with Ir. K. Visser and DROB (Bonaire).
This report builds on an earlier report (Possible environmental

At the national and local levels, a number of governments and

effects of the construction of a pier and its future usages near

communities have taken steps to protect and restore coral reefs. In

Karel’s Bar, Bonaire; Carmabi 2011) that only focused on the

general, these examples of good stewardship involve a combination

expected environmental impacts of the placement of 36 steel

of planning, management, law enforcement, environmental

pilings that will support part of the proposed pier facilities. Here,

education, and legal protection. Approaches range from building

additional information is provided on the effects on the marine

sewage and industrial waste treatment facilities, to regulating

environment that can be expected (1) during the pier’s

access and use of reefs (for example, by establishing community

construction, (2) once it is present and (3) from the activities that

ownership over reef fisheries), to restricting development in

are planned on the pier once it has been built.

sensitive coastal areas (Bryant et al. 1998). Bonaire has also
undertaken such actions to relieve its reef systems from some of

This

the stressors that have recently caused these systems to degrade at

environmental concerns and should be used within a wider context

an increasingly faster rate. Examples include the implementation of

that takes into account local laws regarding building guidelines and

document

only

provides

an

overview

of

potential

actions allowed in the Bonaire National Marine Park in addition to
4

laws that have recently have come into effect after Bonaire became
part of the Netherlands such as The Marine Law BES (art. 20 and 21)
that are enforced by the Dutch Ministry “Verkeer en Waterstaat”
and overseen by Rijkswaterstaat (Netherlands).
This document is based on the latest published scientific
information and as such does not necessarily represent the opinion
of its writer.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROPOSED ACTION
Karel’s Beach Bar intends to expand its existing waterfront facilities
located in the centre of Kralendijk, Bonaire. The current pier on

Figure 2. Proposed design for the new facilities near Karel’s Bar in

which two bars are present will be expanded by a second pier that

Kralendijk, Bonaire.

attaches the end of the existing pier to shore. The proposed pier will
pier connects to a deck on which several buildings are planned: 2

be made of wood that will rest on a concrete frame that itself will

bars, a (temporary) restaurant and a dive school. This deck

rest on 361 steel pilings (Ø 76 cm, 2 cm thick and 6 m tall2;

measures approximately 30.8 m along shore and extends

specifications provided by Cashman Enterprises) that were placed

approximately 14.6 m seaward. It will be constructed from part

on the shallow reef terrace in October 2011. On the shore side, this

wood, part concrete and rest on 6 of the aforementioned 36 pilings
1

and a construction of prefab concrete blocks that will be placed

It needs to be noted that permission was granted (WSH/2011/1553) for
36 pilings. On the drawings provided from Cashman Enterprises only 34
pilings are indicated.
2
It needs to be noted the pilings that have been placed in October are
smaller than the ones referred to in the permit. Both their diameter and
thickness are less than specifications provided earlier though exact
measurements were not carried out during the site visit.

closer to shore on a shallow limestone cliff. Based on the blueprints
provided, the entire construction aims to provide facilities to
approx. 100 persons based on the number of chairs shown. Based
5

on communications with Ir. K. Visser and DROB Bonaire (Mr. M.

approximately 8-10 m depth, where the reef slopes down to greater

Gravenhorst), the pier will become part of a larger project, i.e., a

depths. Excess sedimentation in the past from construction

hotel complex that will be built on the grounds on which (among

activities, continuous terrestrial run-off (e.g., subterranean sewage

others) hotel/ restaurant Zeezicht is currently present. Once the

fluxes, storm water, etc.), (accidental) dumping of (wind-blown)

former establishment is removed to start building the new hotel, its

debris and trash, anchoring, as well as several storms (e.g., tropical

restaurant will be temporarily moved to the proposed pier until the

storm Omar, Hurricane Lenny) are likely responsible for the fact that

construction of the hotel is completed (expected 2.5 yrs after the

the area directly (i.e., < 30 m) around the proposed pier is largely

start of construction). After the restaurant has been moved back to

devoid of marine life (but see: “3.0 Observations”).

the new hotel, the building on the pier will be used as a dive school.

2.2 Summary of Project Need

It is assumed that the two bars remain at their planned location

Ir. K. Visser aims to build the project described in “2.0 Project

after this period. In addition to aforementioned functions, the pier

description and description of the proposed action” to create new

will serve as a marina for larger yachts that will be connected

infrastructure to accommodate Bonaire’s growing tourism industry.

backward at the far end of the pier. A fountain will be built inside
the piers, i.e., the existing pier of Karel’s Bar and the proposed pier.

