Aliapa`akai, the Hawaiians called it – “salt pond.” Legend has it that the lake, which lay within the leeward O’ahu district Moanalua, was dug by Pele and the salt was from her tears.
In 1822, missionaries visiting the site limned its beauty: “Plants, sticks, and tufts of grass, scattered on the beach, are … delicately frosted with spangles of salt.” They pronounced it “the principal natural curiosity that this island affords.”
The origin of the salt was never pinned down before it disappeared. By the late 1800s, runoff from cane fields planted in the area had silted up the lake. In 1910, an artesian well was dug nearby with its water diverted to the lake. Water again filled the depression in the earth, but it was no longer a salt lake.1
Today, only a few acres of open water and surrounding wetland remain. Nonetheless, it’s good enough for three species of endangered Hawaiian waterbird – the stilt, coot, and duck – to call home.
Whether they will be able to continue living there after the City and County of Honolulu Department of Parks and Recreation completes construction of its Salt Lake District Park is a matter that is open to question.
Since the late 1970s, the city has had designs on the land adjoining the lake not as an area in dire need of protection against further development, but as a vast burial ground of softball and baseball diamonds, soccer fields and tennis courts just waiting to be unearthed. Plans called then – and still may call – for part of the remaining wetland to be filled.
Speculation Pays
The boundaries of the park lie within the state Conservation District and describe roughly the southeastern exterior slopes of Aliamanu Crater. Within the park perimeter lie about 160 acres, but, with most of the land too steeply sloped to be developed, city plans call for placing facilities on a 10-acre area makai of the lake and a 12-acre area mauka.
A brief history of the land’s ownership provides insight into how it came to be selected for a park. The land was included in about 1,000 acres purchased from Damon Estate by Clarence T.C. Ching and his International Development Company (IDCo). Reported sale price, in the mid-1950s, was about $10 million for the entire 1,000 acres.
Houses and apartments sprouted on the more easily developed parcels. In the center, smack on top of most of Salt Lake, rose the Honolulu International County Club with its 18-hole golf course.
By the late 1970s, most of the area had been subdivided or built up. The slopes of Aliamanu Crater alone were proving to be resistant to development. Because of the inclusion of the area in the Conservation District, and amid rising outrage over the filling of most of Salt Lake by the golf course, Ching was having difficulty converting the land to profitable use.
In 1972, Ching and Mayor Frank Fasi came to an agreement. As Ching later described it in a letter to Fasi in 1976, the city would not object to “permitting some 30 acres of lands zoned for conservation uses to be rezoned for apartment uses”, in return for which “we were prepared to provide three park sites, including an area for a regional park, together with certain park improvements. The essence of the arrangement was that the public would obtain the benefit of a part of the profits realized by us as a result of the more favorable zoning use.”
The Land Use Commission would not go along, however, and rejected the petition to place the proposed apartment site into the urban district. In the letter to Fasi mentioned above (offering to sell the land to the city), Ching described this and following events: “Our efforts to further pursue the matter were frustrated by misrepresentations and unfounded allegations… which served to thoroughly confuse the issues and resulted in vocal public rejection of the proposal.”2
The Legislature, packed with friends and business associates of Ching, bailed him out. In its 1976 session, the legislature appropriated $2.5 million for the purchase, for a city park at Salt Lake.3
Softball’s Greater Glory
The state bought the 64-acre parcel that makes up the mauka park land for just under $20,000 an acre – or about $1.25 million. Three years later, the bulk of the makai parcel was purchased by the city for a like amount, using federal Housing and Urban Development community development block grant funds.
The regional park that Ching had planned bears a strong resemblance to the park described in the city’s environmental impact statement for the Salt Lake District Park. The makai portion was to be paved over with about 150 parking stalls, two swimming pools, four basketball courts, tennis courts, a volleyball court, gymnasium, and combination football-soccer-softball field, liberally sprinkled with restrooms, picnic areas, and playgrounds. For the mauka lands were planned 233 parking stalls, three softball courts, eight tennis courts and a practice court, and a combination football-soccer-baseball field. Linking the mauka and makai areas was to be a system of jogging, hiking and bicycle paths.
In the center would be the forlorn wetland and relict lake, now to be called a “wildlife refuge.” Four viewing stations would be built out over the wetland area as rest stops along a “lakeside promenade.” The city had no intention, however, of assuming the task of managing a refuge; its plans, prepared by the engineering firm of Wilson Okamoto & Associates, called simply for turning over the “refuge” to the state Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Pointed Questions
A number of parties raised concerns over the city plans when the draft EIS was circulated. The playing fields planned for the mauka portion would entail filling about four acres of the 13 or so remaining of Salt Lake. Nor would those acres be filled one time only. According to the EIS, “the fill will be placed on soft clay silt material and lake and marsh sediments, which will continue to settle for a number of years. This settling requires periodic ‘spot’ filling to keep the playing fields level.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was concerned with the park’s potential impact on the endangered waterbirds. Destruction or degradation of the wetland would have an adverse effect on the birds, wrote Maurice Taylor of the Honolulu office in a letter January 22, 1979. Efforts should also be made to design compatible uses of the area to insure that neither further destruction of habitat nor harassment of the birds occurs through recreational development and use of the area.
