Pennsylvania Legacies #190: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

A proposal from the Maryland Air National Guard would allow military jets to conduct training flights just 100 feet over the some of the state’s most pristine natural areas. How could that impact wildlife in the area, as well as communities that have rebuilt their economies on outdoor recreation? To find out, we chat with Susan Beck, a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel (retired); Ta Enos, CEO of the PA Wilds Center for Entrepreneurship; Nicole Faraguna with DCNR; and Carolyn Newhouse of McKean County.

The public has until May 17 to make comments on a proposal from the Maryland Air National Guard that would open millions of acres of north-central Pennsylvania to military training operations as low as 100 feet above ground.

The 13-county region known as the Pennsylvania Wilds represents one of the state’s least-developed most sparsely populated areas. Job losses in the timber and mining industries have also made it one of the most economically distressed.

The proposal would expand the Duke Military Operations Area (MOA) in Pennsylvania and New York to include low-level flyover training. An initial environmental assessment by the Maryland Air National Guard resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact, but local leaders say the process lacked transparency and opportunities for public input.

The Pennsylvania Wilds comprises some of the state’s most beloved natural areas. It encompasses 2.1 million acres of public land, including 29 state parks, eight state forests, the state’s only national forest, 50 state game lands, two wild and scenic rivers, the largest wild elk herd in the northeast, and some of the darkest skies in the world. For the last 20 years, recreation in those places has helped communities recover from the loss of extractive industries. 

Under the proposal, aircraft could be expected to train for one hour twice a day, approximately 170 days of the year. The Air National Guard claims that people and animals will acclimate to the disturbances. 

“I’m not too sure about that,” said Susan Beck, a retired Air Force colonel. “That is something that really needs to be evaluated.”

Nicole Faraguna with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources argued that a more robust environmental impact statement through the National Environmental Policy Act is necessary to better understand the consequences of the proposal.

“We need to make sure we are doing everything we can to ensure we are not seeing degradation or depletion of our natural resources,” Faraguna said.

She cited Pennsylvania’s Environmental Rights Amendment, which states that people have a right to “clean air, pure water, and to the “preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.” The amendment charges the Commonwealth with the responsibility of maintain these natural resources for current and future generations. 

Numerous organizations have sent letters expressing their concerns. The PA Wilds Center for Entrepreneurship sent a letter that stated how the proposed MOA would have “a devastating impact on nature tourism development efforts in the PA Wilds, and on the many rural residents who depend on this industry for their livelihoods,” including veterans suffering from PTSD.

In December 2021, PEC requested an extension of the public comment period, asking that the Maryland Air National Guard rescind the draft Finding of No Significant Impact and reassess the Environmental Assessment, considering the comments.

The comment period for the final assessment is open until May 17. Written comments may be submitted to Kristi Kucharek, National Guard Bureau, 3501 Fetchet Avenue, Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762-5157 or via email to [email protected].

More information is available here:


It’s Friday, April 28th, 2023. I’m Josh Raulerson, and this is Pennsylvania Legacies, the podcast from the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. Public comment is now being accepted for a proposal that would open a wide swath of North-Central Pennsylvania, the 13-county region known as the Pennsylvania Wilds, to low-altitude military training flights. As the name suggests, the PA Wilds is one of the state’s least developed, least densely populated areas, largely made up of state parks, national and state forest, and state game lands. It’s also one of the most economically distressed areas in the Commonwealth after the loss of jobs in the timber and mining industries. But for the last few years, the PA Wilds has been undergoing an economic revival on the strength of its bountiful outdoor recreation assets, particularly hunting and fishing, nationally designated wild and scenic rivers, and dark skies stargazing opportunities. Well, the proposal from the Maryland Air National Guard has prompted concern about the impact that frequent low altitude flyovers could have on those resources and the wealth they generate for residents.

