COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT

Date: December 8, 2008

Agency: USDA Farm Service Agency

Contact: Alex Barbarika

Economic and Policy Analysis Staff

Washington. D.C. 20250

(202)-720-7093

I. Title.

Certain Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Provisions Related to the 

Conservation Reserve Program.

II. Need for Action.

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (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 selected changes to the Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP). Changes made by the 2008 Farm Bill that are discretionary are 

to be analyzed in a later CBA that will accompany a later rule.

Among other things, the 2008 Farm Bill expanded the Farmable Wetlands Program, 

which provides potentially large environmental benefits relative to acreage enrolled,

while also providing economic benefits to owners and operators of eligible lands. The 

bill also provides cost-share funds to encourage thinning of CRP tree plantings, which 

will improve wildlife habitat. 

III. Summary of Costs and Benefits.

This assessment discusses the benefits qualitatively and provides quantitative estimates of

costs, based primarily on assumptions. Costs are based on estimates of the amount of 

land that will be eligible, assumed participation rates and annual enrollment, and 

estimated per-acre costs. Based on these assumptions and estimates, the costs of 

implementing the 2008 Farm Bill changes considered in the interim rule are estimated to 

total $79.6 million through FY 2012 and $191.2 million through FY 2018. This averages 

to $19.1 million per year over 10 years (Table 1).

Environmental benefits could be numerous, but their extent would depend on 

participation and the specific conservation measures adopted. Tree thinning would result 

in enhanced wildlife habitat and carbon sequestration. Enrollment of aquaculture ponds 

and flooded farmland and associated buffers could increase migratory waterfowl and 

other wildlife species populations, reduce flood damages, protect water quality, and 

increase carbon sequestration. Constructed wetlands and buffers reduce nitrate loadings, 

- 1 -
sequester carbon, reduce down-stream flood damages, and increase wildlife habitat.

Ranges are often used to estimate and discuss benefits and costs because of uncertainties. 

For this CBA, ranges are not employed, because benefits are qualitative and costs are 

highly dependent on assumptions. 

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

FY 2009-2012 FY 2013-2018 FY 2009-2018

Tree Thinning $43.8 $16.7 $60.5

Aquaculture Ponds $7.6 $22.6 $30.2

Flooded Farmland $17.9 $40.7 $58.6

Constructed Wetlands $10.3 $31.6 $41.9

Total $79.6 $111.6 $191.2

IV. Overview.

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

through September 30, 2012 and requires that enrollment be reduced to no more than 32 

million acres beginning October 1, 2009. Other changes were made, but the interim rule 

only addresses certain provisions, including: (1) changes to Farmable Wetland Pilot 

Program eligibility criteria; (2) provision of 50-percent cost-share for tree thinning 

activities; and (3) implementation of new payment limitation applicability and new 

adjusted gross income-based eligibility criteria. Table 2 provides additional details on 

the 2008 Farm Bill changes covered by the interim rule. Other changes that involve 

discretionary authority will be covered in a separate rule and assessment.

The provisions implemented by the interim rule are statutorily-mandated, meaning the 

no-action alternatives are not feasible, and are used only to demonstrate impacts of the 

new or revised provisions. The alternatives are:

• Implement payment limit and AGI-based eligibility provisions or not.

• Implement cost-sharing for tree thinning or not.

• Implement revised Farmable Wetlands Program eligibility criteria or not.

Table 2. Changes to CRP Covered by the Interim Rule.

Provision 2002 Farm Bill 2008 Farm Bill Comment

Conservation Reserve Program

Payment Limits $50,000 per year per 

person.

$50,000 per year per 

person or legal entity.

‘08 Farm Bill repeals “3-entity” 

rule and requires direct 

attribution. Provision assessed 

in separate CBA on payment 

limits and AGI-based eligibility.

- 2 -
Table 2. Changes to CRP Covered by the Interim Rule.

AGI-Based 

Eligibility

3-year average AGI 

must not exceed 

$2.5 million.

3-year average AGI must 

not exceed $1 million. No 

limit if 2/3rds from farm 

income.

Waivers allowed on case-bycase basis. Impacts discussed 

in the separate CBA.

Cost-share for 

Tree Thinning

No provision. Authorizes 50-percent 

cost-share for thinning 

activities.

Allows up to $100 million 

through 2012.

Incentives for 

Indian Tribes and 

Limited Resource, 

Beginning, and 

Socially 

Disadvantaged 

Farmers and 

Ranchers

No provision. Adds permissive authority 

to provide incentives.

Rule only broadly defines 

eligibility, but does not state 

how incentives will be 

determined.

Transition Option No provision. Allows incentives to 

encourage transfer of 

expiring CRP lands to 

beginning and socially 

disadvantaged farmers 

and ranchers.

Rule only broadly defines 

eligibility, but does not state 

how incentives will be 

determined.

Incentives for 

Pollinator Habitats

No provision. Adds permissive authority 

to encourage development 

of habitat.