2.3 Similar Projects

A natural beach is expected to from directly south of the concrete

There are not many examples of projects that have used similar

foundation on which the bars/ restaurant/ dive school are planned.

methodologies. The proposed construction method where a pier is

A general overview of the proposed facilities is shown in Figure 2.

set on metal pilings is the preferred construction method for pier
construction as outlined in the “Construction Guidelines” that have

2.1 Project Setting

been produced by STINAPA and the Bonaire National Marine Park in

The construction activities are proposed directly west of the existing

conjunction with Department of Physical Planning (DROB), SELIBON

facilities of Karel’s Bar in the center of Kralendijk. The coast is

NV, Fundashon Tene Boneiru Limpi, L.V.V, Amigu di tera,

heavily developed, primarily by tourism-related infrastructure. The

construction companies, land owners and developers. These

pier is planned at a location where the reef bottom mainly consists

guidelines were subsequently endorsed by the Government of

of sand or sandy rubble fields extending out to the reef drop-off at
6

Bonaire in 1993. Several piers constructed in a similar way are found

ultimately determine how much and what kind of debris and trash

around the island and seem, when built properly, the least

enters the water.

damaging to the marine environment. Local regulations further

2.4 Project Concerns

stipulate that private pier dimensions cannot exceed 10 x 2 m or

Main concerns regarding the pier construction and use concern the

extend seaward more than 15 % of the distance to the drop-off.

potential damage to marine life, archaeological sites or artifacts and
its potential danger to maritime operations in the area.

On Curacao, Bonaire’s sister island, several piers have been built in
the past to support similar functions as the pier proposed by Ir. K.

3.0 OBSERVATIONS

Visser, which is to some extend also similar to the existing pier of

The pier and its surroundings were surveyed (October 24, 2011) in

Karel’s Bar. Surveys around such piers have resulted in the following

order to determine whether its construction so far (i.e., the

findings and observations: (1) during severe storms such as Lenny

placement of 36 pilings), future construction to finish the pier and

(1999) or Omar (2008) piers that extend from shore always get

other facilities and the use of the pier (as described in 2.0) have or

damaged to some degree and sometimes even destroyed

will result in any damage to the marine environment at this

completely (Figure). (2) When a bar is located on or directly next to

location.

the pier (e.g., Karel’s Bar, the Octopus Bar, Waterfront Arches,
Pirate Bay, Komoko, Seaside Terrace) trash ends up in the water as

The 36 pilings are constructed on a sandy underground and as such

a result of recreational activities on the pier. Some of this debris is

did not seem to have caused any damage on reef communities that

worse than others depending on the fact whether the debris/ trash

might have been present at this site. Corals were not observed near

sinks (e.g., glass bottles) or is carried away by passing currents (e.g.,

(<4 m) the pier. Around the existing pier of Karel’s bar a large

plastic cups, scraps, storm induced debris, cleaning products). The

amount of debris is present that ranges from parts of the pier that

fact that piers extend the land into the ocean will always cause a

were scattered across the reef flat by earlier storms, chairs, a large

local increase in debris entering the water. The functions on the pier

amount of glass bottles floating cups and other debris, remnants of

as well as the number of people generally present on the pier will

7

Figure 3. A small colony of the coral Acropora palmata growing on a

Figure 4. While not very charismatic in appearance, the sea urchin

shallow ledge near the proposed construction location. While large

Diadema antillarum is considered crucial for the well-being of

colonies are not very abundant, many juvenile colonies were

Caribbean reef systems. The ledge mentioned in the text harbors a

observed growing on the same ledge.

large number of these animals.

cleaned fish and concrete pilings that probably supported an earlier

fastigiata) occur in unexpectedly large numbers for a location facing

pier at the same location that was also destroyed by past storms.

observed levels of terrestrial run-off and pollution. Sponges are

Two areas that will be impacted by the proposed construction

widely abundant and macroalgae are largely absent. Especially the

harbor marine communities that still have ecologically meaningful

latter observation is noteworthy as the absence of algae

functions/ values: (1) the nearby reef, deeper than 10m and (2) the

theoretically allows for the recovery of corals (e.g., Vermeij and

ledge directly bordering the shore. On the reef corals (mainly

Sandin 2008, Ritson-Williams et al. 2009, Vermeij et al. 2010) that

Montastraea annularis, Agaricia spp., Madracis mirabilis, Eusmilia

once were abundant on this location (Van Duyl 1985). In other
8

words the fact that much of the affected area currently lacks
significant coral development does not preclude that such areas
could recover, a phenomenon that has occurred for example near
heavily developed shorelines on Curacao (Vermeij, pers. obs.). The
possibility for coral recovery that exists at the location should
therefore be considered during future decision making processes.
The second area that is of ecological importance is the ledge3
directly bordering the waterline. This area, though small, comprises
the following ecological values: (1) it provides suitable substrate for
the endangered coral Acropora palmata (Elkhorn coral; Figure 3),
(2) it provides habitat for the most important Caribbean herbivore,
the sea urchin Diadema antillarum, a species that experienced a

