COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT

Conservation Reserve Program Interim Rule

Date: June 14, 2010

Agency: USDA/ Farm Service Agency

Contact: Alexander Barbarika

 Natural Resources Analysis Group

 Economic and Policy Analysis Staff

 Farm Service Agency

 U.S. Department of Agriculture

 Washington. D.C. 20250

 (202)-720-7093

I. Title 

Conservation Reserve Program Interim Rule.

II. Summary of Costs and Benefits

The changes to CRP in this rule are expected to cost about $67 million over ten years (2011-2020). This is 

a net cost that reflects roughly $77 million in additional CRP payments to participants over the next ten 

years for additional land enrolled through the county maximum acreage waivers, revised cropping history 

requirements and payments for pollinator habitat practices, minus roughly $10 million in reduced payments 

for the revised permissive uses. There are expected to be non-quantifiable environmental benefits from 

waivers that will allow more environmentally sensitive land to be enrolled through continuous signup, from 

additional highly erodible land enrollment that could result from making land in long-term hay rotations 

eligible, and from the incentives for pollinator habitat.

 

The provisions for cropping history years and local preference are expected to have little to no cost. These 

provisions will largely substitute one CRP participant for another, or one practice for another, leading to a 

shift in costs and benefits to different participants and practices, but little net cost or benefit for the CRP 

program as a whole.

III. Need for Action

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill, Public Law 110-246), was enacted 

June 18, 2008. This cost-benefit assessment (CBA) provides the analysis accompanying an interim rule 

that addresses changes to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that were not addressed in previous 

CRP interim rules published June 29, 2009 and May 14, 2010. The earlier rules and CBAs addressed 

non-discretionary provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill. This rule addresses the Farm Bill’s discretionary 

1
provisions. These provisions are intended to, among other things, improve the environmental benefits of 

the CRP and clarify allowable forage harvesting procedures.

IV. Overview

The 2008 Farm Bill extends Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) enrollment authority through September 

30, 2012, limits enrollment to 32 million acres beginning October 1, 2009, and makes changes to the 

program. Interim rules were published previously implementing the mandatory 2008 Farm Bill 

provisions, including: (1) changes to Farmable Wetland Pilot Program eligibility criteria; (2) provision of 

50-percent cost-share for tree thinning activities; (3) implementation of new payment limitation 

applicability and new adjusted gross income-based eligibility criteria, and (4) implementation of the 

Transition Incentives Program. This interim rule covers the discretionary CRP provisions of the 2008 Farm 

Bill (see Table 1).

Table 1. 2008 Farm Bill Provisions Implemented with this Interim Rule

Provision 2002 Farm Bill 2008 Farm Bill Change/Comment

Maximum 

County

Enrollment

Limited to 25 percent of 

county cropland acreage, 

unless producers were 

determined to have difficulty 

implementing soil 

conservation plans and local 

economies would not be

adversely impacted.

Provides an additional waiver 

for enrollment of continuous 

signup practices (including 

CREP) upon request by local 

government.

Waivers are still allowed, 

but on a very limited basis 

because the vast majority 

of farms have implemented 

soil conservation plans.

Cropping 

History

Required planted or 

considered planted status 4 

of 6 years prior to 2002 for 

acreage to be enrolled.

Requires planted or 

considered planted status 4 of 

6 years prior to 2008.

Prohibits making land 

eligible by establishing 

cropping history after 

enactment.

Local 

Preference

No provision. Requires giving preference to 

lands located near the 

residence of person offering 

the land.

Applies only if lands have 

equal environmental 

benefits to lands offered 

from non-local persons.

Permissive 

Uses

Allowed managed grazing if 

grazing plan followed.

Allows routine grazing if 

grazing plan followed, and 

prescribed grazing to control 

invasive plants.

Removes provision limiting 

harvest of forage to no 

more than once in three 

years.

Pollinator 

Habitat

No provision. Provides authority to 

encourage development of 

pollinator habitat.

