Thursday, June 23, 2016

O'Neill Louchard of Port Townsend Asks Who Are You Protecting in regard to the navy's proposal to conduct electronic warfare in the Olympic National Forest.


Who are you protecting with your LOUD Toxic Planes, Jets and War Machines?

Who are you PROTECTING with your invasive Energy Warfare Machines?

Seems that the Answer Was, we are Just OBEYING... WOW..

"U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Navy face off with the public in a lively meeting in Port Angeles, WA about the navy's proposal to conduct electronic warfare in the Olympic National Forest. 11-7-2014"

Protect Olympic Peninsula

Protect Olympic Peninsula 13 from RainDagger Productions on Vimeo.

#PortTownsendNews #PortTownsendAir #PortTownsend #ProtectOlympicPeninsula

Saturday, June 6, 2015

Port Townsend Smell. The Smell is Poison Folks. At least that sure seems to be what it is. Do your homework then ask why Jefferson County and the State of Washington are KNOWINGLY poisoning Port Townsend Residents.

What is the Smell in Port Townsend? So many Google what is the smell in Port Townsend.

The Smell in Port Townsend is TOXIC, it will most likely make you SICK in visible and non-visible ways. The Smell in Port Townsend is BAD for ALL aspects of Healthy life in Port Townsend Washington.  The Port Townsend Paper Mill, ya that is the SMELL of MONEY, for the Mill, for the Doctors, and not for the best interest of the citizens of Jefferson County Washington.

Jefferson County Public Health

The Port Townsend Paper Mill REALLY is spewing out Toxins. Check the facts yourself, know what Jefferson County Washington and the State of Washington is allowing to happen to you, in the name of the alleged smell of MONEY.

The Smell in Port Townsend is the Port Townsend Paper Mill's Toxic Emmissions.

This Blog Post is written in my opinion and to the best of my knowledge.

The Port Townsend Paper Mill takes 14 million gallons of pristine Olympic Mountain water a day from the Little Quilcene River and the Big Quilcene River, and they pollute it, fill it with toxins and create yucky toxic water that they dump into the Port Townsend Bay.

They have a SLUDGE pond that creates toxic soil and huge toxic odor. When they remove sludge in trucks it goes to unknown sources and is said to be able to be used as fill for playgrounds, parks, agriculture and other and that the Port Townsend Paper Mill does not have to disclose what is in the SLUDGE as that is the alleged legal responsibility of the end user.

The toxic air, of which is said to contain 1000 lbs of ammonia a day and other known carcigens, this causes massive health problems that many cannot recover from and so they leave Jefferson County, Port Townsend. Their Doctor even tells them, hey your kids can't get better here, or you can't get better here and so they have to move from this alleged pristine area.

Jefferson County seems to love the Port Townsend Paper Mill as many say it's the smell of money. Which is shocking, as it's money for big corporation, for doctors healing lung cancer and other major health problems the mill cause and as for the workers, they don't seem to mind that this affecting their health as yes they are making a living, the thing is, at what cost?

The toxins that the mill puts out, seems to be a known fact, it seems that Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend and Washington Department of Ecology simply looks the other way and keeps this toxic waste site (in my opinion) spewing air that is harming the health and public safety of the area ( in my opinion due to the ability to read). They seem to do this willfully and wanton, to protect the mill and the jobs that come with it.
The Washington Governor seems big on taxing companies that spew CO2, this mill spews tons daily and for now they seem to hve no conscience nor accountability held on them and are even self monitored.

The WA Governor recently called for an emergency drought on the Olympic Peninsula, oh well, who cares right?

The city of Port Townsend uses 1 million gallons a day for the needs of the people. The Port Townsend Paper Mill pollutes and wastes 14 million gallons a day with total disregard for the environment, or the people ( in my opinion).

The EPA seems to know what is coming out of the Port Townsend Paper and so does the Washington Department of Ecology, and they look the other way.

We have otters, whales, herons, and tons of sea life and wildlife here as well as lot's of organic farms, and well lot's of people that want and have a legal right as a matter of law to Clean Air and Clean Water.  Yet this issue is swept under the proverbial rug over and over.

It makes no sense how Jefferson County Washington can have Organic Farms when the air is polluted as far as the information I have seen.

Go out at night, with a flashlight, tons of yellow fine particles, YEP you come to Port Townsend, our beautiful amazing town and you breath Toxic Air, so does your children, your babies, elderly and guess what; the worst of the "what's that smell" in Port Townsend goes right into our hospital and schools; oh well the county, state and federal officials look the other way to create toxic jobs.

For More Information on your Google Search "What's that Smell In Port Townsend" Check Out the Links Below.