Figure 5. Many fish species such as these juvenile grunts use the

massive Caribbean wide mortality event in 1983 and now is now

ledge mentioned in the text as a shelter or nursery habitat where

slowly recovering (Figure 4) and (3) it serves as a nursery for

they escape predation. Reefs bordering such nursery habitats

juvenile fish especially grunts that seek shelter under the

generally harbor larger fish of the same species.

aforementioned ledge (Figure 5).

in diameter) were observed on the ledge. This species is listed as

Regarding the first, it needs to be noted that although adult

“threatened” throughout their distributional range (i.e., including

colonies of A. palmata are relatively rare at the planned

Bonaire) under the US Endangered Species Act since 2006. In 2008,

construction site, many juveniles of this species (i.e., colonies < 1cm

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) determined that

3

It should be noted that placing the proposed concrete blocks on top of
this ledge might cause this ledge (and the construction on top of it) to
collapse given the fact that the ledge is generally undercut (sometimes
>1.5 m deep) and does not represent a massive limestone platform.

in order to protect A. palmata, its habitat should also be protected
(Federal Register 2008).
9

The long-spined sea urchin Diadema antillarum used to be a

function” compared to locations that lack such nursery habitats

common species that occurred in mean densities of 3–20 ind. m–2

(Nagelkerken et al. 2000a, b).

on the shallow fore-reef along the leeward coast of Curaçao and

Combined and counter-intuitively, the area of the proposed

Bonaire (Bak et al. 1984). In 1983, an unidentified disease caused

construction does represents three important ecological values that

Diadema to become almost extinct in the Caribbean (Lessios 1988).

are generally considered important for the functioning of Caribbean

Diadema antillarum was an important benthic herbivore and

reef systems. All these functions are found in the area on which the

turf/macroalgae increased in abundance after the species’ die-off

restaurant/bars/ diveschool are planned and do not occur in the

(Hughes et al. 1999). Because algae compete for space with juvenile

area where the pier is proposed. These values need consideration in

corals, the D. antillarum die-off indirectly caused a reduction in the

any future decision making regarding the construction of the

number of juvenile corals after algae had become more abundant

proposed facility.

(Edmunds and Carpenter, 2001). Therefore, many reef scientists
consider the D. antillarum die-off as one of the main factors

3.1 Physical Impacts

contributing to the overall decline of Caribbean reef ecosystems and

Structures placed in moving water have the capability to disrupt the

vice versa that their presence is essential for well functioning

water’s flow. Piles may cause locally increased flow rates

Caribbean reef systems.

immediately around their base leading to scour and erosion. They
may also lead to a general slowing of flow over the area of the dock,

The aforementioned ledge also functions as a nursery for juveniles

resulting in settling out of sediments carried by the current. The

of at least 12 different reef fish species, many of them commercially

resulting changes in sediments caused by scour or deposition may

important to the reef fisheries (Nagelkerken et al. 2000a, b).

affect marine life in the area and/or coastal morphology due to

Surprisingly, the shelter provided by this ledge therefore acts much

changes in near shore water flow. There appears to be few research

like mangroves or seagrasses in which such species normally seek

results available on the changes in local sedimentation regimes

protection. Secondly, the abundance of adults of the same species is

caused by pile supported structures. In an engineering study, Poole

shown to be higher on reefs bordering habitats with a “shelter

(1987) suggests that, “At a wind angle of 90º to a 15 m long pier
10

changes in water flow can be expected for a pier on pilings, though
such design is generally preferred by local authorities to allow the
water to flow “trough” the structure. Nevertheless, it seems
inevitable that a pier on pilings and especially the massive
foundation

planned

underneath

the

deck

on which

the

bar/restaurant/dive school are planned will change near shore
currents.
3.2 Environmental Impacts
Various impacts can be expected during various phases of the pier’s
construction and operation. These are all listed below and serve to
provide a concise evaluation of the current knowledge on each
Figure 6. Overview of the landscape in which 36 pilings were placed

topic.