Rule only broadly defines 

pollinators, but does not state 

how incentives will be 

determined.

Farmable Wetland Program

Maximum 

Enrollment

1 million acres. No change.

Eligibility Small non-floodplain 

wetlands and 

associated buffers.

Adds floodplain wetlands, 

constructed wetlands, 

former aquaculture lands, 

and flooded formerly 

farmed wetlands.

Also adds buffers to each 

category. Some categories are 

already eligible under other 

CRP (non-FWP) authority. 

Flooded farmlands limited to 

lands subject to natural 

overflow of prairie wetland.

Wetland Size 

Limits

10 acres per 

wetland, 40 acres of 

wetland plus buffer

per tract.

40-acre-limit per floodplain 

and non-floodplain 

wetland, and constructed 

wetland. 20-acre limit on 

flooded prairie land. No 

limit on former aquaculture 

ponds.

Applies only to wetland portion, 

not buffer.

Buffer Size The greater of: 3 

times the size of the 

wetland or 150 feet 

on either side of the 

wetland.

As determined appropriate 

and needed by the 

Secretary in consultation 

with State Technical 

Committee.

Applies to all eligibility 

categories.

Cropping History 3 of 10 years prior to 

enrollment.

No cropping requirement 

for aquaculture ponds or 

constructed wetlands; 3 of 

10 years between 1990 

and 2002 for flooded 

farmland.

For floodplain and nonfloodplain wetlands, 3 of 10 

years prior to enrollment (no 

change).

- 3 -
Table 2. Changes to CRP Covered by the Interim Rule.

Incentive 

Payments

Same as for filter 

strips enrolled under 

continuous CRP.

No change. Incentives include Signing and 

Practice Incentive Payments, 

plus 20% bonus on annual 

rental payment.

Payment Criteria Only 5 acres per 

wetland eligible for 

payment. All buffers 

eligible.

All wetland and buffer 

acres eligible for payment.

All acres receive same 

incentive payments as filter 

strips under continuous CRP.

V. Costs and Benefits.

 A. Payment Limits

The $50,000 per-year per-person payment limit was not changed by the 2008 Farm Bill, 

but the way in which it is applied was changed. For CRP, no measurable impacts are 

expected. For example, in FY 2005, 411 persons (as defined by the 2008 Farm Bill) with 

2,379 contracts received payments in excess of $50,000 (allowed by the “3-entity” rule in 

effect at the time).1 The “excess” payments totaled $5.4 million out of $1.7 billion, and 

do not necessarily represent an estimate of savings, because if this provision had been in 

effect, bidding and enrollment behavior would have been different. A more thorough 

description of the payment limit and AGI-based eligibility changes are provided in a 

separate cost-benefit assessment.

 B. AGI-Based Eligibility

Under 2008 Farm Bill provisions, persons or legal entities with 3-year average adjusted 

gross incomes (AGI) exceeding $1,000,000 are ineligible for CRP payments, unless at 

least 2/3rds of the income is from farming. Under the 2002 Farm Bill, the AGI-based 

limit on CRP participants was $2.5 million. This change is not expected to have any 

measurable impacts on CRP costs or benefits. Additionally, the limit may be waived on a 

case-by-case basis in order to protect land of special significance, further reducing 

possible impacts. The AGI changes are also addressed in the separate assessment 

mentioned above.

 C. Definition and Incentives for Indian Tribes and Beginning, Limited Resource, and

 Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers

 The rule describes the various eligible classes in general terms, but does not state how the 

incentives will be awarded, or what their magnitude they may be. Because the incentives 

are discretionary, they are not analyzed in this CBA.

 

1

Based on USDA’s “Sec. 1614 database” public release, December 2006.

- 4 -

 
D. Transition Option

 The 2008 Farm Bill adds a new option to encourage transfer of land under expiring CRP 

contracts to beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The two 

eligibility classes are described in the rule, but the type and magnitude of incentives are 

not discussed. Because the contract modifications needed in order to allow the incentives 

are discretionary, the provision is not discussed in the rule and is not analyzed in this 

CBA.

E. Incentives for Pollinators

 The 2008 Farm Bill adds permissive authority to encourage development of habitat 

beneficial to bees and other pollinators. Pollinators are broadly defined in the rule, but 

incentives are not discussed.

 

F. Cost-Share for Tree Thinning

Under the 2008 Farm Bill, all CRP lands with tree plantings are eligible for a 50-percent 

cost-share for thinning activities where the condition of the resource would be improved. 

Authority for up to $100 million through FY 2012 for this purpose is provided2

. 

The benefits of tree thinning are two-fold: First, economic benefits include higher valued 

mature timber stands and support for the local forest industry. Short-term economic 

benefits can also be derived if the local market for thinned trees is favorable, but this may 

not always be the case. Second, environmental benefits also can occur because wildlife 

habitat is improved. Thinning improves forest health, reduces wildfire risks, and results 

in increased carbon sequestration. Thinning allows sunlight to reach the understory, 

encouraging herbaceous plant and shrub growth, promoting biodiversity. Thinning can 

also open alleys and edges used by wildlife. In the Southeast, where most CRP tree 

plantings are found, species that could benefit include deer, rabbits and other small 

mammals, songbirds, turkeys, quail, amphibians, and reptiles.