Now, the military already conducts training operations in the area, but so far, only above 8,000 feet. To give you an idea of what that looks like, it’s about a fifth of the typical cruising altitude of a commercial aircraft and low enough to fly without needing cabin pressurization. In other words, it’s low enough to be noticeable from the ground, but usually not too disruptive. Well, the revised military operations area, or MOA, would permit  A-10 “Warthog” jets to fly as low as 100 feet above ground. That’s about the height of a 10-story building. Those flights would happen twice a day, 170 days a year. An initial environmental assessment by the Air National Guard in 2021 resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact, but not everybody agrees with that conclusion. And in addition, there are concerns about transparency and public involvement in the process, which have been fairly limited up until now. So in an effort to broaden the conversation, get the word out, and encourage public comment on this proposal, we’ve put together a panel of voices from around the region representing a variety of environmental, economic, and quality of life concerns. Welcome everybody. Thanks for being here. Please take a moment to introduce yourselves.

Nicole Faraguna (2:19)

Hi, I am Nicole Faraguna, I am the policy director for the Department of Conservation of Natural Resources.

Susan Beck (2:26)

Hi, I’m Susan Beck, and I’m a retired Air Force Colonel. I live in New Mexico and have been involved in other NEPA processes before. And so I’m a consultant to Nicole.

Ta Enos (2:37)

I’m Ta Enos, and I am the founder and CEO of the Pennsylvania Wilds Center for Entrepreneurship. And we help coordinate a regional strategy to grow the outdoor recreation sector in the Pennsylvania Wilds to help revitalize rural communities.

Carolyn Newhouse (2:52)

My name is Carolyn Newhouse. I’m involved in this as a serial entrepreneur, an economic development professional, and a resident in McKean County.

Josh Raulerson (3:05)

My first question is for Nicole. What is the Duke Low MOA? What do those letters stand for? What is exactly being proposed here?

Nicole Faraguna (3:11)

Sure. So Josh, thanks for making this happen. Um, really happy to share some more information about the Duke Low Military Operation Airspace, which is being proposed through the Maryland Air National Guard, uh, National Guard Bureau, which is a component of the U.S. Air Force. And what they’re asking to do is basically create a new airspace from a hundred feet above ground level to 7,909 feet mean sea level to do training exercises particularly for the A-10 Warthog as well as F-16s that would be flown by the agency and Maryland Wings. So this proposal is being promoted again through the Maryland Air National Guard. Primarily, they are, um, looking to fly approximately every other day. They state 170 days per year, one to two hours a day, again, flying as low as a hundred feet above ground level to basically allow them to train their pilots to do the maneuvers that they would do during military exercises.

So this is being proposed over the Pennsylvania Wilds, which I know Ta will talk a little bit more about. DCNR has been following this very closely because it is proposed over a, a large swath of DCNR-owned and managed lands, including several state parks, state forest lands, as well as game lands. And of course, DCNR has done a lot of work in terms of helping to promote and elevate the Pennsylvania Wilds into this conservation landscape and really a tourism and recreational destination for many. So it is definitely a concern, in terms of the potential impacts related to noise and what it might do in terms of impacting visitors, residents, seasonal occupants, wildlife, etcetera.

Josh Raulerson (5:19)

I think one question many people may have, one of my first questions when I first read about this story: PA Wilds is in Northern Pennsylvania. Last I looked, Maryland is to the south of our Commonwealth. Why is the Maryland Air National Guard proposing operations in Northern PA? Can you explain that, Susan?

Susan Beck (5:37)

Well, you know, that’s a really great question. For many years, the 175th Wing, which is the Maryland Air National Guard, was doing their training in a Navy airspace, R4006, and that’s a restricted area that is controlled by the Navy. But what happened is, just in recent years, the Navy has decreased the amount of time that other users can use this airspace because they’re using it a lot themselves. So this has severely limited the ability of the 175th Wing to use that airspace. So now they’re looking around for other training airspace so that they can learn to conduct real-world training missions. So, in other words, they need to be able to train the way they fight. And, um, you know, for instance, in 2015 and 2016, the Wing actually flew about 25% of its training missions in this Navy airspace. But by 2017, that had decreased to only 2%.

So now they’re very restricted and they’re having to go to various other places in the country in order to get their training done. So the Navy airspace is no longer a realistic place, and also they found that there was no way to really create a low airspace there for them to use. So it’s not possible to do anything with that airspace. So the existence of the Duke MOA, which is there in Pennsylvania, has been there for many years, in fact, decades, made it a good spot for them to look at, you know, can we do something here? And they have a criteria, even though they’re in Maryland, they have a criteria that says they need to be able to train within 200 nautical miles of their base. So that takes into account going to the Pennsylvania Wilds. Two hundred is a little bit much, you know, as far as my experience, it’s usually a hundred miles from the base, but in this case, they’re saying 200 miles is their criteria criterion.

