Specialists in Forestry and Natural ... - Timberland Realty

�

A Publication on Forestry Facts from Forecon

FOrestry Recreation Ecology CONservation

Volume 21 No. 3 March 2007

Specialists in Forestry and Natural Resources Management Consulting Since 1954

Continued on page 2

Bidding Timber– Providing many with “Happy Returns”In the rollercoaster world of

timber value one credo remains constant: if you expect to get the most from your next timber sale, bid it! We spend much of our time speaking with timber buyers, sawmill owners, developers of timber stumpage value tracking reports, etc. At any given point in time, someone is lamenting the woes of a failing lumber or timber market for a particular species, sometimes more than one. Many times over we hear the cries after bidding like, “how can they pay that much?”, “they won’t be in business very long spending that kind of money for that kind of timber” or, the two all time favorites among bidders, “they can have it for that price!”, and “I can’t sell the lumber for what they are paying for the stumpage!”

While these anomalies in our business exist, the fact remains that bidding provides the best exposure to the largest available market, resulting in the best price available for your timber on the bid date. Why? The answer is simple. Consultants mark, cruise and appraise the timber being sold. They prepare the sale package indicating to the potential bidder the issues and/or costs associated with the sale. We indicate where pipelines and streams need to be crossed and how we expect it to be done to comply with State and local regulations. We provide landowner imposed conditions on the sale and work with the landowner to be certain that the constraints imposed don’t unnecessarily undermine the integrity of the sale. Our job is to protect your interest in the sale while providing a “fair” platform of

rules and constraints for bidders to base their bid upon.

We have been providing consulting services to both landowners and industry for more than 50 years. Timber companies know what to expect from a Forecon, Inc. managed timber sale. Our reputation for fair and honest dealing with both landowners and industry brings bids to the table. The results below speak for themselves.

As in past issues, we will showcase two (2) sales that were marketed through the prospectus and bid process in 2006.

SALE 1 ProfileThis timber was sold in February

of 2006. It contained approximately 538,635 board feet of timber with 39% of the volume in yellow-poplar, 15% in soft maple, 15% in hard maple and 10% in red oak, with the balance of volume in minor species. The sum was also sold on a “lump-sum” basis. We received ten (10) bids ranging from a high bid of $223,795 to a low bid of $69,734 (a difference of almost 235% from low to high).

Bidder BidReceived 1 $233,795 2 $180,752 3 $172,341 4 $142,500 5 $139,610 6 $139,430 7 $137,800 8 $131,406 9 $109,230 10 $ 69,734

SALE 2 Profile This timber was sold in April

of 2006. It contained approximately 194,564 board feet of sawtimber with about 27% of the volume in yellow poplar, 18% in red maple, 14% in black cherry, 13% in red oak and 9% in hard maple, with the balance in minor species. The sale was sold on a “lump-sum” basis, meaning it was paid for in total before any timber was cut. We received six (6) bids, ranging from a low of $48,200 to a high bid of $75,517 (a difference of about 63% from low to high).

Bidder BidReceived

1 $75,517 2 $61,965 3 $57,500 4 $50,714 5 $50,372 6 $48,200

Both timber sales were conducted though a competitive bidding process. Forecon, Inc. was hired by the landowners to mark, cruise and appraise the volume and value of the timber being sold. The species, diameter and merchantable log height of each tree marked for sale is tallied by the forester or forest technician. The information collected is then processed using forestry software to provide the total number of trees by species and the volume they contain. This information is analyzed with respect to current market conditions and prices paid for the species involved, resulting in an appraisal of the stumpage (standing timber) value.

By Brian Bullard, By Brian Bullard, Director of Consulting OperationsDirector of Consulting Operations

and and Richard Depp, Richard Depp, Forester/Regional ManagerForester/Regional Manager

�

A timber sales prospectus is then prepared which details the terms and conditions of the sale. The prospectus is generally mailed to 20-30 bidders on any given sale. The bids are opened at the time and date specified in the prospectus. The landowner always reserves the right to reject any or all bids.

Keep in mind that with each of the sale profiles above, the timber buyers are bidding on the exact same trees given the same circumstances for removal, markets, etc. The results speak for themselves. Put our knowledge of the forest industry and our reputation and contact base to work for you. Let Forecon truly get you the highest price by bidding your timber!