Farm Bill provides 

authority, but no directions 

or goals.

Indian Tribes 

and Limited 

Resource 

Farmers and 

Ranchers

No provisions. Provides authority to add 

incentives for Indian tribes and 

limited resource farmers and 

ranchers.

Farm Bill provides 

authority, but no directions 

or goals.

2
Land Eligibility Land in long-term hay 

rotations not eligible unless 

rotation occurred with 

agricultural commodity 

between 1996 and 2001.

Allows longer period of years 

to be used to determine if hay 

is in rotation.

Anecdotal evidence exists 

that some producers were 

denied eligibility because 

they were in long-term 

rotations.

Alternatives considered in this analysis are primarily to implement the changes or to not implement them. 

However, as these provisions are discretionary, other alternatives are analyzed where appropriate. 

V. Costs and Benefits of this Rule

Table 2. Cost Estimates ($1,000,000), Undiscounted

FY 2011-2015 FY 2016-2020 FY 2011-2020

County Waivers for Continuous Signup $36.1 $5.1 $41.2

Cropping History Window Update -- -- --

Local Preference -- -- --

Permissive Uses (Haying/Grazing) -$4.2 -$5.7 -$9.9

Pollinator Habitat Incentives $10.5 $14.4 $24.9

Incentives for Indian Tribes and Limited 

Resource Farmers and Ranchers -- -- --

Long-Term Hay in Rotation $8.5 $2.6 $11.1

 Total $50.9 $16.4 $67.3

A. Maximum County Acreage Waivers

Before implementation of this interim rule, no more than 25 percent of a county’s cropland could be 

enrolled under CRP or the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) unless: (1) producers in the county were 

having difficulty implementing conservation plans, and (2) local economies would not be adversely 

affected. This interim rule adds an additional waiver provision allowing the 25 percent limit to be 

exceeded for lands enrolled under CRP’s continuous signup, which includes the Farmable Wetlands 

Program (FWP), the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), and conservation initiatives 

such as State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE), subject to county government request and 

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) approval. For a number of years, most waiver requests under the 

pre-2008 Farm Bill waiver provisions were denied because nearly all farmers appear to have implemented 

their conservation plans. This change will allow additional acres to be enrolled in counties that are at the 

25-percent maximum.

As of April, 2010, only 27 counties have 25 percent or more of their cropland enrolled in CRP. A total of 

102 have more that 20 percent of their cropland enrolled. These represent small percentages of the 2,612 

counties with CRP enrollment (Table 3). 

3
Table 3. Continuous and General CRP by Percent of County Cropland Enrolled. 1/

Percent of County Cropland Enrolled

<10% 10%-14% 15%-19% 20%-24% >=25%

Number of Counties 2,013 201 117 102 27

Acres Enrolled

 General Signup 7,239,070 4,511,253 5,355,597 7,426,423 2,123,154

 Continuous/CREP

 CREP 767,634 115,556 65,749 21,606 617

 Non-CREP 1,867,391 517,340 334,981 210,269 17,603

 Total Continuous 2,635,025 632,897 400,729 231,875 18,220

Total CRP 9,874,095 5,756,327 5,756,327 7,658,298 2,141,374

Source: CRP active contract data, April 2010.

1/ Does not include marginal pasture.

Examining enrollment by percent of county cropland enrolled indicates that the additional waiver provision 

will have little impact on overall CRP enrollment. As indicated in Figures 1 and 2 (the coverage maps at 

the end of this document), there is very little overlap between counties with high continuous signup and 

those with high general signup enrollment. Continuous signup accounts for only 250,000 acres (less than 1 

percent of CRP’s 31 million acres) in counties with 20 percent or more of their cropland enrolled (Table 3). 

Cost and benefit impacts will be slight because few counties are at or near the 25-percent limit, and those 

that are have little continuous enrollment. Of the counties with more than 25 percent of cropland enrolled, 

only one (Polk County, Minnesota) has a significant amount of continuous signup enrollment (see 

Appendix Table 2).

