Planting Trees on Agricultural Land: The Costs and Economic Impacts of CRP Reversion Prepared for: Steven Winnett Kenneth Andrasko William Hohenstein Climate Change Division Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Contract No. 68-W2-0018 December 14, 1994 ------- Planting Trees on Agricultural Land: The Costs and Economic Impacts of CRP Reversion Prepared for: Steven Winnett Kenneth Andrasko William Hohenstein Climate Change Division Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation U S Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Contract No 68-W2-0018 Prepared by: J M Callaway RCG/Hagler Bailly P 0 Drawer 0 Boulder, CO 80306-1906 (303) 449-5515 Bruce A McCarl McCarl & Associates 2100 Fawn Court College Station, TX 77843-2124 (409) 845-1706 (409) 693-5694 December 14, 1994 ------- Executive Summary In a previous study, Adams et al (1993)1 developed supply curves for sequestering carbon, by growing trees on agricultural land, using a price-endogenous, spatial equilibrium model of the U.S. agricultural sector, known as ASM In contrast to previous studies on this topic, this was the first study of its kind (at least for the U.S ) to measure the costs of sequestering carbon in terms of changes in producers and consumers surplus in a framework that took accounted for increases in agricultural commodity prices as trees displaced crops Since this work was completed a number of revisions were made to improve the ASM/TAMM model These included the addition of revised carbon and timber yields, provisions to harvest timber based on economic principles, as opposed to fixed harvests, and the farm program provisions for the 1990 Farm Bill This study builds on the improvements made to the ASM/TAMM model and adds a more explicit policy dimension to previous studies, cited above. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has proven a highly successful means for preventing erosion on cropland and for preserving non-market values by increasing wildlife habitat and other environmental amenities At the same time, there is interest in looking at how lands that are currently enrolled in the CRP might be utilized in programs to sequester carbon The scenarios in this study were designed to simulate the costs and market impacts associated with the termination of the current CRP program, assuming that the released lands could either be enrolled in tree planting programs or else revert to cropland Another set of scenarios looked at the impacts of CRP reversion on programs to sequester carbon on pastureland, while a third set of scenarios looked at the costs and market consequences of planting trees on wetlands under similar circumstances of CRP reversion This analysis was accomplished using the ASM/TAMM model ASM is a spatial equilibrium model of the U S agricultural sector It simulates the production and consumption of a large number of both primary and secondary crop and livestock commodities It forecasts regional production of these commodities, the allocation of acreage to individual crops and pastureland, as well as consumption levels and prices for these commodities TAMM has been modified to include tree growing activities, which compete with other crops in the model for land By forcing ASM to achieve specific carbon targets or acreage targets for tree planting, one can develop supply curves for carbon and afforested acreage ASM was further modified to include information from TAMM (Timber Assessment and Market Model) to 'An earlier version of this paper was delivered in 1991 at the annual meeting of the Western Economics Association RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Executive Summary ~ 2 include tree harvesting activities. In addition to forecasting information about the marginal cost of carbon, it also provides projections on program fiscal costs of planting and maintaining trees - the carbon production cost - as well as the opportunity, or social, cost of planting trees. This is measured by the reduction in consumer and producer surplus associated with a specific carbon or afforested acreage target. The ASM/TAMM model was used in this analysis to conduct a number of simulations about the impacts of changing the following. ~ The type of land on which trees were planted - CRP land, pastureland and wetlands, ~ The geographic distribution of the trees, which included D the current state-level distribution of tree acreage in CRP ° the current region-level distribution of tree acreage in CRP D the least cost distribution to achieve an acreage target objective ° the least cost distribution to achieve a carbon target objective ~ The assumptions about harvests, as follows ° no harvesting D harvesting based on economic principles ~ The level of farm program deficiency payments in the model The study reached nine main conclusions They are ~ Combining tree growing programs with CRP reversion significantly reduces the marginal cost of carbon, the opportunity cost of carbon (i e, social cost) and the carbon production costs (i e , fiscal cost) of tree planting programs on the order of 40 to 50 million tons of carbon/yr Based on comparisons with previous studies, allowing trees planting programs to be combined with CRP reversion reduces all of these costs by about one-half ~ Holding other factors constant, planting trees on CRP cropland was less expensive than planting trees on pastureland, both in terms of social costs and fiscal costs The social and fiscal costs of planting trees on wetlands is hard to evaluate because only one acreage/carbon target was used However, tree planting programs on wetlands appear to be cost-competitive with those on cropland in the range of 5 million acres. ~ While it may seem to make programmatic sense to align the acreage in tree planting programs with the current distribution of CRP tree planting acreage, this type of policy is not economically efficient compared to programs without any restrictions regarding the geographic placement of carbon This study showed that the marginal cost of carbon, the opportunity cost of carbon and the carbon production costs of tree planting RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Executive Summary ~ 3 are about three times as high when the distribution of acreage is forced to conform to the current CRP distribution. ~ Allowing CRP reversion to occur had mixed effects on farm program (i.e, fiscal) costs, not including the costs of tree planting. In cases, where constraints were placed on the location of tree planting, farm program costs decreased. However, in cases where no restrictions were placed on the location of tree planting, farm program costs actually increased This was due to the fact that crop mixes were freer to shift and take advantage of farm subsidies Note, this does not alter the conclusion that social costs of tree planting are lower in the unconstrained scenarios. ~ Under CRP reversion, the economically efficient result is for crops to be planted on former CRP lands in the Southeast and Cornbelt and for trees to be planted on land in the New England and Appalachian regions When CRP reversion is not included, previous studies have shown that the economically efficient result is to plant trees, primarily in the Southeast and the Cornbelt ~ When Farmers are free to make their harvesting and planting decision on economic grounds, as opposed to not including harvests in the analysis at all, the amount of carbon sequestered at each acreage target falls, while the amount of acreage needed to achieve a give carbon target increases ~ Allowing farmers to harvest trees, based on economic principles after each rotation significantly reduces the opportunity cost of carbon and the carbon production cost, without substantially increasing acreage requirements These costs are cut in half, while acreage requirements increase by about 15 to 20 percent. Stumpage prices decrease from 70 to 75 percent over the no harvest cases This is good for consumers of wood products, but hurts timberland owners ~ Reducing deficiency payments by 25% from current levels reduced slightly the marginal cost of carbon and the program cost of sequestering carbon However, it had little effect on net welfare Complete elimination of farm programs further reduced the marginal cost of carbon and program costs and led to substantial gains in net benefits to society on the order of $1 billion to $2 billion/yr ~ Finally, the wetlands reserve scenarios all demonstrated that tree planting was very cost effective on the 4 5 million or so acres of potentially eligible wetlands identified for this study However, the amount of carbon that can be sequestered on this land was fairly low - about 10 to 12 million tons/yr RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1 Introduction and Objectives ... 1-1 Chapter 2 Models, Data, and Scenarios 2 1 The ASM/TAMM Model 2-1 2 2 Data . ... 2-2 2 2 1 Treatment Cost Data .... .2-3 2 2 2 Timber and Carbon Yield Data .... 2-4 2 2 3 Wetlands Reserve Acreage . 2-5 2 3 Scenarios and Assumptions . 2-5 2 3 1 Type of Land on Which Trees Can Be Grown 2-6 2 3 2 Carbon Targets ... ... 2-6 2 3 3 Type of Restriction on Carbon Target . . 2-7 2 3 4 Type of Harvesting Allowed ... .... . . 2-8 2 3.5 Farm Program Provisions 2-9 2 3 6 Scenario Summary .2-11 2 4 Assumptions 2-11 Chapter 3 Results 3 1 Variable Names and Definitions . . 3-15 3 1 1 Welfare and Government Cost Measures 3-15 3 1 2 Price and Quantity Indices 3-16 3 1 3 Carbon Variables 3-17 3 1 4 Other Variables .3-17 3 2 Land Use Impacts 3-17 3 2 1 Impacts on Carbon Sequestration, Carbon and Land Prices and Acreage ..... 3-18 3 2 2 Welfare and Fiscal Impacts . ... 3-23 3 3 Impacts of Varying the Type of Constraints on Tree Planting 3-27 3 3 1 Impacts on Carbon Sequestration, Carbon and Land Prices and Acreage . ... 3-28 3 3 2 Welfare and Fiscal Impacts 3-31 3 4 Impacts of Varying the Harvesting Assumptions ... 3-35 3 4 1 Impacts on Carbon Sequestration, Carbon and Land Prices and Acreage .... 3-35 3 4 2 Welfare and Fiscal Impacts 3-40 RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Contents ~ page ii 3.5 Effects of Reducing Farm Programs 3-44 3.5 1 Impacts on Carbon Sequestration, Carbon and Land Prices and Acreage 3-44 3.5.2 Welfare and Fiscal Impacts 3-47 Chapter 4 Major Conclusions 4-1 Chapter 5 References 5-1 Appendix A Full Results From Scenarios RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Chapter 1 Introduction and Objectives In a previous study, Adams et al (1993)1 developed supply curves for sequestering carbon, by growing trees on agricultural land, using a price-endogenous, spatial equilibrium model of the U S agricultural sector, known as ASM In contrast to previous studies, such as those by Moulton and Richards (1990), Parks and Hardie (1992) and Dudek and LeBlanc (1990), this was the first study of its kind (at least for the U.S ) to measure the costs of sequestering carbon in terms of changes in producers and consumers surplus in a framework that took accounted for increases in agricultural commodity prices as trees displaced crops This study showed that large scale tree planting programs were somewhat more costly, at the margin, than most previous studies had shown However, the differences between the marginal and total costs of carbon estimated by Adams et al. and those estimated in previous studies were not large for programs that sequestered, on average, below about 140 million tons year In general, all of the studies cited above suggest that sequestering carbon in trees on agricultural land is a far less costly alternative than carbon taxes (by two orders of magnitude) for offsetting moderate amounts of carbon emissions, say, in the range of 100-250 million tons annually For that study, the ASM model was modified to include in it a stumpage supply sector, which harvested the trees on both agricultural land and commercial timberland This part of the analysis showed that, if farmer's harvested all the trees they planted at the end of each rotation, the large amounts of stumpage that could be harvested had the potential to swamp both saw timber and pulpwood markets, driving prices to extremely low levels In this event, consumers would not be hurt as badly because lower wood product prices would partially counteract the effect of higher prices on their welfare, farmers would earn even higher profits from timber sales, while conventional timber land owners would experience large welfare losses due to lower stumpage prices Since (and even prior to) the publication of Adams et al (1993), several modifications were made to the ASM/TAMM model These included the addition of ~ Revised carbon and timber yields, ~ At-harvest carbon losses, 'An earlier version of this paper was delivered in 1991 at the annual meeting of the Western Economics Association RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Introduction and Objectives ~ 1-2 ~ Provisions to harvest timber based on economic principles, as opposed to fixed harvests, and ~ Farm program provisions for the 1990 Farm Bill. The revised model was used by Callaway et al. (1993A) to assess the sensitivity of their earlier cost estimates to these improvements A more recent study by Callaway et al. (1993B) used the same model to assess the social cost and welfare impacts of replacing existing farm programs with tree planting subsidies These studies, taken together, showed that the improvements to the model did not have much effect on the cost of carbon sequestration programs of less than about 100 million tons/yr. The later study also provided additional insights by showing the cost and carbon consequences of taking a "no regrets" approach to tree planting by substituting agricultural subsidies with subsidies to grow trees This study builds on the improvements made to the ASM/TAMM model and adds a more explicit policy dimension to previous studies, cited above It does so in three different ways. First, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has proven a highly successful means for preventing erosion on cropland and for preserving non-market values by increasing wildlife habitat and other environmental amenities At the same time, there is interest in looking at how lands that are currently enrolled in the CRP might be utilized in programs to sequester carbon Thus, a series of scenarios was designed for this study to simulate the costs and market impacts associated with the termination of the current CRP program, assuming that the released lands could either be enrolled in tree planting programs or else revert to cropland. Another set of scenarios looked at the impacts of CRP reversion on programs to sequester carbon on pastureland, while a third set of scenarios looked at the costs and market consequences of planting trees on wetlands under similar circumstances of CRP reversion A second policy issue investigated in this paper has to do with the impacts of harvesting on tree planting program costs and on stumpage markets If trees that are planted to sequester carbon can't be harvested after a reasonable period of time, the costs of sequestering carbon could become quite high since farmers would have to be paid to forego the profits from the highest use of their land Also, without harvests, the supply of agricultural land would continue to diminish, driving crop prices and land rents up further and making tree planting more expensive Allowing farmers to harvest these trees would lower the level of the subsidy required to sequester carbon, because some income would be forthcoming from harvesting. On the other hand, if a large amount of timber was harvested at once this would tend not only to depress stumpage prices significantly, but offset carbon sequestration gains to some degree The original Adams et al study (1993) showed substantial decreases in stumpage prices and the welfare of timberland owners However, for that study it was assumed that all the trees planted in a given year to sequester carbon would be harvested at the end of each rotation Thus, an important objective of this study was to see how much the inclusion of harvesting in an economic framework, albeit static, would mitigate these impacts. RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- introduction and Objectives ~ 1-3 Finally, this study devised a number of scenarios to examine the effects of reducing farm programs, by various amounts and by different methods, on the costs of sequestering carbon on cropland, pastureland and wetlands This study stopped short of any subsidy replacement analysis. In summary, the objectives of this study are as follows- ~ Assess the impacts of CRP land reversion on programs to sequester carbon on cropland, pastureland and wetlands, ~ Assess the effects of allowing fanners to harvest the trees used to sequester carbon on carbon sequestration costs, and ~ Assess the impacts of reducing farm programs on the costs of sequestering carbon on cropland, pastureland, and wetlands The remainder of this report is organized into four chapters Following the introduction in this section, Chapter 2 describes the models used in the analysis, it presents the key data used in running the various scenarios, it spells out the details of the specific scenarios and identifies and explains the important assumptions that underlie the analysis Chapter 3 presents the results of the scenarios, while Chapter 4 presents the key conclusions Finally, the detailed numerical results for all the simulations are presented in Appendix A RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Chapter 2 Models, Data, and Scenarios This section outlines the models used to conduct the sensitivity and farm program analyses described above. It also describes the data used in these analyses and presents the underlying assumptions associated with each of the more than 300 scenarios that were investigated using the ASM/TAMM model. 