Before the European settlement of North America, grasslands occupied approximately 1 billion acres of the contiguous United States—about half of the land—mostly west of the Mississippi River, as shown in figure 1. Over the last 3 centuries, about half of this presettlement, or “native,” grassland was converted to other uses, and almost all the native grassland has been converted in some states, such as Iowa and Minnesota. While most of the existing privately owned grasslands are between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains, the grasslands west of the Rocky Mountains are largely under federal management. The land uses to which native grasslands have been converted include pastureland, developed land, and cropland. Historically, cropland—land used for the production of crops such as corn and wheat—has been the most common use to which native grassland has been converted. Cropland—which produces food, feed, fiber, and now energy, especially ethanol—can yield relatively high financial returns to crop producers and landowners, and these returns generally increase economic activity in rural communities. In 2006, the value of U.S. crop production was $121 billion (43 percent of the value of U.S. agricultural production). As the United States shifts to more renewable fuels, increasing amounts of crops, especially corn, are being used to produce energy. The use of corn to produce ethanol is projected to double between 2006 and 2008 and continue to increase rapidly for several years. Furthermore, crop exports contribute to the U.S. balance of trade. The United States is the world’s leading exporter of several major crops including corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat. Finally, crop production contributes to local economies in rural counties, affecting demand for farm inputs—seed, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, farm machinery, and labor—as well as grain marketing and transportation companies. However, the grassland that cropland displaces also has many economic as well as environmental benefits. Grassland provides forage for grazing livestock; provides recreational opportunities, such as for hunting and fishing; reduces soil erosion; improves water quality; and aids carbon sequestration, which reduces the amount of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere. Although these benefits generally result from both pastureland and native grassland, those concerned about the continued loss of grassland have placed a very high priority on preserving the remaining native grassland for the following reasons: Conservation of native grassland contributes to the maintenance of biological diversity. More specifically, native grassland provides habitat for wildlife and native species, including native grassland bird species, some of which are declining. The conversion of native grassland to other uses, including introduced grasses, can change the structure and function of habitat such that it no longer supports native wildlife species. For example, the loss of native grassland in the Texas coastal prairie eliminated habitat that supported the Attwater’s prairie chicken, a federally endangered species native to this area. In addition, research in North Dakota by U. S. Geological Survey wildlife biologists found significantly higher counts of certain grassland bird species in native grassland than in other grassland. Furthermore, the fragmentation of remaining native grasslands may reduce their habitat value and result in them not being large enough to support their natural biodiversity. Once converted, restoring native grassland is difficult and expensive, and it is questionable whether native habitat can ever be fully restored. In general, land that is converted back to native grassland does not regain the ecological function of undisturbed native grassland. Furthermore, FWS estimates that the cost of restoring native grassland in eastern South Dakota is about $200 per acre, a substantial amount relative to the 2006 market value of native grassland in that area, which ranged from an average of $751 per acre in northeast South Dakota to $1,055 per acre in east central South Dakota. Federal farm programs provide payments that can increase the profitability of crop production and may create incentives for conversions. Among these programs are the federal crop insurance program, crop disaster assistance programs, and the marketing assistance loan program. The federal crop insurance program protects crop producers from production risks associated with adverse weather as well as price risks associated with commodity market fluctuations. USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) administers the program in partnership with private insurance companies, which share a percentage of the risk of loss and the opportunity for gain associated with each insurance policy written. RMA pays companies a percentage of the premium on policies sold to cover the administrative costs of selling and servicing these policies. In turn, insurance companies use this money to pay commissions to their agents, who sell the policies, and fees to adjusters when claims are filed. RMA absorbs a large percentage of the crop insurance program’s losses—the difference between premiums collected and indemnity payments—and subsidizes a portion of the premium paid by participating producers. Crop disaster assistance programs—ad hoc programs enacted by the Congress and administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA)— provide payments to producers to compensate for losses sustained when planting is prevented or crop yields are abnormally low because of adverse weather and related conditions. From 1998 through 2004, ad hoc disaster assistance legislation was enacted and crop disaster assistance payments were made for each crop year. These payments were made to both producers with crop insurance and those without insurance. A May 2007 supplemental spending bill, which authorized crop disaster assistance payments for crop year 2005, 2006, and 2007 losses, prohibited payments to a producer who either waived crop insurance or did not participate in the Noninsured Assistance Program in the year of the loss. The conservation compliance provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, condition the receipt of farm program payments on the producer’s efforts to control excessive soil erosion on highly erodible land and protect wetlands. One of these provisions, known as Sodbuster, requires producers to apply a soil conservation system that meets the required level of protection that allows for no substantial increase in soil erosion on land converted from native vegetation if the land was not cropped before December 23, 1985, and is or was determined by USDA to be highly erodible land. A producer applying for certain farm program payments certifies with FSA that he or she will comply with conservation provisions. If the land in question was not cropped before December 23, 1985, and USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has not previously determined whether or not the land is highly erodible land, FSA refers the producer’s application to NRCS to conduct the determination. If NRCS determines, or has previously determined, that the land is highly erodible, Sodbuster applies and the producer must maintain a conservation system that will not permit a substantial increase in soil erosion. Under NRCS’s procedures, this producer must use a conservation system that controls erosion to a greater extent than is required for highly erodible land that was cropped before December 23, 1985. Figure 2 illustrates when a landowner must apply a conservation system, as required by Sodbuster, to control erosion on newly converted cropland. Over the last 25 years, some areas, particularly in the Northern Plains, experienced conversions of native grassland to cropland, and these conversions have added to farm program costs. While there is no comprehensive and current source of information on the extent of native grassland conversions to cropland or the amount of farm program payments made in relation to this newly converted cropland, available sources provide some information on conversions and related costs. Nationwide, total private grassland declined by almost 25 million acres from 1982 through 2003. In addition, conversions of native grassland to cropland continue in the Northern Plains, particularly in areas of North Dakota and South Dakota. Analysis of county-level data indicates that South Dakota counties with relatively high rates of conversions had high crop insurance and crop disaster assistance program costs. Available information on the extent and location of grassland conversions to cropland is not comprehensive and current. For example, data on conversions of grassland to cropland are not available at the state or county level for the most recent years (except in three states––Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota––where data are being collected on an informal basis to provide information to FWS and Ducks Unlimited on wildlife habitat loss). In addition, the most recent national and regional data are current only through 2003. As a result of these limitations, policymakers do not have current information on the extent of conversions at relevant landscape levels for all areas across the country where conversions may have occurred in recent years. For example, except for the above three states, information is not available on conversions within local areas where further loss of native grassland may affect wildlife populations. Such information—particularly for native grasslands, which are difficult to restore—is important in assessing the need for and the results of policy changes. Moreover, among the available sources of grasslands data, differences in grassland definitions complicate characterization of conversions to cropland and trends in the amount of grasslands. Despite these limitations, available sources provide some information on conversions. Specifically: NRCS’s National Resources Inventory (NRI). The NRI is a periodic statistical survey of land use and natural resource conditions and trends on nonfederal lands. According to the NRI, from 1982 to 2003 in the 48 contiguous states, rangeland and pastureland declined by about 10.4 million acres (about 2.5 percent) and 14.1 million acres (about 10.8 percent), respectively, making the total decline in grassland about 24.5 million acres. Most of the decline in rangeland occurred between 1982 and 1992. These net changes do not indicate the number of acres converted from rangeland and pastureland to cropland. For example, some of the decline in rangeland was due to conversions to non-cropland uses, such as developed land.