The cost of this additional waiver provision is estimated at $36 million over 5 years. This cost is estimated 

based on the expectation that there would be some additional enrollment as a result of the waivers over the 

near term. For this CBA, costs are estimated based on the assumption that additional enrollment would 

occur through FY 2014, as acreage in CRP stabilizes near the 32-million-acre cap. Once the cap is 

reached, any additional enrollment because of the waivers would result in enrollment reductions elsewhere. 

Cost estimates include rental and cost-share payments and incentives, and are detailed in Appendix Table 3. 

With an updated baseline for the forthcoming FY 2011 Mid-Session Review, the cost would be somewhat 

lower.

The new waiver opportunity will allow enrollment of additional continuous signup acreage, which is 

expected to increase non-quantifiable environmental benefits, as continuous signup practices and initiatives 

are designed to provide higher benefits per acre than general signup lands. 

As an alternative, this rule could specify a limit on the allowable percentage of cropland subject to the 

waiver (no more than 50 percent of cropland in a county, for example). This was not the selected 

alternative; no such limits are specified in the interim rule. Placing limits could potentially reduce the 

additional continuous signup acreage that could be enrolled in a few counties, with only very minimal 

impacts on costs or benefits for the program as a whole, because (as noted above) very few counties are at or 

near the 25 percent level, and even fewer would be at or near at higher limit.

B. Cropping History Update

The 6-year cropping history window used for determining eligibility is updated from 1996-2001 to 

4
2002-2007. Under this provision, land that was planted or considered planted to an agricultural 

commodity, or that was in conserving use in 4 of the 6 years, meets basic eligibility criteria. Other criteria 

must be met as well, but except for one change for long-term haying discussed later in this CBA, the land 

eligibility criteria were not changed between the 2002 and 2008 farm bills. The update allows land that has 

been cropped recently, but that was not cropped between 1996 and 2001, to be eligible. This is likely to

result in only minimal changes in eligible land. In fact, it may result in reduced overall eligibility because 

acreage planted during 2002-2007 was lower than in 1996-2001 (see Table 4). While some individual 

fields may have been cropped during 2002-2007 that were not cropped during 1996-2001, the cropping 

history update is not expected to have any measurable impacts on CRP’s costs or benefits.

Table 4. Acres Planted to Principal Crops by Year.

Year Acres Year Acres

1996 333,682,000 2002 327,283,000

1997 332,072,000 2003 325,693,000

1998 329,970,000 2004 322,317,000

1999 329,255,000 2005 317,640,000

2000 328,685,000 2006 315,645,000

2001 324,584,000 2007 320,369,000

Average

‘96-‘01 329,708,000 Average’02-‘07 321,491,000

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service

As there is no flexibility in the years of the 6-year window and in the provision requiring planted or 

considered planted status in 4 of the 6 years, no alternatives are discussed.

C. Local Preference

The rule enacts the 2008 Farm Bill requirement to give preference to enrollment offers from owners and 

operators that reside near the land offered over those from non-local residents, in cases where the 

environmental benefits are equivalent. This change would have little or no impact on enrollment because 

of the CRP offer acceptance process. Under the competitive general signup process, offers are selected 

based on an environmental benefits index (EBI) score. For each signup, a minimum acceptable score is set 

and all offers with that score or better are accepted. Thus, local preference would have no effect because 

all offers within a county with the same EBI score are either accepted or rejected. Under CRP's continuous 

signup, all offers that meet eligibility criteria are accepted without competition and local preference would 

also have no effect. As a result, this change is not expected to have any measurable impacts on the costs or 

benefits of the CRP program as a whole.