2.1 The ASM/TAMM Model The model used in this analysis is described in Adams et al. (1993) It is a hybrid, involving the integration of portions of an economic model of the stumpage and primary product markets in North America, known as TAMM (Timber Assessment and Market Model) with an existing agricultural sector model, ASM Operationally, ASM is a price-endogenous agricultural sector model. It simulates the production of 36 primary crop and livestock commodities and 39 secondary, or processed, commodities Crops compete for land, labor and, irrigation water in each of the sixty-three state or substate regions in the model The cost of these and other inputs are included in the budgets for regional production variables There are more than 200 production possibilities (budgets) representing agricultural production These include field crop, livestock, and (for this version of the model) tree production The field crop variables are also divided into irrigated and non-irrigated production according to the irrigation facilities available in each region Following McCarl (1982), the production solution in each subregion is required to fall within a convex combination of historical crop mixes In ASM, primary and secondary commodities are sold to national demands These demand functions are characterized by either constant elasticity of substitution or linear functions The integrals of these demand functions represent total willingness to pay for agricultural products The difference between total willingness to pay and production and processing costs is equal to the sum of producer and consumer surplus Maximization of the sum of these surpluses constitutes the objective function in ASM This objective function is included in ASM to characterize the behavior of economic agents in the agricultural sector. The model has been modified to include tree growing/carbon production activates in the ten USDA major agricultural production regions - the northeast, lake states, cornbelt, northern plains, appalachia, southeast, delta, southern plains, mountain and pacific. These activities are defined by regeneration costs, by land use (crop and pasture) and carbon yields RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-2 TAMM is a two-level, multi-market spatial equilibrium model of the U.S. forest sector, developed by Adams and Haynes (1980). The regional stumpage supply and demand curves for sawtimber and pulpwood were taken from the TAMM model and added to ASM In addition, information from TAMM about the final demand for wood products was used to create domestic and export demand functions for the stumpage embodied in primary wood products Thus, trees grown on agricultural land can be harvested, along with some timber on commercial timber land, in response to excess demands from the "conventional" timber supply and demand sectors. In the original Adams et al. (1993) analysis, harvest levels were specified exogenously, based on the concept of an equilibrium rotation.1 In this study, an alternative assumption, optional harvesting, will be used This assumption allows landowners to jointly plant and harvest trees based on profit maximization. National supply curves for sequestered carbon are generated by running the ASM/TAMM model, repeatedly, for different national carbon or land target levels. In this way, the model simulates the displacement of productive pasture and cropland by trees, in response to the imposed carbon targets.2 The range of carbon targets used in this analysis is discussed in the Section 2 3.3. The shadow prices for land and carbon associated with each of these targets is a theoretically-correct measure of the marginal social cost of sequestering carbon. It captures the change in the sum of producer and consumer surplus associated with sequestering the last unit of carbon (or land) for each carbon (or land) target. This is a measure of the amount of money that the farmer who "grew" this last ton of carbon would have to be compensated so that he or she would be indifferent between producing the last ton of carbon or crops on his or her land The marginal cost estimates produced by ASM include both the annualized establishment cost of the trees required to sequester this carbon and changes in land rents, at the margin, due to the displacement of crops by carbon 2.2 Data The data used to construct the carbon sequestration and stumpage supply activities in ASM/TAMM are described, briefly, in Adams et al. (1993) and in much greater detail in Ching-Cheng and McCarl (1992) This section briefly summarizes the data used in this study that have been modified since the publication of Adams et al (1993). This includes data for ~ Treatment cost, ~ Timber and carbon yields, and 'This concept is adapted from the notion of a fully regulated forest That is. after a certain number of rotations, economic efficiency will lead to a single rotation length and uniform harvest size through which the forest inventory reaches a steady state JThe model can also be run with carbon "prices" in the objective function in a dual formulation RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-3 ~ Acreage for the wetlands reserve program. 2.2.1 Treatment Cost Data The cost of establishing trees used in this study and the previous one by Adams et al. (1993) are based on estimates in Moulton and Richards (1990) (see Table 2-1). These establishment costs ranged from a low of around $60/a to establish trees on crop land in the Southern Plains and the Southeast to a high of about $200/a to establish forests on pastureland in the Northeast The establishment costs were annualized assuming a 40 year amortization schedule at a real discount rate of 10 per cent While 10 per cent is well above the real rate of return on relatively secure, long-term private investments, Moulton and Richards (1990) showed that total costs were not very sensitive to real discount rates from 4 to 10 per cent Therefore, we did not revise the annualized costs Finally, it should be noted that land rents were not included as a part of the cost of tree planting. This is because the model calculates these costs, endogenously, in terms of the value of consumer and producer surplus that is foregone when an acre of pasture or cropland is displaced by an acre of trees Table 2-1. Establishment Costs Used in this Analysis - from Moulton and Richards (1990) Region Crop Land Pasture Land Treatment Cost ($/a./yr.) Annualized Cost (S/a./yr.) Treatment Cost (S/a./yr.) Annualized Cost ($/a./yr.) N East 150 15 196 20 Lake States 104 11 105 11 Cornbelt 139 14 186 19 N Plains 97 10 102 10 Appalachia 62 6 89 9 S East 60 6 67 7 Delta 70 7 77 8 S Plains 57 6 63 6 Mountain 70 7 109 11 Pacific 180 18 215 22 RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-4 2.2.2 Timber and Carbon Yield Data The timber and carbon yield data used in the sensitivity analysis part of this study are shown in Table 2-2 These data are from Richards (1992), who recently revised the earlier set of yields in Moulton and Richards (1992) to be fully consistent with the methods developed by Birdsey (1991)3. In general, the carbon yields are systematically lower than in their original analysis. Table 2-2 Carbon and Wood Yields used in this Analysis - Revised Moulton and Richards (Richards, 1992) Region Crop Land Pasture Land Carbon Yld. (ton/a./yr.) Wood Yld. (f3/a./yr.) Carbon Yld. (ton/a./yr.) Wood Yld. (f3/a./yr.) N East 2 24 106 3 1 95 90 4 Lake States 2 33 105 5 1 85 89 5 Cornbelt 2 34 85 3 1 99 72.7 N Plains 1 86 85 9 1 60 73 2 Appalachia 261 146.8 2 26 125 0 S East 2 38 132 5 2 07 1124 Delta 2 69 151 3 2 34 129 0 S Plains 2 68 137.5 2 32 117.0 Mountain 2 40 129 0 2.11 110.0 Pacific 1 95 119 0 1 64 101 0 3Some confusion about Birdscy's methodology led to a systematic over-estimate of carbon yields in Moulton and Richards (1990) The source of this confusion and the revised procedure is outlined in Richards (1992) RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-5 2.2.3 Wetlands Reserve Acreage Data on the amount of wetlands acreage suitable for conversion to forests was provided, on a state-by-state basis by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) This data is shown in Table 2-3 Table 2-3 Bottomland Hardwood Reserve Acres by Region Region Acres (1000s) Northeast 51 6 Lake States 959 8 Corn Belt 2104 3 Appalachian 381.5 Southeast 1128 Delta 1388.1 TOTAL 4998 1 2.3 Scenarios and Assumptions This section describes the different sensitivity analyses that were performed These analysis involved varying the following six factors ~ Type of land on which trees could be grown ~ Required level of carbon to be produced (carbon target) ~ Type of restriction on carbon quantity ~ Type of harvesting allowed, and ~ Farm program provisions Each of these items will now be explained in more detail RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-6 2.3.1 Type of Land on Which Trees Can Be Grown Three different types of land were included in the analysis. Tree planting was restricted in various runs to occur on either. 1 CRP - Land now enrolled under the Conservation Reserve Program or cropland4. 2 PASTURE - Pastureland, or 3 WETLANDS - Wetlands 2.3.2 Carbon Targets Five different carbon target levels were used in the course of the study. These were identified with the titles CARBLEV1 through CARBLEV5. The carbon targets in each scenario varied based upon land type (see 2 3.1) and type of carbon quantity restriction imposed (see 2.3 3) Thus, there were different carbon targets when the carbon constraint was expressed in terms of tons or in acres In addition, there were different targets for carbon on CRP lands as opposed to pastureland The same quantities were used for both CRP cases when acreage was targeted (i e , the targets were the same whether or not the pattern was constrained to follow the 11th sign up) Furthermore, only CARBLEV1 and 5 were used with the wetland analysis. This was done in an effort to "bound" the potential carbon sequestration costs and benefits that could be achieved from wetlands The specific targets used in millions of acres are shown, below, in Table 2-4 are. These targets were setup using the following procedure 1 ) Initial carbon target levels for land area were selected based on interaction with EPA, 2 ) The model was run to see if the target levels were feasible and to observe the associated carbon levels, 3 ) The highest level of targeting on CRP lands was adjusted down due to infeasibility (Note there are still problems with the CRP - CRPLAND scenario as in some southern states there is not enough CRP lands left to conform to the tree pattern and expand tree acres substantially). 4In some of the CRP scenarios, there was not enough CRP land available to satisfy this restriction When that happened cropland acres were used for planting, consistent with whatever types of constraints were imposed (see Section 2 4) RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-7 4.) The associated carbon levels for each target were incorporated for the tonnage targets. Table 2-4 Carbon and Acreage Targets Used in Scenarios Land Type CRP CRP PASTURE PASTURE WETLAND Restriction Type LAND' CARBQ LAND CARBQ LAND Unit 106 acres 106 tons C 106 acres 106 tons C 106 acres CARBLEV1 0 0 0 0 0 CARBLEV2 1 3 3 75 3 7 — CARBLEV3 63 15 15 179 — CARBLEV4 163 40 25 46.3 — CARBLEV5 18 15 45 50 103 4.57 ' Refers to all scenarios with land-based targets, including CRPLAND, CRPREG and LAND 2.3.3 Type of Restriction on Carbon Target Four different restrictions were imposed on the way in which the carbon targets could be achieved These assumptions were related to whether the target was land-based or carbon- based These restrictions were 1. CRPLAND - When the target is in acres conforming to the first through eleventh CRP sign ups for tree planting on a state by state basis (used with CRP land type only). 2 CRPREG - When the target is in acres conforming to CRP sign up for tree planting on a region by region basis (used with CRP land type only) 3. LAND - When the target is in acres, chosen anywhere by mean of least-cost optimization (used with all three land types). 4 CARBQ - When the target is in tons of carbon, chosen anywhere by means of least-cost optimization (used with CRP and pastureland types) The four assumptions are progressively less restrictive in the way the impinge upon the ability to achieve the most cost-effective afforestation regime The first assumption (CRPLAND) is RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-8 the most restrictive, because it requires that afforestation according to a fixed acreage distribution, by state. Other things being equal, an afforestation regime that follows this assumption will have the highest average cost per ton of carbon, because it leaves the least amount of latitude as to where trees can be planted. The second assumption (CRPREG) is a bit less restrictive. Although, the acreage distribution is constant, it is now maintained at the regional instead of the state level, so more flexibility exists for the planting of trees. Of the three land-based targets, the LAND assumption is the least restrictive because it allows land to be planted on both cropland and pastureland and because it imposes no geographic distribution on the selection of those acres The CARBQ assumption is the least restrictive from an optimization perspective and, other things equal should lead to the lowest average cost per ton of carbon. However, the average cost of carbon for the CARBQ and the LAND assumptions will probably not be very large for two reasons. First, the distinction between land- and carbon-based targets is blurred somewhat due to the methodology used to select the targets themselves (Section 2 3 2) and, second, the carbon targets are not very large and this reduces the impact of any particular factor on the average cost of carbon 2.3.4 Type of Harvesting Allowed Trees on carbon lands were examined under two different harvesting assumptions, as follows: 1 NONE - When the trees are not harvested, and 2. OPTIONAL - When the trees could be harvested The no harvesting assumption is straightforward The harvesting option assumption requires a bit of elaboration Under this scenario, the model simulates the decision faced by farmers in each region to both plant and harvest trees, based on economic considerations If the stumpage price (expressed in terms of carbon) is greater than the marginal harvest cost (expressed in terms of carbon) plus the marginal cost of carbon, then farmers will harvest trees at the level that is economically efficient Once the net5 stumpage price (expressed in terms of carbon) falls below the marginal cost of carbon, farmers no longer have an incentive to harvest trees Thus, as simulated stumpage prices fall, harvesting will tend to decrease and the amount of land required to sequester a given amount of carbon will decrease relative to the situation where harvests are "forced", as in Adams et al (1993) Also, when trees are harvested on agricultural land, the resulting decrease in stumpage prices simulated within the model also causes trees to be harvested on private timber land This increase in harvest reduces the net level of carbon sequestration, and thus more land must be planted to offset this loss in carbon sNet price = marginal price - marginal cost. RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-9 2.3.5 Farm Program Provisions The ASM/TAMM model has the capability to simulate the effects of the most important features of the current farm bill on the agricultural sector. The procedures for doing this and the specific farm programs included in the ASM/TAMM model are described in Chang et al (1992) The continuing debates over the budget deficit along with the upcoming revision in the farm program provisions led to the analysis being conducted under six different farm program provision scenarios The scenarios considered dealt with the full 1990 farm program, farm program elimination and four farm program reduction alternatives. The farm program reductions dealt with target price, loan rate and acreage diversion payment reductions so that the amount spent on the farm program was reduced by a given percentage. The target percentages were 10 and 25 percent These reductions were represented in the model in two different ways 1 ) by across-the-board reductions in all prices and 2) by percentage reductions in the deficiency payments To illustrate the difference in these two approaches consider the following example. If the target price for a commodity is $4 and the associated deficiency payment is $1, then a 10 % reduction across-the-board in all prices would reduce the target price to $3 60, while the deficiency payment-based reduction would lower the price to $3 90 To implement these assumptions, ASM/TAMM was solved by progressively lowering loan rates or deficiency payments until 10% and 25% less was being expended on the farm program than in the base model solution The resulting six scenarios are defined as follows 1 ) 1990PRO - 1990 full farm program, 2 ) 1990PR-10T - 10% program cost reduction, across board based, 3 ) 1990PR-25T - 25% program cost reduction - across board based, 4 ) 1990PR-10D - 10% program cost reduction - deficiency pay. based, 5 ) 1990PR-25D - 25% program cost reduction - deficiency pay based, and 6 ) NONE - Farm program eliminated The specific program price provisions used in this case are shown in Table 2-5 Based on prior experience, the two - 10% reductions were not run for the WETLAND analyses RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-10 Table 2-5 Farm Program: Diversion Payments, Target Prices and Loan Rates by Farm Program Scenario (S/unit) Scenario Crop Units Diversion Payment Target Price Loan Rate 1QQflPR O rOTTDN tons n nnnnn 149 9nooo 741 1000 19QOPRO TORN hn n 7inoo 775000 1 57000 100f)PR O SOYRFANS hn 0 00000 0 00000 4 48000 1990PRO WHF.AT hn 1 60100 4 00000 1 95000 1990PRO SORGHUM hn 0 65000 7 61000 1 49000 1990PRO RTOF. hn 0 00000 10 71000 6 50000 1990PRO R ART FY hi i 0 57000 716000 1 17000 1990PRO OATS hn 016000 1 45000 0 85000 1990PR-10T rOTTDN tons o nnooo 147 10080 718 50080 1990PR-10T CORN hn 0 70800 7 77.800 1 548 1990PR-10T SOYRFANS hn 0 00000 n nnnoo 4 48000 1990PR-10T WHF.AT hn 1 56900 1 96800 1 91800 1990PR-10T SORfiHTTM hn 0 06791? 7 58917 1 46917 1990PR-10T RTCF. hn 0 00000 10 67417 6 41417 1990PR-10T RART.FY hn 0 551 1? 714117 1 10117 1990PR-10T OATS hn 014840 1 41840 0 81840 1990PR-75T rOTTON tons 0 00000 144 7168 715 47168 1990PR-25T CORN hn 0 68380 7 70180 1 52180 1990PR-75T SOYRFANS hn 0 00000 0 00000 4 48 1990PR-75T WHF.AT hn 1 51180 1 91780 1 R8280 1990PR-75T SORfrHT IM hn 0 60615 7 56615 1 44615 1990PR-7ST RTCF. hn 0 00000 10 51007 617007 1990PR-75T RART FY hn 0 51015 717015 1 78015 1990PR-7ST OATS hn 011564 1 42564 0 87.564 199nPR-10n rOTTON tnns 0 00000 148 10400 7.19 70400 1990PR-10D CORN hn 071181 7. 71181 1 55181 i99npR-inr> SOYRFANS hn o noooo n nonnn 4 48000 i990PR-inn WHF.AT hn 1 55196 1 95796 1 90796 i99nPR-inn SORGHTTM hn 0 61045 7 59045 1 47045 i99npR-inn RTPF hn 0 00000 10 57575 616525 i99nPR-inn RART FY hn 06111 7 15111 1 11111 1990PR-10D OATS hn 014864 1 41864 0 81864 1990PR-75D POTTON tnn<; 0 00000 145 96785 71716785 1990PR-75D CORN hn 0 69016 2 71016 1 51016 1990PR-75O SOYRFANS hn 0 00000 0 00000 4 48000 1990PR-25D WHF.AT hn 1 48511 1 88411 1 81411 1990PR-25O SOROHTTM hn 0 60181 7 56181 1 44181 199nPR-?SD RTPF hn o nnnnn in178n7 6 168n RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-11 Tahle 2-5 fCnnt/k Scenario Crop units T>iv. Pmnt. Target T.nan Rate iQQnPR.?/5n R ART.FY hn 0 S4Rfi1 7 -nRfil 1 79861 1990PR-7.Sn OATS hu n -mm 1 47701 0 87.7.01 NONF. COTTON tons o ooooo 0 000000 0 00000 NONF. CORN hn o ooooo 0 00000 0 00000 NONF. SOYRF.ANS hu 0 00000 0 00000 0 00000 NONF. whf.at hn 0 00000 0 00000 0 00000 NONF. SORGHUM hu 0 00000 0 00000 0 00000 NONF RTPF hn o ooono 0 00000 0 00000 NONF. R ART.FY hn 0 00000 0 00000 0 00000 NONF. OATS hn 0 00000 0 00000 0 00000 2.3.6 Scenario Summary Combining the farm program alternatives with the harvest options, carbon target levels and the land type - carbon quality restriction alternatives results in 384 scenarios that were run using the ASM/TAMM model. The specific breakdown of these scenarios is as follows 1. CRP Scenarios (240) The scenarios which used CRP land involved varying the five carbon targets over, (a) all four types of restrictions on carbon quantities, (b) two types of harvesting options, and (c) six farm program provisions, for a total of 240 scenarios 2. Pasture Scenarios (120) The scenarios which used pastureland involved varying the five carbon targets over, (a) two types of restrictions on carbon quantities (LAND and CARBQ), (b) two types of harvesting options, and (c) six farm program provisions, for a total of 120 scenarios. 