Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08937
AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter, a local resident and volunteer, opposes the proposed rule to reclassify Administrative Site Leases as it could lead to the privatization of public land and the loss of federal oversight. They argue that moving these leases out of the "special use" framework threatens historic resources and strips the Forest Service of its ability to protect public assets from private commercial interests.
RE: Proposed Rule – Administrative Site Leases
Docket ID: FS-2026-0034
RIN: 0596-AD68
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service’s proposed rule to remove the Administrative Site Leasing Program from the “special use” authorization regulations (36 CFR 251 subpart B) and reclassify it under a separate, non-special-use framework.
As a native Californian, a frequent visitor of the Cleveland National Forest, and an active volunteer in both Cuyamaca Rancho State Park and Palomar Mountain State Park, I am deeply invested in the preservation, history, and ecological integrity of our public lands. While the agency frames this deregulatory action as a necessary update to “align with modern real estate market practices” and attract private-sector financing, it represents a dangerous erosion of federal oversight and public accountability.
I strongly object to this proposed rule for the following reasons:
Threats to Historic and Cultural Resources: Many administrative sites under Forest Service jurisdiction—including irreplaceable Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)-built structures throughout the Cleveland National Forest—hold immense historical and cultural value. Removing these assets from the standard special-use framework and allowing 100-year commercial leases drastically increases the risk that historic structures will be altered, modernized, or restricted from public access to satisfy private profit margins.
Erosion of Agency Control: Under the existing special-use framework, the Forest Service retains the vital authority to unilaterally terminate authorizations if a lessee violates terms or if public resource management needs change. Shifting these to standard commercial real property leases—where public assets are used as collateral for private bank loans—strips the agency of its protective, unilateral leverage and compromises federal sovereignty over public land.
Privatization of Public Resources: Opening up federal administrative sites (including historic cabins, research stations, and lookouts) to century-long commercial leases with simplified assignment and transfer rules creates a backdoor for long-term privatization. Public land should be managed for the public good and public stewardship, not structured to satisfy the risk-tolerance of private developers and commercial lenders.
Diminished Public Accountability: Moving administrative site leasing out of the transparent special-use regulations separates these projects from established, standardized processes that ensure rigorous public accountability. As someone who routinely volunteers to protect our regional parks, I know firsthand that public transparency and oversight are non-negotiable when dealing with public assets.
The modern real estate market should not dictate how our public lands and historic federal facilities are managed. The existing constraints within the special-use framework exist for a reason: to safeguard public resources from speculative commercial interests and maintain strict federal stewardship.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposed rule and maintain the Administrative Site Leasing Program under the strict oversight of the special-use authorization regulations to protect vulnerable sites in the Cleveland National Forest and nationwide.
Thank you for your time and consideration