Thinning is typically not done until the economics become favorable, which can be 10 to

20 years after planting in the Southeast, and even longer if the market for thinning 

products is down. Wildlife benefits generally begin to decline within 5 years of planting; 

thus, pre-commercial thinning (thinning products not sold) may be necessary to maintain 

or improve habitat benefits. Providing 50-percent cost-share for thinning could increase 

the use of pre-commercial and commercial thinning, providing environmental benefits.

Thinning costs are difficult to estimate because they depend on age of the stand, labor 

2 Cost-sharing for tree thinning was allowable prior to passage of the 2008 Farm Bill, but FSA policy required that 

rental payments be withheld the year thinning occurred. This assessment assumes that rental payments are not 

withheld the year of thinning.

- 5 -

 
availability, and the extent of thinning. Alabama has a cost-share program to encourage 

thinning of pine stands to control disease in which it pays $50 per acre, implying a cost of 

$100 per acre, if the cost-share is 50 percent. A South Carolina financial analysis 

estimates thinning costs at $150 per acre (for stands at least 20 years old), implying a 

cost-share of around $75 per acre (assuming 50-percent cost-share). FSA employees 

with forestry backgrounds believe these estimates are on the low side, so an average costshare payment of $100 per acre is used for estimating costs.

As of September 2008, CRP tree plantings covered about 3.3 million acres, including 2.0 

million acres in the Southeast and Delta regions (Table 3). This total includes 

windbreaks, shelterbelts, and wetland and riparian plantings for which thinning is 

generally not a recommended management practice. Subtracting these acres leaves 2.2 

million acres, including 1.7 million acres in the Southeast and Delta regions.

Table 3. Tree Plantings in CRP, September 2008 (Acres). 

Region All Tree Practices Candidate Tree Acres *

Northeast 54,411 10,752

Appalachian 192,967 124,664

Southeast 883,915 785,660

Delta States 1,142,018 879,146

Corn Belt 397,648 171,698

Lake States 395,745 151,635

No. Plains 101,446 10,491

So. Plains 34,396 9,975

Mountain 30,943 8,848

Pacific 50,915 6,631

U.S. 3,281,402 2,159,500

* Excludes tree plantings such as field windbreaks and shelterbelts, riparian buffers, and 

wetland restorations.

It is difficult to estimate participation rates, because it is not known how many of these 

acres may have already been thinned or were planted at rates such that thinning is not 

needed. Further, many contract-holders would not participate even if cost-share is 

provided. A $100 per-acre cost-share means a $100 per acre net out-of-pocket expense 

for the contract-holder, a cost that may not yield economic benefits for many years. 

For estimation purposes, a 25-percent participation rate (550,000 acres over 5 years) is 

assumed. Technical assistance costs are assumed to be $10 per acre, based on the current 

payment rate for forestry practices in CRP of $22 per acre. This $22 includes costs for 

developing the entire forestry plans, including site preparation, tree planting, and 

maintenance. Table 4 shows the enrollment assumptions by year for this and the other 

- 6 -
program components discussed in this CBA.

Using these estimates and assumptions, program costs would total $60.5 million, 

including $55.0 million for cost-share and $5.5 million for technical assistance. See the 

appendix for details of the cost estimation process. 

Table 4. Enrollment Assumptions by Fiscal Year of Sign-up (Acres)*

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Tree Thinning 50,000 166,667 166,667 166,667 0 550,000

Aquaculture Ponds 8,700 8,700 8,700 8,700 8,700 43,500

Flooded Farmland 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000

Constructed Wetlands 320 640 1,280 2,560 3,200 8,000

 

 *Note: Enrollment levels are generally assumed to be the same each year. A reduced acreage is 

assumed in the first year for tree thinning because there is less financial incentive than there is for 

aquaculture ponds and flooded farmland. Constructed wetlands take a long time to enroll because 

they involve multiple land owners and extensive engineering before enrollment can occur.

Thinning acres drops to $0 in 2013 because payments are only authorized through 2012.

Economic Impacts. For participating farmers, incomes could decline in the short-term, 

but would likely increase in the long-term, as the economic benefits would not occur for 

the most part for many years. However, if thinning increases hunting values, incomes of 

contract-holders could be enhanced through fee hunting, partially or fully offsetting the 

out-of-pocket thinning costs. In addition, if thinning attracts wildlife and increases 

recreation such as hunting and wildlife viewing, local economies could benefit.

 G. Revised Pilot Program for Enrollment of Wetland and Buffer Acreage in

 Conservation Reserve.

In General

The 2008 farm bill replaced the Farmable Wetland Program (FWP) in its entirety with 

new language and dropped the Farmable Wetland Program as a name. For this 

assessment, as well as in the interim rule, the old name is used for ease of discussion. 