3. Wetland Scenarios (24) The scenarios which used wetlands involved varying two of carbon targets (CARBLEV1 and CARBLEV5) over (a) the LAND restriction on carbon quantities, (b) two types of harvesting options, and (c) six farm program provisions, for a total of 24 scenarios Detailed results for all of the scenarios are presented in Appendix A 2.4 ASSUMPTIONS In any analysis of this magnitude and complexity a number of standardizing and simplifying assumptions must be made for the analysis to be at all tractable The major assumptions in the scenarios are as follows RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-12 1. All activities are appraised with respect to 1990 economic decision environment. This is done because we already have information about the 1990 environment. Any changes one might look at, say in an environment twenty years from now could easily be overshadowed by the effects of assumptions required to "set up" the environment 20 years from now inside of ASM/TAMM 2 Since ASM/TAMM is a static model, all of the results assume that trees are planted in a single time period Similarly, all the opportunity cost and program cost results are incurred in a single period.6 3. The analysis assumes the quantity of CRP lands that are available are those observed in the 11th sign up 4 All of the analyses reported in this report were performed under the assumption that the CRP lands are allowed to come back into production 5 It is assumed that farmers are fully compensated for all economic losses when growing trees 6 Carbon sequestration increments (i e , yields) are averaged over the rotation period 7 In the no harvesting cases, no carbon is lost, since the forests are assumed to grow in perpetuity In the harvesting optional cases, only the carbon stored in non-merchantable timber is assumed to be lost 8 The productivity of CRP lands for planting trees is the same as for non-CRP cropland The first two assumptions are related to the fact that ASM/TAMM is a static model- the solutions it generates are for a single period The underlying data in the model, reflecting yields, fixed costs and the technology of agricultural production, and farm program provisions, are based on data averaged for 1990 These data are not changed in model runs Since ASM/TAMM is a static model, it does not deal particularly well with programs that "phase in" resources over Ume If one wants to simulate a program to plant ten million acres of trees over a five year period, for example, then the best way to approach this using ASM/TAMM is to assume that the model is solving a five-year problem in a single period Using this assumption, one would require the model to select the least cost allocation of 'However, note that, as previously stated, planting costs used in the model are discounted RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-13 resources consistent with planting trees on ten million acres in a single period. This type of approach was maintained throughout all of the simulations. The third assumption simply reflects the fact that, since the CRP program is still in use, one must make some assumption about the amount of land that is in CRP. Since data were available on the first through eleventh sign ups, this information was used to fix CRP acreage. Using this approach, total CRP acreage is fixed at about 36 million acres, of which about 3 million acres is currently planted in trees, with the remainder planted in grassland The fourth assumption is central to the analysis It means, effectively, that two sets of important policy events are occurring at the same time. First, trees are being planted Second, CRP lands can go back into production, if it is profitable for them to do so. Thus, some of the CRP land that is coming back into production is allocated to crops and some is allocated to trees It is also possible that some land that is not CRP land will be allocated to growing trees in some of the scenarios In each scenario, the allocation of all lands (not just CRP lands) to tree growing is made, based on the comparative advantage of each acre represented in the model in growing many alternative crops vs growing trees This optimization is subject to scenario conditions that a certain amount of land must be allocated to growing trees, or a certain amount of carbon must be produced, depending upon the type of scenario. The fact that this study looks jointly at the release of CRP lands and tree planting has at least two very important consequences First, it makes it somewhat difficult to compare the results of this study with the results of earlier tree growing studies prepared by the authors (Adams et al, 1993, Callaway et al. 1993A and 1993B). In these studies, CRP land was not included in the land base, and the economic effects and costs of tree planting, alone, were investigated Second, combining these two sets of policy events tends to make it difficult to isolate the costs and market impacts associated with one of the two sets of events in a partial-analysis7 framework For example, if the effects of tree planting on consumer surplus are examined in isolation, it is easy to show that consumer surplus must decrease as a result of higher food prices when cropland is displaced by trees At the same time, it is also easy to show that consumer surplus must increase if CRP lands are allowed to revert to crops, since this lowers food prices These two effects are in the opposite direction Thus, when the policies are combined, it is difficult to know not only the direction in which consumer surplus will move, but also the magnitude of the change due to each policy. These kinds of "confounded" results, which are both very difficult to explain and for which there is no basis for comparison (l e to other studies), are present throughout the results of this analysis The fifth assumption reflects the way the analyses were performed All of the policies were modeled in ASM/TAMM by introducing land or carbon constraints in the form of targets (See 7Partial analysis refers to the isolation of the effects of a single factor, holding all other factors constant RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Models, Data, and Scenarios ~ 2-14 Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3) As such, the policies were not driven by any fiscal assumptions regarding the terms and conditions of enrollment and payments. The underlying assumption, embedded in the model, is that all decisions are made based on the economic objective of profit maximization on the part of producers and land owners and utility maximization on the part of consumers. Thus, we are forced to assume implicitly one of two things, either: 1.) farmers were actually forced to grow trees, without compensation - which is unrealistic, or 2.) farmers were compensated at the margin for all the opportunity costs (or economic losses) associated with switching from income producing crops, or rent-generating CRP lands, to tree planting8. Assumption six reiterates a point, already made, about carbon yields. Whereas tree biomass generally tends to follow the shape of a logistic curve, the increments assumed in this study are constant over a rotation length The use of average annual carbon increments tends to overstate carbon sequestration rates at early tree ages and to understate sequestration rates at harvest ages Assumption seven covers the carbon accounting assumptions in the ASM/TAMM model. In fact, when trees are harvested, carbon in the merchantable fraction starts to decrease as the harvested wood is transformed into products and these products undergo further transformations of various sorts in their respective life cycles Also, the biomass in non- merchantable timber that is not immediately burnt also decays over time slowly The assumption used here represents an effort to balance the two sources of decay in a static modeling framework Assumption eight means that the carbon and wood yields are identical on both CRP and non- CRP land This assumption was driven by the fact that only one set of yields were available to perform the analysis This has several implications for the results. Since the opportunity cost of CRP land in the model was less than or equal to comparable cropland, and because yields and tree planting costs were the same across CRP and non-CRP cropland, tree planting would always occur first on CRP land In that sense, the CRP restriction was redundant in some scenarios. If the CRP restriction became binding in any of the scenarios before a specific land or carbon target was achieved, the model made up the difference by using non- CRP cropland acres The terms CRP land and cropland are some times used interchangeably in the text as a result Mn other words, farmers are fully compensated both for their planting costs and their lost agricultural rents As stated previously all costs are annualized over a 40 year period assuming A 10% discount rate. RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Chapter 3 Results This chapter presents the results of the simulations described in the previous section. In all, over 350 computer simulations were conducted with the ASM/TAMM model Information from these simulations was tracked for 35 different variables The full results of the simulations are contained in 84 tables in Appendix A We have used the information in Appendix A to construct the tables that appear in this chapter of the report The discussion of the results is divided into five parts First, we present a list of variable names and definitions used in the tables in this chapter and Appendix A Our strategy in the remaining sections is to present and discuss the results of this study regarding the effects of the assumptions about land type, type of restriction on carbon quantity, farm programs, and harvesting on the following ~ Net carbon sequestration, ~ Acreage used to sequester carbon, ~ The prices of carbon and land, ~ Net welfare and the opportunity cost of programs, and ~ Government program costs, both for farm and tree planting programs The consequences of varying land type are discussed in Section 3 2 Section 3.3 covers the effects of varying the type of carbon target used in the analysis, while Section 3 4 discusses the effects of the different harvesting assumptions Finally, Section 3 5 reviews the implications of having different farm program levels. 3.1 Variable Names and Definitions A number of items were selected from the total ASM/TAMM output for inclusion here The items can be grouped into four categories The categories and items are discussed below 3.1.1 Welfare and Government Cost Measures A number of measures are reported on welfare and government cost These include consumer and producer surplus measures for the agricultural and forestry sectors as well as foreign net RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- results ~ 3-2 surplus and summary measures All the items (variables) are reported in billions of 1990 dollars The items and their description are AGCONSSURP AGPROSURP FRCONSURP FRPROSURP DOMSURP FORSURP TOTSURP GOVTDFCOST GOVCARBCS TOTGOVCS NETSURP PSURSOUTH PSURPNW PSURMIDWST PSURJELSEWR Agricultural Consumers' Surplus ($billion/yr) Agricultural Producers' Surplus ($billion/yr) Forest Product Consumers' Surplus ($billion/yr) Traditional Forest Producers' Surplus (for those in the Forestry Sector) ($billion/yr) Sum of all of the above surpluses ($billion/yr) Net surplus of Foreign Interests ($billion/yr) Sum of Domestic and Foreign Surplus ($billion/yr) Government Borne Farm Program Cost ($billion/yr) Government Borne Carbon Program Cost (Formed by taking marginal cost of carbon times the quantity of carbon required) Total of the government payments (i e., costs) to farmers for farm programs and carbon ($billion/yr) Total Surplus minus total government payments (costs) ($billion/yr) Regional Producers' surplus in the South ($billion/yr) Regional Producers' surplus in the Pacific Northwest ($billion/yr) Regional Producers' surplus in the Midwest ($billion/yr) Regional Producers' surplus elsewhere ($billion/yr) 3.1.2 Price and Quantity Indices The price and quantity indices used in this study are known widely used and are presented in Fisher and Shell (1972) These indices are set up so that the index value of 100 represents the 1990 program without any carbon being sequestered, but with the CRP acreage potentially returning to production. PINDAGCROP QINDAGCROP PIND-LIVE QIND-LIVE PIND-FOR Fisher price index of raw agricultural crop prices not including farm program payments Fisher quantity index of raw agricultural crop production Fisher price index of livestock prices Fisher quantity index of livestock production Fisher price index of forest consumer prices for logs (note since total production equals total consumption and transport is modeled, this gives a index of prices to all forest producers at the mill dock) RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- RESULTS ~ 3-3 QEND-FORA Fisher quantity index of forestry product consumption and total production including ag additions and traditional forest production QIND-FORC Fisher quantity index of traditional forestry sector production 3.1.3 Carbon Variables The model also reports information about the following carbon-related variables: CARBONQ CARBONL CARBONAP CARBONLAP CARBSOUTH CARBMDDWST CARBPNW CARBELSEWR ACARSOUTH ACARMIDWST ACARPNW ACARELSEWR Average1 Quantity of Carbon Sequestered per year (million tons/yr) Acreage devoted to Carbon Sequestration (million acres) Average Price of Carbon (formed by dividing government carbon program cost by quantity sequestered)($/ton/yr)2 Average Price of an acre devoted to Carbon (formed by dividing government carbon program cost by acres devoted to sequestration)($/acre/yr)6 Carbon sequestered in the South (million tons/yr) Carbon sequestered in the Midwest (million tons/yr) Carbon sequestered in the Pacific Northwest (million tons/yr) Carbon sequestered elsewhere (million tons/yr) Carbon sequestration acres in the South (million acres) Carbon sequestration acres in the Midwest (million acres) Carbon sequestration acres in the Pacific Northwest (million acres) Carbon sequestration acres elsewhere (million acres) 3.1.4 Other Variables Other information produced in the course of this analysis by ASM includes CRP CRP acreage transformed back to crop land (million acres) 'All carbon quantities arc average annual increments of carbon 2When the scenario uses a carbon-based target, this is equal to the shadow price of carbon, however, when the scenario uses a land-based target it is not The appropriate shadow price in these scenarios is the shadow price of land (CARBONLAP) RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-4 3.2 Land Use Impacts In this Section, we examine the effects of land type (CRP land, pastureland, and wetlands) on carbon sequestration quantities, prices and costs For practical reasons, the number of scenarios examined in this chapter has been limited to those in which the LAND acreage restriction (unrestricted least cost land optimization) was used in combination with the 1990PRO farm program restriction (1990 farm programs are present) and the assumption that no trees are harvested. The choice of scenarios for this comparison was further dictated by the fact that the LAND acreage restriction was the only one used in common for all three land types - CRP land, pastureland and wetlands 3.2.1 Impacts on Carbon Sequestration, Carbon and Land Prices and Acreage Table 3-1 presents information about the effects of varying the type of land on which trees are planted on the following' ~ Acreage used to grow trees (CARBONL), ~ Average annual quantity of carbon sequestered (CARBONQ), ~ The average price of carbon (CARBONAP), and ~ The marginal price of land used to grow carbon (CARBONLAP) Table 3-1 is divided into three panels, each of which contains the values for the above variables under four different acreage levels (CARBLEV2 through CARBLEV 5) The analysis in all of the panels is performed assuming ~ Least-cost optimization of land, chosen anywhere (LAND), ~ 1990 farm programs are in place (1990PRO), and ~ No harvesting of trees All of the scenarios used in this table employ acreage-based carbon targets Thus, the acreage numbers reported in the first column of each panel in Table 3-1 were specified exogenously The carbon quantities and the carbon and land prices were simulated by ASM/TAMM. This table shows how the marginal cost (or price) of carbon and the amount of agricultural land used to sequester carbon vary over the seven carbon target levels for each of the four different sets of timber and carbon yields RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- results ~ 3-5 Table 3-1 EfTects of Varying Land Type Assumption on Carbon Quantities, the Average Price of Carbon, and the Marginal Price" of Land for Four Acreage-Based Carbon Levels (CARBLEV2-5), with Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND), 1990 Farm Programs and No Harvesting of Trees Carbon Level (Acreage-Based) Variable Name 2 3 4 5 Land Type. CRP land (CRP) CARBONL (106 a) 1 30 6 30 16 30 18 15 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 2 91 14.11 36.51 40 66 CARBONAP ($/T) 6 87 6 87 6 87 6 87 CARBONLAP ($/a) 15 39 15 39 15 39 15 39 Land Type Pastureland (PASTURE) CARBONL (106 a) 7 50 15 00 25 00 50 00 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 13 88 27 75 47 32 102 59 CARBONAP ($/T) 15 71 15 68 16 52 17 71 CARBONLAP ($/a) 29 06 29 00 31 26 36 34 Land Type Wetlands (WETLAND) CARBONL (106 a) NA NA NA 4 57 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) - - - 11 13 CARBONAP ($/T) - - - 6 32 CARBONL AP (S/a) - - - 15 39 ' Since all the scenanos, for which results are presented m this table, use an acreage-based target, the variable CARBONLAP represents the marginal cost (1 e , shadow price) of land in the ASM/TAMM solution RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-6 Figure 3-1 illustrates a hypothetical supply curve, or schedule, by the line OS. Each point on the supply curve for carbon (or land) represents the minimum cost to society (on the vertical axis) of producing the last ton of carbon associated with a specific carbon (or land) target (on the horizontal axis). The marginal cost results in Table 3-1 represent points on the hypothetical supply curve for carbon (or land) in Figure 3-1. For example, looking at the results in the first (CRP) panel for CARBLEV3 in Table 3-1, one can see that the marginal cost of land (CARBONL) associated with the 6.3 million acre land target on cropland is 6.87 $/acre/yr. This is also illustrated in Figure 3-1, where MC stands for the marginal cost and Q for the quantity of carbon sequestered.3 In ASM/TAMM, the marginal cost of carbon (or land) associated with a specific carbon target is computed as the change in the dollar value sum of consumer and producer surplus (in the objective function) as a result of adding the last ton of carbon (or land) This is a measure of the amount of money that the farmer who "grew" this last ton of carbon would have to be compensated for a ton of carbon (or an acre of land) so that he or she would be indifferent between producing the last ton of carbon or crops on his or her land The marginal cost estimates produced by ASM include both the annualized establishment cost of the trees required to sequester this carbon and changes in land rents, at the margin, due to the displacement of crops by carbon At low average levels of carbon sequestration, the marginal cost of carbon is dominated by establishment costs, however, as the carbon target increases and more and more land is forced out of agricultural production into carbon sequestration, the rent component begins to dominate With less land in agricultural production, each acre becomes more valuable than it was before, and this is reflected in higher rents, or agricultural land values It is important to understand that the changes that occur in the value of the objective function (i e , the maximand) in ASM incorporate both the establishment cost component and rental cost component, however, these changes are measured as changes in the sum of producer and consumer surplus The results in Table 3-1 indicate that the average annual amount of carbon sequestered on cropland ranges from 2 91 million tons/yr for 1.3 million acres to 40 66 million tons/yr for 18.15 million acres For pastureland, the comparable estimates range from 13 88 million tons/yr on 7 5 million acres to 102 59 million tons/yr on 50 million acres For wetlands, the results indicate that 11 13 million tons/yr of carbon can be sequestered on 4 57 million acres of land 3When a carbon constraint is used, the appropriate subsidy pnce is the marginal cost of carbon (CARBONAP) When an acreage based constraint is used the appropriate subsidy pnce, strictly speaking, is the marginal cost of land (CARBONLAP) However, note that the two variables are related systematically as follows CARBONAP = (CARBONL/CARBONQ)*CARBONLAP RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-7 Figure 3-1 Figure 1. Supply Curve for Carbon Marginal Cost/yr (MC) $/ton/yr MC o Tons of Carbon/yr RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- RESULTS ~ 3-8 The marginal cost of carbon estimates for both CRP land and wetlands, shown in Table 3-1, are lower than previously reported estimates in Adams et al. (1993) and in Callaway et al. (1993a and 1993b). In those studies, the marginal cost of sequestering 35 million tons/yr of carbon ranged from $12.26/ton/yr in Adams et al. (1993) to $15.78/ton/yr, using the same carbon yields as are used in this study4. By comparison, the marginal cost per ton of carbon for 36.51 million ton/yr target in Table 3-1 is $6.87/ton/yr. The marginal cost of carbon in the wetlands case for the single carbon target of 11.13 tons/yr is $6.32/ton/yr. Since this is a much lower carbon target, comparisons between studies in the wetlands case are difficult. However, in the cropland case, the lower marginal costs of carbon in Table 3-1 reflect the lower opportunity cost of CRP land. CRP lands used in production have a lower opportunity cost (i.e., lower land rents) than the cropland used in Adams et al The $6 87 figure largely reflects establishment costs of trees. The pastureland marginal cost of S16 52/ton/yr for a carbon target of 47.32 tons/yr is in line with the results in Callaway et al (1993b) However, this statement needs to be qualified, because the results of the earlier studies showed that carbon tended to concentrate on cropland at carbon targets of this magnitude. In these PASTURE scenarios, all of the trees that are planted to sequester carbon must be planted on pastureland Under these conditions, the marginal cost of carbon would be much higher, but for CRP reversion, which also tends to lower pastureland rents, indirectly The exogenous acreage targets (CARBONL) vary from land type to land type. This makes it difficult to compare carbon quantity results (CARBONQ) in this table across land types. Nevertheless, by dividing the average annual carbon sequestered in each land type by the amount of land required to sequester that carbon, one can see that differences in carbon sequestration rates across the three land types basically reflect differences in the underlying productivity of land On average, about 2 23 tons/acre/yr are sequestered on cropland. The comparable figures for pastureland and wetlands are about 1.85 tons/acre/yr and 2 43 tons/acre/yr, respectively This pattern reflects the underlying yield data in ASM/TAMM. The fact that all the scenarios depicted in Table 3-1 are based on least-cost optimization of acreage, and not carbon, has one interesting consequence As the amount of land that is "forced" into production in the model increases, the average carbon yield increases This is particularly evident for Carbon Level 5 on pastureland For Carbon Levels 2 through 4, the average annual carbon increment is about 1 85 tons/acre/yr However, at the highest level (when 50 million acres are required), this productivity increases to 2 05 (i e , 102.59/50). This pattern is consistent with the fact that the as yields increase, so do opportunity costs at the margin. 4Least cost carbon optimization was assumed, with no land constraints, in these previous studies. RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-9 The results in Table 3-1 indicate that, for carbon increments below about 5 million tons/yr, the subsidy prices5 on land that the government would have to pay to induce fanners to plant trees is lowest on wetlands and CRP land, amounting to about $15.39 per acre/yr. For carbon increments from 5 to about 20 million tons/yr, the optimal subsidy prices required to induce farmers to plant trees on CRP land are about fifty percent lower than the subsidy rates for trees on pastureland - $15 39/acre/yr for CRP land, as opposed to around $30/acre/yr on pastureland Since the land requirements for the CRP land scenarios, analyzed here, were truncated at 18 15 million acres/yr, comparisons across land types above this limit are not possible in this section. (Some additional comparisons for carbon-based targets are presented in Section 3.3) 3.2.2 Welfare and Fiscal Impacts Table 3-2 presents information about the effects of varying the type of land on which trees are planted on the following ~ Total consumer and producer surplus (TOTSURP), ~ The cost of government farm programs (GOVTDFCOST), ~ The government cost of subsidizing tree planting (GOVCARBCS), ~ Total government farm program and tree planting costs (TGOVCST), and ~ Net surplus, or total surplus, less all government costs in the farm of carbon and tree planting program payments (NETSURP) Table 3-2 is organized much like table 3-1 It is divided into three panels, each of which contains the values for the above variables under four different acreage levels (CARBLEV2 through CARBLEV5) The analysis in all of the panels is performed assuming- ~ Least-cost optimization of land, chosen anywhere (LAND), ~ 1990 farm programs are in place (1990PRO), and ~ No harvesting of trees Thus, the results in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 are consistent with each other 5As previously stated, the marginal cost of land (CARBONLAP) is the appropriate subsidy price to consider for scenarios with acreage-based targets RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-10 Table 3-2 Effects of Varying Land Type Assumption on Total Surplus, Government Farm Program Costs, Government Carbon Costs, Total Government Costs and Net Surplus for Five Acreage-Based Carbon Levels (CARBLEV1-5), with Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND), 1990 Farm Programs and No Harvesting of Trees, in Billions of Dollars Carbon Level (Acreage-Based) Variable Name 1 2 3 4 5 Land Type CRP land (CRP) TOTSURP 1144 48 1144 54 1144 55 1144.55 1144 55 GOVTDFCOST 9 35 9 42 9 42 9.42 9.42 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 02 0.10 0.25 0 28 TGOVCST 9 35 9 44 9 52 9.67 9.70 NETSURP 1135 13 1135.10 1135.04 1134 88 1134.85 Land Type Pastureland (PASTURE) TOTSURP 1144 48 1144 44 1144 51 1144 57 1144 82 GOVTDFCOST 9 35 9 34 9 39 941 9.50 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 22 0.44 0 78 1.82 TGOVCST 9 35 9.56 9 83 10.19 11 32 NETSURP 1135 13 1134 88 1134 68 1134 38 1133 50 Land Type Wetlands (WETLAND) TOTSURP 1144 19 NA NA NA 1144 21 GOVTDFCOST 9 08 - - - 9.08 GOVCARBCS 0 00 - - - 0 07 TGOVCST 9 08 - - - 9 15 NETSURP 1135 11 - - - 1135.06 RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- results >3-11 In ASM/TAMM, net social benefits are measured by sum of producer and consumer surplus in the agricultural and forest sectors minus government program payments6 to farmers (or NETSURP = TOTSURP - TGOVCST). What we will refer to as "the opportunity cost" of sequestering carbon at a given target level is the difference between the NETSURP value at a specific carbon or land target level and in the base case (here, CARBLEV1). The carbon production cost, represented by the variable GOVCARBCS, is a measure of the amount the government would have to pay fanners to sequester a given amount of carbon and is equal to the marginal cost of carbon times the carbon target level. The carbon production cost is a potential transfer payment, it does not measure welfare. However, if farmers are paid to sequester carbon, this transfer from taxpayers to farmers will have financial impacts on both groups. The distinction between these two measures - opportunity cost and carbon production cost - can be made clearer by referring back to Figure 1. There, the net social benefits associated with the 6 3 million acre target (CARBLEV3) on cropland are measured by the shaded area under the supply curve, or the area OMQ The net surplus associated with this area is equal to $1135.04 billion/yr Subtracting this amount from the base case (CARBLEV1) value of NETSURP ($1135 13 billion/yr) gives an opportunity cost to society of $0 09 billion/yr, or $90 million/yr The corresponding cost of producing carbon (GOVCARBCS), which we will refer to hereafter as the "carbon production cost", is equal to $0.10 billion/yr or $100 million/yr. This can be checked by turning back to Table 3-1 There, the carbon production cost can be calculated by multiplying the marginal price of carbon (CARBONLAP) times the land target (CARBONL)7. Doing so for CARBLEV3 yields a value of $96 97 million/yr, or roughly8 the $100 million/yr cited above In graphic terms, this amount includes both the area under the supply curve (i.e, the opportunity cost of carbon) plus the area above the supply but below the line drawn from the marginal cost to the point M on the supply curve, or the area OMCMQ This upper area has an interesting economic meaning This area represents a potential financial gain to farmers (and corresponding 6In ASM/TAMM, producer and consumer surpluses are measured at the prices which consumers pay for goods and the effective prices which farmers receive for goods When farm programs, of any kind, are present these prices are not the same, because of the wedge that farm program payments drive between target prices and market prices Therefore, these payments must be subtracted from the total surplus value This is equivalent to summing the values of consumer and producer surplus at the single, undistorted, market price and subtracting off the deadweight loss due to the program payment 7For a carbon-constrained scenario, the carbon production cost would equal the marginal cost of carbon (CARBONAP) times the amount of the carbon constraint (CARBONQ) 'Rounding of numbers in the tables creates some minor accounting errors, particularly in the rounding of the NETSURP estimates, which are presented in the tables in billions of dollars RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-12 financial loss to taxpayers) if the government subsidizes all of the acreage used to grow trees for carbon at the marginal cost of the last acre (i e, $15.39/acre/yr). If the government was able to subsidize farmers based on the marginal cost of each additional acre of land in Figure 1, then the carbon production cost would be equal to the opportunity cost of land. It is interesting to speculate about how such a payment scheme would be structured, but much harder to come with practical answers Finally, it is important to note that, unlike the opportunity cost measure, the carbon production cost is not a measure of welfare loss or gain. Instead, it measures the amount of money that the federal government would have to transfer from taxpayers to farmers, under a single-price system, to induce them to sequester a given amount of carbon. The results in Table 3-2 confirm those in Table 3-1. In general, it appears to be less costly to sequester carbon on wetlands (up to a point) and CRP land than on pastureland For example, CARBLEV5 is based on an 18.15 million acre target for cropland. At this acreage level, an average of 40 66 million tons of carbon are sequestered each year. The opportunity cost of this carbon is roughly $280 million/yr ($1134 85 billion - $1135.13 billion) The associated carbon production cost is also about $280 million9 We can compare these estimates to the scenario represented by CARBLEV3 for pastureland, for which the land target is 15 million acres, and the resulting carbon increment is 27.75 million tons/yr. The opportunity cost of carbon for this scenario is $450 million ($1134 68 billion - $1135 13 billion) This is about 1.6 times the magnitude of the opportunity cost of sequestering carbon on cropland, even though 13 million tons/yr less carbon (40 66 - 27.75) is sequestered The corresponding carbon production cost for the somewhat comparable pastureland case is $440 million/yr, again about 1 6 times the magnitude of the cost for the cropland case These opportunity cost and carbon production cost estimates are substantially below those reported in previous studies, cited above. For example, Callaway et al. (1993b) reports an opportunity cost of almost $500 million/yr and a carbon production cost of slightly more than $550 million/yr to sequester 35 million of tons of carbon. The comparable opportunity cost of carbon estimate for cropland at CARBLEV4 (36 51 million tons/yr) is $250 million/yr ($1134.88 billion - $1135 13 billion) The comparable carbon production cost for this case is also $250 million/yr, in other words about one-half the value reported in previous studies. Thus, an overwhelming conclusion of this study is that CRP reversion tends to lower carbon sequestration costs, fairly dramatically, due to the lower opportunity cost of growing trees on CRP land Some statement about the pattern of changes observed in government farm program costs is in order For two of the three land types in Table 3-2, cropland and pastureland, the variable 9In fact, the carbon production cost is less than the opportunity cost, but this is not captured because of rounding in the tables RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- results ~ 3-13 GOVTDFCOST increases Exactly why this occurs can be explained as the result of two, counter-acting forces First, planting trees on agricultural land has a tendency to reduce farm commodity support payments, as explained by Callaway and McCarl (1995 forthcoming) in their paper dealing with the welfare and fiscal impacts of substituting carbon payments for farm commodity subsidies. What happens is that planting trees on agricultural land will shift the supply curve for some agricultural crops to the left, making it more costly at the margin to supply a given level of output to the market This shift will tend to raise the consumer prices (i e, the subsidized, demand price) of agricultural commodities, reducing demand and narrowing the gap between target prices and consumer prices for subsidized crops, and lowering farm program payments Since both the subsidized quantity of goods supplied to the markets and the differential between target prices and consumer prices decrease, program payments (which is the product of the subsidized level of production and the price differential) must also fall However, this affect is apparently outweighed by two others Fist, CRP reversion has the effect of shifting supply curves for agricultural commodities to the right, causing higher production and lower prices, and higher support payments This effect increases with the amount or CRP land that reverts back to cropland and gets "covered" by other support programs. Moreover, shifts in land reverting occur across regions and have varying crop mix implications. Since the distribution of support payments is very uneven over crops, there may be incentives within the CRP reversion framework to shift crops on a high percentage of CRP land, or displace crops on other cropland, into subsidized commodities, where support prices are higher than market prices This would intensify the upward pressure of CRP reversion on support payments Apparently, the net effect of these two forces is strong enough to counteract the endogenous downward impact of tree planting on support payments Thus, government support payments increase To see the importance of the last effects, one can look in Appendix A at tables 1 and 37, or look ahead to Table 3-4A These tables contain results for the CRPLAND and CRPREG assumptions comparable to those in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 In these two scenarios, farm program costs decrease as the carbon/land target level is increased This is because the restrictions on tree planting dampen the shifting of crop mixes in favor of subsidized commodities 3.3 Impacts of Varying the Type of Constraints on Tree Planting In this section, we examine the effects of varying the type of constraint on tree planting/growing activities in ASM/TAMM As previously stated, four different types of restrictions were involved ~ CRPLAND - When the target is in acres conforming to the first through eleventh CRP sign ups for tree planting on a state by state basis (used with CRP land type RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-14 only); ~ CRPREG - When the target is in acres conforming to CRP sign up for tree planting on a region by region basis (used with CRP land type only); ~ LAND - When the target is in acres, chosen anywhere by mean of least-cost optimization (used with all three land types); or ~ CARBQ - When the target is in tons of carbon, chosen anywhere by means of least-cost optimization (used with CRP and pastureland types) For practical reasons, the number of scenarios examined in this chapter has been limited to those in which 1990 farm programs are present and no harvesting is allowed 3.3.1 Impacts on Carbon Sequestration, Carbon and Land Prices and Acreage Information about the effects of different types of carbon restrictions on carbon quantities, carbon and land prices, and the acreage allocated to tree growing is presented in Tables 3-3A and 3-3B The format of these two tables is basically the same as the format for Table 3-1. The only differences have to do with the number and type of scenarios included in these tables Specifically, Table 3-3A includes information about the effects of the four different types of restrictions for cropland cases, namely CRPLAND, CRPREG, LAND, and CARBQ. Table 3-3B includes information about the effects of the LAND and CARBQ constraints for pastureland and the effects of the LAND constraint for wetlands.10 Economic theory suggests that as the number of constraints on markets are reduced, the more efficiently these markets will operate Based on that principal, one would expect that among the acreage-based restrictions the CRPLAND scenarios would be less efficient than the CRPREG scenarios, and the CRPREG scenarios would, in turn, be less efficient than the LAND scenarios This is born out in Table 3-3A for the cropland cases The land targets (CARBLEV2-5) in each of the three acreage-constrained cases (CRPLAND, CRPREG, and LAND) are identical. For the first two types of acreage-based restrictions, the estimated carbon sequestration increments are identical at each of the four carbon levels However, the carbon and land prices are systematically lower in the CRPREG cases than they are under the CRPLAND-type constraints The differences are relatively small, but this simply reflects the fact that the carbon yield and cost l0Note that all of the LAND cases were reviewed in Tables 3-3A and B They were included, again, in Section 3 3 to show a complete range of effects across all the carbon restrictions RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- results ~ 3-15 Table 3-3A. Effects of Varying Type of Carbon Target on Acreage and Carbon Quantities and on the Marginal Prices1 of Carbon and Land on CRP land (CRP) for Four Carbon Levels (CARBLEV2-5), with 1990 Farm Programs and No Harvesting of Trees Carbon Level (Both Acreage- and Land-Based) Variable Name 2 3 4 5 Type of Carbon Target - State Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPLAND) CARBONL (IQ6 a) 1.30 6 30 16.30 18 15 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 3 23 15 65 40 48 45 07 CARBONAP (S/T) 21 40 21 98 22.41 22 61 CARBONLAP ($/a) 53 15 54 59 55 65 56.15 Type of Carbon Target - Region-Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPREG) CARBONL (106 a) 1 30 6 30 16.30 18.15 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 3 23 15 65 40 48 45 07 CARBONAP ($/T) 21 36 21 61 22 2 22 21 CARBONLAP ($/a) 53 06 53 66 55 12 55 16 Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) CARBONL (10s a) 1 30 6 30 16 30 18 15 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 291 14 11 3651 40 66 CARBONAP ($/T) 6 87 6 87 6 87 6 87 CARBONLAP ($/a) 15 39 15 39 15 39 15 39 Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Carbon Optimization (CARBQ) CARBONL (106 a) 1 34 6 70 17 86 20 09 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 3 00 15 00 40 00 45 00 CARBONAP ($/T) 6 87 6 87 6 87 6 87 CARBONLAP ($/a) 15.39 15.39 15 39 15 39 •When acreage based constraints (CRPLAND, CRPREG, LAND) CARBONLAP represents the marginal cost (1 e , shadow price) of land When the carbon-based constraint (CARBQ) is used, then CARBONAP represents the marginal cost (i e , shadow price) of carbon RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-16 Table 3-3B. Effects of Varying Type of Carbon Target on Acreage and Carbon Quantities and on the Marginal Prices* of Carbon and Land on Pastureland (PASTURE) and Wetlands (WETLAND) for Four Carbon Levels (CARBLEV2-5), with 1990 Farm Programs and No Harvesting of Trees Carbon Level (Acreage-Based) Variable Name 2 3 4 5 Land Type Pastureland (PASTURE) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) CARBONL (106 a) 7 50 15 00 25.00 50.00 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 13 88 27 75 47.32 102 59 CARBONAP ($fl) 15 71 15 68 16 52 1771 CARBONLAP ($/a) 29 06 29.00 31.26 36.34 Land Type Pastureland (PASTURE) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Carbon Optimization (CARBQ) CARBONL (106 a) 1 64 7 91 20 15 49 20 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 3 70 17 90 46 30 103 00 CARBONAP ($/T) 13 57 15 65 15 66 16 42 CARBONLAP ($/a) 30 67 35 44 36 00 34 37 Land Type Wetlands (WETLAND) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) CARBONL (106 a) NA NA NA 4 57 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) - - - 11 13 CARBONAP ($/T) - - - 6 32 CARBONLAP ($/a) - - - 15 39 'When acreage based constraints (CRPLAND, CRPREG, LAND) CARBONLAP represents the marginal cost (1 e , shadow pncc) of land When the carbon-based constraint (CARBQ) is used, then CARBONAP represents the marginal cost (i e , shadow pnce) of carbon. RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- results ~ 3-17 data in ASM/TAMM vary by region and not by state. Therefore, the adjustments in resource allocation under the two sets of constraints was relatively minor, reflecting differences in sub- region agricultural comparative advantages. The differences in resource allocation are much more dramatic under the LAND constraint When the acreage restriction was relaxed so that land could be used anywhere in the U S , based entirely on considerations of least-social cost, the locus of tree planting (not shown in these tables) shifted dramatically. Under the CRPLAND and CRPREG restrictions, the acreage distribution of trees planted to sequester carbon was forced to conform to the CRP distribution of land for tree planting in the first through eleventh sign up. This land is concentrated primarily in the Southeast and the Cornbelt Under the LAND restriction, this distribution changed Instead, the trees were planted in the Northeast, Appalachia and the Great Planes. This occurred because the opportunity cost of land in these regions was substantially lower than in the Southeast and the Cornbelt, while the carbon yields were only somewhat lower. Thus, CRP land in the Southeast and Midwest reverted to crops, not trees, based on the principle of comparative advantage The fact that the LAND restriction is more efficient does not imply that more carbon can be sequestered. In fact, at each target level less carbon was sequestered under the LAND scenarios than under either the CRPLAND or CRPREG scenarios The lower sequestration rates reflect the placement of the trees in the Northeast and the Appalachian regions. However, the prices of carbon and land, CARBONAP and CARBONLAP respectively, are much lower in each of the LAND scenarios On average, the carbon and land price values for the CRPLAND and CRPREG scenarios are around $22 per ton/yr and $55 per acre/yr, respectively. In the LAND cases, the comparable prices are $6 87 per ton/yr and $15 39 per acre/yr The imposition of a carbon constraint (CRPREG) in place of a land constraint did not have any effect on carbon or land prices While the carbon and land levels different somewhat across these cases, the prices of carbon and land were the same $6 87 per ton/yr and $15.39 per ton/yr. Only the LAND and CARBQ constraints were used in the pastureland scenarios, the results for which are shown in Table 3-3B However, the target levels for carbon and land that were used for the pastureland cases were different than those employed in the CRP land cases This makes it difficult to compare the two sets of cases for pastureland in Table 3-3B with those for cropland in Table 3-3A. In general, however, both the carbon and land prices are about two times higher in the pastureland cases than in the cropland cases, at roughly equivalent carbon and/or land levels Within the two pastureland cases, the effects of varying the type of restriction from a land- to a carbon-based restriction are quite small Since the land and carbon amounts in these two cases are roughly equivalent, this is to be expected Generally speaking, the carbon and land prices are lower under the carbon than under the land constraints, implying greater flexibility in RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-18 the least-cost carbon optimization 3.3.2 Welfare and Fiscal Impacts The simulated effects of varying the type of carbon restriction on welfare and government costs are presented in tables 3-4A and 3-4B The welfare and fiscal accounting in the two tables is identical to that in Table 3-2, while the presentation of the various scenarios matches the structure of Tables 3-3A and 3-3B. Based on the economic efficiency considerations outlined in Section 3.3.1, one would expect that the relaxing of acreage constraints within the ASM/TAMM model would lead to lower opportunity costs, as well as reduced carbon production costs. This pattern is evident in Table 3-4A for the scenarios that employed the three acreage-based constraints, CRPLAND, CRPREG, and LAND For example, in the case of CARBLEV4 (16 3 million acres), the carbon production cost drops steadily as the type of land constraint is relaxed For the CRPLAND case, the carbon production cost at CARBLEV4 is $910 million/yr, for the CRPREG case it falls to $900 million/yr, while for the LAND case, the least constrained of all, this value is $250 million/yr The opportunity cost of carbon follows the same pattern in the CARBLEV4 cases, dropping from $1 08 billion/yr (1134.05 billion - 1135.13 billion) in the CRPLAND case to $1.06 billion/yr in the CRPREG case, all the way down to just $250 million/yr in the LAND case By the same token, the differences in the opportunity cost of carbon and the carbon production cost for the LAND, shown previously in Table 3-2, and the CARBQ cases are very small This reflects the fact that the land and quantity constraints in each are nearly identical Another pattern that emerges fairly clearly from the data in Table 3-4A is a consistent decrease in the cost of existing farm programs (GOVTDFCOST) in the CRPLAND and CRPREG scenarios Earlier, it was explained that there are a number of forces at work in these scenarios which make it very difficult to explain fluctuations in farm program costs However, from a theoretical standpoint when trees are forced onto CRP land, as is the case in these two sets of scenarios, then farm program payments, exclusive of tree planting programs) should increase The reason for this is that when CRP acreage reverts, commodity production goes up, consumer prices go down, and government price support payments should go up. However, as Callaway and McCarl have shown elsewhere (1995), there is a counter-acting effect due to tree planting, which shifts the supply curves of agricultural commodities to the left, reducing both agricultural commodity production and the difference between target prices and consumer prices This effect dominates and leads to lower farm commodity support payments Thus, in the CRPLAND cases, the cost of government farm program payments drops from $9.35 billion/yr in the base case (CARBLEV1) to $8 43 billion/yr at CARBLEV5. The same pattern prevails for the CRPREG cases, as well, although it is smaller RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~3-19 Table 3-4A. Effects of Varying Type of Carbon Target on Total Surplus, Government Farm Program Costs, Government Carbon Costs, Total Government Costs and Net Surplus on CRP land (CRP) for Five Carbon Levels (CARBLEV1-5) with 1990 Farm Programs and No Harvesting of Trees, in Billions of Dollars (Sbillion) Carbon Level (both Acreage- and Land-Based) Variable Name 1 2 3 4 5 Type of Carbon Target - State Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPLAND) TOTSURP 1144 48 1144 61 1144 1143 51 1143 4 GOVTDFCOST 9 35 9 46 8 97 8.55 8 43 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 07 0 34 091 102 TGOVCST 9 35 9 53 931 9 46 9 45 NETSURP 1135 13 1135 08 1134 69 1134 05 1133 95 Type of Carbon Target - Region-Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPREG) TOTSURP 1144 48 1144 52 1144 21 1143 5 1143 49 GOVTDFCOST 9 35 9 37 9 14 8 53 85 GOVCARBCS 0 00 007 0 34 0 90 1 00 TGOVCST 9 35 9 44 9 48 9 43 9 50 NETSURP 1135 13 1 135 08 1134 73 1134 07 1133 99 Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) TOTSURP 1144 48 1144 54 1144 55 1144 55 1144 55 GOVTDFCOST 935 9 42 9 42 9 42 9 42 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 02 0 10 0 25 0 28 TGOVCST 9 35 9 44 9 52 9 67 9 70 NETSURP 1135 13 1135 1 1135 03 1134 88 1134 85 Type of Carbon Target • Least-Cost Carbon Optimization (CARBQ) TOTSURP 1144 48 1144 55 1144 55 1144 56 1144 56 GOVTDFCOST 9 35 9 42 9 42 9 42 9 42 GOVCARBCS 000 0 02 0 10 0 27 031 TGOVCST 9 35 9 44 9 52 9 69 9 73 NETSURP 1135 13 1135 11 1135 03 1134 87 1134 83 RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-20 Table 3-4B. Effects of Varying Type of Carbon Target on Total Surplus, Government Farm Program Costs, Government Carbon Costs, Total Government Costs and Net Surplus on Pastureland (PASTURE) and Wetlands (WETLAND) for five Carbon Levels (CARBLEV) 1-5 with 1990 Farm Programs and No Harvesting of Trees, in Billions of Dollars Carbon Level (Both Acreage- and Land-Based) Vanable Name 1 2 3 4 5 Land Type Pastureland (PASTURE) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) TOTSURP 1144 48 1144 44 1144 51 1144.57 1144 82 GOVTDFCOST 9 35 9 34 9 39 9.41 9.50 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 22 0 44 0.78 1 82 TGOVCST 9 35 9 56 9 83 10.19 11.32 NETSURP 1135 13 1134 88 1134 68 1134 38 1133.50 Land Type Pastureland (PASTURE) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Carbon Optimization (CARBQ) TOTSURP 1144 48 1144 73 1144 78 1144 82 1144 76 GOVTDFCOST 9 35 9 60 9 62 9 62 951 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 05 0 28 0.73 1 69 TGOVCST 9 35 9 65 9 90 10.35 11 20 NETSURP 1135 13 1134 08 1134 88 1134.47 1133 56 Land Type Wetlands (WETLAND) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) TOTSURP 1144 19 NA NA NA 1144 21 GOVTDFCOST 9 08 - - - 9 08 GOVCARBCS 0 00 - - - 0.07 TGOVCST 9 08 - - - 9.15 NETSURP 1135 11 - - - 1135.06 RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-21 However, in the two unconstrained cases (LAND and CARBQ), government support payments increase as the carbon/land targets increase In these two scenarios, the effect of having CRP land revert back to crop production dominates This effect is intensified because crop mixes are freer to shift in these two scenarios to take advantage of the higher support prices and loan rates offered by government programs. Table 3-4B shows how varying the type of carbon restriction influences economic welfare and government costs on pastureland and wetlands. Because more land (or carbon) is required in the pastureland cases, both the opportunity costs of carbon and the carbon production costs are higher than in the cropland cases Within the two sets of pastureland cases - LAND and CAJRBQ - it is most instructive to compare the results for CARBLEV4, since the land and carbon levels are about the same in this case. As one would expect from the results in Table 3-3B, the differences are quite small, although the opportunity cost of carbon is slightly smaller under the carbon constraint ($1134 47 billion - $1135 13 billion = - $660 million/yr) than it is for the land constraint ($1134 38 billion - $1135.13 billion = - $750 million/yr) In addition, the pattern of change in government farm program costs is not easy to explain, given the various forces at work 3.4 Impacts of Varying the Harvesting Assumptions In this Section we relax the assumption that trees are not harvested and examine the effects of allowing landowners to harvest trees, based on economic considerations Specifically, timber harvests would occur in ASM/TAMM when the net stumpage price (expressed in terms of carbon) was greater than the shadow price of carbon If the stumpage price fell below the harvest cost, then farmers would no longer have an incentive to harvest trees, and planting would occur instead Again, for practical reasons, the number of scenarios examined in this chapter has been limited to those in which 1990 farm programs are present 3.4.1 Impacts on Carbon Sequestration, Carbon and Land Prices and Acreage Information about the effects of different types of carbon restrictions on carbon quantities, carbon and land prices, and the acreage allocated to tree growing is presented in Tables 3-5A and 3-5B The format of these two tables is identical to the format for Tables 3-3A and 3-3B The only difference between these two sets of Tables is that Tables 3-3A and 3-3B assume that no harvesting takes place, while Tables 3-5A and 3-5B assume harvests are optional By comparing the information in these two tables, one can gauge the magnitude of the impacts of varying the harvesting assumption on carbon and land quantities and prices RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-22 Table 3-5A. Effects of Optional Timber Harvests on Acreage and Carbon Quantities and on the Marginal Prices* of Carbon and Land on CRP land (CRP) for Four Carbon Levels (CARBLEV2-5), with 1990 Farm Programs, Optional Harvests Caibon Level (Both Acreage- and Land-Based) Vanable Name 2 3 4 5 Type of Caibon Target - State Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPLAND) CARBONL (10® a) 1 30 6.30 16.30 18.15 CARBONQ (10s T/yr) 2.60 12 61 32.64 36.34 CARBONAP ($/T) 9 42 11.92 14 42 15 03 CARBONLAP ($/a) 18 87 23 86 28.87 30.09 Type of Caibon Target - Region-Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPREG) CARBONL (106 a) 1 30 6 30 16 30 18.15 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 2 60 1261 32 64 36.34 CARBONAP ($/T) 9 11 11 61 13.88 14 69 CARBONL AP (S/a) 18 25 23 24 27 78 29.41 Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) CARBONL (10s a) 1 30 6.30 16 30 18.15 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 2 42 11 72 30 32 33 76 CARBONAP (S/T) 3.56 4 98 6.25 6.69 CARBONL AP (S/a) 661 9 26 11 62 12 44 Type of Caibon Target - Least-Cost Carbon Optimization (CARBQ) CARBONL (106 a) 1 61 8 06 21 05 23 27 CARBONQ (10s T/yr) 300 15 00 40 00 45.00 CARBONAP (S/T) 3 66 5.19 6.89 6.87 CARBONL AP (S/a) 68 9 65 13 09 13.29 'When acreage based constraints (CRPLAND, CRPREG, LAND) CARBONLAP represents the marginal cost (i e., shadow price) of land When the carbon-based constraint (CARBQ) is used, then CARBONAP represents the marginal cost (i e , shadow pnct) of carbon RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-23 Table 3-5B. Effects of Optional Harvests on Acreage and Carbon Quantities and on the Marginal Prices'of Carbon and Land on Pastureland (PASTURE) and Wetlands (WETLAND) for four Carbon Levels (CARBLEV2-5), Optional Harvests Carton Level (Acreage-Based) Variable Name 2 3 4 5 Land Type. Pastureland (PASTURE) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) CARBONL (106 a) 7 50 15 00 25 00 50 00 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 13 96 28 06 46.28 85 70 CARBONAP ($/T) 6 62 7.79 13.89 17 38 CARBONLAP ($/a) 12 33 14 58 25 71 29 8 Land Type. Pastureland (PASTURE) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Carbon Optimization (CARBQ) CARBONL (106 a) 2 04 9 59 24 72 53.71 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 3 70 17.90 46 3 103 00 CARBONAP ($/T) 5.27 6 84 14 8 15 72 CARBONLAP ($/a) 9 55 12 77 27 72 30 14 Land Type Wetlands (WETLAND) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) CARBONL (106 a) NA NA NA 4 57 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) - - - 8 92 CARBONAP ($/T) - - - 4 44 CARBONLAP ($/a) - - - 8 66 "When acreage based constraints (CRPLAND, CRPREG, LAND) CARBONLAP represents the marginal cost (i c , shadow price) of land When the carbon-based constraint (CARBQ) is used, then CARBONAP represents the marginal cost (1 e , shadow price) of carbon RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-24 Tables 3-3A (no harvests) and 3-5A (optional harvests) cover the CRP land scenarios. As can be readily seen, the effects of allowing timber harvests are qualitatively the same across all of the different types of targets and carbon levels If the target is acreage-based targets are used (i.e., CRPLAND, CRPREG, or LAND), the average annual amount of carbon sequestered falls between about 15% to 20%, depending upon the specific circumstances of each scenario Parenthetically, when the constraint is based on carbon (I.e., CARBQ), the amount of land required to sequester carbon increases, again by about 15% to 20%, depending upon the case. These two patterns are consistent, harvesting trees reduces average carbon capture per acre and, thus, more land is required to sequester a given amount of carbon. One might think that, by increasing the amount of land required to sequester a given amount of carbon, the average prices of carbon and land would increase. But, as can be seen in Table 3-5A, this is not what happens at all. This is because there is another effect at work. The second effect is related to the fact that by allowing harvesting, the costs associated with displacing agricultural land are offset, to some extent, by revenues from harvesting trees. This effect drives marginal carbon sequestration costs downward Both of these effects are depicted in Figure 2 for a situation in which optional harvests would take place. In this figure, Slg represents the