So they are really looking to stay close to home as close as possible. And they’re also looking to make sure that they can do low level training because they don’t have an airspace where they can currently do that. So they studied different options within, um, 200 miles of Martin State Airport, which is where they’re based. And it turns out that Duke MOA, among all the other options that they have looked at, not all of which they’ve shared with us, but Duke MOA is closer and larger, and it’s used less frequently than other MOAs within this 200 nautical mile radius. So the thing is that, um, they really feel like they need to focus there. Also, because they’re already flying there, their air crews are very familiar with the area. So that’s really why they’re focused on this space of, in Pennsylvania.

Josh Raulerson (8:29)

So in some ways, I mean, this is, this is not a new thing, as you said, that, you know, the MOA has been in place, but what we’re talking about today will be somewhat different, and there will be impact across the board. Let’s start with the impact on human beings. Those living in the PA Wilds, people visiting the area, what would this actually look like? What can they expect to experience if this is approved, Susan?

Susan Beck (8:54)

Well, it’s gonna be a big change from what they are currently experiencing because of the low altitude nature of this, uh, airspace. In other words, the floor of the airspace would be lowered down to 100 feet above the ground or 100 feet above the treetops, if the trees happen to be a hundred feet above the ground. So they fly the A-10 aircraft. People may be used to seeing that aircraft flying around. That may be something that, that, um, you know, people have seen. The aircraft are somewhat noisy. They are very old, they have older engines, so there’s not as much noise muffling on the engines. One of the things that you’ll see is, let me just describe one of their missions. So for instance, they provide close air support to army troops that are on the ground. And during a mission like, like that they deploy weapons or bombs, for instance, maybe missiles in a dive.

So they will dive down toward the ground, and their dive altitude goes sometimes, uh, as far as 20,000 feet, all the way down to a hundred thousand feet. So say for instance, they were using both the, the low MOA and the high MOA, they might dive from 20,000 feet down to a hundred feet. So first of all, you would see that happening if you were in the near area. And so you might think the aircraft was crashing, even though it’s not, it’s under control by the pilot. And also, so this rapids descent can also cause noise, obviously. And the noise is, is, um, very quick. It starts and just happens and can startle people. So people might be startled not only by the descent of the aircraft, but then also by the noise that’s going to happen. And then once the aircraft simulates dropping its bomb, for instance, then it pulls up rapidly and ascends back to altitude.

So people would see that profile, and they would see that most likely happening over and over again during the one hour period in which the aircraft were training. So the dive is gonna cause the aircraft noise level to rise quickly. It’s also going to cause a person on the ground to not know what was happening right away. Ultimately, of course, you would see that the aircraft is under control by the pilot and is not going to crash. So that, that would not be a thing. But, uh, you know, this is not just for people, but it could also be for animals. I mean, imagine your dog out in the yard, or imagine a cow or maybe chickens or whatever, you know, um, the Air National Guard is making the point that, you know, animals and people will just acclimate to this after a while.

But, um, I’m not too sure about that. You know, I would have to say I’ve never stood under one of these missions, you know, being performed. So I can’t really say whether after a while I would acclimate to that or not. You know, that is something that really needs to be evaluated. What they’re saying is that the air a 10 aircraft would spend about 10 minutes or less below a thousand feet on each sort. And a sortie is an individual aircraft on a mission. So you have two aircraft in the area at a time, maybe four aircraft in the area at a time. And these aircraft would all be performing these profiles. One of the things that they are saying, and this is definitely a good thing, is that in the low airspace, the aircraft would not be going supersonic, which means you wouldn’t have the sonic booms that you might have when an aircraft accelerates to high speed really quickly.

So one of the things also that is a potential is that even though the Maryland Air National Guard is operating the A-10s right now, those A-10s are being retired by 2029. All of the A-10s will be out of the inventory, meaning that this guard unit will be picking up F-16s, and so therefore F-16s will be flown. Those are currently flown in the higher MOA and Duke MOFA right now, but not in the low altitudes right now, because that MOA doesn’t exist. Also at some point in the distant future, you’d have F-35s, which are very much louder than either the A-10 or the F-16. So there’s, you know, there’s that. But basically that’s the description of what people on the ground and animals could expect.