in October 2011.
with 5 pilings on each side [diameter of pilings not noted] can

3.2.1. Placement of the 36 pilings
Environmental impacts are minimal because the pilings are placed

produce eddies and flow friction 2 times the diameter of the

in an area devoid of marine life (Figure 6). One observation made

pilings—minimally. This means a 30 percent reduction in flow. The

during the site visit on October 24th, 2011, was that large amounts

area affected by the flow reduction would be a factor of 2 to 3 times

of groundwater exited the reef sediments near and around the area

the pier length. Properties within 30 to 50 m of a 50–foot pier could

where pilings were placed. Intensive land development as a result

be subjected to drifting algae and trash accumulation, sand

of the rapidly growing tourism industry may result in contamination

deposition and changes in local marine communities.” This

of groundwater resources that eventually discharge into local

evaluation cites no research results and appears to be based on

coastal ecosystems. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, runoff

predictive engineering calculations. However, this study shows that

from roads and other impermeable surfaces, pesticides are all

11

carried to the ocean by groundwater in limestone systems very

vicinity of the pier. Prevention and mitigation measures are needed

similar to the Bonaire situation (Metcalfe et al. 2011). Natural

to ensure that future developments do not impact the marine

groundwater flow is always present, though easier to detect after

environment and human health, thus damaging the tourism-based

rain events. After rain falls on land, it enters the bottom and

economy of the island.

eventually part of it flows underground to the ocean where it exits

3.2.2. Future construction of the pier, deck and other facilities

the reef bottom in areas that are not capped by e.g. limestone
structures. Along developed shorelines, groundwater transports a

Any construction at or near the water edge, or where debris

variety of pollutants (see above) but also sewage leaking from

(including sand and plastic) can be washed or blown into the water,

dysfunctional cesspools and septic tanks.

should be surrounded by silt screens, which must be placed before
the work starts. The screens should also be placed around storage

While such process is probably continuously occurring, the

areas, to prevent waste from blowing away and to prevent

possibility exists that the placement of the pilings is presently

sediment run-off into the sea. In addition to silt screens, building

facilitating the release of polluted groundwater to the near shore

guidelines of the Bonaire National Marine Park require that storage

waters. While the geomorphology of the site is unknown, the

areas for sand and soil, and all work areas, must be at least 20

possibility cannot be confirmed nor denied. Water measurements

meters away from the high water mark and construction equipment

taken during the field visit indicate a large number of pathogenic

must not be cleaned or washed within 50 meters of the high water

bacteria (Vibrio spp.; > 1600 bacteria per ml) to be present in the

mark. Cement used to make concrete can be carried to nearby reefs

water (normal concentrations are 0-10 bacteria per ml). While the

with local currents. Because cement raises the pH of the

source of these bacteria cannot be determined, the extremely high

surrounding seawater considerably (Stark 1955), cement used to

abundance of only one indicator species already indicates that the

construct the proposed pier has the potential to affect the relatively

water at this site is severely polluted, possibly already with risks for

well-developed coral communities that exist < 1 km down-current

human health and local reef systems. This aspect deserves critical

of the construction site. During the site visit on October 24th, 2011,

attention in the near future as it not only affects the “health” of

it was noted that the pilings of the pier that were placed are smaller

nearby reef communities, but also that of people swimming in the
12

than the ones shown on the drawing provided earlier. It is however
presently unclear whether the construction of the pier with smaller
pilings has implications for the pier’s structural integrity during daily
operations, during storms or whether large yachts can still attach to
the pier. The proposed foundation of concrete filled in with sand
(on which the bars/restaurant/ diveschool) will be placed will
destroy some of the ecological values described in “3.0
Observations”: (1) habitat for the endangered coral Acropora
palmata (Elkhorn coral), (2) habitat for the most important
Caribbean herbivore, the sea urchin Diadema antillarum, and (3) the
nursery function for juvenile fish especially grunts. While this
habitat is also present along other sections of the Kralendijk shore

Figure 7. Example of debris that is commonly found around piers.

line, the proposed construction will cause a reduction of this habitat
waste (generated by customers and the restaurant/bar facilities)

of approximately 5%.

deserve the utmost attention to prevent these materials from

3.2.3. Debris, waste and trash entering the ocean
The future usages of the pier include the following: a dive school, a

entering the nearby reef waters. Disposal of liquid waste (with
sewage being the major concern), should occur by connecting the

bar/restaurant and presently unknown functions related to the

facilities to the Bonaire waste water system. Any type of liquid

planned inclusion of the proposed pier and associated facilities in a

waste (including sewage, water used for washing, particulates,

hotel-complex that is planned for construction on a nearby site.

organic waste, chemical/ cleaning products, see also “3.2.5.

