A series of community meetings will take place on Kauaʻi this week to discuss the Navy’s draft environmental impact statement for continued use of over 8,000 acres of state land near Barking Sands — now home to the military’s Pacific Missile Range Facility and a NASA observatory.
The leases are up from 2029 to 2030, and the military is looking to continue its operations. The Conversation talked to EIS project manager Kerry Ling to learn more.
Interview highlights
On an overview of the EIS
KERRY LING: The Navy and NASA, with their federal funding, were able to fund these different surveys. So this EIS does include all updated surveys. We had an archeological and architectural survey that was completed. We also completed a cultural impact assessment, and that cultural impact assessment takes a look at the cultural practices, and we've talked to the Aha Moku Council here on Kauaʻi about that. So those different pieces of the puzzle help us build our analysis. We look at three different alternatives as well. ... So you can learn all about this at the public meetings. We're going to have a 20-minute presentation, and then there's also going to be subject matter experts there, so you'll be able to walk around and talk to those folks.
On the 3 alternatives listed in the EIS
LING: One would be just carrying forth how the lands are currently set up as leases and easements with the Navy and NASA, and the state. The second alternative we looked at is the fee simple purchase, so the transfer of some of the leaseholds from the state to the federal government. So the leases that are currently leased from NASA and Navy, we looked at what would happen if those were transferred over from state to federal. So we took a look at that, so what would happen if these lands went to the federal government for the long term. And then we also took a look at the no-action alternative. So under the no-action alternative, keeping in mind this document was written for the Navy, NASA and the Board of Land and Natural Resources. So our no-action alternative took a look at what would happen if these lands went back to the state. And so when we look at some of the impacts from that, we're looking at the federal funding. So the current funding that's going on right now for different programs, such as the natural resource and cultural resource programs — that would be cut, and so that's a pretty big impact, because we don't really have a good idea of how much funding the state has to continue those programs. And so that's why, in our draft EIS, you may notice that it says under the no-action alternative, under cultural practices, under archeological and architectural resources, and also under biological resources and public health and safety, that there could, and could being the key word there, there could be significant adverse impacts.
On management measures and community access
LING: Cultural practices and access, those are two really big topics that people care about. I know that people used to come to PMRF and fish and gather, and there's still that ability. There's different programs that we've actually worked out during scoping. We had a lot of scoping comments come in. That was last year. And it helped us to develop a whole new thing called Enhanced Management Measures. And these Enhanced Management Measures include developing an access management plan that's going to work with the base and also work with the community for easier access to the base, or more streamlined access.
This story aired on The Conversation on July 14, 2025. The Conversation airs weekdays at 11 a.m. Hannah Kaʻiulani Coburn adapted this interview for the web.
