A long-simmering proposal to mine gravel from public land in Montana’s Paradise Valley resurfaced at a Park County commission meeting this week, drawing swift and organized opposition from residents who challenged what they saw as a surprise push for development near Yellowstone National Park.
More than 50 people crowded into the usually quiet Park County community hall on February 10, with roughly another 50 queuing online, after county commissioners revealed they had drafted a letter supporting a proposed gravel pit — also known as an opencut mine — on state trust land near the community of Emigrant. The letter, intended for the Montana Land Board, caught many locals off guard and spurred rapid resistance.
The dispute highlights a growing challenge in Paradise Valley and other communities bordering Yellowstone: Population growth and record tourism are increasing demands on roads and infrastructure, along with the gravel needed to build and maintain them. But sourcing that material locally and affordably raises conflicts over wildlife habitat, recreation access, and who will shoulder the burden of that growth.
Currently undeveloped, the state trust land on which the mine would operate offers elk, mule deer and pronghorn habitat, and an adjacent landowner leases cattle grazing rights there. It’s a popular spot for hunting and other recreation, too. Proposed gravel pits in the area have spurred local outcry for years. Most recently, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation received public comment on a proposed gravel pit there in 2022. The effort went quiet the following year.
The draft letter from county commissioners said, due to its location, the gravel pit would reduce truck traffic on roads from Livingston to Emigrant and in other parts of the county. It would also cut fossil fuel emissions from hauling and save approximately $50,000 in transportation costs annually, capital that could be redirected toward other infrastructure needs, the draft letter said.
The letter didn’t mention the scope of the project or who was behind it. To Max Hjortsberg, managing director of Park County Environmental Council, the proposed pit reared its head out of the blue.
“It feels like the community of Park County has been left in the dark on all this,” Hjortsberg said. “We’re seeing such a large-scale attack on our public lands these days, on all levels. We feel we must hold our ground on even the smallest piece of it in Paradise Valley. “
Where the Gravel Hits the Road
County officials say the push for additional gravel sources comes down to a basic, but costly, reality: Maintaining rural roads requires vast amounts of material.
Park County Commissioner Bryan Wells said the county’s draft letter of support was partly prompted by outreach from the state. He said he fielded a call from the state claiming that Yellowstone National Park was looking for a source of gravel in Paradise Valley for upcoming road projects.
In an emailed statement, DNRC confirmed that Riverside Contracting has applied to lease 80 acres of state trust land near Emigrant. Gravel from the site could be used for local road construction and maintenance, as well as ongoing road reconstruction projects in the park, according to DNRC communications specialist KarenDe Herman. Riverside has been awarded a contract for projects within Yellowstone through 2029, Herman said, but the park has not reached out directly to DNRC about the Emigrant project. State revenue generated from the lease would benefit the University of Montana, she said.
Yellowstone is still deciding its final plan for a permanent North Entrance Road, which was destroyed in the historic 2022 flood when the Gardner River swelled over its banks. “The need for gravel for the park’s road improvement projects is not predicated on the approval of a pit in Paradise Valley,” said park spokesperson Linda Veress. “We have other sources for gravel.” However, she also said a pit near Emigrant could potentially become a future gravel source for Yellowstone if it meets federal standards.
Still, road construction and maintenance require enormous quantities of gravel — and all that material must come from somewhere. For Park County, a pit near Emigrant could provide a closer, and therefore cheaper, supply for maintaining roads south of Livingston.
Matt Whitman, public works director for Park County, said in an email to Mountain Journal, that one of the primary needs for gravel comes from a phenomenon called “dusting.” Every drive down a gravel road produces dust that erodes the roadway. One car driving down one mile of gravel road every day for a year causes about one ton of aggregate gravel loss annually, Whitman said. In Park County, that equates to a need of about 40,000 tons of gravel annually to replace loss from vehicle use alone. That much gravel, he said, equals about $400,000 in taxpayer dollars — not including hauling costs — and is likely conservative since it’s based on traffic counts nearly a decade old.
“We’re seeing such a large-scale attack on our public lands these days, on all levels. We feel we must hold our ground on even the smallest piece of it in Paradise Valley.”
max hjortsberg, Park County Environmental Council
The population of Park County has grown by more than 15 percent since 2010. At the same time, tourism has grown too — both in terms of national park visitation and visitors seeking adventure, natural beauty, or charismatic megafauna like grizzlies outside the park’s borders. More use means more need for gravel, which also means a bigger dent in the county budget. Whitman said three gravel pits exist in Paradise Valley, but in the past they’ve had issues with price, procurement, weed-free certification and state permitting.
“The financial burden associated with tens of thousands of annual tourism-related road uses falls primarily on Park County property owners,” he said. “Any material source that reduces the hauling distance required to place gravel on county roads will directly reduce costs to taxpayers.”
Recent gravel projects in the county have sourced gravel from Fisher Sand and Gravel, a mine just east of Livingston. “We can’t afford to haul gravel from Fisher to Paradise Valley to work on our roads,” Wells said in the meeting.
Commissioners say about 90 percent of phone calls they field from community members are complaints about road quality. “We need gravel, and we need to do it economically,” Commissioner Mike Story said.
The Public Meeting
When the letter of support for a gravel pit emerged on the county commission agenda last week, community members wrote emails and called commissioners. A petition opposing the pit currently tallies more than 1,300 signatures.
Before the public comment period began, Wells said he thought a new gravel pit in the valley was likely inevitable, but he’d like to table the letter for now.
Attendees voiced concerns over wildlife habitat, recreation access, impacts to livestock grazing, noise, dust, health, and safety. Mary Sue Brenner, a resident near the proposed pit, said she bikes the adjacent road every day. “I really don’t want to get killed by a truck,” she said. “I don’t want to lose my life for a gravel pit.”
“It conflicts with the valley’s brand as a gateway to Yellowstone National Park,” said Barbara Jones, another neighbor of the potential pit, adding that the impacts of the mine are irreversible.
Another nearby resident, John Heidke, described a conversation with his granddaughter about pronghorn in the area the night before. “Are we not going to let people see the speedgoats there anymore?” his granddaughter asked him. “I said, ‘Maybe not,’” he relayed, near tears in the meeting.
Only one attendee, Steve Koontz of Livingston, who said he was familiar with the industry and state permitting processes, voiced support for the project.
Commissioners, for now, decided not to send the letter to the state. Whether or not it receives support from the Park County Commission, the gravel pit needs a lease approved from the Montana Land Board and a permit from the Department of Environmental Quality to break ground. Some attendees at the meeting expressed additional concerns about the state’s permitting process, which was overhauled by a bill passed by the 2021 state Legislature. That bill sped up permitting timelines and limited analysis, especially in areas without zoning laws like Park County.
“I think Yellowstone Park is going to find a gravel source somewhere, and it’s going to be in somebody’s backyard,” Wells said. “I kind of think it’s an advantage if it’s on public land because that gives the public a chance to have an influence on how it’s done.”
Wells said further public meetings about the project were needed to try to find some common ground.
But for opponents, the debate reaches beyond a single gravel pit.
“It is time for a broader conversation in our community about how we have some say over development in this area,” Erica Lighthiser, managing director of PCEC who co-leads the organization with Hjortsberg, said in an interview. “Once it’s developed, there’s no going back. At what point is Paradise Valley unrecognizable?”
