CNMI residents push ‘no action’ as military training plan draws fire across islands

While separated by around 73 miles of ocean, residents across the CNMI delivered pointed, often emotional testimony on the Mariana Islands Training and Testing Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement during a series of public meetings from March 19 to 21, with many calling for the “no-action alternative.”

At Crowne Plaza Resort Saipan last March 19, speakers repeatedly raised concerns over environmental impacts, lack of outreach, and the technical nature of the document.

“As a concerned citizen, I just want to advocate for the no-action alternative,” said Abed Salam Younis of Marianas for Palestine. “No-action alternative. I have an infinite amount of reasons, but most importantly, the ocean and islands that surround us are our history.”

Isa Arriola of Our Commonwealth 670 delivered an extended critique of the draft.

“I’m deeply concerned that this draft EIS does not adequately account for cumulative environmental impacts, particularly in the context of worsening climate conditions,” she said. “Since the previous approvals in 2015 and 2020…our region has experienced repeated coral bleaching, rising ocean temperatures, and increasing ecosystem stress, yet the analysis appeared to treat many impacts as ‘less than significant’ without fully considering these compounding pressures.”

“At the same time, the proposal includes substantial increases in training intensity,” she added. “This includes a tenfold increase in air defense exercises, major increases in small caliber rounds, and expanded submarine activity…These changes represent a significant escalation in activity in an already stressed environment.”

Arriola also pointed to what she described as data gaps.

“This SEIS…does not provide a rigorous enough analysis of these cumulative impacts…It does not include enough expanded baseline data for Guam and the CNMI to make the claims that it’s making,” she said. “There should be a clear explanation for how ‘less than significant’ determinations have been reached despite these activities.”

“And there’s some major data gaps for some of the species, including sea turtles…sharks and rays…deep-diving species such as whales, which are highly sensitive to sonar but really difficult to detect,” she added. “Without these kinds of analysis, this document does not provide a sufficient enough basis for informed decision-making.”

She also criticized the public process.

“This process…it remains highly problematic for the community,” Arriola said. “The onus of responsibility is on us to respond to these highly technical documents that most people don’t have time for or understand…From a community perspective, we would advocate for a no-action alternative.”

Erich Balajadia echoed concerns about outreach.

“The community outreach you guys have done is not enough,” they said. “People are coming home from work…People do not have enough time outside of work and are tired, and will be reading through these very dense documents. So community outreach is really needed. If you guys choose not to do that, please do the no-action alternative.”

Chea’Lee Erb raised a compliance question tied to federal law.

“So the 2020 NDAA required the DoD to phase out AFFF {Aqueous Film-Forming Foam)…by October 2024,” she said. “So my question is, what foam is currently being used in training exercises in the MITT study area? And can you confirm that it is fluorine-free?”

On Tinian, discussions last March 20 shifted to technical justifications and community engagement.

Deborah Fleming of the Tinian Women’s Association questioned whether the analysis meets federal standards.

“The analysis presented here appears to rely on static or historical baselines, rather than the reality of a rapidly changing ocean system,” she said. “Today, the Pacific is already under significant stress from climate change, including warming, acidification, and coral bleaching.”

“These are not speculative concerns,” Fleming added. “They are part of the current and foreseeable environmental baseline. The issue is not whether the Navy caused these stressors, but whether the SEIS adequately evaluates how military training activities contribute to cumulative impacts within the already stressed system.”

“Without these revisions, the analysis risks falling short of NEPA’s hard-look requirement,” she said.

Edward Camacho, special assistant to the governor for military affairs, said the smaller setting on Tinian allowed for more direct engagement.

“It’s a little bit more intimate…because the community obviously is very small and with big impact,” he said. “Good points…definitely will be incorporated into the EIS.”

Tinian Sen. Jude U. Hofschneider called the presentation informative but stressed the need for continued engagement.

“I encourage the community to get involved, submit your comments…because it’s important that…people are concerned with some of the plans,” he said. “At the end of the day, we have to live with them…So just be transparent and be honest and be straightforward as to what are the plans moving forward.”

U.S. Pacific Fleet environmental planner Brian Whitehouse, who made the presentation, defended the process.

“We want to make sure we use the most available, best science,” he said. “Every time we look at these activities and do the environmental impact statements, we want to look at the criteria. And the criteria always changes, so we want to make sure that we use the newest and latest criteria.”

He added that the military works with federal partners.

“We work with National Marine Fisheries Service and NOAA to get our data,” Whitehouse said.

On Rota, speakers delivered some of the strongest and most detailed opposition on March 21, with extended remarks focusing on process, militarization, and community impacts.

Mona Manglona of From Luta, For Luta delivered a lengthy critique of both the document and the public engagement process.

“You have produced a 724-page document,” she said. “You barely have given us time to read the document, let alone meaningfully engage and understand it. That is not public participation. That is not involving the community. It is deception. It’s an injustice to our people.”

“I want my community to hear what is actually being proposed here, in their own words, from this document,” Manglona added. “Air warfare, expeditionary warfare, amphibious warfare, mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare, strike warfare, electronic warfare, surface warfare—warfare, warfare, warfare, eight times. That is what our home islands are being used for.”

She also highlighted the scale of proposed activities.

“This EIS proposes between 1,900 to roughly 2,000 bombing activities annually,” she said. “And then you describe the negative impacts…as ‘stressors.’ Acoustic stress, explosives and explosive byproducts, metals, chemicals, physical disturbance…This is what they are proposing to introduce into our waters, our air, our land, and our bodies.”

“No action is not unreasonable,” Manglona said. “For our communities, it is the only reasonable thing that you can do.”

She continued, “Our communities need clean water. We do not have clean water systems. We need access to quality health care…We need our public schools funded. What we don’t need is more destruction.”

Catherine Atalig also criticized both the process and broader federal actions.

“This is not community engagement. This is not consent,” she said. “There are no community members here…This is scheduled on the same day as one of the biggest festivals of the year on Rota.”

“The Navy calls themselves the stewards of the ocean, while simultaneously arguing it is necessary to treat our islands as a playground for war,” Atalig added. “To bomb our islands, poison our waters, and stress our ecosystems…What happens in our islands should come from us, not be told to us by people who will never live with the consequences.”

“We must refuse the endless military expansion and exploitation of our islands for military training,” she said. “Our islands are safest and healthiest this way.”

The public comment period for the draft SEIS/OEIS remains open, with written submissions expected to shape the final document.