supply curve for the carbon being grown on agricultural land EDf represents the excess demand for stumpage, expressed in terms of carbon, from commercial timberland Points A and B represent the origins of the excess stumpage demand and carbon cost curves. At this point, no trees are grown or harvested However, since the net price of stumpage-as-carbon (A) is above the marginal cost of carbon (B), there is an incentive to harvest trees In fact, as long as the excess demand curve for stumpage-as-carbon is above the supply curve for carbon, harvests will occur The equilibrium harvest occurs at the intersection of the two curves, where the marginal benefit of harvesting stumpage-as-carbon just equals the marginal cost of carbon. This occurs at point L, where the price of stumpage-as carbon is Pr* and the harvest quantity is QH Beyond the point L, the marginal cost of carbon is above the marginal cost of stumpage and no economic incentive to harvest timber exists beyond that point The supply curve for carbon on agricultural land is drawn everywhere above the demand curve to reflect the fact that no timber is harvested from agricultural lands in the base case RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- 1 Figure 2 10 Determination of Marginal Cost of Sequestering Carbon When Harvests Occur $/ton/yr Carbon Timber as carbon tons of carbon/yr ------- Results ~ 3-26 In the case depicted in Figure 2, a carbon constraint is shown by the vertical line VQj. The quantity of carbon indicated by this constraint is measured from the dotted vertical line OQH, and not from the axis of the graph, for reasons which will be made clear shortly. While tree planting occurs from that origin, indicated by B, all the way along the supply curve, up to the constraint line, harvesting of carbon eliminates the quantity measured from B to QH. This leaves the net quantity from QH to Qe as the quantity of carbon remaining after harvests are accounted for. This net quantity is indicated as Q. The price of carbon is determined as follows. The gross marginal cost of supplying carbon is Pc The marginal benefit of harvesting stumpage-as-carbon is Pf*. The net marginal social cost of sequestering carbon, and then selling it, is the difference between the gross marginal cost and the stumpage price, or Pc - Pr' = Pc". The price Pc* is the conceptual equivalent of the marginal cost estimates presented in Tables 3-5A and 3-5B. For example, in terms of Table 3-5, Pc - Pf" = Pf* = $5 19 per ton/yr for the CARBQ scenario, CARBLEV3. The situation in Figure 2 is consistent with all scenarios when harvests are optional in the ASM/TAMM model As long as harvests do occur, the prices of land and carbon can not exceed (although they may equal) the prices that prevailed when no harvests are allowed. This is born out fully in Table 3-5 A, where, in virtually all of the cases, the carbon and land prices are from more than 50% to 10% lower than in the corresponding case in Table 3-3A. The price differences are largest for the two most constrained sets of scenarios, represented by CRPLAND and CRPREG For example, for the CRPLAND scenarios, the price of carbon ranges from 56% lower to 33% lower (at CARBLEV2 and CARBLEV5, respectively) than in the optional harvest cases, while for the CRP LAND scenarios, the percentage difference ranges from 48% to about 3% less (at CARBLEV2 and CARBLEV5) than in the no harvest cases These differences are due to the more severe effects of the acreage constraints, based on CRP land distributions Table 3-5B shows the effects of making harvests optional on carbon and land quantities and prices in the pastureland and wetlands cases The results in this table can be compared with those in Table 3-3B in which no harvests occur The results for the pastureland cases are close to, but not as strong as, those in Table 3-5A In many, but not all, of the acreage-constrained scenarios on both pastureland and wetland, less carbon is sequestered at each acreage target For the single carbon-constrained set of cases on pastureland, indicated by CARBQ, more land is required to achieve the fixed carbon targets Finally, all of the carbon and land prices in Table 3-5B are lower than their counterparts in Table 3-3B, for the reasons illustrated with Figure 2. 3.4.2 Welfare and Fiscal Impacts The simulated effects of optional harvests on consumer and producer welfare and government RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-27 costs are presented in tables 3-6A and 3-6B. The welfare and fiscal accounting in the two tables is identical to that in Tables 3-4A and 3-4B. As was the case with the previous two tables, the only difference between these two sets of Tables is that Tables 3-4A and 3-4B assume that no harvesting takes place, while Tables 3-5A and 3-5B assume harvests are optional. By comparing the information in these two tables, one can gauge the magnitude of the impacts of varying the harvesting assumption on the opportunity cost of carbon and the carbon production costs The conceptual basis for understanding the results in Tables 3-6A and 3-6B can be explained with the aid of Figure 2 Under the carbon constraint, indicated by the line vertical VQC, the opportunity cost of carbon is equal to the area under the supply curve for carbon (Sag), which is BMQC, less the area between the excess demand function (EDf) and the supply for carbon, which is the shaded area BAL The former area represents the gross opportunity cost of sequestering carbon, while the latter area represents the gross benefits to farmers from harvesting trees and must be subtracted from (in absolute terms) the gross opportunity cost to obtain a measure of the net opportunity cost. This difference is equal to an area defined by BMQC - BAL. This is smaller than the opportunity cost without harvesting, which would be just the area under the carbon sequestration supply curve, BMQC The carbon production cost is equal to the marginal cost of carbon times the carbon target level. In Figure 2, it was shown that the net marginal cost of carbon was equal to Pc - Pf* = Pc* This takes into account the benefits from harvesting trees used to sequester carbon Thus, the carbon production cost for this target is equal to the area BPCMQC - BAL This is smaller than the carbon production cost with no harvesting, which would be equal to just BPpMQ,. This area excludes BAL, the net benefits to society from harvesting Given this exposition in Figure 2, it should come as no surprise that both the opportunity costs of sequestering carbon and the carbon production costs are lower for all the optional harvest scenarios (Tables 3-6A and B) than the corresponding no harvest scenarios (Tables 3-4A and B) For example, for the four different types of targets shown in Table 3-6A for the cropland scenarios, the opportunity costs of carbon for CARBLEV4 are S670 million/yr for the CRPLAND constraint ($1134.45 billion - 1135 12 billion), S640 million/yr for the CRPRJEG constraint ($1134 48 billion - 1135 12 billion), $170 million/yr for the LAND constraint ($1134 95 billion - 1135 12 billion) and $230 million/yr for the CARBQ constraint ($1134 89 billion - 1135 12 billion) The corresponding estimates for the no harvest cases in Table 3-4A are $1 18 billion/yr (CRPLAND), $1.14 billion/yr (CRPREG), $280 million/yr (LAND) and $300 million/yr (CARBQ) The opportunity costs in all of the pastureland and wetlands cases in Table 3-6B exhibit the same type of behavior in comparison to the no harvest results shown in Table 3-4B. RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-28 Table 3-6A. Effects of Optional Timber Harvests on Total Surplus, Government Farm Program Costs, Government Carbon Costs, Total Government Costs and Net Surplus on CRP land (CRP) for Five Carbon Levels (CARBLEV1-5) with 1990 Farm Programs and Optional Harvests, in Billions of Dollars Carbon Level (both Acreage- and Land-Based) Variable Name 1 2 3 4 5 Type of Carbon Target - State Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPLAND) TOTSURP 1144 57 1144 50 1144 02 1143 42 1143 38 GOVTDFCOST 945 9 33 8 98 8 40 8 38 GOVCARBCS 000 0 02 0 15 0 47 0.55 TGOVCST 945 9 35 9.13 8 87 8 93 NETSURP 1135 12 1135 15 1134 89 1134 55 1134 45 Type of Carbon Target ¦ Region-Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPREG) TOTSURP 1144 57 1144 49 1144 04 1143 59 1143 43 GOVTDFCOST 945 9 33 8 93 8 55 8 42 GOVCARBCS 000 0 02 015 045 0 53 TGOVCST 945 935 9 08 900 8 95 NETSURP 1135 12 1135 14 1134 96 1134 59 1134 48 Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) TOTSURP 1144 57 1144 5 1144 54 1144 57 1144 6 GOVTDFCOST 945 9 39 941 941 9 42 GOVCARBCS 000 001 006 0 19 0 23 TGOVCST 9 45 9 40 947 9 60 9.65 NETSURP 1135 12 1135 1 1135 07 1134 97 1134 95 Type of Carbon Target • Least-Coit Carbon Optimization (CARBQ) TOTSURP 1144 57 1144 55 1144 57 1144 62 1144.6 GOVTDFCOST 945 941 941 9.41 9 40 GOVCARBCS 000 001 0 08 0 28 031 TGOVCST 945 9 42 949 9 69 971 NETSURP 1135 12 1135 13 1135 08 1134 93 1134 89 RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-29 Table 3-6B. Effects of Optional Timber Harvests on Total Surplus, Government Farm Program Costs, Government Carbon Costs, Total Government Costs and Net Surplus on Pastureland (PASTURE) and Wetlands (WETLAND) for five Carbon Levels (CARBLEV1-5) with 1990 Farm Programs and Optional Harvests, in Billions of Dollars Carbon Level (Both Acreage- and Land-Based) Variable Name 1 2 3 4 5 Land Type Pastureland (PASTURE) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) TOTSURP 1144 57 1144 59 1144 62 1144 83 1145 02 GOVTDFCOST 9 45 9 46 9.43 9 42 9.48 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 09 0 22 0 64 1 49 TGOVCST 9 45 9 55 9 65 10 06 10 97 NETSURP 1135 12 1135 04 1134.97 1134 77 1134.05 Land Type- Pastureland (PASTURE) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Carbon Optimization (CARBQ) TOTSURP 1144 57 1144 59 1144 61 1144.92 1145 GOVTDFCOST 9 45 9 42 9 44 9 44 9 46 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 02 0 12 0 69 1 62 TGOVCST 9 45 9 44 9.56 10 13 11 08 NETSURP 1135 12 1135 15 1135 05 1134 79 1133 92 Land Type Wetlands (WETLAND) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) TOTSURP 1144 22 NA NA NA 1144 26 GOVTDFCOST 9 08 - - - 9 09 GOVCARBCS 0 00 - - - 0 04 TGOVCST 9 08 - - - 9 13 NETSURP 1135 14 - - - 1135.13 RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- RESULTS ~ 3-30 The same general pattern holds true for the carbon production costs, which are consistently lower in the harvest optional cases for both cropland in Table 3-6A and pastureland and wetlands in Table 3-6B. The differences in carbon production costs are proportionally greatest for the two most highly constrained, acreage-based scenarios, indicated by CRPLAND and CRPREG. This is also true for the opportunity cost estimates. This is because these two constraints create the potentially greatest economic opportunities to exploit in terms of the gap between marginal harvest costs and marginal carbon prices. The more severe the type of constraint on the allocation of acreage to tree planting, the more this drives up the marginal pnces of land and carbon and, in terms of Figure 2, widens the gap between the marginal cost of carbon and the marginal benefit from harvesting trees. 3.5 Effects of Reducing Farm Programs In this Section we examine the effects of reducing the level of form program payments. As previously indicated in Section 2 3 5, we examined six different types of farm program scenarios These involved- the current (1990) farm program, two sets of reduction levels (10% and 25%) based on across-the-board target price and loan rate reductions, two sets of reductions (10% and 25%) based on across-the-board decreases in deficiency payments, and complete elimination of farm programs For practical reasons, we cannot discuss the results of all these scenarios Therefore, we selected the scenarios using a 25% reduction in deficiency payments These scenarios were selected, in part for policy reasons, while a complete elimination of farm programs is virtually unthinkable, a 25% reduction is within the realm of reason These scenarios were also selected because the effects of a 10% reduction were so small as to hardly cause any movement in model variables It was our hope that by selecting the 25% reduction the impacts would be large enough to better understand the underlying forces that drive the results in the model This did not turn out to be entirely the case 3.5.1 Impacts on Carbon Sequestration, Carbon and Land Prices and Acreage Tables 3-7A and 3-7B show the effects of a 25 percent reduction in deficiency payments on carbon and land quantities and pnces As was the case in Section 3 3, the base case scenarios (with 1990 farm programs in place) for comparing these results is represented by the information in Tables 3-3A and 3-3B, respectively The results for these scenarios in the cropland cases in Table 3-7A are somewhat uneven across the various cases, however, a couple of strong patterns did emerge First, reducing farm programs, at the margin, does not really affect the amount of carbon sequestered in the acreage-constrained cases, nor does it influence the amount of land required to store carbon in the carbon-constrained cases Second, reducing farm programs lowers, very slightly, the average price of carbon and land in the two scenarios where the acreage distribution must follow that on existing CRP lands (CRPLAND and CRPREG). Reducing farm programs reduces producer pnces of crop and livestock (but increases consumer pnces) and also causes carbon and land pnces to fall In the LAND and CARBQ scenarios, reducing farm deficiency payments by 25 percent has no effect on land and carbon pnces. This is because the land used to grow trees is RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-31 Table 3-7A Effects of Reducing Farm Program Deficiency Payments by Twenty-Five Percent on Acreage and Carbon Quantities and on the Marginal Prices* of Carbon and Land on CRP land (CRP) for Four Carbon Levels (CARBLEV2-5), with No Harvesting of Trees Caibon Level (Both Acreage- and Land-Based) Vanable Name 2 3 4 5 Type of Caibon Target - State Level CRP Land Distnbution (CRPLAND) CARBONL (106 a) 1 30 6 30 16 30 18 15 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 3 23 15 65 40 48 45 07 CARBONAP ($/T) 21 30 2184 22 21 22 33 CARBONLAP ($/a) 52 90 54 23 55 15 55 46 Type of Carbon Target - Region-Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPREG) CARBONL (106 a) 1 30 6 30 16 30 18 15 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 3 23 15 65 40 48 45 07 CARBONAP ($/T) 21 16 21 52 22 02 22 05 CARBONL AP ($/a) 52 56 53 44 54 68 54 76 Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) CARBONL (106 a) 1 30 6 30 16 30 18 15 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 291 14 11 36 51 40 66 CARBONAP ($/T) 6 87 6 87 6.87 6 87 CARBONL AP (S/a) 15 39 15 39 15 39 15 39 Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Caibon Optimization (CARBQ) CARBONL (106 a) 1 34 6 70 17 86 20 09 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 300 15 00 40 00 45 00 CARBONAP (S/T) 6 87 6 87 6 87 6 87 CARBONL AP (S/a) 15 39 15 39 15 39 15 39 "When acreage based constraints (CRPLAND, CRPREG, LAND) CARBONLAP represents the marginal cost (i e , shadow price) of land When the carbon-based constraint (CARBQ) is used, then CARBONAP represents the marginal cost (i e , shadow pnee) of carbon RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- results ~ 3-32 Table 3-7B. Effects of Reducing Farm Program Deficiency Payments by Twenty- Five Percent on Acreage and Carbon Quantities and on the Marginal Prices* of Carbon and Land on Pastureland (PASTURE) and Wetlands (WETLAND) for four Carbon Levels (CARBLEV2-5), with No Harvesting of Trees Carbon Level (Acreage-Based) Variable Name 2 3 4 5 Land Type Pastureland (PASTURE) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) CARBONL (106 a) 7 50 15 00 25 00 50 00 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 13 88 27.75 47.32 102 59 CARBONAP ($/T) 15 80 15 80 16 50 17 80 CARJBONLAP ($/a) 29 24 29 22 31 24 36 50 Land Type Pastureland (PASTURE) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Carbon Optimization (CARBQ) CARBONL (106 a) 1 64 7.91 20.15 49 20 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) 3 70 17 90 46 30 103 00 CARBONAP (S/T) 13 63 15 62 1571 1643 CARBONLAP ($/a) 30 81 35 37 36 09 34 39 Land Type Wetlands (WETLAND) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) CARBONL (106 a) NA NA NA 4.57 CARBONQ (106 T/yr) - - - 11.13 CARBONAP ($/T) - - - 6 32 CARBONLAP ($/a) - - - 15.39 'When acreage based constraints (CRPLAND, CRPREG, LAND) CARBONLAP represents the marginal cost 0 e , shadow price) of land When the carbon-based constraint (CARBQ) is used, then CARBONAP represents the marginal cost (i e . shadow pnce) of carbon RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- results ~ 3-33 situated in states where there is very little CRP land, and placing carbon on these acres has very little effect on market prices of crops As a result, the carbon and land prices are almost entirely dominated by establishment costs Thus, reducing farm programs has no direct or indirect effects on these prices The effects of reducing farm programs on the pastureland and wetlands cases, shown in Table 3-7B, are also mixed First, as was true for the cropland cases, there is minimal effect on land or carbon allocations However, unlike the cropland cases, the marginal prices of carbon and land actually increase by a small amount when deficiency payments are reduced. This suggests that some induced substitution" is taking place, driven by increases in consumer prices Finally, the reduction in deficiency payments has no effects on land and carbon prices in the wetland cases 3.5.2 Welfare and Fiscal Impacts Tables 3-8A and 3-8B present information about the effects of reducing farm deficiency payments by 25 percent on the opportunity cost and carbon production costs of carbon As was the case in Section 3.3, the base case scenarios (with 1990 farm programs in place) for comparing these results is represented by the information in Tables 3-4A and 3-4B, respectively. In general, the welfare results are somewhat difficult to interpret at this level of farm program reduction because of the number of factors being varied, including both CRP acreage, tree planting and farm programs, without construcUng proper controls in the form of different base cases that would allow one to portion out the effects of these changes, individually Reducing farm programs on cropland has two types of impacts on welfare and fiscal accounts First, it reduces the value of total surplus, quite significantly Reductions in farm deficiency payments have this effect because they simultaneously increase the consumer prices of crops and reduce the target prices Consumers, who pay the market price, experience consumer surplus losses12 as the market prices of subsidized crops increase Farmers experience decreases in producer surplus because of the decline in target prices "Pastureland and wetlands are much less directly affected by farm programs than cropland "The after tax income of consumers could increase, if the decease in farm program costs is rebated to them This would offset some of the consumer surplus loss However, this is not factored into the analysis. RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-34 Table 3-8A Effects of Reducing Farm Program Deficiency Payments by Twenty-Five Percent on Total Surplus, Government Farm Program