Variable. This is the simplest way to describe calendar 2006. Just when it appeared that we were going to have a banner year for logging in the northeast, we were rudely awakened to record rainfalls that started in August and didn’t end until the first snows of January, 2007. Wow…did we get rainfall! What first was sweet turned sour very quickly.

Logging nearly came to a screeching halt in many parts of the northeast. With more than 80 timber sales purchased by various timber companies in southwestern New York and northwest Pennsylvania alone, we had no active logging operations from September to late December of 2006. The minute the rain stopped and the temperature fell below freezing, the calls to start logging jobs started and hasn’t stopped yet.

Why is this important? Generally, when logging conditions are poor supply is down and, therefore, prices increase due to continued demand for the same product. In this case, however, prices continued to fall during this wet weather time period and have not yet rebounded in early 2007. In addition, companies do not seek out bid

timber as actively during this type of market, especially when the price of lumber is falling. With interest rates increasing, housing starts declining slightly, and more lumber being purchased from overseas as markets become available at lower cost, the prices paid for stumpage inevitably change.

Where some species have struggled in the lumber market, they have also done well in the veneer market. Thus, if you are selling stumpage with a veneer component, the overall value that you receive may not appear to be sending the message that prices are downward moving. In fact, many mills are reporting that the value of 4/4 (four quarter) lumber has dropped by as much as 30% for some species and is a cause for concern when evaluating current stumpage prices. We have benefited from many years without a noticeable softening in stumpage prices; whether we do now is anyone’s guess.

The graph indicates the 3rd and 4th quarter average high bid prices based on Forecon, Inc. bid sales. Black cherry continues to hold the top spot as the most valuable species in New York and Pennsylvania . The average high bid weighted average for all reporting areas was $2,445/MBF. Keep in mind that this weighted average is derived from many sales with extremely high quality cherry contained in large volumes. Suffice it to say, however, that $2,000/MBF for good quality cherry has become more the rule than the exception in Southwestern New York and Northwest Pennsylvania. Our West Virginia operations report pricing in the $1,400-$1,600 range.

Hard maple continues to hold high-end bid values that exceed $1,000 per MBF in the New York and (to some extent ) Pennsylvania market, with average weighted pricing for all reporting offices holding at $775/MBF; sales in West Virginia continue to hold in the $400-$500 range for good

Average “High-Bid” Stumpage PricesJuly - Dec. 2006

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

W NY & NW PA Central NY SE NY W Va

Bidding Timber(continued)

Stumpage Prices 2006

Continued on page 3

By Brian Bullard, By Brian Bullard, Director of Consulting Operations Director of Consulting Operations and Chuck Alexander, and Chuck Alexander, Economic Analyst/CPAEconomic Analyst/CPA

�

hard maple. Market timing is always critical for this species. Currently, the lumber market has taken a downward turn for hard maple. Veneer prices are holding this market together right now. Common grade lumber has taken a hard fall in pricing.

Red oak demand remains sluggish. Market conditions have not improved for red oak in more than a year now. Prices are still holding well in the $600-$700 per MBF range in the north and $350-$450/MBF in our southern offices for good quality red oak. Most timber buyers claim that they can buy this species regularly for $450-$550/MBF. Our weighted high bid price shows $777/MBF for this time period. Again, this is a high price

for red oak at this time. Soft maple continues to dominate

(yes, dominate) the market. It is in demand with pricing for good quality, large volume material holding at $600/MBF or more in Southwest New York and Northwest Pennsylvania. We reported this phenomenon of $600 soft maple in our last Woodland News, speculating that it might only last a short time. Thank goodness we were wrong! Soft maple is holding steady at pricing of $300-$400/MBF on a regular basis in the north and $200-$300/MBF in the south. Bidding, however, tells a much brighter story for this species.

White ash continues to be sluggish in all markets, carrying an average value of $200-$400/MBF in

all Forecon, Inc. offices.The stumpage price graph in this

article shows the average high-bid prices received by Forecon, Inc. for timber sales administered from July to December of 2006. The prices listed represent the average amount per thousand board feet (MBF), as measured by the Doyle Log Rule. The values reported do not necessarily reflect the value of your timber resource. Average tree size, species mix, quality, access, proximity to mill, contract length, value of the species at the time of sale and contract conditions, to name a few, all impact the value of your particular sale. Call us for a free consultation. Put our experience to work for you.

Forecon currently employees over fifty people in nine offices, serving four states. We are very proud of our capable, experienced and professional staff.

Jason Wenrich –Office ManagerFayetteville, West Virginia

Jason Wenrich is a graduate of Penn State University with a Bachelors degree in Forest Management. Jason began working after college for a local saw mill as a log inspector. He then moved to a consultant position for five years, where he worked for private forest landowners in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Jason is a member of the Society of American Foresters

and he is a Registered Forester in West Virginia.

Jason joined Forecon, Inc. in 2005 as an Office Manager and Staff Forester. He is responsible for organization, implementation, and management of all jobs at the Fayetteville office.

Jason Wenrich

Stumpage Prices 2006 (continued)

Meet the Manager

By Brian Bullard, By Brian Bullard, Director of Consulting Operations Director of Consulting Operations and Chuck Alexander, and Chuck Alexander, Economic Analyst/CPAEconomic Analyst/CPA

www.foreconinc.com

�

Carbon Sequestration? What’s this all about?

The greenhouse affect, global warming, biofuels, alternative or “green” energy, carbon neutrality, emissions reduction, carbon sequestration….these are just a sample of some of the terminology that has become increasingly prevalent in the mainstream media today. The global initiative to reduce the impacts of fossil fuel consumption combined with the controversial issue of dependence on foreign oil sources has developed into what could be considered a renaissance period for the international community when it comes to environmental policy and responsible environmental practices. It certainly appears that the time has arrived for real progress on the issue of global warming and its impacts on our society.

So, what does this all mean for forestry? There are four main methods by which a greenhouse gas emitting entity can reduce its emissions to get under an emissions cap. These include the reduction of point emissions, reduction of the entities’ carbon “footprint” by using alternative fuels or energy sources, the purchase of offset credits from another entity that has reduced its emissions below the cap, or the purchase of offset credits from sequestration projects (projects that fix carbon in some way). Forests are just one type of sequestration project that can participate as an offset in many registries and markets today. When considering forestry offset projects, there are four primary types: afforestation, reforestation, managed forests, and forest conservation projects.

While afforestation, reforestation, and forest conservation are all important aspects of forest carbon sequestration, the primary focus of this article is sustainably managed forests. Managed forests are somewhat controversial in the carbon world today. It is believed however, that this forestry offset type that has perhaps the greatest potential here in the US. Forests that are managed for

some mix of objectives and benefits such as recreation, biodiversity, wood products, esthetics, and high quality water, benefit society most by providing all of these co-benefits along with clean air and reduced GHG buildup in the atmosphere. This suite of environmental services is matched by no other type of offset.

A Test Case For Sustainably Managed Forests

So, what is the income potential of participation by managed forests in carbon markets? Over the past few years we have been asking that question ourselves. In order to fully understand the potential for managed forests as offset projects we decided to test the actual performance of a tract of managed forest, which we’ll call the K tract. The K tract is a 9,000+ acre privately owned tract of high quality hardwood forest in the northeastern US. At the date of the analysis, the tract is comprised of a mix of age classes distributed in even aged stands across the property.

Although there are a variety of market opportunities available for carbon offset credits at this time, our analysis is based on the only open market available here in the US, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). CCX is the world’s first and North America’s only voluntary, legally binding rules-based greenhouse gas emission reduction and trading system. It started its first pilot period in 2003 with 13 members. The CCX now has approximately 250 members including companies such as; Rolls Royce, Dow, DuPont, Ford, IBM, IP, Mead Westvaco, Stora Enso NA, also municipalities such as the State of New Mexico, cities of Boulder, Chicago, Portland, Berkeley, Oakland and many others.

Our test was built to answer one primary question: “How would the K tract have performed as a forestry offset project from 2001 to 2006 had the landowner entered the CCX without changing their management plan?” Our test involved the establishment of baseline carbon stocks from existing forest inventory,

modeling growth using the CCX approved NE TWIGS growth model, and removing harvest volumes annually, all under the CCX rule set. Other edits included adjustments for other activities such as forest road construction. It should be noted that during the analysis period, total harvest levels equated to roughly 40% of overall growth. This is a key factor in the calculation of net volumes of carbon for the project.

In order to get our analysis started it was necessary to establish our projects baseline carbon stocks for the beginning of 2001. To accomplish this task we converted per species volume estimates from a 2001 forest inventory to its carbon dioxide equivalent. The result was overall estimates of carbon stocks that averaged 28 MtCO2e per forested acre. Using this baseline data and the actual harvest levels along with estimates of growth from the NE TWIGS growth model, net sequestration for the K tract was calculated for each year. The results revealed that our managed forest sequestered an average of about 14,850 MtCO2e annually, or about 1.69 MtCO2e per forested acre per year.

After calculating the sequestration levels for our forest, we then calculated the estimates of income through the sale of the resulting carbon “credits” on the CCX platform. At the time of the project carbon credits sold for values between $.95 and $3.70 per MtCO2e. Using these historical prices for carbon, our project yielded gross income of $135,738.00 for the period.

The cost side of our analysis breaks the various costs for the project into two categories, start up costs and participation costs. Start up costs can include forest inventory costs, costs of third party certification of sustainability (such as SFI or FSC), and lastly, project preparation costs. Participation costs include fees associated with aggregation, trading, reporting, and verification. These costs are incurred after the project is approved and are dependent on the scope of the project and the amount

Carbon Market Opportunities for Forest LandownersBy Matt Smith,By Matt Smith,Director of Land ManagementDirector of Land Management

�

of carbon generated for trading or banking. For the K tract the total costs for participation for the six year period equated to $91,779.53

The end result of our economic analysis for the K tract revealed net revenue from the sale of carbon credits of $43,959, or about $.83 per forested acre per year. These results are summarized in the table below:

While $.83 per forested acre per year is a positive economic outcome, it is hardly worth getting excited about. Landowners faced with the decision as to whether or not to enter this ecosystem market will not be likely to do so at this level of financial incentive.

Carbon in Harvested Wood Products:

As we consider the outcome of this historical analysis and look to the future for managed forests in carbon markets, it is important to keep our eye on policy and rule set developments that are on the horizon. From a broad perspective, as we think about accounting for sequestered carbon from our forests it’s easy to understand that growth and harvest are the key factors influencing our net carbon stocks. Growth represents our sequestration and harvest equates to our “emission”. The problem with this train of thought is that the harvesting of trees does not fully release the associated carbon stocks to the atmosphere. Wood is made into products, which then have a lifespan of their own. Consequently, the wood tied up in harvested wood products in use contains sequestered carbon that can be accounted for and is not emitted at the time of harvest.

If we implement the DOE 100 year depreciation model method for harvested wood products in use on

the K tract, the resulting net revenue increases from $.83 per forested acre per year to $1.14 per forested acre per year, a 37% increase in net revenue. While this income level is still not very significant, you can see the impact of this policy development on the projects economic performance.

The Current Market Result:When we completed the K tract

analysis in August of 2006, the sale price of one MtCO2e on the CCX platform was $4.35. This is significantly more than the $.95 to $3.70 per MtCO2e used in the historic K tract economic analysis.

If we take the sequestration estimates from our K tract analysis and apply the current price of carbon for each year in the period, our net income estimates rise to nearly $4.70 per forested acre per year. If we then add in the ability to take credit for harvested wood products in use our net revenue rises to $5.92 per forested acre per year, or total net revenue just over $310,000 for the six year period. As you can see, market conditions and policy developments are creating an income opportunity for forest landowners that could be significant over time. It is at these levels of net revenue that we believe forest landowners will be interested in making the commitments and investments required to participate in carbon markets.

Summary:The successful completion of the

K tract analysis project revealed a number of important and interesting aspects about sustainably managed forests and the rapidly developing

carbon markets. While the historical economic results weren’t very impressive, the K tract test model did produce a positive financial result. This result is more encouraging when you consider the current price of carbon, which could result in revenue streams similar to those currently generated through recreational leases on forestland.

While interviewing representatives from carbon markets and registries and by reading through volumes of carbon market rules and policies, it became readily evident that this business is in its infancy and is rapidly changing. Rule sets are rapidly developing in response to policy development and other influences. The various viewpoints on additionality, assuredness, and permanence combined with outside political pressures will make the acceptance of offset credits from managed forests inconsistent at best. The general belief that a federal greenhouse gas program will happen in the coming years makes it imperative that the forestry community look to influence policy favorably in this regard.

No other form of carbon offset project can produce a volume of carbon credits to mitigate climate change with all of the other positive ancillary benefits that managed forests provide society. Clean water, biodiversity, esthetics, wood products, and recreation are just a few of the valuable co-benefits from forests that you will not find in agricultural sequestration projects, geologic sequestration, or methane gas capture. The potential for managed forests in this new ecosystem market is significant. New rule set developments and the rising prices for carbon credits are creating a significant opportunity for some forest landowners.

Matt Smith, CF, ACF, EMS-A, Director of Land Management, Forecon Inc., or call (716) 664-5602, ext.313.

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

No HWP w/HWP FutureNo HWP

Futurew/ HWP

$0.83$1.14

$4.70

CCX Annual Net Revenue Per Forested AcreNote: Future Values Use $4.35 per MtCO2e

$5.92

Summary of K Tract CCXTest Case Results

MtCO2e Sequestered (6 yrs.) 89,105.00Avg. annual squestration 14,850.83Avg. annual sequestration 1.69(per forested ac)Total Revenue $135,738.69Total Costs $91,779.53Total Net Revenue $43,959.16Annual per forested acre net revenue $0.83

Carbon Market Opportunities for Forest Landowners (continued)

�

Though a good share of our consulting

focuses around forestry concerns,

many folks don’t realize that Forecon

is an organization with multi-faceted

environmental / ecological services to offer

those interested in the conservation of their

natural resources. To better illustrate this,

we thought it best to provide the following

summary of our service offerings; remember,

this is by no means an exhaustive listing

–– don’t hesitate to call and ask about

services which you may desire that are not

mentioned here.

gEnERAL EnviROnMEnTAL WORkErosion and Sediment Control PlanningEnvironmental Impact Statements/AssessmentsWatershed Protection/ManagementWetland Protection/EnhancementProtected Stream Crossing Permit AcquisitionsResources Utilization StudiesForest Engineering

WiLDLiFE MAnAgEMEnTHabitat Management for Songbirds, Gamebirds, Deer,

Bear, Turkey, etc.

FOREST RECREATiOnNature Trail DevelopmentCross-Country Ski Trail DevelopmentInterpretive Trail Planning and Implementation

FOREST inSECT/PEST COnTROLGypsy Moth Suppression ProgramsForest Insect/Pest Assessments

SuBSuRFACE RESOuRCES MAnAgEMEnTGravel Mining Plan Preparation/Permit AcquisitionOil and Gas Well Lease AnalysisOil and Gas Well Site Damage AssessmentCoal Lease analysis

uRBAn FORESTRY SERviCESShade Tree AppraisalsInventories

If you would like an extra copy

of the Woodland News to share,

or if you would like a copy of an

older edition, you can easily

download it from our website

www.foreconinc.comwww.foreconinc.com..

Click on the news & information

heading, then click Woodland

news & Archives.

Visit Timberland Realty or

Timberland for Sale if you’re

interested in acquiring timberland

or recreational land for a camp

or hunting. There you will find

a selection of our many listings

complete with locations and prices.

Also, some Timber Sale Prospec-

tuses can be viewed and down-

loaded for those interested in bid-

ding on standing timber by clicking

on Timber for Sale.

FORESTRYForest Management Planning/Operations SchedulingTimber Sale Administration/Operations MonitoringTimber Stand Improvement Work (TSI)Timber AppraisalsTree Planting ServicesChristmas Tree Farm ManagementBoundary Line MaintenanceTimber Trespass Assessments and ArbitrationExpert Witness TestimonyForestland Investment CounselingShade Tree Damage Evaluation

REAL ESTATEForest and Recreational Land Marketing ServicesForest and Recreational Land Appraisal ServicesEasement Acquisitions

TiMBER TAxATiOn PLAnningAssessed Value Reduction Planning (480-a and “Clean

& Green” plans)Timberland Estate PlanningTimber Income Taxation Planning

giS/gPS SERviCESMap DigitizationResource AnalysisUtilities MappingTopo MapsAerial Photographs

Call us about our new sustainability auditing and ecosystems marketing services!

FORECOn OnLinE

Forecon, inc.A Multi-faceted Resources Management Consulting Firm

�

Cougar, catamount, panther, puma, mountain lion – by any name this big cat has inspired outdoorsmen across the country. The mountain lion, (Puma concolor), is the fourth largest cat in the world. Cougars once ranged from coast to coast in North America, but as wildlands became cleared for agriculture and non-regulated hunting increased, populations of cougars and other large predators declined. By the 1960’s cougar populations dwindled in the west and were considered extinct in the east.

Pennsylvania in particular seems to have an endless fascination with mountain lions. Call it the Nittany Lion effect, but it is clear that thousands of residents across the state believe there are cougars among us. Pennsylvania’s last known wild pair of mountain lions were killed near Lock Haven, Clinton County, in 1871. A mountain lion was killed by a hunter in Potter County in 1967, but the Game Commission latter ruled that this was an escaped pet.

One thing that is clear is that cougar populations in the west have comeback. States like

Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado have declared the cats completely recovered. The slow reappearance of cats in the east could be movements of these large ranging cats. The primary habitat need for a cougar is a large wilderness area with an adequate food supply. Individual cats need a large home range, and a healthy population depends on genetic diversity. So, if cats are to be successful and expand west to east over generations, these requirements must apply over several broad and interconnected expanses. For anyone that has traveled from the east coast across much of the Midwest, it is quite clear that cougar expansion and establishment of breeding populations throughout the Midwest will be difficult due to the heavily populated “bread basket” agricultural fragmentation of the landscape. Although, many eastern forests have once again matured and are heavily populated with deer. These measures have restored much of the mountain lions former habitat and food source, but natural establishment of breeding populations will be difficult without re-introduction efforts.

On the other hand; western male cougars have been radio collared and observed to occupy a range of 25 or more square miles and females from 5 to 20 square miles. Also, in 2003 a male cat was tracked from the Black Hills of Wyoming and wandered 667 miles, ending up in Oklahoma, just south of the Kansas border. Keep in mind that these are isolated occurrences and in no way represent successful re-established populations.

Little strong evidence of mountain lions in the east has surfaced, but in 2000 one was hit by a train in Southern Illinois, and a truck recently killed a puma cub in Eastern Kentucky. Some

evidence has surfaced suggesting that roaming western male cats are traveling eastward along riparian corridors into the prairie states. This expansion could eventually extend all the way to Virginia. Released pet cats could be a second source of this species being spotted in the wild. Many lions are kept illegally, and as adults they become more difficult and dangerous to handle, which lead to there release.

For now it is safe to say that most Eastern states do not have established breeding populations of mountain lions. Undoubtedly this animal is making a comeback in North America and many wildlife biologist believe that cougar re-colonization in the Midwest and east is possible. But before you are persuaded into believing a panther sighting remember the facts and that good science and conservation are necessary in order for this species to prosper.

Visit us at www.foreconinc.com

Mountain Lions in the East? By Rick Constantino,By Rick Constantino,Wildlife Management SpecialistWildlife Management Specialist

�

INC.prst std

U.s. postagepaid

permit No. ��randolph, NY

Forecon directoryFalconer, NY (Main Office) - (716) 664-5602

��90 E. Main street, Falconer, NY �����

Cortland, NY (Branch Office) - (607) 753-3113���/� Groton Avenue, Cortland, NY ��0��

Hancock, NY (Branch Office) - (607) 637-446690 E. Front street, Hancock, NY �����

titusville, pA (Branch Office) - (814) 827-4254��� s. Washington st., titusville, pA �����

smethport, pA (Branch Office) - (814) 887-8731��� Lone Alley, smethport, pA ����9

Elkins, WV (Branch Office) (304) 636-9336��9/��0 & Chenoweth Creek rd., Elkins, WV �����

Fayetteville, WV (Branch Office) (304) 574-1800��� south Court street, Fayetteville, WV ����0

rockford, MI (Branch Office) - (616) 874-9934pO Box ���, rockford, MI �9���

timberland realty (Main Office) - (716) 664-5604��90 E. Main street, Falconer, NY �����

Visit Our Website:

www.foreconinc.com

e-mail address:

[email protected]

PA

NY

OH

VA

WV

NJ

MD

KY

DE

? ?

DC

MI

MI

WI

OHINIL

Michigan Office

Falconer

Titusville

Smethport

Cortland

Hancock

Fayetteville

Elkins

Rockford

��90 E. Main street, Falconer, NY �����