New eligibility categories were added, including aquaculture ponds, flooded farmland, 

constructed wetlands, and non-floodplain wetlands, and are discussed in the following 

sections. The legislation also provides for appropriate buffers for each of the wetland 

categories.

Aquaculture Ponds

Lands that were devoted to commercial pond-raised aquaculture production at some time 

- 7 -
between 2002 and 2007 are eligible. According to the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS) data, about 366,000 acres were under water and devoted to commercial 

freshwater aquaculture in 2005, of which about 174,000 acres were devoted to catfish 

production. The remaining 192,000 acres included 76,000 acres of cropland used for 

crawfish production in Louisiana and 116,000 acres of other types of aquatic species. 

Since 1998, land used for species other than catfish increased more rapidly than for 

catfish (40,000 acres compared with 5,000 acres). After peaking in 2002 at 198,000 

acres, catfish production has been decreasing due to the combined effects of loss of 

market share to imports and increasing feed costs, and in 2007, NASS estimated that 

163,000 acres were used for catfish production (and were under water). Thus, while 

eligibility is not limited to catfish ponds, lands formerly used for catfish production are 

expected to make up the bulk of the acres that will enroll in this program, and analyzing 

the impacts based on catfish “acres” is assumed to capture the costs and benefits.

Catfish3 imports totaled 14,000 metric tons (mt) in 2001, increasing to 38,000 mt in 2006. 

It is estimated, using NASS data, that land devoted to catfish production declined about 

32,000 acres between 2001 and 2007 (Table 5). If this pattern continues through 2011, 

then about 58,000 acres could become eligible in States with declining acreage, of which

52,000 acres are in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

Table 5. Change in Pond Acreage Used for Catfish Production.

State 2001 Acres 2007 Acres Change from 

2001 to 2007

Change from 

2001 to 2011 *

Alabama 24,400 23,700 -700 -1,200

Arkansas 36,000 30,400 -5,600 -9,300

California 2,400 1,500 -900 -1,500

Florida 680 530 -150 -250

Georgia 1,200 1,100 -100 -200

Kentucky 260 370 +110 +200

Louisiana 13,300 6,300 -7,000 -11,700

Mississippi 112,700 94,000 -18,700 -31,200

Missouri 2,090 1,100 -990 -1,650

North Carolina 1,400 2,000 +600 +1,000

Texas 600 1,700 +1,100 +1,800

Other States 390 330 -60 -100

U.S. Total 195,400 163,000 -32,400 -54,720

States with 

Declining Acres 193,160 158,960 -34,200 -57,730

* Assuming continuation of ‘01 to ‘07 pattern.

3

 Includes Basa, which are no longer classified as catfish, based on Department of Commerce rules.

- 8 -

 
Eligible lands are mostly located in low lying areas of the lower Mississippi River basin, 

including the lower Mississippi River alluvial valley, one of the most important 

waterfowl wintering areas on the North American continent. One potential benefit of 

enrollment is the provision of valuable migratory waterfowl habitat, if sufficient water 

levels of enrolled lands are maintained. Wintering shorebirds and other migratory 

waterfowl will benefit, as will amphibians and other aquatic and wetland species. 

Renovating defunct catfish ponds into managed wetlands is believed to be a costeffective way to produce excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl and migratory shore 

and wading birds because the required water control structures would already be in place. 

If water levels are not maintained, lands could be allowed to dry out and vegetation, such 

as hardwood trees, grasses, and wildlife food plots could be established. This alternative 

approach would provide wildlife and carbon sequestration benefits.

Buffers around the former ponds are eligible to be enrolled if they are determined to be 

needed to protect the wetland enrolled. Typically, aquaculture ponds are in groups with 

not much land between them, so buffers would probably not encompass large amounts of 

land. If buffer acreage were to equal 50 percent of the wetland size, the 58,000 formerpond acres would be accompanied by 29,000 buffer acres and a total of 87,000 acres 

would have a potential to be enrolled. Assuming a 50-percent participation rate, total 

outlays are estimated to be $30.2 million through FY 2018 (Table 1). Using a rental 

payment of $70 per acre (based on rental rates of around $70 in high-aquaculture 

production counties), rental payments would amount to $18.3 million through FY 2018. 

Using the estimated average cost of CRP riparian and wetland practices, cost-share 

payments would be $2.2 million, and incentive payments would total $9.7 million. 

Details of the estimation process are provided in the appendix.

Economic Impacts. Participating owner and operator incomes will benefit from the 

rental payments. They may also be able to earn additional income from leasing the land 

for hunting, as these lands could attract large numbers of ducks and geese, if water levels 

are maintained. Adverse local economic impacts could occur if the program encourages 

or accelerates the abandonment of aquaculture ponds, leading to lower employment and 

economic activity. However, local economies would benefit if additional hunters or 

wildlife viewers visit the area.

Flooded Farmland

To be eligible, land must have been, during 1990 through 2002, (1) subject to overflow of 

a closed-basin prairie wetland and (2) cropped in at least 3 of 10 years during the period. 