Given the variety of usages associated with the pier and the large

Contaminants from treated wood used for decks”) is extremely

number of persons expected to participate in these activities (the

detrimental to tropical marine communities and can easily affect

facility can seat at least a 100 persons), disposal of sewage and

marine ecosystems downstream of the construction site (where
13

relatively healthy coral communities are found) as waste easily

a storm is best exemplified by the destruction of the Green Parrot

travels with local currents. It is therefore of paramount importance

restaurant in November 1999 due to storm Lenny causing the

that all waste generated by the proposed facility (in the broadest

restaurant’s structure, furniture and appliances to become

sense of the word) does under no circumstances enter the

scattered across the nearby reef.

surrounding waters. For a more detailed overview of the effects of
commonly used chemicals on coral reef communities, see: SanchezBayo et al. (2011).
Furthermore, many people using the bar/ restaurant facilities on
the pier will cause a large flux of waste (i.e., napkins, plastic cups
etc.) into the ocean as the wind will blow such items from the pier, a
phenomenon also observed around Karel’s Beach Bar (Figure 7) and
similar establishments on Curacao. It is presently unclear how the
proposed facilities aim to address this concern, but based on
experiences elsewhere (see: “2.3 Similar Projects”) it can be
expected that such influx of (accidental) debris and waste can be
substantial and generally causes the area around such piers to

Figure 8. Example of a severe weather event (Tropical storm Omar

become devoid of any form of marine life. Secondly, turtles and

in 2008) that affected Karel’s Bar (shown) directly next to the

birds often mistake plastic bags and cups for (jelly)fish and eat

proposed construction location of the new pier

them. Plastic blocks the animals’ digestive tract, causing it to starve
to death. The influx of (accidental) debris and waste will increase

Lastly, since the pier will (at least in part) serve as a bar/ restaurant,

during storms that have removed entire facilities from near shore

regular cleaning will be required as demanded by local health

positions, even when these were not built on a pier. The possibility

authorities. Cleaning such a large pier, which is to some degree

that an entire near shore facility disappears below the waves during

largely open structure that facilitates the leaching of chemicals, will
14

cause the input of cleaning products as well as nutrients (e.g.

exposed to water can decay rapidly. To protect the wood and

phosphates), to the water where they will increase growth rate and

ensure piers will have a reasonable lifespan, the wood is typically

abundance of a variety of planktonic and benthic algae (e.g.,

treated with preservative chemicals that, in turn, can leach into

McCook 2001, Smith et al. 2002, Szmant 2002, McManus and

surrounding waters. Historically, the most commonly used materials

Polsenberg, 2004) that can then outcompete corals. Because such

were oil-based: creosote or pentachlorophenols. Presently, wood

chemicals will be transported by local currents, their effect is not

products pressure-treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA)

limited to the area where they initially entered the water.

are the most common material used for dock construction. In
laboratory studies, researchers found that leaching occurs in saline

3.2.4. The effects of storms
Experiences from both Bonaire and Curacao have shown that

waters and that it can have toxic effects. The leaching rate

facilities located on piers are generally too weak to withstand

decreases by about 50% daily once the wood is immersed in

occasional severe weather events (Figure 8). In the recent past,

seawater. Approximately 99% of the leaching occurs within the first

tropical storms Lenny (1998) and Omar (2008) destroyed a

90 days in the marine environment (Sanger and Holland, 2002).

significant number of piers and near shore facilities on both islands.

Elevated concentrations of metals from CCA-treated wood can be

While it is presently unclear whether the proposed facilities are

found in organisms living near to the pilings (Weis and Weis 1996)

designed to withstand such storms, this matter deserves critical

and in sediments with higher contaminant levels, species richness

attention. Destruction of all or part of the proposed facilities by a

was depressed (Weis and Weis 1998). Factors involved in impacts to

storm will cause a large flux of debris to nearby marine and coastal

biota appears to include sediment type, amount of CCA-treated

environments. Such concerns go beyond structural aspects and also

material, length of time the CCA-treated material has been

include precautionary measures to protect waste water systems etc.

immersed in marine waters (more than or less than 3 months), and

from being damaged during such events.

the flushing rate of the water body. Sanger and Holland (2002)
report that, “it is unlikely that the bioaccumulation of dock

3.2.5. Contaminants from treated wood used for decks
The most common contaminant-related concern associated with

leachates by marine biota is having or is likely to have an impact on
living resources in South Carolina estuaries and tidal creeks”.

small docks is leaching of wood preservatives. Wood continuously
15

Reasons given are that approximately 99% of the leaching takes

secondary wakes (or “prop wash”) cause sediment to become

place in the first three months after installation, the fact that the

resuspended and transported elsewhere by the prevailing currents.

size of the area around the dock that might be affected is generally

Since no information was provided on the types of boats expected

small, and high rates of tidal flushing will dilute and flush any

to moor to the proposed pier, no predictions can be made of how

accumulations in the water column. It is however unknown how

severe these potential impacts will be.

reef organisms respond to such chemicals in a system characterized

3.2.7 Artificial beach construction
South of the proposed dive school/bar/ restaurant a small beach is

by minimal tidal flushing.
3.2.6 Effects from boats using the docks
Fueling that takes place at small docks generally consists of pouring

planned. It is currently unclear whether it is expected that such

fuel from a portable tank into an outboard engine’s fuel tank—often

case of the latter, it needs to be noted that artificial beach creation

with the engine attached to the stern of the boat directly over the

has generally been unsuccessful in the region and generally results

water. This offers the opportunity for spillage or overflows. Poorly

in excessive sedimentation on nearby reefs. This aspect of the

designed or maintained engines may also discharge fuel during

proposed activity needs additional clarifications before its potential

operation. Petroleum products in marine waters can have

negative impacts can be assessed.