The Port Townse Smell is Port Townsend Paper Mill Emissions

Why is the Port Townsend Paper Mill ALLOWED by the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Washington to put KNOWN Toxins into the Air, Water and Soil?

The Port Townsend Paper Mill is MAKING YOU SICK, Lowering Your Immune System and causing you Serious Health Risks


Jefferson County Public Health Does NOTHING

Remember when Reading Blogs, When You get to the bottom, go to the lower right and click older posts to keep going.

Port Townsend Paper Mill Toxic Air

Port Townsend Mill Facebook information

PT Airwatchers Facebook Page

PT Airwatchers Web Site

Massive Co2 YET County, State, EPA all do NOTHING but Protect the Mill

The Toxic Pond (this article was removed by the Port Townsend Leader, who I allege protects the Port Townsend Mill to Knowingly Poison the Port Townsend People

Background about the Smell in Port Townsend

The Air Makes Some Dizzy, Check Out this guy
What Does it Smell Like in Port Townsend and Port Hadlock / Irondale?:

I myself stayed at the Manresa Castle for a while and woke up some nights seizing in my chest. Felt like my organs were shutting down, throat badly swollen. Sinuses burning badly.  Stomach Cramping, Eyes Swollen. Horrible inner ear pain.

I have lived rural here as well and had burning eyes, ear pain and other symptoms. So why stay? The thing is Port Townsend is such a cool town, and it's so beautiful here. The people are so amazing and well I love it here. Plus for me it is a Spiritual Calling.  However, whether we choose to stay or leave the smell and toxic air of Port Townsend or not, the Port Townsend Paper Mill is seemingly breaking the law and causing a public safety issue and environmental hazard and it's time to STOP.

I know many who have had to leave to get their children to safe air. This is a serious issue and seems to be something that Jefferson County is either unable or unwilling to tackle.  Clearly the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act as well as our constitutional rights should trump the alleged "Smell of Money" YAP they use to keep poising the Port Townsend Bay, Port Townsend Air, Whales, Otters, Babies, those in the local hospital, fish and wildlife, organic farms and all of us citizens who SHOULD have the legal rights to Clean Air, Clean Water and Clean Soil.

A Few More Research Links

What is that Horrible Smell in Port Townsend ?

What is that Smell in Port Townsend?

Who to Call to Complain

Call the County,  Call the Mayor, Call your Commissioners, Call the State Department of Ecology, Call your Senator, Call the Governors Office, File Lawsuits, File Attorney General Complaints.  I believe the Port Townsend Paper Mill is breaking the LAW. Expose them, Sue them.

Also Call These Numbers to Complain

Stephanie Ogle, PE
W2R - Industrial Section

Angie Fritz

Mill Phone Number: 360-379-4244

Complaints re Port Townsend Paper Corp stink
Email anfr461@ECY.WA.GOV


Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Scientists seek to silence sonar in the Salish Sea

"The following open letter was sent today to Governmental and Naval leaders on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.  As of 3/11/2012 it has been signed by 20 biologists and bioacousticians who have studied the killer whales of the Salish Sea.  (When sent initially, 16 had signed).


The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, National Defence Headquarters ( )
Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy ( )
Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Administrator, Office of the Undersecretary, US Department of Commerce ( )
The Honorable Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State ( )

Silence Sonar in the Salish Sea

As biologists and bioacousticians who study killer whales of the Salish Sea, we ask that the U.S. Navy and Canadian Navy cease using sonar in their critical habitat.  

Polluting their environment with intense underwater noise like the “pings” from mid-frequency active sonar poses significant risks to these Federally-listed species.

On February 6, 2012, the Canadian Naval frigate HMCS Ottawa used its sonar system in critical habitat of the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales during a training exercise east of Victoria, B.C. 

The calls of the Southern Residents’ K and L pods were heard 18 hours later in Haro Strait, and sub-groups of K and L pods were identified 36 hours after the sonar use in Discovery Bay – a location where Southern Residents have never been sighted in 22 years of records. 

These observations are reminiscent of an incident in May, 2003, when the USS Shoup’s sonar training exercise caused similar unusual nearshore surface milling behavior of Southern Residents in Haro Strait.

New limits should be put on the use of mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar, particularly in the critical habitat of the Southern Residents.  

Killer whales are sensitive to the frequencies emitted by MFA sonar (2-10 kHz) and use the same frequency range to communicate with calls and whistles.  Because MFA sonar is intense (source levels ~220-235 underwater decibels), it could permanently or temporarily deafen whales that are unexpectedly nearby and thereby impact their ability to forage, navigate, and socialize. 