Josh Raulerson (13:25)

So people may think they have an idea what the impact would be, and they might, that might be accurate within the near term, but further on down the road, this could, this could be rather different, it sounds like.

Susan Beck (13:34)

Yes, yes. It could be.

Josh Raulerson (13:36)

Ta, they’re called the PA Wilds for a reason. Focusing on, you know, some of the other living things that inhabit this area, what kind of impacts could we be talking about, particularly with the noise?

Ta Enos (13:46)

Yeah, thanks, Josh. You know, just to kind of zoom out and give folks who haven’t been here a, a picture of the region. The Pennsylvania Wilds is a 13-county region, and we have the greatest concentration of public lands in the Commonwealth here. We have 29 state parks, eight state forest Pennsylvania’s only National Forest, 50 state game lands, two national Wild and Scenic Rivers, the largest wild elk herd in the Northeast, some of the darkest night skies in the country. We’re also an economically distressed region. We’ve seen, like a lot of rural places in America, out-migration, population decline, economic distress. These are defining issues for us that we’ve been trying to recover from. And so, you know, we’ve been working for about 20 years now on a collective effort. It involves public, private, state, local, federal partners all sort of working together and pulling in the same direction to grow, you know, the outdoor recreation economy up here, to really leverage the assets that we have to help revitalize our communities.

It’s a very holistic approach that’s important to understand. This is not just about tourism. It’s about how do you help bring back your communities? How do you build this new sector alongside existing ones to help them be able to attract and retain the talent that they need? So it’s a very important industry. It’s very strategic. It has widespread, you know, support, grassroots support, state sponsored, et cetera. So we’ve all been working on this for a long time. Our nonprofit, the PA Wealth Center is, is sort of the coordinating nonprofit around this work. And our two main concerns. One is about the actual, you know, Duke MOA and the impacts that it could have. Um, the noise, you know, having fighter jets a hundred feet over ground over parts of the Wilds is certainly not what the region is known for.

I don’t think it’s the reason folks live here. You know, as we’re sort of known for peace and quiet and being able to get away and all of these things. We’ve built a a powerful regional brand around that, you know, a lot of businesses have have tied into. And then I think just in, in general, the quality of life for the people who live here. You know, I’m in Warren County, so this, this doesn’t in impact where I live, but if I was gonna have fighter jets overhead 170 days out of the year, I would have concerns, and I would like to see a more robust process around really looking at the environmental impacts, how to mitigate those if we are gonna move forward with it, et cetera. And so that’s, that’s, that would be so that, you know, just the concern about what are the impacts and, and could they impact this work that so many people have invested in and the quality of life in our rural communities, as well as our natural assets and, and the environment and, and the wildlife here.

The second piece is really about the transparency of the process. It really feels like all the steps have not been taken here. I mean, there are communities asking for more public discourse about this for the National Guard to hold public meetings. And that has not happened. And so that has really been where we have tried to in inject ourselves, is to coordinate a response, to ask for more information, to ask for more process, to ask for more transparency. Because at this stage, I feel like that is what we’re all asking for. So that’s, you know, sort of in a nutshell, kind of where we’re at.

Josh Raulerson (17:22)

And in the absence of the kind of transparency that you’re looking for, how well are the potential impacts understood by people living in the area and, you know, to whatever degree they’re aware of what’s being proposed? How are they reacting? Uh, that’s a question for Ta, or Carolyn, either of you.

Carolyn Newhouse (17:38)

I think we’ve seen a mixed reaction. So, you know, this area, we’re all very patriotic and none of us wanna be unpatriotic. So at first, people thought it was similar to the current military training routes that occur in our area where they’re flying at eight, nearly 8,000 feet. Then as they become more and more aware of the details, you know, they become increasingly concerned that these are not flybys, that it’s sustained maneuvers that are happening multiple times a day. They also start reacting with increased concern when they’re learning that the information provided to date focused on the A-10 s, which are, you know, now planned to be retired and replaced with other aircraft. So we think, given the dramatic impacts of this could have that, you know, all we’re simply asking for is further research on those impacts and to have them come meet with us and answer our questions. So I think if they would do those two things, the reactions would be a lot more positive.