In that same letter, Taylor specifically inquired if any federal agency was involved in the park’s development. When federal money is used for a project that could affect endangered species, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is triggered, Taylor wrote, entailing consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. (The purpose is to make sure that federal money is not used for projects that may harm endangered species.)
Wetlands and habitat for endangered waterbirds were mentioned by the University of Hawai’i Environmental Center as well. In its comment on the draft EIS, dated October 9, 1979, director Doak C. Cox complained that there was no “information regarding the actual fill site in relationship to the existing bird habitat… Can it be assumed that the present habitat will be filled for park development and a new habitat created in its stead?” Cox mentioned the Environmental Protection Agency’s policy to “protect wetlands from adverse dredging or filling practices,” then asked: “is this development of the wetlands at Salt Lake in keeping with this policy?”
And, once more, the city was alerted to the need to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. “Are federal funds involved in any facet of the park’s development?” Cox asked.
Evasive Answers
In a letter dated November 28, 1979, Ramon Duran, director of the Department of Parks and Recreation at the time, responded to Cox’s questions.
Yes, he said, “A portion of the marsh area on the mauka end of the lake will be filled in for park development.” While the park plan called for a wildlife refuge, he said, the refuge itself would be designed, implemented and maintained by the Department of Land and Natural Resources.
The park is not in conflict with the EPA’s policy, he claimed “since it will not adversely affect the wetlands.” “Some filling of a small portion of the lake will occur, however, a refuge will be established to enhance the partially degraded wetland area” – but again, any “enhancement” would be up to the DLNR.
Duran stated unequivocally that “Federal funds are not presently being utilized, nor have any commitments been made for future use of federal funds. As such, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act… is not applicable.”
But Duran himself had to have known at the time that federal funds were being sought – and that, in December 1979, those funds were used to acquire the makai land. On May 22 of that year, Duran had written a memo to Wallace Miyahara, then the director of the city’s Department of Public Works. The subject was “land acquisition of Salt Lake District Park:”
“A recent city appropriation (FY 1979 CIP Supplement 3) by Ordinance No.79-25, May 2, 1979, approved $1,250,000 of reallocated federal CDBG funds for acquisition of land…
“We will request funding authorization from HUD. Hopefully, drawdown approval will be made by August. In the interim, we request that parcel maps be drawn and that other administrative preparation be made for this acquisition in order to expend these funds prior to the lapse date on December 31, 1979.”
There was no Section 7 consultation.
Cut and Fill
After acceptance of the final EIS in January 1980, approval of the park plan by the Board of Land and Natural Resources followed quickly. At the time of approval, in March 1980, no agreement had been worked out between the city and the state over design, location or management of a wildlife refuge. Instead, the Board conditioned the Conservation District Use Permit on, among other things, the city keeping the state apprised of the design and location of the proposed viewing platforms overlooking the refuge – and, of course, the city complying with all applicable federal, state, and city statutes and regulations.
Work began almost at once in the makai area. Since it was already relatively flat, it entailed far less site preparation than the mauka area. The city submitted to the DLNR, and the DLNR approved, plans for a gymnasium (1984); softball fields, irrigation and drainage (1986); and for a parking lot and lighting system (1990) – all for the makai portion of the park.
In 1991 the city began preparing bid documents for the mauka area. Walter Ozawa, director of the city Department of Parks and Recreation, notified William Paty, director of the state Board of Land and Natural Resources, of this fact. In light of this, he requested that the land, owned by the state since 1976, be turned over to the city,
City files reviewed by Environment Hawai’i contain no copy of a reply from Paty. The inventory of state lands at the DLNR’s Division of land Management show that the 64 or so acres of mauka park land continue to be owned by the state. The inventory, in fact, describes the parcel as “vacant” – that is, unencumbered by lease, license, or permit. The only authority that the city was ever granted to enter the premises appears to date back to 1976, when the Department of parks and Recreation was given a right of entry “for topographic survey and for planning purposes.”
In any event, the matter of ownership seems to have been regarded as a technicality by the city, which forged ahead with its plans to develop the mauka park area. On November 25, 1991, Ozawa signed his approval on a set of a drawings describing “Mauka – Phase I -Site Improvements,” calling for a combination baseball-football-softball field and other amenities. Plans called for 25.6 acres to be graded, with 421,200 cubic yards of earth to be excavated and 426,900 cubic yards to be embanked. A concrete-rubble-masonry retaining wall, six to 10 feet high, would surround the excavated area. Bids were opened in December 1991. Excavation began in April 1992.
The DLNR’s Office of Conservation and Environmental Affairs, responsible for making certain development proceeded in accordance with the conditions of the Conservation District permit, was not asked to approve plans nor was it provided a set of drawings for review.