Enrollment of wetland per tract cannot exceed 20 acres, and suitable upland buffers are 

allowed. Because of this size restriction and eligibility being limited to lands inundated 

with water in the prairie pothole region, enrollment is expected to be quite low. 

Using U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service geographic information system data, the estimated 

- 9 -
land under water in the prairie pothole region was 200,000 acres higher in 2007 than it 

was in the mid-1990's. Because this is the only estimate available, it is used as guidance 

in estimating potential costs. Most of this land is located in eastern North and South 

Dakota. These lands would include some land that did not have an adequate cropping 

history. In addition, some of the land would exceed the 20-acre per tract wetland limit. 

For this assessment, we assume, at a maximum, that 100,000 acres would be enrolled, 

including both wetland and buffer (Table 4 contains the year-by-year enrollment 

assumptions). Costs through FY 2018 of enrolling these acres are estimated at $58.6 

million, including $30.0 million in rental payments, $7.0 million for cost-share payments, 

and $21.6 million in incentive payments. Technical assistance costs are an estimated 

$6.3 million. Details are in the appendix.

The benefits of enrolling flooded lands and adjacent buffers are two-fold. First, the 

environment would benefit from the buffers which protect the wetlands from degradation 

by agricultural activity in adjacent lands and from the additional wildlife habitat that 

would be created when the buffers are established. Second, farm incomes would be 

enhanced by the rental payments, especially for the payments on lands under water 

because little or no income is currently being generated from these lands.

Economic Impacts. As with aquaculture pond enrollment, owners and operators may 

also be able to earn additional income from leasing the land for hunting, as these lands

are expected to attract large numbers of waterfowl. A minimal amount of spending for 

establishing vegetative cover on the buffers would benefit local economies. Additionally, 

local economies would benefit if additional hunters or wildlife viewers visit the area.

Constructed Wetlands

The 2008 Farm Bill adds another new eligibility category within FWP, constructed 

wetlands. These lands are designed to intercept drainage water from cropland, reducing 

the amount of nutrients and sediment that reach surface and ground water. Enrolled lands 

will be largely in areas of the country with intensively drained cropland, such as Iowa and 

Illinois. This practice is currently being applied under the Iowa Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program (CREP). The Iowa CREP currently has 471 constructed wetlands 

contracts covering 1,335 acres. Tile-drained cropland area treated by each constructed 

wetland acre range from 25 to 100 acres in size.

Offsite and onsite benefits are quite high for these wetlands accompanying buffers. They 

remove large amounts of nitrate and provide valuable wildlife habitat. Iowa State 

University researchers report that these wetlands provide a cost-effective means of 

reducing nitrate loads in Iowa’s surface waters. According to monitoring data from Iowa, 

these wetlands remove between 40 percent and 90 percent of the nitrate flowing into 

them, an average of 5 tons of nitrate per year per site. Total costs of $1.38 per pound of 

nitrate removed are 23 percent of the $5.89 per pound cost that the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration estimated addressing Gulf of Mexico hypoxia would cost. 

- 10 -
Iowa’s constructed wetlands are also providing other benefits, including enhancement of 

wildlife habitat, sequestration of carbon, and flood-water retention. 

Lands converted to wetlands under this practice do not need to have any cropping history, 

but are limited to 40 acres per tract. Appropriate buffers can be enrolled without size 

restrictions. The average Iowa CREP wetland is 28 acres, including both wetland and 

non-wetland buffer, so the 40-acre wetland limit is not expected to significantly restrict 

enrollment. In addition, if land meets certain cropping history criteria, it can be enrolled 

under other non-FWP CRP practices.

If 250 wetlands are constructed at an average size of 28 acres, costs are estimated to total 

$41.9 million through FY 2018. Included in this total are $8.1 million for rental 

payments, $13.2 million for cost-share payments, $13.0 million for incentive payments, 

and $7.5 million in technical assistance costs. Details are in the appendix.

Floodplain and Non-Floodplain Wetland Restorations

Most floodplain and non-floodplain wetlands that could be restored under FWP 

provisions could also be enrolled under other existing CRP practices, which receive the 

same payments, but are not restricted to 40 wetland acres per tract as are FWP 

enrollments. The only lands that would be eligible for FWP enrollment that are not 

eligible under other CRP wetland provisions would be lands that meet the 3 of 10 year 

FWP cropping requirement, but not the 4 of 6 year (prior to 2008) cropping history 

required for other CRP cropland enrollments, while still meeting the 40 acre or less 

requirement. Determining how much of an effect this will have on enrollment would be 

very difficult and is not attempted for this assessment, and is believed to have very 

minimal impact on restorations of floodplain and non-floodplain wetlands in CRP.

The appendix includes a table showing the distribution of wetland restoration acres 

enrolled in CRP by practice category and region, as well as a summary of CRP’s 

legislative and programmatic history.