Josh Raulerson (18:40)

Nicole, DCNR is the land manager at issue here, and by way of the conservation landscape and any, uh, number of other initiatives, DCNR has a major stake in this issue. What is the state’s position, DCNR’s position on this proposal?

Nicole Faraguna (18:45)

That’s a great question. So, you know, to some, the PA Wilds is a blank spot on the map. You see all of this green and you think, well, there’s really nothing there. And that’s the soul of the Pennsylvania Wilds. To many it is home, either permanently or seasonally. It is wilderness, it is a destination. So the footprint of the duke Low-Military Operation airspace includes 10 state parks, including an internationally renowned dark sky preserve, Cherry Springs, five additional state parks just beyond the boundary of, of the proposed Duke MOA, 395,000 acres of state forest, over 35,000 acres of state game lands, the Hammersley Wild Area, which is one of the most remote natural areas in the Commonwealth. It’s where you go when you really want to hear nothing but the sounds of nature, uh, an ever growing population of elk, which is the largest, by the way, in the northeastern portion of the country.

And the historical Austin Dam, the Pine Creek Gorge, which is where many anglers and kayakers come to enjoy just the beautiful water and the serenity of the creek. So this is a really important space important region to Pennsylvania. It’s one of our key conservation landscapes to DCNR. And so the department recognizes certainly the need for the Air National Guard to effectively train its pilots. But we have concerns regarding cumulative impacts of the proposed Duke low MOA to the quality of life and the economy of the Pennsylvania Wild Region. We have concerns that this is the only site being considered by the Maryland Air National Guard. We feel that they need to do a much better job of vetting other options. The Department has provided substantive comments in response to the draft environmental assessment.

And we are now working on submitting comments in regards to the draft final environmental assessment and FONSI, Finding of No Significant Impact. But we just feel that these low-level training activities are not compatible with the nature of this wilderness area, and really could adversely impact the natural resources and wildlife we protect. It could impede on Pennsylvania’s constitutional right, the preservation of the natural scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment in our parks and forests, and harm the people and businesses that rely on these lands for their livelihood. And I’ll just note finally, that, you know, DCNR has invested over $180 million in the region since 2003. And so this investment, along with investments from federal and state agencies, private foundations, dollars leveraged locally and regionally just make it evident that the PA Wilds is one of the most heavily invested regions in the state and, and really one of the most cherished portions of the state.

Josh Raulerson (21:54)

Nicole, you mentioned Pennsylvanians have a constitutional right to a healthy environment. I think everybody on this call is familiar with Article 1, Section 27, probably a lot of people listening as well. What are the specific concerns in terms of the Environmental Rights Amendment with this proposal, and how could, you know, could that potentially be an avenue to challenge? What seems to be afoot? I don’t, I don’t know where the Pennsylvania Constitution interfaces with whatever federal law regulatory body applies here, but could you talk about that a bit?

Nicole Faraguna (22:26)

Sure. So Article 1, Section 27 states that, “The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and the preservation of the natural scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. And as the trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.” With that said, the federal government supersedes state law, state Constitution, and so they don’t necessarily have to comply with our Constitution, but we do feel as a trustee that the Commonwealth must conserve and maintain the purpose of the trust for future generations. So DCNR is  obviously a trustee of our state parks and state forest lands, and we need to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to ensure that we’re not seeing degradation or depletion of the natural resources.

So we feel through the Environmental Rights Amendment, compelled to defend those rights. And I’ll just note that, you know, we feel that a full environmental impact statement through the NEPA process, the National Environmental Policy Act, is really necessary to study the cumulative environmental, economic and health impacts, including understanding those future impacts, which Susan talked about, completely fully vetting alternative locations and establishing a transparent process that Ta talked about so that we know that the people of this very rural region understand the proposal and have an opportunity to ask questions and hear directly from the Air National Guard.

Josh Raulerson (24:12)

And on that point, getting people in the region, getting stakeholders informed and engaged in this process and offering public comment — Ta, what are you and the PA Wilds Center doing to inform and educate people on this proposal and, and kind of get that response from them?

