Opposition is mounting following the U.S. Forest Service's decision to merge Mineral and Missoula counties into a single resource advisory committee. 

The move ignores local concerns and threatens Mineral County's ability to guide projects affecting its public lands and communities, according to critics.

The announcement came as the Lolo National Forest begins recruiting applicants for the newly formed Mineral-Missoula County Resource Advisory Committee. Forest officials said the joint committee will consist of 15 members and will oversee recommendations for projects funded through the Secure Rural Schools program.

According to the Forest Service, recruitment will begin this month, with a nomination package expected to be submitted later this year. Approval is anticipated by late summer 2027, after which the committee will convene to review project proposals and allocate available funding. Forest officials emphasized that funding generated by each county will continue to be spent exclusively within that county. Despite those assurances, local opposition remains strong.

Among the critics is Angelo Ververis, a forester with Idaho Forest Group, who said local collaborative groups and county officials had repeatedly expressed their desire to maintain an independent Mineral County committee. 

In a letter to Forest Service Partnership Coordinator Bryce Kadrmas, Ververis stated that Mineral County residents were "very vocal about keeping our autonomy" and said that if a merger became unavoidable, Sanders County would be a far better fit than Missoula County. 

"Our community values are significantly different than those of Missoula," Ververis wrote, calling the decision a mistake and pledging to contact elected representatives in hopes of having it reconsidered.

Former Mineral County Resource Advisory Committee Chair and state Sen. Denley Loge echoed those concerns, arguing that Mineral County previously demonstrated its ability to operate a successful advisory committee before federal delays and procedural challenges disrupted the program. Loge said the county had maintained a well-organized committee with qualified applicants and members who possessed firsthand knowledge of local landscapes, economic conditions and community priorities. 

"We have a small population but were able to fill all the categories," Loge wrote. "Our members were all familiar with the areas where the projects were located." 

He argued that combining Mineral County with Missoula would dilute local expertise and reduce the influence of residents most familiar with the county's public lands. Like Ververis, Loge suggested Sanders County would be a more logical partner due to similarities in geography, economy and rural character. 

Mineral County Natural Resource Advisor Willy Peck has been involved in the proceedings as well.

Underlying many of the objections is a shared concern that Mineral and Missoula counties possess fundamentally different cultures, economies and priorities. Opponents argue that Mineral County's rural, resource-based communities could be overshadowed by the interests of the much larger and more urbanized Missoula County. 

Forest Service officials maintain that the new committee structure will ensure continued local project funding while creating a fully functioning advisory body capable of supporting conservation and community improvement efforts across both counties.

For now, however, many Mineral County residents and leaders remain unconvinced. They pledged to continue pressing federal officials to reconsider the decision before the joint committee becomes operational.