The park at the center of the nation’s battle over climate change is in the midst of a community debate over whether to keep a controversial campground, a proposal that has drawn criticism from local environmentalists and environmentalists from other towns.
The decision comes as Missouri officials wrestle with a drought and rising sea levels, and amid the looming threat of wildfires that threaten to kill tens of thousands of people.
The proposed Camp Campfire Country is on a 5,000-acre site that is bounded by St. Louis, Jefferson and Missouri rivers.
It is near the southern edge of a national forest, which is slated for logging and ranching.
The campground is near a scenic stream that is also protected under the Forest Service’s national monument designation.
Opponents, including environmentalists, say the campground will not help address the country’s rising temperatures and rising carbon emissions, and that the campgrounds presence in a national park would have the effect of alienating visitors and potentially harming the local economy.
In the summer of 2015, residents in the town of Lake County, Missouri, decided to move to Campfire.
It was a move that some felt would benefit the town, but others said it would negatively affect the area’s water supply.
At the time, the camp was being proposed in the name of the Lake County Conservation Authority, which regulates the county’s land use.
The plan was for the camp to be a five-acre area with picnic tables, a fire pit, and a playground.
The area was to be managed by the Conservation Authority.
The campground was supposed to be open to the public in June of 2015.
But the camp closed the following month.
The state’s Forest Service issued a public health warning that said the campfire would be hazardous to humans and wildlife and had the potential to contribute to water scarcity.
The agency said the area was within an area of federal protection that includes areas of Lake Huron and the Missouri River watershed.
The campsite was in the middle of the river, which was not designated for any water source, and the state and local government had said that the campsite would be safe and provide clean drinking water to campers.
But environmental groups and some of the campers were upset that the state didn’t require the campsite to be located on federal land.
Campfire Country’s owner, Paul and Barbara D’Amico, said they were unaware of the state’s warning and were unaware that Campfire would require federal protection.
They said they had never been notified about any state or federal protection requirements for the area.
They said the state had not contacted them about the campsites before, and had not responded to their emails or phone calls about the issue.
In an interview, Barbara D�Amico said they believed the state was trying to discourage them from bringing their camp to Lake County.
But the conservation authority, which oversees the camp, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the camp’s fate.
The Conservation Authority issued a statement saying that while Campfire’s location had been approved by the state, it had not yet been determined whether the camp would be able to be built on federal property.
It said the campside was not part of the federal land designated for a national monument, and Campfire had never previously been granted federal protection by the Forest System Protection Agency.
It said that as a result of the Forest Protection Act, it was not permitted to make a decision on the status of Campfire until it had determined whether or not the proposed camp could safely operate.
It did not specify what federal protections would be required, and there was no indication that CampFire would be subject to those requirements.
A spokesperson for the agency, which manages the camp and operates it under a permit, said the authority did not comment on pending public comments.
But many residents in Lake County said they didn’t know anything about the camp until it closed.
“It’s not a huge area of land,” said Dan Kowalski, the president of the American Camping Association of Missouri.
“I don’t know where they plan to put it.
I don’t even know if it’s going to be here in the next 10 years.
We don’t have any plans.”
But Kowarski said he believes the federal government could have done more to prevent the camp from being built.
He said he would have preferred that the area be protected more thoroughly, and said he has been lobbying for the state to grant more federal protections.
“We need to do more, we need to make sure we don’t put our residents in harm’s way,” he said.