Even temporary threshold shifts could be deleterious because the recovery of the Southern Residents hinges on their use of echolocation to find, identify, and acquire their primary prey, Pacific salmon.

Current procedures for mitigating underwater military noise are inadequate to protect either the resident or transient ecotypes. 

These procedures depend on the ability to detect whales within 1000 yards (U.S.) or 4000 yards (Canada), which neither passive acoustic listening nor visual surveillance can reliably accomplish. 

The unprecedented sighting of Southern Residents in Discovery Bay suggests that they may have been present during the pre-dawn sonar exercise on February 6 while remaining undetected by the Canadian Navy’s marine mammal monitoring procedures.  

Moreover, we know from the 2003 Shoup incident and the scientific literature that MFA sonar can disrupt marine mammal behavior well beyond the current mitigation distances, particularly in the sound propagation conditions of the Salish Sea.

We therefore urge the U.S. and Canadian Navies to restrict MFA sonar and other intense underwater sound sources in all training and testing conducted in the Salish Sea.  

By protecting the whales’ acoustic habitat, our Navies can help further their respective country’s obligations to ensure the recovery of these endangered iconic populations while still fulfilling their important National security missions.

Signed (alphabetically):

David Bain, Ph.D
Robin Baird, Research Biologist, Cascadia Research Collective
Stefan BrĂ¥ger, Research Director/Curator, The Whale Museum
John Calambokidis, Research Biologist, Cascadia Research Collective
Fred Felleman, Vice-President, Board of Directors, The Whale Museum
Andrew Foote, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Deborah Giles, MSc, PhD Candidate/Research Biologist, UC Davis
Rachael Griffin, B.Sc. Marine Biology, Aquagreen Marine Research, Victoria, BC
Erin Heydenreich, Field Biologist, Senior staff at the Center for Whale Research
Cara Lachmuth, MSc., Contract Biologist, Victoria, BC
Patrick Miller, Lecturer, School of Biology, University of St Andrews, Scotland
Joseph Olson, President, Cetacean Research Technology
Richard Osborne, Ph.D., Research Associate, The Whale Museum
Paul Spong, Director, OrcaLab and Pacific Orca Society, Alert Bay, BC
Helena Symonds, Director, OrcaLab and Pacific Orca Society, Alert Bay, BC
Scott Veirs, President, Beam Reach Marine Science and Sustainability School
Val Veirs, Professor of Physics, Colorado College
Monika Wieland, BA in Biology, Reed College
Jason Wood, Ph.D., Research Associate, The Whale Museum
Harald Yurk, Research Associate, Vancouver Aquarium
The following recipients were copied on the email:

Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Representative Norm Dicks
Representative Jay Inslee
Governor Chris Gregoire
Will Stelle, NOAA NW Regional Administer
Lynne Barre, NOAA NW Regional Office
Brad Hason, NOAA NWFSC
Dr. John Ford, DFO
Admiral Cecil D. Haney, Commander U.S. Pacific Fleet
Rear Admiral Douglass T. Biesel, Commander Navy Region Northwest
Renee Wallis, Navy Region NW
Lieutenant Diane Larose, Canadian Navy Public Affairs
Regional “Points of Contact” (POCs) for further information:

Admiral Cecil D. Haney
Commander U.S. Pacific Fleet
(808) 471-9727

Rear Admiral Douglass T. Biesel
Commander Navy Region Northwest
(360) 396-1630

Lieutenant Diane Larose
Navy Public Affairs
(250) 363-5789


Port Townsend City Mayor David King Letter to EIS Project Manager regarding Electronic Warfare Machines and Massive Jet Noise coming to Port Townsend and the Olympic Peninsula.

Click Below to Read the Letter From Port Townsend, Washington City Mayor David King to the NAVY / EIS Project Manager regarding the Electronic Warfare Training on our Coasts.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Reta Laford; Greg Wahl; Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment; NEPA and the Olympic National Forest.

"Cari ? Thank you for your interest in this project. By copy of this email, your comment is being forwarded to Greg Wahl to ensure inclusion and consideration in the project record. Sincerely, Reta.

From: Cari Rene []
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:43 PM
To: Millett, Dean R -FS
Cc: Laford, Reta -FS

Subject: Navy Warfare Project

Dear Mr. Millett,

We are writing to join many other concerned local citizens regarding your decision to allow Electronic Warfare testing by the Navy on Olympic NF lands. As I'm sure is obvious to you by now, this project has come as a surprise to the residents of Clallam and Jefferson counties. Few members of the public subscribe to your SOPA (or are even aware of such a thing), few residents of these counties read the Gray's Harbor Daily World (which seems to be the only "local" newspaper you use to publish notices in), and there does not appear to have been any "other" effort to inform the general public of a project with the potential to raise substantial concerns. Not good public involvement, and not good public relations.