To the Edge
When excavation began, the noise, dust and sheer scope of the work alarmed many of the nearby residents, some of whom had no idea that the city planned to develop the small, rugged valley between Aliamanu Crater and their subdivision. Their ignorance is understandable; after all, the last public hearing on park plans occurred more than 13 years ago, long before most of the houses in the area were built, much less occupied.
Not only has the neighborhood changed; regulations on wetlands have, too. In the original EIS for the park (which remains the only official document guiding park development), the matter of wetlands fill was not given great weight. Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act requires the Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for wetlands fill. In 1979, however, the local chief engineer determined that because Salt Lake was not a “navigable water” of the United States, no 404 permit was needed.
Federal regulations now are more stringent and, according to personnel at the Corps’ office, the 1979 determination that no 404 permit would be required has no force today.
In August, the Corps was notified by a resident that runoff from the cleared areas appeared to be flowing into the wetlands. Warren Kanai of the Corps conducted a site inspection, during which he found fill material placed to the very edge of the wetland area, but not encroaching into it. The contractor was warned not to place material beyond the “toe” of fill that appeared to have been placed in the area years ago. According to Kanai, the contractor was “only vaguely aware of the need to avoid encroaching onto the wetland.”
Neither the engineer who designed the park for the city (Calvin Kim) nor the contractor (Bateman Construction) could tell Kanai whether the park plans called for filling the wetland. In a follow-up letter to Ozawa, dated August 7, 1992, Michael lee, chief of the Corps’ operation division, wrote: “I highly recommend that this determination” – concerning possible wetland fill – “be made as soon as possible.”
What Sanctuary?
Even if the wetland were not being deliberately filled, runoff from the graded area can damage the pond and wetland as well. Agents from both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps of Engineers noted the lack of any erosion control measures. Kanai brought this to the attention of the state Department of Health’s Clean Water Branch. Regulations that will take effect October 1, 1992, will require approved erosion control plans for any excavation that could have an impact on the waters of the state (including Salt Lake). If the city finishes its work by October 1 – which few think possible – no state permit will be required. Otherwise, it would seem that the city would have to comply additionally with the state regulations.
There is also the matter of the sanctuary. The city’s intention to have the state manage the proposed wildlife refuge at the park seems to have held up transfer of the land from the state to the city. In a memo January 1980 from Libert Landgraf, at the time state forester, to the DLNR’s planning office (predecessor to the OCEA), Landgraf noted that funds would be required for the state to undertake the projects that the city was attempting to delegate to it. In an early review of the EIS by members of Landgraf’s staff, he wrote, they had determined that any sanctuary would have to encompass not only the city park lands, but also the adjoining water and mudflats on which the stilts nested. The adjoining private land, however, is owned by Honolulu International Country Club, Landgraf noted. “I think it maybe appropriate now to ask our administrators… if they would again approach the International County Club people about the acquisition of the remaining waters and mudflats.”
It is not known whether the administrators followed up on this, but the sought-after land remains in the hands of the country club.
The country club had been approached two years earlier by the city, which asked the club to allow pedestrian and bicycle access along the shoreline of Salt Lake. Stanley Himeno, president of the club (and father of current Board Member Sharon Himeno), denied the request. In a letter December 26, 1978 to Ramon Duran, director of the city Parks Department, Himeno cited the danger of flying balls from golfers on the 18th hole as a deterrent to use of the shoreline for a pedestrian or bicycle path. Nor, he wrote, could water areas between the 18th fairway and the proposed park be used for “water related activities because of danger to park users and annoyance to golfers.”
“We appreciate your desire to develop this project,” Himeno concluded. “However, our concern is not only for the safety and well being of everyone but also the maintaining of privacy for our members.”
1 This account is taken from George Cooper and Gavan Daws, Land and Power in Hawai`i (Honolulu, 1985), pp. 300-301. Daws and Cooper provide an account of the development of the Salt Lake area that helps immeasurably in understanding the origins of the Salt Lake Regional Park.
2 Letter from Ching to Fasi, October 5, 1976.
3 Rep. Richard Garcia, a real estate salesman and vice speaker of the House of Representatives at the time, appears to have played an instrumental role in arranging for the state purchase. In a letter to Howard Shima of the city Building Department on June 21, 1976, Garcia stated: “I have spoken with Governor Ariyoshi regarding the acquisition of a parcel of land for a park in the Salt Lake community. I was informed by the governor that he, in turn, will speak with the attorney general… and Mr. Christopher Cobb of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. He will request that they initiate a cost analysis… I am sure this meets with your approval and will keep you informed of any further developments.” Garcia is described in Land and Power in Hawai`i as an “outspoken environmentalist” at the time of his election to the Legislature in 1971. “Before he left elective politics at the end of the 1970s he had been on the payroll of one of the Big Five (Alexander & Baldwin) and indicated in his financial disclosure statements real property holdings valued at close to a million dollars” (pp.448-449).
Volume 3, Number 3 September 1992