Ta Enos (24:28)

Sure. So, we don’t see ourselves as the only ones by any stretch, but we do have a network, you know, that’s been built over the last 20 years. All 13 of our county governments are part of that economic development organizations, nonprofits. We also have a network of 500 businesses and organizations that are helping us, you know, sort of build this regional brand and outdoor recreation destination. And so, you know, we’ve put out newsletters, we have coordinated a sign-on letter to the National Guard requesting more public meetings and really, you know, put out press releases and things like that. And, but I will say that when you’re working in very rural areas, you have to do more than that. You know, the the onus is really on the National Guard to make sure that folks have been informed, and these are very rural communities, a lot of them that will be impacted.

You know, I think they probably qualify as news deserts. You know, it’s very, it can be difficult to reach everybody, and there’s a lot of seasonal camp ownership. I think somebody was showing some stats recently at another meeting that showed almost 40% of seasonal, you know, the properties in a couple of the counties were seasonal homeowners. So, you know, have we reached them, you know, with our stuff locally? I don’t know, because I’m not, you know, I, I don’t know where they’re at. So I, I think there’s more that needs to be done to make sure that communities are aware of what’s happening, um, and that, that, that is the responsibility of the Air National Guard to make sure that notification is happening.

Josh Raulerson (26:10)

Susan, how does this process play out from here? Who makes the final decision and when might that happen?

Susan Beck (26:18)

Well, basically the Maryland Air National Guard reports to the, the Air National Guard, the U.S. Air National Guard, which ultimately reports to the National Guard Bureau, and the National Guard Bureau is in the Pentagon. And so the National Guard Bureau is the one that’s going to approve the ultimate action that’s taken. So they will actually be the one to sign off on the finding of no significant impact. And also the draft, final draft EA um, there’s an office up there that is in charge of doing this, and the chief of the asset management division is the one who will probably sign this. This is what’s happened in other actions, like one that we are aware of in West Virginia. So what’s gonna happen is once we get past the comment period, they will look at all the comments. If they decide to make any changes to the final document, they’ll do that.

I doubt seriously we’ll see another public comment period at all. Once they receive final comments, that’s it. They will move forward and make their decision. So it will be done at the National Guard Bureau level. And I’ve talked to Nicole about this, and we are looking at the possibility of sending some information, possibly letters up to the National Guard Bureau level, as well as the Air National Guard to make sure they’re aware of this action. And also the requests that have been made for public meetings and for a complete environmental impact statement process, rather than just an EA. So that’s what’s gonna happen from here on out. And again, we’re looking at possibly communicating with the higher levels, just to make sure they’re aware of the concerns.

Josh Raulerson (28:02)

But that public input is gonna be really critical In any case, Carolyn, how can people find out more, educate themselves about this proposal and then, and then become more engaged, become part of this process?

Carolyn Newhouse (28:15)

Sure. Well, the Maryland National Guard has an official website on this issue. The URL is really long, so I simply found that site by searching “Duke MOA low,” and that site came up. A 40-day comment period exists to allow concerned citizens to respond and submit feedback. So on that site, there’s a link to an email for submitting comments. The deadline for comments is May 17th. So we’re encouraging key stakeholders and Pennsylvanians to reach out to the mayor, the Maryland Air National Guard Guard via that way, to also reach out to their elected officials, just so the officials are aware of how they feel on this issue. And then we also post information on the Citizens for the PA Wild’s Facebook page.

Nicole Faraguna (29:04)

I would add on to Carolyn’s comments that we have had really great support from all of our elected, many of our elected officials from the county level to our State Reps, both Democrats and Republicans to  our congressional delegation weighing in on our behalf about this issue. So, you know, I do think it’s important to reach out to elected officials like Carolyn said, and let them know what you’re thinking about it. And then also to, to, you know, to memorialize your concerns in writing to the National Guard for sure.

Josh Raulerson (29:41)

And we will make sure to include the link that Carolyn mentioned and any other information that we can pass along to our audience and encourage people to make their voice heard as well on this. Everyone, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and your insight. Appreciate your time today.


We heard from Susan Beck, U.S. Air Force Colonel (retired); Ta Enos, CEO of the PA Wilds Center for Entrepreneurship; Nicole Faraguna with DCNR; and Carolyn Newhouse of McKean County.

Check the web post accompanying this podcast for links to more information about the Duke Low MOA proposal, including how to submit public comment. The comment period closes May 17.