From reading several newspaper articles over the past couple of weeks, there are many legitimate questions and concerns about the project. Much of this is probably a result of lack of solid information - but where is that information to come from but your agency? (It is your land, not the Navy's.) A few concerns:

* has the Forest Service done any independent analysis, or have you just taken the Navy's analysis on
face value?

* what is really meant by "electromagnetic radiation"? This bald term seems to be scaring a lot of
people. The public needs some clarification.

* your DN/FONSI addresses several localized potential effects pretty well. A concern of many that is not even mentioned is the potential for aircraft overflights and possible increases in noise therefrom. (Oddly, the DN/FONSI doesn't say what happens to the radiation that is emitted from the sites - where does it go?)* what mitigation/safety measures will be used, and how will they make the project acceptable from your perspective?"

Source and More

"Ron ? Thank you for your interest in this project. By copy of this email, your comment is being forwarded to Greg Wahl to ensure inclusion and consideration in the project record. Sincerely, Reta.

From: Ron Hansen []
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:57 PM
To: Millett, Dean R -FS; Laford, Reta -FS

Subject: Electronic Warfare Testing by the Navy on Olympic NF lands

Dear District Ranger Dean Milett and Forest Supervisor Rita Laford,
I am writing you a second time because of my concerns regarding the Navy's plan to set up an electronic warfare testing site on Olympic National Forest Lands. I believe there would need to be more public information meetings on the Olympic Peninsula; Port Angeles\Sequim, and Port Townsend areas using local papers,the dates, times, and place of said meeting to answer our concerns. A representative from the Navy as well as the Forest Service could inform and answer questions..

Withdrawing the DN/FONSI and addressing all comments received before going further is the wisest way to go.

So many questions in my mind at this time and very little information; please continue this dialogue.

Ron Hansen"

Source and More

"Comments: Forwarded comment -RE: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

Kelly ? Thank you for your interest in this project. By copy of this email, your comment is being forwarded to Greg Wahl for inclusion and consideration on the project record. Sincerely, Reta.

From: moclipsdude . []
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:57 AM
To: Laford, Reta -FS

Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

To Reta Laford,

I understand you will most likely have the final say regarding the Navy's proposal to establish the Olympic Peninsula as an Electronic Warfare Range with a fixed emitter tower at Pacific Beach.
There were three public meetings regarding this issue; at Forks, Port Angeles and last Wednesday at Pacific Beach. Although invited, no one from the US Forest Service was in attendance; not Greg Wahl or Dean Millett.

This was particularly annoying since many of us in the large crowd had questions intended for the Forest Service. Instead, there were five personnel representing the Navy.

Attached is my email sent to Congressman Derek Kilmer, Greg Wahl and Dean Millett on October 25, 2014 and was printed in it's entirety in the North Coast News on November 20, 2014.

Thank you.
Kelly Calhoun
Moclips, Washington"

Source and More

"Forwarded comment -RE: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment #42759 Annette ? Thank you for your interest in this project. By copy of this email, your comment is being forwarded to Greg Wahl for inclusion and consideration in the project record. Sincerely, Reta.

-----Original Message-----
From: Annette Huenke []
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 2:41 PM

To: Laford, Reta -FS

Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment #42759

Why are the Navy and the Forest Service narrowing their focus to exclude potentially harmful -- perhaps deadly -- effects of these war games, when NEPA clearly states that the entire project and its impacts need to be included?

Exactly how much radiation will be projected from each of the Growler jets in one day's training?
Why is the Forest Service not demanding full transparency and full disclosure as Federal law mandates?

Why is the Forest Service considering issuance of a permit that is in direct violation of the Forest Service's Mission Statement.

Thank you in advance for your answer to these questions.

Annette Huenke"

Source and More

Contact Reta Laford, Olympic National Forest Supervisor and Let her know how you feel. She is a NEPA Expert and is the top of the chain of command on the Olympic National Forest..

Supervisor's Office
1835 Black Lk Blvd SW
Olympia, WA 98512
(360) 956 2402

her eMail is


More Information

Forest Service forging ahead on Navy plan; the Olympic National Forest is YOUR FOREST. You pay for them to Violate your RIGHTS.

"By Nicholas Johnson of the Leader

Let the waiting begin.

The public's chance to comment on the U.S. Navy's bid to use roads in the Olympic National Forest to train fighter jet pilots in detecting enemy electronic signals ended on Nov. 28, and U.S. Forest Service officials say it won't be extended.

