As public lands emerge as a defining issue in November's elections, advocacy groups like as the National Parks Action Fund are urging North Carolina voters to consider how their choices at the ballot box will affect parks nationwide.

The group recently released its 2024 Congressional Scorecard, offering voters across the country a clear look at how members of Congress voted on key park-related issues.

Kristen Brengel, executive director of National Parks Action, said recent congressional votes have underscored the ongoing battle over resources.

"We lost the park funding vote in Congress and we also lost the vote on Endangered Species Act protections," Brengel pointed out. "This is, again, another value of national parks. People love to go to national parks to see the incredible wildlife and plants that exist there that, in some cases, don't exist anywhere else."

The scorecard revealed a contrast between North Carolina's representatives, with Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C., scoring an "A" for supporting park funding and sacred-site protections, while Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., received an "F" because of his support for a budget cut of 13% to the National Park Service.

Phil Francis, former superintendent of the Blue Ridge Parkway, said budget cuts are having real consequences, affecting everything from staffing and maintenance to recovering from natural disasters.

"Hurricane Helene came through and has caused an enormous amount of damage," Francis observed. "Part of that damage could have been prevented to some extent but there's landslides up and down the Blue Ridge Parkway and each one of those landslides can cost as much as $3 million apiece."

Francis believes sufficient funding for routine maintenance could have mitigated the damage from landslides. With record numbers of visitors relying on public spaces, he emphasized the economic impact of North Carolina's parks, as the National Park Service reports 20.9 million visitors contributed approximately $4.1 billion to the state economy in 2023.

For decades to come, South Dakotans can make use of an expanded wilderness in the southeastern part of the state, as a new land deal will keep hundreds of acres off limits to developers at a time when resource protections are challenged.

The forest land in question sits next to Newton Hills State Park, south of Sioux Falls. The Conservation Fund helped facilitate a deal involving state and federal agencies, where the organization first purchased and secured more than 200 acres of a former Boy Scout campground site. Through the collaboration, those acres were eventually put under the state's control.

Clint Miller, vice president of the central Midwest region for The Conservation Fund, said it means the section of wilderness is no longer at risk of turning into something which does not align with enjoying nature.

"What this prevented is conversion to some other use," Miller explained. "The most likely use that this property may have been converted to would be rural residential homes, multimillion-dollar rural residential homes."

Instead, Newton Hills will take on another 36 acres for things like hiking, and another 176 is set aside for wildlife protection and hunting. For federal public lands, there is new concern about spending cuts under the Trump administration affecting national parks. There is also political pressure to sell off public lands for fossil fuel-related production, with Republicans arguing America needs to reassert its energy independence.

Miller noted a donation and a federal grant from last year helped push the deal across the finish line, key steps since the state lacked funds to cover all the costs. Beyond recreation, he added there is an ecological benefit, describing the unique piece of land as a "forested island" along the Big Sioux River.

"When you look at it from above, you can see this ribbon of green, usually inside of a big land of cropland of corn and beans," Miller observed. "The migratory pathways for the birds, for other animals to move along there is absolutely essential."

Polling has indicated most Americans, no matter their political beliefs, prefer to conserve public lands, not develop them. In a new poll from Colorado College, which reached out to voters in eight Western states, 72% of those surveyed preferred conservation.

Two new national monuments in California are in jeopardy after the White House announced a plan to revoke them and then appeared to retreat.

On Saturday, the White House told the Washington Post President Donald Trump planned to rescind President Joe Biden's order creating the Chuckwalla National Monument near Palm Springs and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument in Northern California. Then language about the moves disappeared from a White House fact sheet with no explanation.

Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation, which advocated for the creation of the two new monuments, said the move was not unexpected.

"This administration has been pretty clear that they want to utilize federal public lands as a giveaway to corporate polluters and private developers," Goldbeck noted. "We are anticipating, whether it's these two monuments or others, that there will be some attempts to reverse federally protected public lands."

Trump claimed the monuments "lock up vast amounts of land from economic development and energy production." But Goldbeck pointed out Chuckwalla has not been targeted for oil and gas drilling or mining but rather is most valuable for outdoor recreation and wildlife habitat. The White House has yet to take concrete steps to rescind the monument designations.

Brandy McDaniels, national monument lead for the Pit River Nation, said the tribe has been fighting off geothermal development and other industrial uses for decades.

"This is not a Biden vs. Trump situation. It is a tribally led initiative that's been going on for a very long time," McDaniels explained. "This is a sacred landscape for our people. It is the actual place of the creation narrative of our people."

Sáttítla, also known as the Medicine Lake Highlands, is also home to the headwaters providing much of California's drinking water.


get more stories like this via email

The Sierra Club is taking the Trump administration to court, joining a slew of legal challenges over the mass firings of federal workers.

Sierra Club Managing Attorney Gloria Smith said the purge conducted by Trump's Department of Government Efficiency will have immediate impacts on Colorado's public lands and parks.

Trails won't be maintained and campgrounds will not be cleaned up.

"You know, after a long winter and the snow and storms, there's a lot of work that goes into making a park presentable and safe for the high season," said Smith, "when millions and millions of people visit."

Federal judges in California and Maryland have ruled that the firings were illegal, and ordered the Trump administration to immediately rehire up to tens of thousands of probationary workers across multiple agencies.

The Maryland court ruled in favor of a lawsuit brought by Colorado's Phil Weiser and 20 other state attorneys general.

The Trump administration has called the rulings an unconstitutional effort to seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch, and promised to appeal.

Smith said she supports the recent court decisions, but notes it remains to be seen whether or not the Trump administration will follow court orders.

She said park visitor safety, wildlife protection, and wildfire prevention are all still at risk. And she said workers dedicated to protecting lands owned by all Americans deserve better.

"Obviously this is of the highest importance," said Smith. "People have lost their jobs. This is going to affect communities, people's families. They can't pay their rent or their mortgages."

Sierra Club members are especially concerned about firings at the National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Forest Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - which includes the National Weather Service.

Smith said real-time weather service data is vital.

"For example, on a rafting trip, if there's a huge storm then there are flash flood risks," said Smith. "So the National Weather Service is absolutely critical."