by Gail Goheen, Corvallis
A hearing held in Montana U.S. District Court (Missoula) last month considered challenges to the Forest Service (FS) proceeding with its planned Gold Butterfly (GB) logging project (extending in the Sapphire Mountains from a little southeast of Stevensville all the way to east of Hamilton). This GB Project has been described as the largest Bitterroot logging project undertaken in decades. While issues raised in the District Court were primarily focused on environmental concerns, it is important to also realize how devastating the GB Project will be for public health, road safety, and tax dollars.
FS filings for the GB Project anticipate 6,000 to 7,000 truckloads of logs taken from this project over 8 years—all to come out one county road (Willow Creek Road). I live on property through which Willow Creek Road passes, having resided there and working in this community for over 45 years, and care about those who will be harmed by this Project.
Over 500 households (encompassing an estimated 1200-1300 people) access Willow Creek Road, which is dirt/gravel or chip seal for most of the affected Project length. Utilizing a federal General Accounting Office formula, there is an exponential effect from the likely weight of each loaded log truck, equating to 4,000-7,000 cars passing (likely quickly pulverizing to smithereens even the chip seal portion of the road). A prior Ravalli County publication indicated that a single car traveling an unpaved road once per day for a year will produce one ton of fine dust particles per mile. Thus, small particulate dust created by GB loaded logging trucks will likely be disastrous for many, especially those living near Willow Creek Road.
Ever-increasing studies/articles demonstrate serious health problems resulting from small particulate exposure (referred to as PM 2.5 particles) which penetrate deep into lungs and enter the bloodstream. These can cause severe respiratory issues (such as bronchitis, asthma, or other reduced lung function), cardiovascular disease (such as heart attacks, strokes, or arrhythmia), as well as numerous other diseases (such as cancer, neurologic disorders, damage to brain health, systemic inflammation, kidney failure, urinary tract infections, fluid and electrolyte disorders, etc.). These results can occur from even limited dust submission, much less eight years of exposure (problems further exacerbated by GB controlled burns creating smoke also laden with dangerous particulates).
The economic analysis for the GB Project predicted a nearly $2 million shortfall (some argue much more) not including any road maintenance outside of the FS boundaries, meaningful dust mitigation monitoring, or other public health/safety measures. Despite federal and Montana laws/regulations requiring FS responsibilities for human environmental protection, the FS claims Ravalli County should bear road maintenance burdens. The County says it can’t afford to handle the ongoing road maintenance that should occur, especially given its other obligations and the Project life. And the FS (obviously wanting to hide the dangerous consequences of their Project), refuses to install very inexpensive but reliable air monitors along the road), instead suggesting the adequacy of monitors across Montana in measuring dust from this one little road.
The rationale for the GB Project (like other logging/controlled burn projects), is that it will save the public from forest fires. However, multiple studies demonstrate that such forest “treatments” actually have made forests more vulnerable to wildfires (drying out the forest floor, creating openings that work to funnel strong winds which greatly fan fire flames, etc.) Furthermore, with a drier, hotter evolving climate, the nature of these projects cannot rely on past indices of regrowth and regeneration. Thus, the human sacrifices resulting from the GB Project would be devastating and are simply not justifiable.
Kevin says
School funding provided by Logging. Sad to see the all the Mills gone, as well as Thousands of Jobs. Haven’t we had enough smoke for the past 27 years?
Morris says
With regard to the author’s final statement regarding forest treatments such as thinning, fuel reduction and prescribed fire to reduce wildland fire risk… The author says these treatments “demonstrate that such forest treatments actually have made forests more vulnerable to wildfires…”
Would you mind posting some peer reviewed studies backing your statement? Because, the articles I read say the exact opposite. Following is an article that states the results of the study that proactive forest management reduces average wildfire Severity by 32% and cuts the occurrence of high severity fire by 88%.:
Ethan Yackulie et al, Treatments Stabilize Carbon Storage…. 9/2/25
Judy Parker says
The County should put weight limits on the road now
MAH says
Can’t comment on the road use impact…
However, the notion that fuels reduction, thinning and prescribed fire is totally wrong and not supported by peer reviewed study and publications. You might try a little research… try:
Ethan Yaculic et al, Treatments Stabilize Carbon Storage…. 9/2/2025
This publication states – Proactive forest management reduces average wildfire severity by 32% and cuts the occurrence of high severity fire by 88%.
Tracy says
Great Letter Gail.