Some 3,048 comments have been submitted, 80 of which came in after the deadline. They can be reviewed at the Forest Service's online reading room at

Dean Millett, the Forest Service ranger responsible for deciding whether to permit the Navy's use of forest roads, said the Pacific Ranger District office in Forks is now turning its attention to reviewing comments, and he doesn't expect it to go quickly.

His final decision, which he hopes to make by mid-2015, "is not going to happen real soon."
"Well, we've got more than 3,000 comments, so I'm sure there are some issues in there that we're going to have to look at," Millett said, acknowledging that only those deemed substantive will be considered in his review of the Navy's environmental assessment and its finding that the proposed use of those roads would have no significant impact on the natural environment or human communities.
By definition, a substantive comment raises, debates or questions the accuracy or adequacy of specific facts or policies, and attempts to offer some reasonable alternatives to information cited or methods used in the environmental assessment.

"We consider all comments, but substantive ones provide reasoning," Millett said. "Just saying 'I don't like this project' and moving on is not particularly useful."


Millet said he is thinking of calling in the Forest Service's TEAMS Enterprise Unit, a group created in 1994 that now boasts some 150 agency employees who assist with tasks too cumbersome for any regional office's staff resources.

"They're a good source if you have a one-time need for something," he said, such as performing a comprehensive content analysis on public comments. "They specialize in that kind of work, and we don't have the staffing to go through all that in a timely manner. We have other projects we have to be working on."

Of those 80 comments submitted after the deadline, Millet said they would be reviewed in the event something substantive is brought up, but "at some point you have cut things off."

Reviewing comments "may direct us toward doing additional analysis," he said, but he may also decide the original analysis in the Navy's environmental assessment remains sufficient.

Millet will eventually issue a second decision notice on whether to issue a permit, after which those who submitted comments will have 45 days to object to Millett's supervisor, Reta Laford, before a permit is issued. Only those who submitted a comment prior to Nov. 28 will have standing to object at that time.


The Forest Service's decision not to extend the public comment period comes after the Jefferson County Democratic Party called on elected officials on Nov. 18 to push for a more robust public process and production of a full environmental impact statement (EIS).

Karen Sullivan of Port Townsend, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife employee, helped pen the party's resolution. She said she's not surprised the Forest Service did not extend its public comment period, yet intends to continue her research into how the Navy's plan got to this point.

"How did we get here with the public so unaware of all this, and how did the Navy allow this to happen?" she asked. "If we understand the process, it could provide some background for a legal challenge down the road. If there have been flaws in the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process along the way that are objectionable, we need to know this. It's like an Easter egg hunt, trying to find these nuggets of information and then add them up."

Sullivan, who submitted 11 comments and will have standing to object, is working to create a timeline of the process, but said she has run into roadblocks in getting related environmental review documents from the Navy dating back as far as 1989. It's that history, she thinks, that could lead to legal challenge.

Sullivan has questioned several areas of the Navy's environmental assessment, pointing out what she considers to be deficiencies in the state Department of Fish and Wildlife's biological opinion, for example. But she knows getting up to speed can be tough for many.

"We are at a stage where we still need to do a tremendous amount of public education, because all these issues have been split into separate parts and are difficult to understand," she said, pointing to the Navy's simultaneous bid to add 36 EA-18G Growler jets to Naval Air Station Whidbey Island's current fleet of 82. That proposal is in the scoping phase, which comes prior to compiling a draft environmental impact statement, and the Navy is now taking public comments through Jan. 9, 2015, after extending that deadline from Nov. 24.


The Navy wants permission to send utility trucks outfitted with mobile emitters of electromagnetic radiation to 15 preselected sites on the Olympic Peninsula's west end, 12 of which are on forest roads.
Growler jet pilots would then fly over in groups of three, with a lead jet trying to pick up on those electronic signals coming from the emitters as training in identifying enemy communications.
The $11.5 million project would be the Navy's first use of mobile emitters of electromagnetic radiation for training that pilots currently simulate with internal aircraft controls.
The Navy proposes to begin this training in September 2015.

Public meetings in Forks on Oct. 14, in Port Angeles on Nov. 6 and in Pacific Beach on Nov. 19 drew hundreds of people, almost all of whom opposed the project. Comments made during those meetings were not recorded, thus won't be considered by Forest Service officials. Comments made during those meetings were not recorded thus won't be considered by Forest Service officials."


Contact Reta Laford, Olympic National Forest Supervisor and Let her know how you feel. She is a NEPA Expert and is the top of the chain of command on the Olympic National Forest..

Supervisor's Office
1835 Black Lk Blvd SW
Olympia, WA 98512
(360) 956 2402

her eMail is


More Information