Oppose Administrative Site Leases
Administrative Site Leases
Forest Service· National ForestsFederal Register 2026-08937 ↗
The Forest Service is proposing to remove administrative site leases from its special use regulations, which currently govern how federal land is leased for non-recreational purposes. This would align Forest Service leasing practices with private real estate norms, reducing oversight requirements for leases tied to agency administrative facilities. Conservation professionals should watch this closely, as it could reduce public accountability and environmental review for leases on National Forest lands.
In the agency’s own words
The United States Department of Agriculture (Department), Forest Service (Forest Service or Agency), is proposing to amend its land use regulations to exempt administrative site leases from the regulations for special uses. The purpose of this deregulatory action is to better align Forest Service leasing activities with private real estate market practices.
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksAfter more than a decade chasing peak color across America, we built the foliage map we always wanted.
Another foreign mining company wants a piece of America’s public lands. This one comes with millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and radioactive radon.
The administration went looking for a sliver of Yosemite for a private developer and finally convinced the rest of public-lands world that if Yosemite is negotiable, nothing is safe.
More actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .
