Prices of lumber, plywood, and paper leveled off during 1975 in sharp contrast to the roller-coaster pattern that dominated earlier years. Though there were minor variations, the notable fact is that the prices of forest products did not rise as fast in 1975 as did the general price level. The reason for this was not that supply increased but that demand remained low. The 1975 upturn in total economic activity did not revive the building industry. Housing starts in 1975 lagged behind 1974, which had been a depressed year.
Demand slackened even for newsprint and other paper products. The price index for waste paper—which had risen sharply in late 1973 and early 1974 to 337 (1967=100)—fell below 100 in early 1975 before again turning up.
This relative stability in the prices of forest products is indicative of economic weakness rather than strength and does not imply any basic change in the historic pattern of price volatility. If the housing industry revives substantially, prices almost surely will turn up rapidly. Past experience suggests that doubling of lumber and plywood prices within a six-month period would be a distinct possibility if housing starts rise above a 1.5 million annual rate.
First Assessment. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 required the U.S. Forest Service to prepare, by January 1976, an assessment of forest resources and a program for their use, management, and development. During 1975 intensive efforts were under way within the Forest Service, culminating in draft reports which were widely distributed for comment in August. Extensive public hearings and discussions followed in September, leading to the preparation of a final draft before the end of the year.
Given the short lead time for the first report and the demand for widespread public participation, the Forest Service response was impressive. This two-part 1975 report—Assessment and Program—was necessarily based upon past research and upon data already available to the Forest Service. The long-range assessment methodology did not depart from past timber appraisals, but it is applied to more than the timber resource in order to provide forecasts of aggregate national requirements for other uses such as recreation and grazing.
Seven resource systems—outdoor recreation, wilderness, wildlife and fish habitat, range, timber, land and water, and human and community development—were identified in the program, and from three to five goals or targets were established for each, with extensive descriptive and tabular material about each.
The analysis, unfortunately, deals with national aggregates rather than with regional or local data. What does it mean, for example, to say that water and wilderness are sufficient if water is cheap in the East but expensive in the West, and wildnerness is plentiful in the West and scarce in the East? Another weakness of the report, perhaps a reflection of time pressures, is that the program team apparently worked independently of the assessment team. Although the results were not seriously affected this time, in future years the failure of the program to be based on the assessment could be serious.
Since the act requires that these reports be updated in five years, planning for data collection and analysis for the next report has already begun and can be expected to be intensified during 1976.
The clear-cutting ban. A highlight of conservationists' concerns over public forest management was the decision of the Fourth U.S. Court of Appeals upholding the decision of a lower court banning clear-cutting of less-than-mature timber in the Monongahela National Forest. The appeals court held to a strict interpretation of the Organic Administration Act of 1897 which permitted the sale in national forests only of "dead, matured or old-growth" trees, each of which had to be individually marked for sale. Arguments that these silvicultural specifications were inappropriate for modern forestry and that the Congress by its annual appropriations had accepted the definitions used by the Forest Service for many years were not persuasive to the court. If the 1897 act is an "anachronism," the decision stated, then Congress must modify it.
The lower court decision applied only to a single national forest, but the appellate court decision applied to all forests in the states within the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the flow of timber from national forests in Virginia, West Virginia, and North and South Carolina has been reduced. If similar standards are applied to the larger and more productive western national forests, the impact would be substantially greater.
Near the end of the year the federal government indicated that it would not appeal the decision but would seek legislative changes instead.
A version of this article appeared in print in the Winter 1976 issue of Resources magazine.