Costs, Government Carbon Costs, Total Government Costs and Net Surplus on Cropland (CRP) for Five Carbon Levels (CARBLEV1-5) with No Harvesting of Trees, in Billions of Dollars Carbon Level (both Acreage- and Land-Based) Variable Name 1 2 3 4 5 Type of Carbon Target - State Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPLAND) TOTSURP 1142 43 1142.58 1142 07 1141 55 1141 46 GOVTDFCOST 7 53 7 61 7 15 6 50 6 40 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 07 0 34 090 1 01 TGOVCST 7 53 7 68 7.49 7 40 741 NETSURP 1134 90 1134 90 1134 58 1134 15 1134 05 Type of Carbon Target - Region-Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPREG) TOTSURP 1142 43 1142 63 1142 22 1141 52 1141.47 GOVTDFCOST 7 53 7 67 7 27 654 6 40 GOVCARBCS 000 0 07 0 34 0 89 0 99 TGOVCST 7 53 7 74 7 61 7 43 7.39 NETSURP 1134 90 1134 89 1134 61 1134 09 1134 08 Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) TOTSURP 1142 43 1142 61 1142 63 1142 63 1142 65 GOVTDFCOST 7 53 7 71 7 72 7 72 7 73 GOVCARBCS 000 0 02 0 10 0 25 0 28 TGOVCST 7 53 7 73 7 82 7 97 8 01 NETSURP 1134 90 1134 88 1134 81 1134 66 1134 64 Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Carbon Optimization (CARBQ) TOTSURP 1142 43 1142 65 1142 65 1142 65 1142 65 GOVTDFCOST 7 53 7 73 7 73 7 73 7 73 GOVCARBCS 000 0 02 0.10 0 27 031 TGOVCST 7 53 7 75 7 83 800 804 NETSURP 1134 90 1134 90 1134 82 1134 65 1134 61 RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-35 Table 3-8B Effects of Reducing Farm Program Deficiency Payments by Twenty-Five Percent on Total Surplus, Government Farm Program Costs, Government Carbon Costs, Total Government Costs and Net Surplus on Pastureland (PASTURE) and Wetlands (WETLAND) for five Carbon Levels (CARBLEV1-5) with No Harvesting of Trees, in Billions of Dollars Carbon Level (Both Acreage- and Land-Based) Variable Name 1 2 3 4 5 Land Type Pastureland (PASTURE) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) TOTSURP 1142 43 1142 48 1142 54 1142.72 1142 95 GOVTDFCOST 7 53 7.62 7 68 7 77 781 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0 22 0 44 0 78 1.82 TGOVCST 7 53 7 84 8 12 8.55 9 63 NETSURP 1134 90 1134.64 1134 42 1134.17 1134 32 Land Type Pastureland (PASTURE) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Carbon Optimization (CARBQ) TOTSURP 1142 43 1142 79 1142 88 1142 82 1142 90 GOVTDFCOST 7 53 7 89 7 93 7 82 7 87 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 05 0 28 0 73 1 69 TGOVCST 7 53 7 94 821 8 55 9 56 NETSURP 1134 90 1134 85 1134 67 1134 27 1133 34 Land Type Wetlands (WETLAND) Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) TOTSURP 1142 27 NA NA NA 1142 30 GOVTDFCOST 7 45 - - - 7.46 GOVCARBCS 0 00 - - - 0 07 TGOVCST 7 45 - - - 7 53 NETSURP 1134.82 - - - 1134 77 RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- RESULTS ~ 3-36 The second effect connected with reducing deficiency payments is the obvious reduction in government farm program costs. As can be seen, farm program costs are smaller in Tables 3-8A and B than in 3-4A and B. These differences are on the order of $1 8 to $2.0 billion/yr. As previously indicated, changes in net surplus can be calculated by taking the change in total surplus (calculated using the prices distorted by farm programs) and subtracting off the change in government payments. If only farm programs were being reduced, then the reduction in government program costs would be greater than the reduction in total surplus and net welfare would increase due to reduction in deadweight losses. However, in this analysis, two other things are happening: first, CRP land is reverting and, second, trees are being planted The CRP reversion ought to have a positive impact on welfare13 because a distortion in the economy is being eliminated, while planting trees on agricultural land should have the opposite effect Thus, the fact that net surpluses are generally decreasing in these scenarios is not all that surprising On the other hand, when one compares the net surplus estimates in Tables 3-A and B with those in Tables 3-4A and B one would expect higher net surpluses when farm programs are reduced. Upon inspection, however, very few of the net surplus estimates for some of the scenarios conform to our theoretical expectation, and some do not There are, perhaps, three reasons for this which need to be investigated in further depth First, the reduction in deficiency payments may not be large enough, numerically, for the computations within ASM to be precise. If one looks at the results for total farm program elimination, all the net surplus estimates are higher than in the full farm program scenarios A second, and more likely, cause for the departure from theoretical expectations is that CRP lands are being released back into production at the same time farm programs are being reduced. Therefore, to correctly measure the net change in welfare, a base case must be constructed which excludes the effects of CRP reversion. Finally, it may also be true that the costs of the CRP portion of the farm program are not correctly factored into the objective function. In previous studies (Callaway and McCarl 1995) performed using ASM/TAMM, the correct theoretical results were obtained when only farm programs were reduced Thus, it seems likely that the departure from theory, here, is related to the addition of the CRP reversion Because the net welfare results did not conform to a pnon expectations, we decided to also compare the results of the full farm program scenarios in Table 3-4A (cropland cases) with comparable scenarios in which farm programs are eliminated entirely The welfare results for full farm program elimination are shown in Table 3-9 Since farm programs are entirely eliminated in these scenarios, there is no need to include other program costs in the accounting Comparing the results in this table with those in Table 3- 4A, we find that eliminating farm programs produces results that are consistent with theoretical expectations Specifically. » Total surpluses levels (measured at distorted pnces) are lower than in the full farm program cases ~ Carbon sequestration costs are lower, or no greater than, those in the full farm program 13ASM does not account for the effects of CRP reversion on environmental externalities in monetary terms RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Results ~ 3-37 scenarios. ~ Net surpluses are on the order of $1 billion to $2 billion/yr higher when farm programs are eliminated entirely for the cropland cases Table 3-9 Effects of Eliminating Farm Program Deficiency Payments on Total Surplus, Government Farm Program Costs, Government Carbon Costs, Total Government Costs and Net Surplus on Cropland (CRP) for Five Carbon Levels (CARBLEV1-5) with No Harvesting of Trees, in Billions of Dollars Carbon Level (both Acreage- and Land-Based) Variable Name 1 2 3 4 5 Type of Carbon Target - State Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPLAND) TOTSURP 1136 70 1136 71 1136 73 1136 74 1136 76 GOVCARJBCS 0 00 0 06 031 0 82 0 93 NETSURP 1136 70 1136 65 1136 42 1135 92 1135 83 Type of Carbon Target - Region-Level CRP Land Distribution (CRPREG) TOTSURP 1136 70 1136 72 1136 73 1136 75 1136 76 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 06 0 30 0 80 0 90 NETSURP 1136 70 1136 66 113643 1136 95 1136 95 Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Land Optimization (LAND) TOTSURP 1136 70 113671 1136 72 1136 71 113671 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 02 0 10 0 25 0 28 NETSURP 1136 70 1136 69 1136 62 1135 46 1136 43 Type of Carbon Target - Least-Cost Carbon Optimization (CARBQ) TOTSURP 1136 70 113671 113671 113671 113671 GOVCARBCS 0 00 0 02 0 10 0 27 031 NETSURP 1136 70 1136 69 1136.61 1136 44 1136 40 RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Chapter 4 Major Conclusions The major conclusions of this study are as follows: ~ Combining tree growing programs with CRP reversion significantly reduces the marginal cost of carbon, the opportunity cost of carbon (i e., social cost) and the carbon production costs (1 e., fiscal cost) of tree planting programs on the order of 40 to 50 million tons of carbon/yr. Based on comparisons with previous studies, allowing trees planting programs to be combined with CRP reversion reduces all of these costs by about one-half ~ Holding other factors constant, planting trees on CRP cropland was less expensive than planting trees on pastureland, both in terms of social costs and fiscal costs The social and fiscal costs of planting trees on wetlands is hard to evaluate because only one acreage/carbon target was used. However, tree planting programs on wetlands appear to be cost-competitive with those on cropland in the range of 5 million acres ~ While it may seem to make programmatic sense to align the acreage in tree planting programs with the current distribution of CRP tree planting acreage, this type of policy is not economically efficient compared to programs without any restrictions regarding the geographic placement of carbon This study showed that the marginal cost of carbon, the opportunity cost of carbon and the carbon production costs of tree planting are about three times as high when the distribution of acreage is forced to conform to the current CRP distribution ~ Allowing CRP reversion to occur had mixed effects on farm program (i e, fiscal) costs, not including the costs of tree planting In cases, where constraints were placed on the location of tree planting, farm program costs decreased However, in cases where no restrictions were placed on the location of tree planting, farm program costs actually increased This was due to the fact that crop mixes were freer to shift and take advantage of farm subsidies. Note, this does not alter the conclusion that social costs of tree planting are lower in the unconstrained scenarios ~ Under CRP reversion, the economically efficient result is for crops to be planted on former CRP lands in the Southeast and Cornbelt and for trees to be planted on land in the New England and Appalachian regions When CRP RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Major Conclusions ~ 4-2 reversion is not included, previous studies have shown that the economically efficient result is to plant trees, primarily in the Southeast and the Combelt. ~ When Farmers are free to make their harvesting and planting decision on economic grounds, as opposed to not including harvests in the analysis at all, the amount of carbon sequestered at each acreage target falls, while the amount of acreage needed to achieve a give carbon target increases. ~ Allowing farmers to harvest trees, based on economic principles after each rotation significantly reduces the opportunity cost of carbon and the carbon production cost, without substantially increasing acreage requirements. These costs are cut in half, while acreage requirements increase by about 15 to 20 percent. Stumpage prices decrease from 70 to 75 percent over the no harvest cases This is good for consumers of wood products, but hurts timberland owners. ~ Reducing deficiency payments by 25% from current levels reduced slightly the marginal cost of carbon and the program cost of sequestering carbon. However, it had little effect on net welfare. Complete elimination of farm programs further reduced the marginal cost of carbon and program costs and led to substantial gains in net benefits to society on the order of $1 billion to $2 billion/yr ~ Finally, the wetlands reserve scenarios all demonstrated that tree planting was very cost effective on the 4 5 million or so acres of potentially eligible wetlands identified for this study. However, the amount of carbon that can be sequestered on this land was fairly low - about 10 to 12 million tons/yr RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Chapter 5 References Adams, Darius, Richard Adams, John Callaway, Ching-Cheng Chang, and Bruce McCarl 1993. "Sequestering Carbon on Agricultural Land: A Preliminary Analysis of Social Costs and Impacts on Timber Markets" Contemporary Policy Issues 11(1) 76-87. Adams, Darius and Richard Haynes 1980 "The 1980 Timber Assessment Market Model" Forest Science 26(3) Monograph 22 Birdsey, Richard 1991 "Prospective Changes in Forest carbon Storage from Increasing Forest Area and Timber Growth " USDA Forest Service Technical Publication, Washington, DC In press Callaway, J M , Bruce McCarl and Ching-Cheng Chang 1993A Social Costs and Economic Impacts of Tree Planting On Agricultural Land Final Report, Submitted to U.S EPA Energy Policy Branch Callaway, J M , Bruce McCarl, Ching-Cheng Chang and Richard Adams 1993B From Crop Subsidies to Carbon Subsidies The Welfare Consequences of Replacing Farm Programs with Carbon Sequestration Programs In the U S Paper Presented at the 1993 International Meeting of the Western Economic Association Lake Tahoe, CA Chang, Ching-Cheng, Bruce McCarl, James Mjelde, and James Richardson 1992 "Sectoral Implications of Farm Program Modifications" American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(1) 38-49 Chang, Ching-Cheng and Bruce McCarl 1991 Scope of ASM The U S Agricultural Sector Model Texas Agricultural Experiment Station College Station, TX Dudek, Daniel and Alice LeBlanc 1990 "Offsetting New C02 Emissions A Rational First Greenhouse Policy Step". Contemporary Policy Issues 8(3) 29-42 Moulton, Richard and Kenneth Richards 1990 Costs of Sequestering Carbon Through Tree Planting and Forest Management in the United States USDA Forest Service, GTR WO-58. Washington, DC RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- References ~ 5-2 Parks, Peter J. and Ian W. Hardie. 1992. "Least Cost Forest Carbon Reserves: Cost-Effective Subsidies to Convert Marginal Agricultural Lands to Forest. Draft Paper. Center for Resource and Environmental Policy Research, Duke University, Chapel Hill, NC. Richards, Kenneth 1992. "Derivation of Carbon Yield Figures For Forestry Sequestration Analysis. Draft Paper Prepared for Office of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy. January 8, 1992. RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Appendix A Full Results From Scenarios RCG/Hagler Bailly ------- Table WR - 1 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPLAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR0 Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLE' AGCONSSURP 1024.30 1024.42 1023.85 1023.34 1023 .22 AGPROSURP 23 .71 23.67 23.91 24.16 24. 23 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1. 59 DOMSURP 1059.09 1059.17 1058.84 1058.58 1058.53 FORSURP 85.39 85.44 85.16 84.93 84 . 87 TOTSURP 1144.48 1144.61 1144.00 1143.51 1143.40 GOVTDFCOST 9.35 9.46 8.97 8.55 8.43 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 07 0.34 0.91 1.02 TGOVCST 9.35 9.53 9.31 9.46 9.45 NETSURP 1135.13 1135.08 1134.69 1134.05 1133.95 PSURSOUTH 4 .20 4 .20 4.26 4.32 4 .34 PSURPNVJ 1.64 1. 64 1. 66 1.69 1.69 PSURMIDWST 9.88 9.86 9.94 10.04 10.07 PSURELSEWR 7 .98 7.97 8.05 8. 12 8. 13 PINDAGCROP 100.21 100.04 101.42 102.66 103.00 QINDAGCROP 100.40 99.96 99.40 98.61 98. 53 PIND-LIVE 99 . 97 100.07 100.39 100.73 100.78 QIND-LIVE 99. 53 100.10 99. 95 99. 66 99. 66 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 3.23 15.65 40.48 45. 07 CARBONL 0. 00 1. 30 6.30 16.30 18.15 CARBONAP 0. 00 21.40 21.98 22.41 22.61 CARBONLAP 0.00 53. 15 54 .59 55.65 56. 15 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2.73 13 . 22 34 .20 38 . 08 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0.27 1.31 3 .39 3.77 CARBPNVJ 0. 00 0.01 0.03 0. 08 0.09 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 0.23 1.09 2.82 3. 14 ACARSOUTH 0.00 1.09 5. 30 13.72 15.28 ACARMIDWST 0.00 0.12 0. 56 1.45 1.61 ACARPNW 0. 00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0. 04 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0.09 0.42 1.09 1.21 CRP 17 . 19 16. 15 15.17 14 . 07 13.87 ------- Table WR - 2 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPLAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PRO Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1024.43 1024.31 1023.86 1023.21 1023.15 AGPROSURP 23 . 62 23 .71 23.90 24.21 24 .24 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.54 9.72 9.94 10.00 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.53 1.35 1. 15 1.10 DOMSURP 1059.13 1059.09 1058.83 1058.51 1058.49 FORSURP 85.44 85.41 85.19 84.91 84.89 TOTSURP 1144.57 1144.50 1144.02 1143.42 1143.38 GOVTDFCOST 9.45 9.33 8.98 8.40 8.38 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0.02 0.15 0.47 0.55 TGOVCST 9.45 9.35 9.13 8.87 8.93 NETSURP 1135.12 1135.15 1134.89 1134.55 1134.45 PSURSOUTH 4 . 18 4.20 4.26 4.33 4. 34 PSURPNW 1. 63 1. 64 1.66 1.69 1. 69 PSURMIDWST 9.85 9.88 9.94 10.06 10 . 07 PSURELSEWR 7.95 7. 98 8.04 8.14 8 .14 PINDAGCROP 100.00 100.28 101.42 103.04 103.13 QINDAGCROP 100.00 100.05 99.54 98.97 98. 79 PIND-LIVE 100.00 100.13 100.35 100.76 100.81 QIND-LIVE 100.00 99.97 99.86 99.71 99. 58 PIND-FOR 100.00 96.79 87.14 75.81 72.66 QIND-FORA 100,00 101.28 107.22 122.37 124.58 QIND-FORC 100.00 98.76 95.05 90.51 89. 15 CARBONQ 0. 00 2 . 60 12.61 32.64 36.34 CARBONL 0.00 1.30 6. 30 16.30 18. 15 CARBONAP 0.00 9.42 11. 92 14 .42 15. 03 CARBONLAP 0.00 18.87 23.86 28.87 30.09 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2 .20 10. 63 27 .51 30. 64 CARBMIDWST 0.00 0.22 1. 06 2.75 3.06 CARBPNW 0. 00 0. 01 0. 02 0. 06 0. 07 CARBELSEWR 0.00 0. 18 0.89 2.31 2.57 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 1.09 5.30 13 .72 15.28 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 0.12 0.56 1.45 1.61 ACARPNW 0. 00 0. 00 0. 02 0. 04 0. 04 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0.09 0.42 1. 09 1.21 CRP 17 . 19 16. 15 15.17 14.07 13.87 ------- Table WR - 3 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPLAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLE AGCONSSURP 1023.50 1023.68 1023.24 1022.47 1022.46 AGPROSURP 23.69 23.59 23.78 24.14 24 .14 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9 .49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1. 59 DOMSURP 1058.27 1058.35 1058.10 1057.69 1057.68 FORSURP 84.96 85. 04 84.84 84.52 84 . 50 TOTSURP 1143.23 1143.39 1142.94 1142.21 1142.18 GOVTDFCOST 8.34 8.39 7.97 7.25 7 .21 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 07 0. 34 0.91 1. 02 TGOVCST 8.34 8 .46 8.31 8.16 8 .23 NETSURP 1134.89 1134.93 1134.63 1134.05 1133.95 PSURSOUTH 4.22 4 . 19 4.24 4.31 4 .32 PSURPNW 1.64 1. 64 1. 65 1.68 1. 69 PSURMIDWST 9.84 9.80 9.88 10.00 9 . 99 PSURELSEWR 7.99 7 . 96 8.02 8.14 8. 14 PINDAGCROP 102.26 101.90 103.01 104.81 104.88 QINDAGCROP 100.13 99 . 54 99.13 98.26 98. 02 PIND-LIVE 100.37 100.48 100.74 101.31 101.30 QIND-LIVE 99.75 99 . 80 99. 59 99 .39 99 . 54 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0 . 00 3.23 15. 65 40.48 45. 07 CARBONL 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16.30 18 . 15 CARBONAP 0 . 00 21.42 21. 99 22 .51 22 . 55 CARBONLAP 0.00 53 . 19 54.61 55.89 56.01 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2 .73 13.22 34.20 38 . 08 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0.27 1.31 3 . 39 3 . 77 CARBPNW 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.08 0. 09 CARBELSEWR 0 . 00 0.23 1.09 2.82 3 . 14 ACARSOUTH 0.00 1.09 5.30 13.72 15.28 ACARMIDWST 0.00 0. 12 0.56 1.45 1. 61 ACARPNW 0. 00 0. 00 0.02 0.04 0. 04 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0. 09 0.42 1.09 1.21 CRP 17 . 19 16. 15 15. 17 14 .07 13 . 