- 11 -
References

Smith, N. And C. Beckham. 2007. Financial Analysis of Pre-commercial Thinning, LowDensity Planting, and Cost Share Payments. South Carolina Forestry Commission. 5 pp.

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 2005. Woodland Owner Notes: Developing 

Wildlife-Friendly Pine Plantations. WON-38. 7 pp. 

Allen, A.W., Y. K. Bernal, and R. J. Moulton. 1996. Pine Plantations and Wildlife in the 

Southeastern United States: An Assessment of Impacts and Opportunities. U. S. Department of 

the Interior, National Biological Service. Information and Technology Report 3. 40 pp.

Alabama Forestry Commission. Southern Pine Beetle Prevention Program description on 

website: http://www.forestry.state.al.us/SPB-CostShare.aspx.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2005. Census of 

Aquaculture.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Catfish Production 

reports on website: http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/index2.jsp.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004 Implementation 

Framework: Strengthening the Biological Foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 106 pp.

Mississippi State University Extension Service. 2008. Catfish-Duck Ponds for the Mississippi 

Delta. Pub. 2482. 4 pp.

Crumpton, W., G. Stenback, B. Miller, and M. Helmers. 2006. Potential Benefits of Wetland 

Filters for Tile Drainage Systems: Impact on Nitrate Loads to Mississippi River Subbasins. 

Washington DC: USDA. 34 pp. 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/fsa_final_report_crumpton_rhd.pdf

Iovanna, R., S. Hyberg, and W. Crumpton. 2008. Treatment wetlands: Cost-effective practice 

for intercepting nitrate before it reaches and adversely impacts surface waters. J. Soil and Water 

Conservation. 63(1): 14A-15A.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Farm Service Agency. 2008. Cost-Benefit Assessment of 

Payment Limit and Payment Eligibility Provisions in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008. Draft. 12 pp.

- 12 -
Appendix 1 – Cost Estimates

Tree Thinning

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Enrollment

 Acres 50,000166,667166,667166,667

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 09-'12 '13-'18 09-'18

Cost-share ($1,000)

($100 per acre)

 2009 $1,667$1,667$1,667$5,000$0$5,000

 2010 $5,556$5,556$5,556$16,667$0$16,667

 2011 $5,556$5,556$5,556$11,111$5,556$16,667

 2012 $5,556$5,556$5,556$5,556$11,111$16,667

$1,667$7,222$12,778$16,667$11,111$5,556$0$0$0$0$38,333$16,667$55,000

Technical Assistance ($1,000)

($10 per acre)

 2009 $500$1,667$1,667$1,667$5,500$0$5,500

Total ($1,000) $2,167$8,889$14,444$18,333$11,111$5,556$0$0$0$0$43,833$16,667$60,500

Page 13
Aquaculture Ponds

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Enrollment

 2010 8,7008,7008,7008,7008,7008,7008,7008,7008,700

 2011 8,7008,7008,7008,7008,7008,7008,7008,700

 2012 8,7008,7008,7008,7008,7008,7008,700

 2013 8,7008,7008,7008,7008,7008,700

 2014 8,7008,7008,7008,7008,700

Cost-share ($1,000)

($50/acre)

 2010 $261$131$44

 2011 $261$131$44

 2012 $261$131$44

 2013 $261$131$44

 2014 $261$131$44

$0$261$392$435$435$435$174$44$0$0

Rental ($1,000)

($70/acre)

 2010 $609$609$609$609$609$609$609$609

 2011 $609$609$609$609$609$609$609

 2012 $609$609$609$609$609$609

 2013 $609$609$609$609$609

 2014 $609$609$609$609

$0$0$609$1,218$1,827$2,436$3,045$3,045$3,045$3,045

SIP ($1,000)

($100/acre)

 2010 435435

 2011 870

 2012 870

 2013 870

 2014 870

$435$1,305$870$870$870$0$0$0$0$0

$1,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 '09-'12 '13-'18 '09-'18

Cost-share $0$261$392$435$435$435$174$44$0$0$1,088$1,088$2,175

Rental $0$0$609$1,218$1,827$2,436$3,045$3,045$3,045$3,045$1,827$16,443$18,270

SIP $435$1,305$870$870$870$0$0$0$0$0$3,480$870$4,350

PIP $0$209$313$348$348$348$139$35$0$0$870$870$1,740

Annual 20% $0$0$122$244$365$487$609$609$609$609$365$3,289$3,654

Tech. Ass't. $290$290$290$290$290$0$0$0$0$0$1,160$290$1,450

Total $725$2,065$2,596$3,405$4,135$3,706$3,967$3,732$3,654$3,654$7,630$22,559$30,189

Page 14
Flooded Farmland

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Enrollment (Acres)

 2010 20,00020,00020,00020,00020,00020,00020,00020,00020,000

 2011 20,00020,00020,00020,00020,00020,00020,00020,000

 2012 20,00020,00020,00020,00020,00020,00020,000

 2013 20,00020,00020,00020,00020,00020,000

 2014 20,00020,00020,00020,00020,000

Cost-share ($1,000)

