Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-467321

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted September 22, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rescission of 36 CFR part 294, Subpart B fails to analyze the impact on the natural night sky in eastern roadless areas, specifically identifying the Allegheny and Monongahela National Forests as critical dark sky resources that would be degraded by light pollution from oil and gas development and road construction, and requests the retention of the rule or a supplemental EIS analysis.

Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.

Scorecard

Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.

Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.

How hard it is to set aside

A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence, Alternative, Legal.

Standard dismissals it defeats

Already addressed The agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
No cause and effect shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Still open to the agency

Alternative already eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Deferred to a later decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference noted The agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.

Topics

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “natural night sky”
- “astrotourism”
- “quiet, remote and self-reliant recreation”
- “stargazing is a documented use”
Governance Policy Process
- “select the No Action alternative”
- “local decisionmaking fails for a transboundary resource”
- “draft EIS and cost-benefit analysis omit an affected resource”
- “NEPA requires a hard look at foreseeable effects”
Resource Development Extraction
- “access for minerals or energy uses”
- “Oil and gas infrastructure”
- “Timber harvest and its roads”
- “development could occur for oil and gas”

What it names

National Forests: Allegheny National Forest Allegheny National Forest Monongahela National Forest
Roadless areas: Hearts Content
Law cited: 36 CFR part 294

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

I oppose the proposed removal of 36 CFR part 294, Subpart B, and ask the Department to select the No Action alternative. I am a Massachusetts resident who travels roughly eight hours to reach the nearest public lands where the Milky Way is visible. My comment concerns a resource the proposed rule never mentions: the natural night sky. 1. Inventoried roadless areas anchor the last dark skies in the eastern United States. East of the Mississippi, truly dark skies survive only in a few large undeveloped blocks, chiefly the Allegheny Plateau of Pennsylvania and the Allegheny highlands of West Virginia. These hold the Allegheny National Forest's roadless areas (about 25,000 acres, including Hearts Content and Minister Creek) and the Monongahela National Forest's roughly 300,000 acres of roadless and recommended-wilderness lands around Spruce Knob and Dolly Sods. For the Boston-New York corridor, these are the nearest places the galaxy can be seen. The prohibitions in §§ 294.12 and 294.13 are why those blocks have stayed unlit. 2. The activities rescission would enable are direct sources of light pollution. The rule states rescission "could increase management flexibility for access (roads), vegetation management, targeted fuels treatments, and access for minerals or energy uses," and that "some development could occur" for oil and gas. Each carries light at night: - Oil and gas infrastructure (well pads, compressor stations, flares) is lit continuously and is among the most intense rural light sources in the country. The Allegheny NF sits atop the Marcellus and Utica shales and already hosts thousands of wells; its roadless areas are the only part of the forest free of this footprint. - New roads bring nighttime traffic and lighted facilities, and open private inholdings to development no forest plan controls. - Timber harvest and its roads remove the canopy that shields ground-level lighting from the sky. Skyglow is not local. One industrial site degrades the sky tens of miles away; a developed landscape's glow is visible over a hundred miles. A dark sky is a regional resource that depends on every large undeveloped block within it staying undeveloped. 3. The rationale for local decisionmaking fails for a transboundary resource. The Department argues local officials are "best positioned to make decisions about inventoried roadless areas." But the sky over Cherry Springs State Park depends on decisions in the Allegheny NF, and the sky over Spruce Knob on decisions in two states. No single forest supervisor can protect a resource degraded by the sum of independent local choices. That is why USDA found in 2001 that a national prohibition was "the best means to reduce conflict and potential for incremental impacts" - and incremental impact is how dark skies are lost. The proposal also concedes later plan amendments "could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed," so the "modest and localized" near-term effects are a floor, not a ceiling, and the Department has not analyzed what lies above. 4. The stated purpose does not apply to eastern roadless areas. The Purpose and Need rests on wildfire, insects, disease, and wildland-urban interface protection, and concedes these are concentrated "especially in the Western United States." Pennsylvania and West Virginia's mesic hardwood forests lack those fuel conditions, and §§ 294.12(b) and 294.13(b) already allow fuel treatments where needed. A rescission driven by western conditions imposes an uncompensated loss on eastern forests where the stated problem does not exist. 5. The draft EIS and cost-benefit analysis omit an affected resource and industry. The Summary of Potential Impacts notes tradeoffs with "quiet, remote and self-reliant recreation" and a $6.1 million annual recreation loss, but never identifies night-sky quality or astrotourism. Cherry Springs draws visitors from across the Northeast because the surrounding plateau is dark, and stargazing is a documented use at Spruce Knob and Dolly Sods. The National Park Service treats natural darkness as a protected resource, and the Forest Service planning framework protects "scenic character," which includes the night sky. NEPA requires a hard look at foreseeable effects on this resource. The final EIS should include a night-sky analysis for each region with roadless areas, especially eastern IRAs where dark sky is scarce, and the cost-benefit analysis should account for astrotourism. Requested action: Retain Subpart B in full (No Action). If the Department proceeds, it should at minimum (a) retain the §§ 294.12 and 294.13 prohibitions in Forest Service Regions 8 and 9, where the wildfire rationale does not apply and dark skies are irreplaceable, and (b) supplement the draft EIS with a night-sky analysis before any final rule. Thank you for considering these comments. Respectfully, Resident of Massachusetts