beach forms naturally or whether it will be created artificially. In

significant impacts. Outboard motors have long been associated
with polluting of waterways (Milliken and Lee 1990). It is however

3.2.8 Boating and navigational issues
The planned pier will be connected to an existing pier that has

difficult to differentiate between general recreational boat use and

existed > 15 yrs and therefore results in minimal changes in the

that associated with small docks. Additionally, boat wakes, which

seascape as relevant to boaters.

lap at the shoreline, can contribute to increased shore erosion
3.2.9 Existing water quality issues
As mentioned in “3.2.1. Placement of the 36 pilings” there are

(Zabawa et al. 1980). If boats are moving at a speed slow enough to
avoid leaving a wake, there will not be shoreline erosion. There was

concerns about the water quality at the proposed construction site.

little found in the literature that pertained specifically to boats

This has serious implications for the recreational activities that will

maneuvering near docks or landing areas, where the effects of
16

take place around the pier, but are also relevant for the planned

Diadema antillarum, and (3) the nursery function for juvenile fish

fountain. Cheng et al. (2010) and Backet er al. (2005) have shown

especially grunts

that spray from degraded water bodies due to an increased

3.4Compliance with Environmental Requirements

abundance of pathogenic microorganisms, will affect people who

While the pier on pilings does not pose a significant impact on local

breath it. Similarly Schoen and Ashbolt (2011) have shown that

or nearby marine communities, its construction requires a permit

pathogenic microbes residing in fresh water systems (Legionella)

because it is constructed within the boundaries of the Bonaire

affect mostly the elderly after such water was “misted”. Research in

National Marine Park (Marine Environment Ordinance A.B 1991

this area is rather scarce, but the examples mentioned above

Nr.8) which is indicated in the “Construction Guidelines” put

suggest a causal link between reduced human health and breathing

together by STINAPA/Bonaire National Marine Park. These

aerosolized vapors containing waterborne pathogens. The fact that

guidelines are available online at:

potentially pathogenic bacteria species were observed at the

http://www.bmp.org/rulesandregulations2.html.

location of the future pier and the fact that degraded reefs (i.e.,
those near Kralendijk, IUCN 2011) harbor greater abundances of

It needs noting that if the pier will serve as part of a marina, an

pathogenic microbes (Dinsdale et al. 2008) caution against

additional Environmental Impact Study or “milieu effect rapportage

vaporizing/ spraying such water near age groups most sensitive to

(MER)” is required. In addition to laws have recently have come into

health risks such as the elderly and infants/ children.

effect after Bonaire became part of the Netherlands such as The

3.3. Mortality of in-situ Organisms

Marine Law BES (art. 20 and 21) that are enforced by the Dutch

The proposed foundation of concrete filled in with sand (on which

Ministry “Verkeer en Waterstaat” and overseen by Rijkswaterstaat

the bars/restaurant/ dive school) will be placed will destroy some of

(Netherlands).

the ecological values described in “3.0 Observations”: (1) habitat for

3.5 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Significance

the endangered coral Acropora palmata (Elkhorn coral), (2) habitat

None. The area has been intensively used by the hotel industry for

for the most important Caribbean herbivore, the sea urchin

several decades and associated developments, including the pier’s
17

predecessor, have modified the environment to such degree that

5.0 CONCLUSION

historic artifacts are longer expected to be present.

The proposed pier cannot be built without causing several
detrimental impacts to the marine environment. These can be

3.6 Navigational Concerns

summarized as follows: (1) a reduction in habitat for the

Expected to be minimal. However, since no information was

endangered coral Acropora palmata (Elkhorn coral), (2) a reduction

provided on the types of boats expected to moor to the proposed

in the habitat for the most important Caribbean herbivore, the sea

pier, no exact predictions can be made of how severe these

urchin Diadema antillarum, (3) a reduction in nursery habitat for

potential impacts will be.

juvenile fish especially grunts, (4) an alteration in near shore

4.0 ALTERNATIVES

currents, (5) increased influx of nutrients/ chemicals causing algal

None. This is a stand-alone project in a heavily developed area that

growth down current of the proposed pier, (6) a large increase in

lacks space to build the proposed structure elsewhere.

debris/ trash entering the near shore water that will also be
transported down current with prevailing currents and affect sea
turtles and birds, (7) a large increase in debris resulting from the
fact that severe storms will eventually hit the proposed
bars/restaurant/ diveschool, (8) increased chemical pollution from
fuel spills from boats using the pier/ marina facilities and (9)
potential human health risks as polluted water will be aerosolized in
a planned fountain.

18

6.0 CONSULTED LITERATURE
rare storm event: Hurricane Lenny, November, - J. 1999. Coral Reefs
23: 297-307.

Backer, LC, Kirkpatrick, B, Fleming, LE, Cheng, YS, Pierce, R, Bean,
JA, Clark, R, Johnson, D, Wanner, A, Tamer, R, Zhou, Y, Baden, DG.

Bryant,D., L. Burke, J. McManus and M. Spalding (1998) Reefs at

2005. Occupational exposure to aerosolized brevetoxins during

Risk – A Map-Based Indicator of Threats to the World’s Coral Reefs.

Florida red tide events: Effects on a healthy worker population.

WRI, Washington (USA), p. 56.

Environmental Health Perspectives 113: 644-649.

Cheng, YS, Zhou, Y , Naar, J, Irvin, CM, Su, WC, Fleming, LE,

Bak, R.P.M., M. J. E. Carpay, and D. E. De Ruyter van Steveninck.

Kirkpatrick, B, Pierce, RH, Backer, LC, Baden, DG. 2010. Personal

1984. Densities of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum before and

Exposure to Aerosolized Red Tide Toxins (Brevetoxins). Journal of

after mass mortalities on the coral reefs of Curaçao. Mar. Ecol. Prog.

Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 7: 326-331.

Ser. 17: 105–108.

Debrot, A. O. and I. Nagelkerken. 2006. Recovery of the long-spined

Bak, R.P.M., G. Nieuwland, E.H. Meesters (2005) Coral reef crisis in

sea urchin Diadema antillarum in Curaçao (Netherlands Antilles)

deep and shallow reefs: 30 years of constancy and change in reefs

linked to lagoonal and wave-sheltered shallow rocky habitats. Bull.

of Curacao and Bonaire. Coral reefs 24: 475–479.

Mar. Sci. 79(2): 415-424.

Barber, C. and Pratt V. 1997. Sullied Seas: Strategies for Combating

Debrot, A. O. 1993. Artificial beaches and sustainable development

Cyanide Fishing in Southeast Asia and Beyond. Washington D.C.:

in Curaçao. Pp. 33-38. In: Proc.1st Reef Care Curaçao Seminar,

World Resources Institute, and Manila, Philippines: International

Curaçao, June 1993.

Marinelife Alliance. 57 p.

Dinsdale E.A., Pantos O., Smriga S., Edwards R.A., Angly F., Wegley

Bries, J. M., A.O. Debrot and D. L. Meyer. 2004. Damage to the

L., Hatay M., Hall D., Brown E., Haynes M., Krause L., Sala E., Sandin

leeward reefs of Curacao and Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles from a

S.A., Vega Thurber R., Willis B.L., Azam F., Knowlton N., Rohwer F.

19

(2008) Microbial ecology of four coral atolls in the Northern Line

Jameson, S.C., J.W. McManus, and M.D. Spalding. 1995. State of the

Islands. PLoS ONE, 3, e1584. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001584.

Reefs: Regional and Global Perspectives. Background Paper,
Executive

Duyl, van F.C. 1985. Atlas of the Living Reefs of Curaçao and Bonaire
(Netherlands

Antilles).

Uitgaven

Secretariat,

International

Coral

Reef

Initiative.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric

“Natuurwetenschappelijke

Administration.

studiekring voor Suriname en de Nederlandse Antillen”, Utrecht, no.

Lessios, H. A. 1988. Mass mortality of Diadema antillarum in the

117.

Caribbean: what have we learned? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19: 371–

Edmunds, P. J. and R. C. Carpenter. 2001. Recovery of Diadema

393.

antillarum reduces macroalgal cover and increases abundance of
juvenile corals on a Caribbean reef. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98: 5067–

McCook LJ (2001) Competition between corals and algal turfs along

5071.

a gradient of terrestrial influence in the nearshore central Great
Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 19:419–425.

Federal Register (2008) Endangered and Threatened species; critical
habitat for threatened elkhorn and staghorn corals. Vol. 73, No.

McManus JW, Polsenberg JF (2004) Coral-algal phase shifts on coral

229. Docket No. 070801431–81370–02.

reefs: ecological and environmental aspects. Prog Oceanogr 60:263–
279

Grimsditch, G. Arnold, S., de Bey, H., Brown, J. Engel, S., de Leon, R.,
Vermeij, M. (2011) Coral Reef Resilience Assessment of the Bonaire

Metcalfe CD, Beddows PA, Bouchot GG, Metcalfe TL, Li H, Van

National Marine Park, Netherlands Antilles. IUCN.