($70/acre)

 2010 $840$420$140

 2011 $840$420$140

 2012 $840$420$140

 2013 $840$420$140

 2014 $840$420$140

$0$840$1,260$1,400$1,400$1,400$560$140$0$0

Rental ($1,000)

($50/Acre)

 2010 $1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000

 2011 $1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000

 2012 $1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000

 2013 $1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000

 2014 $1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000

$0$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$5,000$5,000$5,000

SIP ($1,000)

($100/Acre)

 2010 $1,000$1,000

 2011 $2,000

 2012 $2,000

 2013 $2,000

 2014 $2,000

$1,000$3,000$2,000$2,000$2,000$0$0$0$0$0

$1,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 '09-'12 '13-'18 '09-'18

Cost-share $0$840$1,260$1,400$1,400$1,400$560$140$0$0$3,500$3,500$7,000

Rental $0$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$5,000$5,000$5,000$3,000$27,000$30,000

SIP $1,000$3,000$2,000$2,000$2,000$0$0$0$0$0$8,000$2,000$10,000

PIP $0$672$1,008$1,120$1,120$1,120$448$112$0$0$2,800$2,800$5,600

Annual 20% $0$0$200$400$600$800$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000$600$5,400$6,000

Tech. Ass't $600$600$600$600$600$0$0$0$0$0$2,400$600$3,000

Total $1,000$4,512$5,468$6,920$8,120$7,320$7,008$6,252$6,000$6,000$17,900$40,700$58,600

Page 15
Constructed Wetlands

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Enrollment

 2010 320320320320320320320320320

 2011 640640640640640640640640

 2012 1,2801,2801,2801,2801,2801,2801,280

 2013 2,5602,5602,5602,5602,5602,560

 2014 3,2003,2003,2003,2003,200

Cost-share ($1,000)

($1,659/Acre)

 2010 $319$159$53

 2011 $637$319$106

 2012 $1,274$637$212

 2013 $2,548$1,274$425

 2014 $3,185$1,593$531

$0$319$796$1,646$3,291$4,672$2,017$531$0$0

Rental ($1,000)

($200/Acre)

 2010 $64$64$64$64$64$64$64$64

 2011 $128$128$128$128$128$128$128

 2012 $256$256$256$256$256$256

 2013 $512$512$512$512$512

 2014 $640$640$640$640

$0$0$64$192$448$960$1,600$1,600$1,600$1,600

SIP ($1,000/Acre)

($100/Acre)

 2010 1616

 2011 64

 2012 128

 2013 256

 2014 320

$16$80$128$256$320$0$0$0$0$0

$1,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 '09-'12 '13-'18 '09-'18

Cost-share $0$319$796$1,646$3,291$4,672$2,017$531$0$0$2,761$10,511$13,272

Rental $0$0$64$192$448$960$1,600$1,600$1,600$1,600$256$7,808$8,064

SIP $16$80$128$256$320$0$0$0$0$0$480$320$800

PIP $0$255$637$1,317$2,633$3,737$1,614$425$0$0$2,208$8,409$10,618

Annual 20% $0$0$13$38$90$192$320$320$320$320$51$1,562$1,613

Tech. Ass't. $300$600$1,201$2,401$3,002$0$0$0$0$0$4,502$3,002$7,504

Total $316$1,254$2,839$5,850$9,784$9,561$5,551$2,876$1,920$1,920$10,259$31,612$41,870

Page 16
Appendix 2 – CRP Background

CRP Enrollment by Sign-up Type, September 2008 (Acres)

Region General

Continuous

Total Non-CREP CREP FWP Total

Northeast 102,648 15,978 289,918 5 305,901 408,549

Appalachian 565,429 116,146 148,951 0 265,098 830,527

Southeast 920,752 140,968 0 0 140,968 1,061,371

Delta States 1,075,752 312,195 56,421 0 368,617 1,444,368

Corn Belt 3,581,435 1,069,374 263,901 74,599 1,407,873 4,989,309

Lake States 2,015,287 321,122 193,798 39,814 554,734 2,570,020

No. Plains 7,986,409 551,254 72,700 67,521 691,475 8,677,884

So. Plains 4,855,248 65,759 79 0 65,838 4,921,087

Mountain 7,355,344 143,067 50,739 140 193,945 7,549,290

Pacific 2,083,985 128,872 50,203 0 179,075 2,263,060

U.S. 30,541,941 2,864,736 1,126,710 182,078 4,173,524 34,715,465

 Note: Rows and columns may not sum due to rounding.