D. Permissive Uses

The rule amends the permissive uses provisions to remove the prohibition against managed haying or 

grazing more than once every three years and adds routine grazing as a permissive use. Harvest of forage, 

whether managed or in response to an emergency, must be accompanied by a rental payment reduction 

commensurate with the economic value of the activity, generally set at 25 percent. Harvest is prohibited 

during nesting and brood-rearing periods, grazing must be consistent with the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide grazing standards, and activities must be consistent 

with the conservation purposes of the program – these restrictions on permissive uses are not changing with 

this rule. While some changes may occur in the frequency of harvest activities under the revised 

permissive use provisions, it is difficult to estimate the extent that this will occur. It is expected that each 

5
State’s Technical Committee will determine the allowable frequencies. Because of slow vegetative 

growth rates in the areas with the most CRP enrollment (Northern and Southern Plains, and Mountain 

production regions, as shown below on the map of Farm Production Regions), it is likely that any increased 

harvest of forage would occur in the more eastern areas of the U.S.

About one million acres were hayed or grazed under non-emergency conditions in each of 2007 and 2008 

(Table 5). If, under the revised provisions, haying and grazing increased by 20% in the 6 eastern regions 

(by about 50,000 acres per year), savings in CRP rental payments would be expected to total about 

$1,000,000 per year (Table 6). Any impacts on feed grain production or the livestock sector are expected 

to be minimal.

The rule also adds: 1) routine grazing, 2) prescribed grazing for the control of invasive species, 2) haying 

and grazing in response to a drought or other emergency, and 3) wind turbine installations to the list of 

permissive uses subject to a rental payment reduction. These uses were already subject to a payment 

reduction by procedure, so these clarifying rule changes do not have any practical effect on CRP costs and 

benefits. 

6
Table 5. CRP Acreage Hayed or Grazed under Non-Emergency Conditions.

Table 6. Estimated Additional Acres Hayed or Grazed per Year.

E. Pollinator Habitat Incentives

The 2008 Farm Bill provides the authority to encourage the establishment of habitat for native and managed 

pollinators, and the rule amends the regulations accordingly. It states that CCC may encourage the 

development of habitat and use of conservation practices for pollinators, but does not address the specific 

nature of any incentives that may be adopted. According to the National Academy of Sciences, there is 

2007

REGION AVAILHAYEDGRAZED TOTAL PCT.

Northeast300,0236510 75 0.0%

Appalachian531,22576,7681,660 78,428 14.8%

Southeast169,3222180 218 0.1%

Delta States230,943960 96 0.0%

Corn Belt3,706,627310,53531,032 341,567 9.2%

Lake States1,634,61638,5233,213 41,735 2.6%

Northern Plains7,215,640484,06841,967 526,035 7.3%

Southern Plains5,035,6526,83359,187 66,020 1.3%

Mountain7,460,04310,42060,509 70,929 1.0%

Pacific2,125,1913,47010,061 13,531 0.6%

U.S.28,409,282930,995207,6391,138,635 4.0%

2008

REGION AVAILHAYEDGRAZED TOTAL PCT

Northeast281,6704930 493 0.2%

Appalachian438,0164530 453 0.1%

Southeast144,46017435 208 0.1%

Delta States194,18127282 354 0.2%

Corn Belt3,320,101128,4909,360 137,850 4.2%

Lake States1,485,64576,6362,413 79,050 5.3%

Northern Plains6,405,322480,60429,905 510,509 8.0%

Southern Plains4,811,59318,48014,293 32,773 0.7%

Mountain7,192,719154,62481,528 236,152 3.3%

Pacific2,072,7556,2416,500 12,741 0.6%

U.S.26,346,463866,466144,1151,010,581 3.8%

ADDIT'LADDIT'L

 AVAILPERCENTACRESPERCENTACRESAVERAGEPAYMENT

REGION FOR H/GH/GH/GH/GH/GRENTREDUCT.