Lavieren H. 2011. Contaminants in the coastal karst aquifer system
along the Caribbean coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico.

Hughes, T.P., A. M. Szmant, R. Steneck, R. Carpenter, and S. Miller.

Environ Pollut. 159(4): 991-997.

1999. Algal blooms on coral reefs: what are the causes? Limnol.

Meyer, D. L., J. M. Bries, B. J. Greenstein and A. O. Debrot. 2003.

Oceanogr. 44: 1583–1586.

Preservation of in situ reef framework in regions of low hurricane

20

frequency: Pleistocene of Curacao and Bonaire, southern Caribbean.

Salm, R. V., J. R. Clark and E. Siirila 2000. Marine and coastal

Lethaia 36: 273-285.

protected areas. 3d edition. IUCN, Switzerland. 370 pp.

Milliken, A. S., and V. Lee. 1990. Pollution impacts from recreational

Sanchez-Bayo, F., van den Brink, P.J., Mann, R.M. (Eds.). 2011.

boating: A bibliography and summary review. Rhode Island Sea

Ecological impact of toxic chemicals. Bentham Science Publishers

Grant. P 1134. RIU-G-90-002. 26 pp.

Ltd.

Nagelkerken I, Dorenbosch M, Verberk WCEP, Cocheret de la

Sanger, D.M. and A.F. Holland. 2002. Evaluation of the Impacts of

Morinière E, van der Velde G (2000a) Importance of shallow-water

Dock Structures on South Carolina Estuarine Environments. SC

biotopes of a Caribbean bay for juvenile coral reef fishes: patterns in

Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division

biotope association, community structure and spatial distribution.

Technical Report Number 99. Charleston, SC.

Mar Ecol Prog Ser 202:175–192

Schoen, M., E., Ashbolt, N.J. 2011. An in-premise model for

Nagelkerken I, van der Velde G, Gorissen MW, Meijer GJ, van‘t Hof

Legionella exposure during showering events. Water research 45:

T, den Hartog C (2000b) Importance of mangroves, seagrass beds

5826-5836.

and the shallow coral reef as a nursery for important coral reef

Sloot, J. H., van der, en B. de Meij. 1990. Een quantitatief onderzoek

fishes, using a visual census technique. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 51:31–

naar het effect van strandopspuiting op het aangrenzend koraalrif

44

op Curacao. Carmabi/UvA, stageverslag. 45 pp + bijlagen.

Poole, Bruce M. 1987. Diagnostic/Feasibility Study for Lagoon Pond

Smith JE, Hunter CL, Smith CM (2002) Factors influencing algal

Oak Bluffs, Tisbury, MA. SP Engineering, Inc. Salem MA

blooms on tropical reefs with an emphasis on herbivory, nutrients

Ritson-Williams, R., Arnold, S., Fogarty, N., Steneck, R., Vermeij,

and invasive species. Pac Sci 56:299–315

M.J.A. and V. Paul (2009) New perspectives on ecological
mechanisms affecting coral recruitment on reefs. Smithsonian
Contributions to the Marine Sciences, 38:437-457.
21

Stark, D., 1995, Long-Time Performance of Concrete in a Seawater

Weis, J.S. and P. Weis. 1998. Effects of CCA Wood Docks and

exposure. Portland Cement Association Research and Development

Resulting Boats on Bioaccumulation of Contaminants in Shellfish

Report RP337. 55 pp.

Resources: Final Report to DEP. A report to the NJ DEP.

Steneck , R.S., S. N. Arnold. 2009. Status and Trends of Bonaire’s

Zabawa, C., C. Ostrom, R. J. Byrne, J. D. Boon III, R. Waller, and D.

Coral

Blades. 1980. Final report on the role of boat wakes in shore erosion

Reefs,

2009

&

Need

for

Action.

Available

at:

in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Tidewater Administration,

http://www.bmp.org/pdfs/Dr_Steneck-Bonaire Report 2009.pdf

Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources. 12/1/80. 238 pp

Szmant AM (2002) Nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: is it a major
cause of coral reef decline? Estuaries 25:743–766
Vermeij, M.J.A. and S.A. Sandin (2008) Density dependent
recruitment and mortality in a tropical benthic invertebrate. Ecology
89(7): 1994–2004.
Vermeij, M.J.A., I. van Moorselaar, S. Engelhard, C. Hörnlein, S. M.
Vonk and P. M. Visser (2010) The effects of nutrient enrichment and
herbivore abundance on the ability of turf algae to overgrow coral
in the Caribbean. PLoS ONE 5(12): e14312.
Weis, J.S. and P. Weis. 1996. The effects of using wood treated with
chromated copper arsenate in shallow water environments: a
review. Estuaries 19:306–310.

22