Wetland Restoration Practices in CRP, Wetland and Buffer, September 2008 (Acres)

Region

Floodplain 

and Nonfloodplain

Wetlands

Bottomland 

Hardwood 

Trees

Duck 

Nesting 

Habitat

Farmable 

Wetland 

Program

Other Total

Northeast 3,931 4 0 5 3,067 7,007

Appalachian 3,319 3,005 0 0 6,867 13,191

Southeast 668 781 0 0 2,176 3,625

Delta States 87,102 31,094 235 0 5,508 123,939

Corn Belt 122,751 6,002 88 74,599 33,491 236,930

Lake States 359,132 239 1,616 39,814 12,230 413,030

No. Plains 1,037,606 133 36,511 67,521 18,079 1,159,850

So. Plains 11,059 779 0 0 314 12,152

Mountain 6,913 0 0 140 359 7,411

Pacific 9,225 0 0 0 757 9,982

U.S. 1,641,705 42,037 38,451 182,078 82,848 1,987,119

 Note: Rows and columns may not sum due to rounding.

USDA Farm Production Regions

Region States

Northeast Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont

Appalachian Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia

Southeast Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Puerto Rico

Delta States Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi

Corn Belt Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio

Lake States Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin

No. Plains Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota

So. Plains Oklahoma, Texas

Mountain Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming

Page 17
Pacific Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington

Legislative and Programmatic History of CRP

Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 established the CRP to assist owners and operators in 

conserving and improving soil, water, and wildlife resources on their farms and ranches by 

converting highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive cropland and marginal pasture to 

long-term resource conserving covers. In exchange for annual rental payments and cost-share 

assistance of up to 50 percent of cover establishment costs, agricultural landowners and operators 

agree to establish and maintain an approved permanent cover on enrolled acreage for 10 to 15 

years. The Act directed the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to enroll 40 to 45 million acres 

by 1990 with a primary goal to reduce soil erosion on highly erodible cropland. Secondary 

objectives included protecting the Nation's long-run capability to produce food and fiber, 

reducing sedimentation, improving water quality, fostering wildlife habitat, curbing production 

of surplus commodities, and providing income support for farmers.

The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 extended CRP through 1995 and 

expanded types of land eligible for enrollment to include lands that could reduce on-site or offsite threats to water quality if removed from production. Following passage, USDA’s Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) adopted new rental payment caps based on soil-specific productivity 

based rental rates and developed an environmental benefits index (EBI) to rank offers.

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 re-authorized CRP enrollment 

through 2002 and set a maximum enrollment of 36.4 million acres at any one time. The EBI was 

revised to explicitly include a wildlife benefits component, which was given equal weight with 

soil erosion and water quality benefits.

Also in 1996, FSA initiated enrollment of selected practices, such as filter strips and riparian 

buffers, on a continuous basis without competition. An annual incentive payment equal to 20 

percent of the annual rental rate was provided for many of these practices. In 1997, FSA created 

the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), further advancing CRP’s 

environmental targeting. CREP authorizes State-Federal conservation partnerships that address 

specific State and nationally significant water quality, soil erosion, and wildlife habitat concerns 

related to agriculture. CREP enrollment is held on a continuous basis. Enrollment may include 

both general and continuous sign-up practices, and additional financial incentives are generally 

provided. In 2000, up-front signing and practice incentives were established to further enhance 

continuous enrollment, including CREP. 

The FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act established FWP, which provided for noncompetitive enrollment under continuous sign-up provisions and incentives for up to 500,000 

acres of small non-flood plain wetlands and adjacent upland in 6 States (Nebraska, Iowa, 

Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana).

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 extended CRP enrollment authority 

through 2007 and increased the enrollment cap by 2.8 million acres to 39.2 million acres. Basic 

cropland eligibility is re-defined to be land that has been cropped or considered cropped in at 

Page 18
least 4 of the 6 years preceding enactment. Previously, basic cropland eligibility required 

cropping in at least 2 of the 5 years preceding sign-up. Practices eligible under marginal pasture 

criteria, which have no cropping requirement, were expanded to permit appropriate vegetative 

covers, rather than requiring the land be planted only to trees. Other changes include extending 

eligibility to field remnants made infeasible to farm where buffer practices are enrolled, cropland 

where enrollment would provide water conservation benefits, and land subject to expiring CRP 

contracts.

The Act also expanded FWP from the original six States to all States and raised the enrollment 

cap to 1,000,000 acres, while keeping the 100,000 acre State maximum. While maximum 

wetland size is increased to 10 acres, only 5 acres are eligible to receive rental payments. The 

per-State 100,000 acre limit may be raised to 150,000 acres after review. In addition, managed 

harvesting of forage (subject to the requirement that environmental benefits be maintained or 

enhanced) was allowed. For CRP in general, equal consideration was required to be given to soil 

erosion, water quality, and wildlife benefits. 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 extended CRP enrollment authority to 

September 30, 2012, but requires that enrollment be reduced to at least 32 million acres by 

October 1, 2009. The crop history requirement is updated to 4 of 6 years between 2002 and 

2007, and alfalfa and other multi-year grasses and legumes in rotation may contribute to 

cropping history. The Act also expanded FWP eligibility, provided cost-share for tree thinning,

and provides for incentives to encourage transition of expiring CRP lands to beginning or 

socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The 25-percent county cropland limit may be 

waived to allow enrollment of continuous and CREP contracts.

Page 19