Northeast260,1530.1%23720.0%47$93$1,101

Appalachian387,9867.4%29,01420.0%5,803$64$92,845

Southeast120,3020.1%16720.0%33$38$317

Delta States173,9380.1%19020.0%38$45$426

Corn Belt2,937,6916.7%195,88920.0%39,178$85$832,529

Lake States1,221,3273.9%47,95920.0%9,592$60$143,876

Northern Plains5,388,9757.6%395,5960.0%0$39$0

Southern Plains4,050,2411.0%40,4140.0%0$35$0

Mountain6,335,2972.1%135,1210.0%0$33$0

Pacific1,951,0570.6%11,9670.0%0$50$0

U.S.22,826,9653.9%856,5546.4%54,691$78$1,071,093

7
evidence of a decline in the abundance of some pollinator populations. If additional habitat is developed as 

a result of incentives provided, pollinators and the vegetation they pollinate will benefit, but the extent of 

potential non-quantifiable environmental benefits are not assessed here.

Assuming 50,000 acres per year are established with plants with high pollinator benefits at a cost-share 

$50/acre higher than that for typical CRP plantings, costs would be $2.5 million to approximately $3.0 

million per year (see Appendix Table 5). 

F. Incentives for Indian Tribes and Limited Resource Farmers and Ranchers

Authority to provide incentives to Indian tribes and limited resource farmers and ranchers is included in the 

2008 Farm Bill, and in the rule. Such incentives will be coordinated with other USDA programs that 

provide assistance to Indian Tribes and limited resource farmers and ranchers, and the specific amounts and 

eligibility requirements for the incentives has not yet been decided, so it is difficult to estimate the CRP 

costs and benefits for the incentives at this time. In any case, participation in CRP will be subject to the 32 

million acre cap, which will limit the costs and benefits of these incentives.

G. Long-Term Hay Eligibility

The rule expands eligibility to make lands in long-term hay rotations eligible for CRP, given all other 

eligibility criteria are met. It does so by amending the definition of an agricultural commodity to include 

alfalfa and other multi-year grasses and legumes, a change that will result in a small increase in eligible 

lands. Based on the 1997 National Resource Inventory (NRI) data on crop histories of sample points, there 

are about 42 million acres in hay rotations of 4 years or longer. Many of these would meet the cropping 

history criteria without the 2008 Farm Bill changes. Assuming that lands in 5-8 year rotations would most 

closely resemble acreage that would become eligible as a result of this change, then eligibility would 

increase by up to 8.8 million acres (Table 7). Not all of these acres would meet the CRP’s other eligibility

criteria, however.

Table 7. Acres of Continuous Hay

 (Average Rotation Length) 

Length Acres

4 years 12.6 mil.

5-8 years 8.8 mil.

9-12 years 7.0 mil.

13-16 years 14.1 mil.

Total 42.4 mil.

States most likely to contain the most acres in the 5-8 year rotation category are in the Plains and Midwest, 

although New York also has a significant amount (Table 8). Because these lands are already in long-term 

cover, the soil conservation and water quality benefits from enrolling them in the CRP would probably be 

relatively low, although the permanent vegetative covers will benefit wildlife. In addition, some lands 

could be converted to annual cropping if not enrolled. To be approved for enrollment, these lands would 

likely have to have a very high erodibility index or be specifically targeted within a CREP.

8
Table 8. States with the Most Acres in 5 to 8 Year Hay Rotations.

State Acres

South Dakota 664,000

Wisconsin 599,000

New York 521,000

Kansas 493,000

Missouri 481,000

North Dakota 467,000

Montana 392,000

Pennsylvania 384,000

Alternatives regarding this provision would be the allowable length of the rotation. Allowing for a longer 

period of time for the land to be in continuous hay, for example 9-12 years, would increase eligibility by an 

estimated additional 7.0 million acres. Costs and benefits would be minimally affected by the length of 

rotation, because of the small change in eligible acreage that would occur relative to the estimated 270 

million eligible acres (based on a CBA completed in 2003). The cost of this provision is estimated at $8.5 

million over 5 years. With the updated baseline in the forthcoming FY 2011 Mid-Session Review, this 

estimate would be somewhat lower.

9
Figure 1.

Figure 2.

