october1 2020
VERNONIA’S
volume14 issue19
free
reflecting the spirit of our community
Release of Commissioner Candidate’s
Personnel Records Raises Questions
Casey Garrett, a Columbia County
employee running for County
Commissioner, has a troubled work
history.
By Scott Laird
The release of personnel records for Colum-
bia County Commissioner candidate Casey Garrett
have raised some questions about his fitness to serve
as an elected official.
Garrett is currently employed by Columbia
County as the Facilities Service Manager, and is run-
ning for Position 3 on the Columbia County Board
of Commissioners against incumbent Alex Tardif.
Garrett has prominently referenced his employment
with the County as part of his qualifications in his
Commissioner campaign.
In his current position Garrett is responsi-
ble for managing facility projects and maintenance
across the county; maintaining working relation-
ships with department heads and staff who use coun-
ty facilities; supervising staff that maintain county
parks, buildings, and facilities; managing the bud-
get for Facilities Services; coordinating the County
Safety Committee; managing vendors and contracts
for county facilities.
Garrett had previously worked as a con-
struction engineer in California before joining Pa-
cific Stainless Products in St. Helens as a project
manager from 2005 to 2010. He also ran his own
general contracting business, starting in 2006.
Garret’s personnel records were released
after a public records request was made and the re-
leased records were heavily redacted, which was
formally appealed. Columbia County District At-
torney Jeff Axelier recused himself from making a
decision based on the fact his family has donated to
Garrett’s opponent in the Commissioner campaign.
The decision was then handed to the Multnomah
County District Attorney, Adam Gibbs, who agreed
the public had a right to know about Garrett’s work
history at the County and released the unredacted
files.
Garrett joined the staff at Columbia County
in early 2015 and immediately ran into trouble. His
first Annual Performance Review was conducted by
continued on page 13
The Timber Industry of Today
Part 4: The State of Our State Forests
By Scott Laird
Over the last several issues we’ve
been taking a look at different aspects of
the timber industry, how it’s regulated
and taxed, different management styles,
and its impact on forest ecology. In
this issue we examine our state forests
– how they’re managed and regulated,
along with some important current
administrative issues.
Oregon’s state owned forests are
in trouble, and the list of reasons is as
long as it is broad. From the ongoing de-
bate between conservation and industry
interests, to questionable management,
to severe financial issues, the problems
have been ongoing for years and only
inside
4
mayor gives
back to community
8
tree planting 101
10
the errant crumb
appear to be worsening. And finding so-
lutions is proving to be difficult.
At the top of the list is the Or-
egon Board of Forestry, a group of seven
individuals tasked with overseeing forest
policy on both state and privately held
forestland. The Board appoints the State
Forester, who supervises the Department
of Forestry (ODF) and the management
of our state forests. The Board adopts
new rules for regulating forest uses for
the benefit of all its citizens. In recent
years the Board has found itself at the
center of the ongoing debate about rec-
reational, ecological, and industrial uses
– which is exactly where they should be.
It’s a debate which has become increas-
ingly more contentious, dysfunction-
al, and political. The wildfires at the
end of this summer season have only
heightened the conflict around the
state.
Adding to the issue is the cur-
rent management at ODF. State For-
ester Peter Daugherty has come under
increasing scrutiny and has received
serious criticism for his management
of what is one of the most important
agencies in state government.
Also at the heart of the problem is
the continuing “timber wars,” the long
running battle between environmental
interests that want stricter regulations
on harvests and better protections for
natural resources, and the timber in-
dustry who want to harvest wood and
generate revenue from the forests. In
February this year Oregon Governor
Kate Brown announced a compromise
agreement between representatives
from the two sides – a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) which halted
all forestry-related initiative petitions
and related litigation by both sides
New Ballot Drop Box
Columbia County has installed a new drive-up,
election ballot drop box at the Vernonia Library.
Watch for our Candidate Questionnaire and Responses
from Vernonia City Council and Mayor, Columbia
County Commissioners, and State Representatives in
the October 15 issue of Vernonia’s Voice.
following the passage SB 1602. This
legislation passed in an overwhelmingly
bipartisan vote in June and strengthened
the state’s aerial pesticide spray regula-
tions. It also set the stage for fundamen-
tal reform of the Oregon Forest Practices
Act through a new, federally approved
Habitat Conservation Plan, which is cur-
rently being negotiated.
While this compromise was her-
alded as a new beginning of cooperation
between the two sides (“It’s always good
when people sit down and try to negoti-
ate away their differences in the interest
in solving problems, so this was exceed-
ingly encouraging,” said State Represen-
tative Brad Witt at the time of the agree-
ment), the ongoing battle now seems to
have shifted back to the upper adminis-
trative level.
How we want our state forests
to be managed continues to be the unan-
swered question. And I emphasize OUR
forests because, unlike privately held
timberlands, our state forests belong to
all of the citizens of Oregon. Finding
some kind of balance between multiple
uses remains the elusive solution Or-
egonians continue to search for. How to
manage forests to prevent catastrophic
wildfires is making the issue even mess-
ier.
“The Board of Forestry table
is the place to slug out timber policy –
to harvest or not harvest, to build trails
or not build trails,” said State Senator
Betsy Johnson during an interview with
Vernonia’s Voice on September 23. “The
Department of Forestry needs to know
what their core mission is, what their
metrics are, and what are the expecta-
tions. And right now, in what I consider
a moment of crisis, I would submit that
the management of the agency aught to
take primacy over any other debate.”
The State of Oregon’s State Forests
Oregon has approximately
800,000 acres of state forestland. Most
of the land is parceled into six State
Forests, all located in the western half
of the state. Five of the six state for-
ests are managed by ODF: the Clatsop,
Tillamook, Santiam, Gilchrist, and Sun
Pass state forests; the sixth, Elliott State
Forest, is managed by the Department of
State Lands. In addition ODF also owns
and manages less than 2,000 acres here
in Columbia County along with other
small parcels of forestland, located pri-
marily in the Coast Range near Corval-
lis, Eugene, and south to the California
border.
Oregon law (OAR 629-035-
0020) requires the Department of For-
estry manage the forests under their con-
trol by developing a Forest Management
Plan based on Board of Forestry estab-
lished policy. According to these rules,
the forest plans must include strategies
that: contribute to biological diversity,
maintain and restore healthy habitats for
aquatic species, maintain healthy forests
through pest and disease control, main-
tain or enhance long-term soil produc-
tivity, protect threatened or endangered
species, produce sustainable levels of
timber for harvest, enhance timber yield
and value, and use the best available sci-
ence in management programs.
Here in Columbia County over
93% of timber harvested annually comes
from privately held land (80% from land
owners who hold more than 5,000 acres).
We have 1,932 acres of state forest on
eight tracts of land; the largest is 1,262
acres and the smallest is less than an
continued on page 5