I believe that we would like to know the position of the State department of transportation on this bill, so we'd like to call Mr. Alvey Wright back to the witness stand.

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF E. ALVEY WRIGHT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF

TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF HAWAII

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the only concern of the State department of transportation is in the future of the Honokohau Boat Harbor, which is a most important public facility to the people of the Kamehameha coast.

It is understood that the Honokohau Boat Harbor is within the boundaries of the study proposed by H.R. 11774. Any deterrent to the current improvement and completion of this harbor would not seem to be in the public interest.

The Honokohau Boat Harbor was opened in 1970 and we have had $4.2 million in State funds appropriated to date; $3.1 million still to go in the development of this harbor; $2.6 million has been expended, so we are approximately in midstream now in the development aspect.

As far as we know, the administration of public marina facilities has not been generally undertaken by the Federal Government. It is therefore strongly recommended that the Honokohau Boat Harbor and ancillary facilities, together with the access roadway, be omitted from the study so that the current development can continue at State expense.

(The map presented by Mr. Wright follows:)

Mr. TAYLOR. How many boats can the harbor accommodate now? Mr. WRIGHT. About 60, but we do not have appropriate catwalks, slips, things of this kind, so it very greatly, Mr. Chairman, needs to be further improved to be suitable for the purpose to which, of course, our engineers and Federal participation has been so heavily involved. Mr. TAYLOR. When it's completed, how many boats do you hope to accommodate?

Mr. WRIGHT. 350, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Any other questions?

Mr. MCCLURE. You have submitted, Mr. Wright, with your statement, a proposed master plan of the harbor development, and the-I can't relate that directly to the other maps that we've had of the historic site; now, are there any historical monuments within the area of the proposed master plan which would be destroyed by the construction proposed by the State?

Mr. WRIGHT. A survey has been made of this area, and there are none in these portions which will be dredged and improved. There are, however, sites down at the seaward end of the boat harbor area. There is a heiau which is just outside of the boat harbor boundary which, of course, is most appropriate for such a historical site. The others, I believe, are just house sites in that particular area.

Mr. MCCLURE. Those house sites would not be preserved in the construction which you propose?

Mr. WRIGHT. They would most certainly be preserved, sir.

Mr. McCLURE. Oh, the house sites would be preserved?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes.

Mr. MCCLURE. There would be no historic monuments disturbed by the proposed site?

Mr. WRIGHT. None; as laid out in the plan, none would be disturbed. Mr. McCLURE. If I understand, you said that the money that has been expended and is proposed to be expended will total over $7 million for this facility?

Mr. WRIGHT. $7.3 million.

Mr. MCCLURE. And those are all State funds?

Mr. WRIGHT. Those are all State funds.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Wright, as I understand you, you want to make sure that this area is included in the bill?

Mr. WRIGHT. So that development can continue, because I think sections 3 and 5 of the bill suggest that there be a recess in development until this is has been determined.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, as I understand you further, you are ready to proceed and are proceeding at the present time?

Mr. WRIGHT. Construction is presently going ahead.

Mr. JOHNSON. Your fear is that, if included in the bill now as it is now written, there would be some time consideration in your development?

Mr. WRIGHT. This is to the detriment of the public uses. The next phase is scheduled to start in July of this year and will be completed in August of 1973, which is a rather large bite of the improvement. Mrs. MINK. Mr. Wright, is there any portion of the construction which is yet to be done on the harbor itself which requires the per

mission and approval of the Federal Government or any of its agen

cies?

Mr. WRIGHT. I do not think so, Mrs. Mink. I think that we have the channel done I hesitate only because they may participate in the channel that goes to the newly dredged area, but of course, its slips per se are entirely a matter of State funding. I think the answer to your question is "No," and in furtherance, in which case, is in accordance, as I read the terms, we would be all right because we would not have to hold up. If this is the case, if I may confirm this, then

Mrs. MINK. Yes. I was going to suggest that nothing in the bill in any way was intended to interfere with the State actions. The provisions to which you referred only go to Federal agencies, and so, if there is not any Federal consent or license or grant or permit required for the continuation of your construction program, then the harbor project would not be affected by my bill, though the whole area would be included in our overall study and evaluation by the Department of the Interior.

Mr. WRIGHT. Of course, there is the basic question of whether a marina is appropriately a part of a national historic park. The access road might have some Federal participation, although I do not think

So.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, would you get your attorney again to study the bill and make a recommendation if an amendment is needed? Mr. WRIGHT. We shall do so in writing, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much.

I must say that it seems to me that the boat harbor appears to be a valuable facility. It is in the study area, but I doubt that your development as planned would be interrupted by this legislation. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (Supplementary information for the record follows:)

Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Honolulu, Hawaii, January 24, 1972.

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Supplementary testimony on H.R. 1462 (Mink) and H.R. 11774 (Mink and Matsunaga) is submitted herewith as requested at your public hearing on January 7, 1972, at Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.

H.R. 11774: HONOKOHAU NATIONAL LANDMARK

(a) Historical sites within the Honokohau Boat Harbor area were surveyed prior to start of construction and Mr. Kenneth P. Emory of the Bishop Museum stated that only three sites were of prime importance. None of these were within the harbor area. Salvage operations were conducted at other sites prior to construction of the existing harbor. Recently uncovered petroglyphs will be studied and salvaged or preserved prior to construction of the car trailer parking area. (b) No federal funds are anticipated for current or future phases in the development of Honokohau Boat Harbor. State funds are as follows: Appropriated

Anticipated

Millions

$4.2

3.1

7.3

The harbor was opened in 1970 and development is in mid-stream.

(c) It is again strongly recommended that the Honokohau Boat Harbor and ancillary facilities be omitted from the study boundaries contemplated by H.R. 11774.

H.R. 1462 PUUKOHALA HEIAU NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

(a) Mayor Kimura's testimony that Hawaii County would bear the cost of road relocation referred to the County Access Road to Spencer Park only, and not to the State highway serving Kawaihae Harbor.

(b) Federal Aid Secondary funds to Hawaii are limited and are already overcommitted. It was anticipated that Kawaihae road could be improved only with State funds entirely.

(c) There is no objection to the subdivision of the proposed park area so that the land can be conveyed to the National Park Service, provided a corridor is reserved for highway improvement generally along the present alignment and a pedestrian overpass contemplated. The corridor should be 160-feet minimum and should be in general terms, not metes and bounds, as the final alignment has not yet been determined.

(d) Locating the highway out of the site or a one-way couplet with pedestrain overpass are alternatives presented in the basic testimony. Landholders have not offered to donate any rights-of-way for relocation of the highway outside of the site.

(e) Improvement of the highway in the present corridor would not encroach on either heiaus or the John Young house site, and a pedestrian overpass is feasible.

If we can provide any further information on these bills, please let me know. Sincerely,

Enclosure.

FUJIO MATSuda, Director.