10
Appendix Table 1. CRP Enrollment, April 2010.

 GENERAL --------------CONTINUOUS-------------

REGION TOTAL SIGNUP CREP NON-CREP TOTAL

NORTHEAST 386,493 74,870 295,702 15,921 311,622

APPALACHIA 790,620 504,783 165,959 119,878 285,837

SOUTHEAST 976,335 810,272 40 166,023 166,063

DELTA 1,428,705 1,010,152 56,517 362,036 418,553

CORN BELT 4,679,377 3,182,673 277,086 1,219,618 1,496,704

LAKE 2,308,106 1,717,816 200,324 389,966 590,290

NO. PLAINS 7,721,601 6,846,481 88,393 786,727 875,119

SO. PLAINS 4,159,040 4,096,046 253 62,741 62,994

MOUNTAIN 6,728,732 6,494,941 49,908 183,883 233,791

PACIFIC 2,141,984 1,961,720 53,241 127,023 180,264

U.S. 31,320,992 26,699,755 1,187,422 3,433,815 4,621,237

11
Appendix Table 2. CRP Enrollment in Counties with Greater than 24 Percent of Cropland Enrolled.

 -----------ACRES ENROLLED---------- PERCENT 

STATE COUNTY TOTAL GENERAL CONTINUOUS ENROLLED

MINNESOTA POLK 136,295 125,216 11,080 46.81

IDAHO BANNOCK 81,501 81,467 34 40.86

TEXAS ANDREWS 35,624 35,624 0 35.98

NEW MEXICO QUAY 107,721 107,721 0 35.07

TEXAS KENT 24,922 24,922 0 33.84

NEW MEXICO ROOSEVELT 166,603 166,603 0 32.91

TEXAS BAILEY 118,075 117,985 90 32.49

IDAHO POWER 123,406 123,325 81 31.94

ALASKA DELTA 23,116 23,112 5 31.91

NEW MEXICO CURRY 186,499 186,499 0 31.45

KANSAS CLARK 63,993 63,940 54 29.65

COLORADO CROWLEY 21,461 21,461 0 29.45

OKLAHOMA CIMARRON 147,767 147,767 0 28.79

KANSAS HAMILTON 129,031 129,031 0 28.53

KANSAS MORTON 90,758 90,700 58 28.46

COLORADO PUEBLO 27,889 27,889 0 28.43

WASHINGTON ASOTIN 24,956 24,956 0 28.31

MISSISSIPPI WILKINSON 4,892 4,892 0 28.14

MISSISSIPPI CLAIBORNE 12,842 12,676 166 28.03

MISSISSIPPI JEFFERSON 3,966 3,966 0 27.55

WASHINGTON DOUGLAS 156,266 155,801 465 27.46

LOUISIANA CALDWELL 3,188 3,130 58 26.95

IDAHO ONEIDA 58,532 53,416 5,116 26.95

TEXAS GAINES 179,523 179,523 0 26.63

MONTANA PRAIRIE 43,331 43,331 0 25.76

COLORADO KIOWA 182,954 182,954 0 25.65

TEXAS DALLAM 112,847 112,847 0 25.34

OREGON SHERMAN 75,800 75,630 171 24.84

COLORADO WELD 247,269 246,319 950 24.65

KANSAS NESS 108,050 104,195 3,855 24.61

TEXAS YOAKUM 72,970 72,970 0 24.58

MONTANA HILL 285,201 285,017 184 24.44

MISSISSIPPI GRENADA 10,696 8,645 2,051 24.37

MONTANA DANIELS 144,186 143,402 784 24.36

OREGON WASCO 50,896 50,627 269 24.34

WASHINGTON GARFIELD 48,632 45,378 3,253 24.25

COLORADO LINCOLN 134,690 134,690 0 24.20

MONTANA TOOLE 171,154 165,614 5,539 24.17

COLORADO PROWERS 141,139 139,263 1,876 24.02

OKLAHOMA BEAVER 110,256 110,256 0 24.01

12
Appendix Table 3. Cost Estimates: Waivers of County Cropland Limits.

Appendix Table 4. Cost Estimates: Additional Acres Hayed or Grazed.

County Maximum Waivers

FY 2011FY 2012FY 2013FY 2014FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018FY 2019FY 2020Total

Initial Contract Year

Acres$/A

Rental Payments

FY 20100750000000000

FY 201150,000773,825,0003,825,0003,825,0003,825,0003,825,000

FY 20125,00078390,150390,150390,150390,150

FY 20135,00080397,953397,953397,953

FY 20145,00081405,912405,912

Total65,00003,825,0004,215,1504,613,1035,019,0155,019,015000022,691,283

Cost-Share

FY 20100100000

FY 201150,0001023,060,0001,530,000510,000

FY 20125,000104312,120156,06052,020

FY 20135,000106318,362159,18153,060

FY 20145,000108324,730162,36554,122

Total65,0003,060,0001,842,120984,422535,931215,42554,12200006,692,020

PIP

FY 2010080000

FY 201150,000822,448,0001,224,000408,000

FY 20125,00083249,696124,84841,616

FY 20135,00085254,690127,34542,448

FY 20145,00087259,784129,89243,297

Total65,0002,448,0001,473,696787,538428,745172,34043,29700005,353,616

SIP

FY 201001000

FY 201150,0001005,000,000

FY 20125,000100500,000

FY 20135,000100500,000

FY 20145,000100500,000

Total65,0005,000,000500,000500,000500,0000000006,500,000

Total10,508,0007,640,8166,487,1106,077,7795,406,7805,116,434000041,236,919

Haying/Grazing

FY 2011FY 2012FY 2013FY 2014FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018FY 2019FY 2020Total

Rental Payment Reductions

Acres$/A

FY 20100200

FY 201150,000201,020,000

FY 201250,000211,040,400

FY 201350,000211,061,208

FY 201450,000221,082,432

FY 201550,000221,104,081

FY 201650,000231,126,162

FY 201750,000231,148,686

FY 201850,000231,171,659

FY 201950,000241,195,093

Total450,00001,020,0001,040,4001,061,2081,082,4321,104,0811,126,1621,148,6861,171,6591,195,0939,949,721

13
Appendix Table 5. Cost Estimates: Pollinator Habitat Incentives.

Appendix Table 6. Cost Estimates: Long-Term Hay in Rotation.

Pollinator Habitat

FY 2011FY 2012FY 2013FY 2014FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018FY 2019FY 2020Total

Initial Contract Year

Cost-Share

Acres$/A

FY 20100500

FY 201150,000512,550,000

FY 201250,000522,601,000

FY 201350,000532,653,020

FY 201450,000542,706,080

FY 201550,000552,760,202

FY 201650,000562,815,406

FY 201750,000572,871,714

FY 201850,000592,929,148

FY 201950,000602,987,731

Total450,00002,550,0002,601,0002,653,0202,706,0802,760,2022,815,4062,871,7142,929,1482,987,73124,874,302

Long-Term Hay Rotations

FY 2011FY 2012FY 2013FY 2014FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018FY 2019FY 2020Total

Initial Contract Year

Acres$/A

Rental Payments

FY 201001000000000000

FY 201110,0001021,020,0001,020,0001,020,0001,020,0001,020,000

FY 20125,000104520,200520,200520,200520,200

FY 20135,000106530,604530,604530,604

FY 20145,000108541,216541,216

Total25,00001,020,0001,540,2002,070,8042,612,0202,612,02000009,855,044

Cost-Share

FY 2010050000

FY 201110,00051306,000153,00051,000

FY 20125,00052156,06078,03026,010

FY 20135,00053159,18179,59126,530

FY 20145,00054162,36581,18227,061

Total25,000306,000309,060288,211267,965107,71327,06100001,306,010

Total306,0001,329,0601,828,4112,338,7692,719,7332,639,081000011,161,054

14