87 ------- Table WR - 4 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPLAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.76 1023.70 1023.16 1022.65 1022.41 AGFROSURP 23.49 23.56 23.85 24.07 24.18 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.54 9.72 9.94 10.00 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.53 1.35 1.15 1.10 DOMSURP 1058.33 1058.33 1058.08 1057.81 1057.69 FORSURP 85.05 85. 04 84.83 84.61 84 .53 rOTSURP 1143.38 1143.37 1142.91 1142.42 1142.22 GOVTDFCOST 8.51 8 . 44 8.02 7.52 7.21 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 02 0.15 0.47 0.55 TGOVCST 8.51 8.46 8.17 7.99 7.76 NETSURP 1134.87 1134.91 1134.74 1134.43 1134 .46 PSURSOUTH 4 .18 4 . 20 4.26 4.31 4.33 PSURPNW 1.63 1. 64 1.66 1.68 1.69 PSURMIDWST 9.75 9 . 77 9.89 9.96 10 .01 PSURELSEWR 7.93 7. 95 8.04 8 .11 8 . 15 PINDAGCROP 101.75 101.93 103.18 104.45 104.99 QINDAGCROP 99.66 99.76 99.26 98.57 98.39 PIND-LIVE 100.36 100.45 100.81 101.14 101.31 QIND-LIVE 99.80 99.69 99.52 99 .38 99 . 38 PIND-FOR 100.00 96.79 87 .14 75.81 72 .66 QIND-FORA 100.00 101.28 107.22 122.37 124.58 QIND-FORC 100.00 98.76 95.05 90.51 89. 15 CARBONQ 0 . 00 2.60 12.61 32.64 36. 34 CARBONL 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16.30 18. 15 CARBONAP 0.00 9 . 44 11.99 14 .27 15. 05 CARBONLAP 0. 00 18. 90 24.00 28.57 30.13 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2.20 10. 63 27.51 30. 64 CARBMIDWST 0.00 0.22 1.06 2.75 3 . 06 CARBPNW 0.00 0. 01 0. 02 0.06 0. 07 CARBELSEWR 0 . 00 0. 18 0. 89 2.31 2.57 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 1. 09 5.30 13 .72 15. 28 ACARMIDWST 0 .00 0 . 12 0.56 1.45 1. 61 ACARPNW 0.00 0. 00 0. 02 0.04 0. 04 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0.09 0.42 1.09 1.21 CRP 17 . 19 16.15 15. 17 14 . 07 13 . 87 ------- Table WR - 5 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPLAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1022. ,96 1023. ,26 1022. ,94 1022 . .13 1022. ,08 AGPROSURP 23 . , 52 23. , 34 23 . .53 23 . ,87 23 , .92 FRCONSURP 9. ,49 9. ,49 9. .49 9. .49 9. .49 FRPROSURP 1. ,59 1. , 58 1. ,59 1, .59 1. ,59 DOMSURP 1057. ,56 1057. ,67 1057. ,55 1057. .08 1057. .08 FORSURP 84. ,71 84 . .78 84. , 67 84 . .35 84. .33 TOTSURP 1142 . .27 1142. ,45 1142. ,22 1141. .43 1141, .41 GOVTDFCOST 7 . ,41 7. ,73 7 . .25 6. .38 6. .32 GOVCARBCS 0. , 00 0. , 07 0. , 34 0. .90 1. . 01 TGOVCST 7. ,41 7. , 80 7 . ,59 7 . .28 7. , 33 NETSURP 1134 . , 86 1134 . , 65 1134 . , 63 1134 . . 15 1134 . , 08 PSURSOUTH 4 . , 19 4 . , 17 4 . ,20 4 . .28 4 . ,29 PSURPNW 1. . 64 1. , 63 1. , 64 1. .67 1. , 68 PSURMIDWST 9 . ,72 9 . , 65 9. ,73 9 . .85 9. ,87 PSURELSEWR 7 . , 97 7 . , 89 7 . , 95 8. .07 8. . 08 PINDAGCROP 103. .55 103 . , 02 103. ,77 105. ,71 105. ,87 QINDAGCROP 99. , 83 98. ,91 98. ,47 97 . ,63 97. .48 PIND-LIVE 100. , 75 100. , 72 100. , 92 101. .45 101. .47 QIND-LIVE 100. , 08 99. . 93 99 . ,71 99 . , 67 99. , 62 PIND-FOR 100. . 00 100. , 00 100. , 00 100, .00 100. , 00 QIND-FORA 100. , 00 100. , 00 100. , 00 100. .00 100. , 00 QIND-FORC 100. . 00 100. , 00 100. , 00 100. . 00 100. .00 CARBONQ 0. , 00 3 . .23 15 , , 65 40. .48 45. .07 CARBONL 0. , 00 1. , 30 6. ,30 16. .30 18. .15 CARBONAP 0. , 00 21. .27 21, ,74 22 , .34 22 . .41 CARBONLAP 0. , 00 52 . ,83 53 . .99 55. .49 55. . 66 CARBSOUTH 0. , 00 2 . ,73 13 . .22 34 . .20 38. . 08 CARBMIDWST 0. .00 0. .27 1. .31 3 . . 39 3. .77 CARBPNW 0. . 00 0. .01 0. . 03 0. .08 0. .09 CARBELSEWR 0. , 00 0. ,23 1. . 09 2 . .82 3 . , 14 ACARSOUTH 0. . 00 1. , 09 5, , 30 13 . .72 15. .28 ACARMIDWST 0. . 00 0. , 12 0. . 56 1, .45 1. . 61 ACARPNW 0. . 00 0. . 00 0, . 02 0, . 04 0. . 04 ACARELSEWR 0. . 00 0. . 09 0, .42 1, .09 1, .21 CRP 17 , . 19 16 . . 15 15, . 17 14 , . 07 13 . . 87 ------- Table WR 6 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPLAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLF AGCONSSURP 1023.19 1023.06 1022.77 1022.04 1022.06 AGPROSURP 23.36 23.47 23.64 23.95 23.93 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.54 9.72 9.94 10.00 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.53 1.35 1.15 1.10 DOMSURP 1057.63 1057.60 1057.48 1057.08 1057.09 FORSURP 84.80 84.75 64.64 84.36 84.37 TOTSURP 1142.43 1142.35 1142.12 1141.44 1141.46 GOVTDFCOST 7.71 7.61 7.12 6.32 6.29 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0. 02 0.15 0.46 0.54 TGOVCST 7.71 7 . 63 7.27 6.78 6.83 NETSURP 1134.72 1134.72 1134.85 1134.66 1134.63 PSURSOUTH 4 .17 4 .19 4.22 4.29 4.29 PSURPNW 1. 63 1. 64 1.65 1. 68 1. 68 PSURHIDWST 9. 65 9.70 9.77 9.88 9.88 PSURELSEWR 7.91 7. 94 8.00 8.10 8.09 PINDAGCROP 103.06 103.40 104.15 105.90 105.88 QINDAGCROP 99.08 99.20 98.82 97.95 97.87 PIND-LIVE 100.72 100.81 101.02 101.43 101.45 QIND-LIVE 99.87 99. 64 99.48 99.44 99.39 PIND-FOR 100.00 96.79 87.14 75.81 72 .66 QIND-FORA 100.00 101.28 107.22 122.37 124.58 QIND-FORC 100.00 98 .76 95.05 90. 51 89. 15 CARBONQ 0. 00 2. 60 12 . 61 32.64 36.34 CARBONL 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16.30 18 . 15 CARBONAP 0. 00 9.41 11.76 14 . 20 14 . 87 CARBONLAP 0.00 18.83 23.55 28.44 29.77 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2 . 20 10. 63 27.51 30. 64 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0.22 1.06 2.75 3 . 06 CARBPNW 0.00 0.01 0.02 0. 06 0. 07 CARBELSEWR 0.00 0.18 0.89 2.31 2.57 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 1.09 5.30 13.72 15.28 ACARMIDWST 0.00 0. 12 0.56 1.45 1.61 ACARPNW 0. 00 0. 00 0.02 0.04 0. 04 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0. 09 0.42 1.09 1.21 CRP 17 . 19 16.15 15.17 14.07 13.87 ------- Table WR - 7 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPLAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023 . .80 1023 . . 98 1023. ,52 1022 . .63 1022 . ,51 AGPROSURP 23 . . 61 23 . .52 23. .77 24 , . 14 24 . , 18 FRCONSURP 9. ,49 9 , ,49 9. ,49 9, .49 9 , ,49 FRPROSURP 1. ,59 1, ,59 1. ,59 1, .59 1, . 59 DOMSURP 1058. ,49 1058. , 58 1058. ,37 1057, .85 1057 , .77 FORSURP 85. , 12 85. , 22 85. , 02 84 . .62 84 . , 54 TOTSURP 1143 . ,61 1143 . ,80 1143. .39 1142. .47 1142 . .31 GOVTDFCOST 8 . ,54 8. . 63 8. ,29 7. .48 7 . , 38 GOVCARBCS 0. ,00 0. , 07 0. .34 0. .91 1. , 02 TGOVCST 8 . ,54 8 . ,70 8. .63 8. .39 8 . ,40 NETSURP 1135. , 07 1135, , 10 1134. ,76 1134 . . 08 1133 . ,91 PSURSOUTH 4 . . 20 4 . . 18 4 . .23 4 . .32 4 . , 34 PSURPNW 1. , 64 1. , 63 1. .65 1. .68 1. , 69 PSURMIDWST 9 . .83 9 . , 80 9. .89 10. .01 10. . 02 PSURELSEWR 7 . , 95 7 . , 92 8. . 00 8. . 13 8. . 13 PINDAGCROP 101. , 51 101. , 07 102 . . 15 104 . .30 104 . . 69 QINDAGCROP 100. , 65 99 . , 94 99. .49 98. . 65 98. . 52 PIND-LIVE 100. , 37 100. , 22 100. . 54 101, .13 101. . 16 QIND-LIVE 99 . ,87 99 . . 63 99. ,51 99. . 19 99. , 18 PIND-FOR 100. , 00 100. , 00 100. ,00 100, .00 100. , 00 QIND-FORA 100. .00 100. , 00 100. .00 100, .00 100. , 00 QIND-FORC 100. , 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. , 00 CARBONQ 0. .00 3 . .23 15. . 65 40, .48 45. , 07 CARBONL 0. .00 1. . 30 6. , 30 16, .30 18. , 15 CARBONAP 0 . . 00 21. ,31 21. .86 22 . .46 22 . , 62 CARBONLAP 0. , 00 52 . ,91 54 . .29 55. .78 56. 18 CARBSOUTH 0. , 00 2 . ,73 13 . , 22 34 . .20 38. , 08 CARBMIDWST 0 . , 00 0. , 27 1. .31 3 . .39 3 . , 77 CARBPNW 0 . . 00 0. , 01 0. . 03 0, .08 0. , 09 CARBELSEWR 0. , 00 0. .23 1. .09 2 . .82 3 . . 14 ACARSOUTH 0. . 00 1, . 09 5, . 30 13 , .72 15, .28 ACARMIDWST 0. . 00 0, . 12 0. .56 1, .45 1, . 61 ACARPNW 0. . 00 0. . 00 0, .02 0, .04 0. , 04 ACARELSEWR 0. . 00 0. . 09 0, .42 1, .09 1, .21 CRP 17, . 19 16, , 15 15, . 17 14 , .07 13. . 87 ------- Table WR - 8 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPLAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023. . 82 1023, ,85 1023.24 1022 , .73 1022. .61 AGPROSURP 23, . 60 23. .60 23.89 24 .09 24 , . 14 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. .54 9.72 9 .94 10. . 00 FRPROSURP 1. ,58 1. .53 1.35 1, .15 1. .10 DOMSURP 1058, , 49 1058 , .52 1058.20 1057, .91 1057, .85 FORSURP 85. . 14 85. .16 84.93 84. .69 84 , .62 TOTSURP 1143, ,63 1143. . 68 1143.13 1142. .60 1142, .47 GOVTDFCOST 8. .53 8, . 53 8.02 7, .51 7, .41 GOVCARBCS 0. . 00 0. . 02 0.15 0. ,46 0, ,55 TGOVCST 8. .53 8. ,55 8.17 7. .97 7. .96 NETSURP 1135. .10 1135. . 13 1134.96 1134, .63 1134, .51 PSURSOUTH 4 . . 19 4 . .19 4 . 26 4 . .31 4 . .32 PSURPNVJ 1. , 63 1. , 64 1.66 1, . 68 1, .68 PSURMIDWST 9. . 82 9. . 82 9.93 10, . 00 10. .01 PSURELSEWR 7 . .96 7. . 95 8.05 8. , 11 8. . 12 PINDAGCROP 101. .43 101. .42 102.78 104, . 11 104 , .48 QINDAGCROP 100. .33 100. .39 99.91 99, . 04 98, .89 PIND-LIVE 100, .32 100. .31 100.76 101, . 12 101. . 16 QIND-LIVE 99. .78 99. .84 99.53 99, .30 99, .33 PIND-FOR 100. .00 96. .79 87.14 75. .81 72. . 66 QIND-FORA 100. , 00 101. ,28 107.22 122. .37 124 . , 58 QIND-FORC 100. ,00 98. .76 95.05 90. .51 89. , 15 CARBONQ 0. .00 2 . . 60 12 . 61 32 . , 64 36. , 34 CARBONL 0. ,00 1. , 30 6. 30 16. , 30 18. 15 CARBONAP 0. 00 9. , 44 11.93 14 . .22 15. ,01 CARBONLAP 0. 00 18. . 90 23.88 28. , 47 30. 05 CARBSOUTH 0. ,00 2. , 20 10.63 27. 51 30. 64 CARBMIDWST 0. , 00 0. , 22 1.06 2. ,75 3. .06 CARBPNW 0. , 00 0. , 01 0.02 0. , 06 0. .07 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 0. . 18 0.89 2. ,31 2. .57 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 1. , 09 5.30 13. ,72 15. ,28 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 0. , 12 0. 56 1. ,45 1. , 61 ACARPNW 0. 00 0 . , 00 0.02 0. ,04 0. 04 ACARELSEWR 0. ,00 0. ,09 0.42 1. .09 1. ,21 CRP 17 . . 19 16. . 15 15. 17 14 . , 07 13 . 87 ------- Table WR - 9 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPLAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLF AGCONSSURP 1023.22 1023.30 1022.85 1022.29 1022.20 AGPROSURP 23.36 23 .38 23 .52 23 .78 23.83 FRCONSURP 9.49 9 .49 9.49 9.49 9 .49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1. 59 1.59 1.59 1.59 DOMSURP 1057.66 1057.76 1057.45 1057.15 1057.11 FORSURP 84 .77 84 . 82 84.62 84 .40 84.35 TOTSURP 1142.43 1142.58 1142.07 1141.55 1141.46 GOVTDFCOST 7.53 7 . 61 7.15 6.50 6.40 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 07 0.34 0.90 1.01 TGOVCST 7.53 7 . 68 7.49 7.40 7.41 NETSURP 1134.90 1134.90 1134.58 1134.15 1134.05 PSURSOUTH 4.16 4 . 16 4.20 4.25 4 .26 PSURPNW 1. 62 1. 62 1. 64 1.66 1. 66 PSURMIDWST 9.70 9.71 9.76 9.86 9.88 PSURELSEWR 7.88 7 . 88 7.93 8.02 8. 03 PINDAGCROP 103.01 102.83 104.00 105.31 105.57 QINDAGCROP 100.32 99 .81 99.27 98.42 98. 16 PIND-LIVE 100.76 100.68 100.93 101.33 101.37 QIND-LIVE 99 . 94 99 . 76 99. 61 99 . 60 99 . 53 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 3 .23 15. 65 40.48 45. 07 CARBONL 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16.30 18 . 15 CARBONAP 0.00 21.30 21. 84 22.21 22.33 CARBONLAP 0. 00 52 . 90 54.23 55. 15 55.46 CARBSOUTH 0 . 00 2 .73 13.22 34.20 38 . 08 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0.27 1.31 3.39 3 . 77 CARBPNW 0. 00 0.01 0. 03 0. 08 0. 09 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 0.23 1. 09 2.82 3 . 14 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 1. 09 5.30 13.72 15.28 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 0.12 0. 56 1.45 1.61 ACARPNW 0. 00 0. 00 0. 02 0.04 0. 04 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0. 09 0.42 1.09 1.21 CRP 17.19 16. 15 15. 17 14.07 13 . 87 ------- Table WR - 10 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPLAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023. >47. 1023. .46 1022. .97 1022, .27 1022, . 17 AGPROSURP 23 . .21 23. .26 23 . ,47 23 , .78 23 . .84 FRCONSURP 9, .49 9, .54 9. ,72 9, ,94 10, .00 FRPROSURP 1. .58 1. .53 1, .35 1. . 15 1. . 10 DOMSURP 1057 , .75 1057, .79 1057 , .51 1057 .14 1057, . 11 FORSURP 84 . .84 84 . .86 84, . 68 84. .42 84 . 37 TOTSURP 1142 , .59 1142. . 65 1142, .19 1141, .56 1141, .48 GOVTDFCOST 7 . .71 7 . .71 7. .25 6, .47 6 , .33 GOVCARBCS 0. .00 0. .02 0, .15 0, .46 0, .54 TGOVCST 7 . .71 7. .73 7. .40 6. .93 6. . 87 NETSURP 1134 , .88 1134, .92 1134 . -79 1134, .63 1134 , .61 PSURSOUTH 4 , . 13 4 . . 14 4 . . 18 4 . . 25 4 , .26 PSURPNW 1, . 61 1, . 62 1, .63 1. . 66 1 . 66 PSLTRMIDWST 9 , . 64 9 , . 67 9 , .76 9 . . 86 9 .88 PSURELSEWR 7 . .82 7 , .83 7 , .90 8, .01 8, .03 PINDAGCROP 102 . , 59 102 . , 61 103 , .77 105, . 38 105, . 69 QINDAGCROP 99. ,83 99. ,70 99. , 13 98. ,41 98 , ,23 PIND-LIVE 100. ,43 100. .45 100. ,82 101. . 35 101, .42 QIND-LIVE 99 . . 88 99 , .93 99. , 67 99. ,71 99, , 66 PIND-FOR 100. .00 96. .79 87. , 14 75. .81 72. , 66 QIND-FORA 100. , 00 101. .28 107. , 22 122. , 37 124. 58 QIND-FORC 100. , 00 98. .76 95. .05 90. , 51 89 . . 15 CARBONQ 0. . 00 2 . , 60 12. , 61 32. , 64 36. , 34 CARBONL 0. , 00 1. . 30 6. 30 16. 30 18. 15 CARBONAP 0 . . 00 9 . .21 11. . 65 13 . . 98 14 . ,75 CARBONLAP 0. . 00 18 , , 44 23. , 33 28. , 00 29. , 53 CARBSOUTH 0 . , 00 2 . . 20 10. . 63 27 . . 51 30. 64 CARBMIDWST 0. . 00 0. . 22 1. , 06 2. ,75 3 . , 06 CARBPNW 0. 00 0. , 01 0. . 02 0. , 06 0. 07 CARBELSEWR 0 . . 00 0. , 18 0 , , 89 2 . ,31 2 . , 57 ACARSOUTH 0 . , 00 1. ,09 5. , 30 13 , ,72 15. . 28 ACARMIDWST 0 . .00 0 , .12 0, . 56 1, .45 1, . 61 ACARPNW 0. , 00 0, . 00 0, , 02 0, . 04 0, . 04 ACARELSEWR 0. , 00 0, ,09 0. ,42 1, .09 1, .21 CRP 17 . . 19 16, . 15 15. , 17 14 , . 07 13 , , 87 ------- Table WR - 11 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPLAND Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLF AGCONSSURP 1021.42 1021.26 1020.95 1020.62 1020.52 AGPROSURP 20.38 20.62 21. 06 21.52 21. 68 FRCONSURP 9.49 9 .49 9.49 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.59 1. 59 DOMSURP 1052.87 1052.95 1053.08 1053.22 1053.28 FORSURP 83.83 83 .76 83 . 65 83.52 83.48 TOTSURP 1136.70 1136.71 1136.73 1136.74 1136.76 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0.06 0.31 0.82 0.93 TGOVCST 0.00 0. 06 0.31 0.82 0.93 NETSURP 1136.70 1136.65 1136.42 1135.92 1135.83 PSURSOUTH 3 .63 3 . 66 3 .74 3.86 3 .89 PSURPNW 1.45 1.46 1.48 1.53 1.54 PSURMIDWST 8.38 8.50 8.68 8.88 8.95 PSURELSEWR 6.93 7.01 7 . 15 7.26 7 .30 PINDAGCROP 109.33 108.14 108.86 109.73 110.01 QINDAGCROP 138.27 99 . 84 99. 60 98.39 98.29 PIND-LIVE 101.46 101.55 101.76 101.80 101.85 QIND-LIVE 99 .91 99.76 99. 68 99.77 99.78 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0.00 3 . 23 15. 65 40.48 45.07 CARBONL 0.00 1.30 6.30 16. 30 18 . 15 CARBONAP 0.00 18.80 19 . 56 20.28 20.54 CARBONLAP 0.00 46 . 68 48 . 57 50. 37 51. 02 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2.73 13 . 22 34.20 38.08 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0.27 1.31 3.39 3 .77 CARBPNW 0. 00 0.01 0. 03 0. 08 0.09 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 0.23 1. 09 2 . 82 3 . 14 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 1. 09 5.30 13.72 15.28 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 0 . 12 0. 56 1.45 1.61 ACARPNW 0. 00 0.00 0. 02 0.04 0.04 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0.09 0.42 1.09 1.21 CRP 17. 19 16.15 15. 17 14.07 13 .87 ------- Table WR - 12 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPLAND Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1021.36 1021.52 1021.22 1020.52 1020.42 AGPROSURP 20.47 20.33 20.75 21.70 21.85 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.54 9.72 9.94 10.00 FRPROSURP 1.58 1.52 1.35 1.15 1.10 DOMSURP 1052.90 1052.91 1053.04 1053.31 1053.37 FORSURP 83 .81 83 .80 83.70 83.51 83 .48 TOTSURP 1136.71 1136.71 1136.74 1136.82 1136.85 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0. 01 0.11 0. 39 0.47 TGOVCST 0.00 0. 01 0.11 0.39 0.47 NETSURP 1136.71 1136.70 1136.63 1136.43 1136.38 PSURSOUTH 3 .63 3.60 3.68 3.87 3.91 PSURPNW 1.45 1.45 1.48 1.54 1.55 PSURMIDWST 8.43 8 . 38 8.56 8.98 9. 04 PSURELSEWR 6.97 6.90 7 .03 7 .30 7.35 PINDAGCROP 107.82 107.80 108.55 110.05 110.32 QINDAGCROP 99 .78 100.20 99.86 99.33 99.26 PIND-LIVE 101.41 101.16 101.35 101.84 101.89 QIND-LIVE 99. 81 100.12 100.02 99.83 99.80 PIND-FOR 100.00 96.79 87. 14 75.81 72.66 QIND-FORA 100.00 101.28 107.22 122.37 124.58 QIND-FORC 100.00 98.76 95. 05 90. 51 89. 15 CARBONQ 0. 00 2.60 12.61 32. 64 36.34 CARBONL 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16. 30 18 . 15 CARBONAP 0. 00 5.73 8.54 11. 87 12 .83 CARBONLAP 0. 00 11. 47 17 . 09 23 .76 25. 69 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2 . 20 10.63 27. 51 30.64 CARBMIDWST 0.00 0.22 1.06 2.75 3.06 CARBPNW 0. 00 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.07 CARBELSEWR 0.00 0. IB 0.89 2.31 2.57 ACARSOUTH 0.00 1. 09 5.30 13.72 15.28 ACARMIDWST 0.00 0. 12 0.56 1.45 1.61 ACARPNW 0. 00 0. 00 0. 02 0. 04 0. 04 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0. 09 0.42 1.09 1.21 CRP 17 .19 16.15 15.17 14.07 13 .87 ------- Table WR - 13 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PRO Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE AGCONSSURP AGPROSURP FRCONSURP FRPROSURP DOMSURP FORSURP TOTSURP GOVTDFCOST GOVCARBCS TGOVCST NETSURP PSURSOUTH PSURPNW PSURMIDWST PSURELSEWR PINDAGCROP QINDAGCROP PIND-LIVE QIND-LIVE PIND-FOR QIND-FORA QIND-FORC CARBONQ CARBONL CARBONAP CARBONLAP CARBELSEWR ACARELSEWR CRP CARBLEV1 1024.30 23.71 9.49 1.59 1059.09 85.39 1144.48 9 , 0, 9 , 1135.13 4.20 1. 9, 7 , 35 00 35 64 88 98 100.21 100.40 99.97 99 . 53 100.00 100.00 100.00 0 . 00 0, 0, 0 0 0 17 00 00 00 00 00 19 CARBLEV2 1024.43 23 . 61 9.49 1.58 1059.11 85.43 1144.54 9 .42 0. 02 9 . 44 1135.10 4 . 18 . 63 ,85 95 1 9 7 100.06 100.01 100.00 100.09 100.00 100.00 100.00 2.91 . 30 . 87 15.39 2 .91 1.30 17 . 19 CARBLEV3 1024.44 23.61 9.49 1.58 1059.12 85.43 1144.55 9.42 0.10 9.52 1135.03 4.18 1.63 9.85 7.95 100.06 100.02 100.01 100.09 100.00 100.00 100.00 14 .11 6.30 6.87 15. 39 14 .11 6.30 17 . 19 42 25 67 CARBLEV4 1024.44 23.61 9.49 1.58 1059.12 85.43 1144.55 9, 0, 9 , 1134.88 4.18 1.63 9.85 7.95 100.05 100.03 100.01 100.09 100.00 100.00 100.00 36.51 16.30 6.87 15.39 36.51 16.30 17 . 19 CARBLEV5 1024.44 23 . 61 9 .49 1. 58 1059.12 85.43 1144.55 9 0, 9 , 42 28 70 1134.85 4 . 18 1, 9 , 7 , 64 85 95 100.05 100.03 100.01 100.09 100.00 100.00 100.00 40 . 66 18. 15 6. 87 15.39 40.66 18 . 15 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 14 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PRO Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARSLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1024.43 1024.39 1024.42 1024.41 1024.41 AGPROSURP 23.62 23.62 23.61 23.61 23. 62 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.53 9.68 9.87 9.92 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.54 1.38 1.21 1.17 DOMSURP 1059.13 1059.08 1059.09 1059.10 1059.12 FORSURP 85. 44 85.42 85.45 85.47 85.48 TOTSURP 1144.57 1144.50 1144.54 1144.57 1144.60 GOVTDFCOST 9.45 9.39 9.41 9.41 9.42 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 01 0.06 0.19 0.23 TGOVCST 9.45 9.40 9.47 9.60 9. 65 NETSURP 1135.12 1135.10 1135.07 1134.97 1134.95 PSURSOUTH 4 . 18 4 . 18 4.18 4.18 4.18 PSURPNW 1.63 1.64 1.64 1.64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9.85 9 . 84 9.84 9.84 9.84 PSURELSEWR 7.95 7.95 7 .95 7.95 7.96 PINDAGCROP 100.00 100.14 100.09 100.08 100.07 QINDAGCROP 100.00 100.43 100.45 100.46 100.47 PIND-LIVE 100.00 100.02 100.03 100.03 100.03 QIND-LIVE 100.00 99. 97 99.96 99.96 99. 96 PIND-FOR 100.00 97.46 88.55 77.54 74 . 64 QIND-FORA 100.00 99. 67 98 . 49 98.16 97. 38 QIND-FORC 100.00 99 . 03 95.71 91.92 90. 89 CARBONQ 0. 00 2.42 11.72 30.32 33.76 CARBONL 0.00 1. 30 6. 30 16.30 18.15 CARBONAP 0. 00 3 . 56 4 . 98 6. 25 6.69 CARBONLAP 0. 00 6.61 9. 26 11. 62 12.44 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 2.42 11. 72 30. 32 33.76 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16. 30 18. 15 CRP 17 . 19 17 . 19 17 . 19 17 .19 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 15 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLE AGCONSSURP 1023.50 1023.79 1023.81 1023.81 1023.82 AGPROSURP 23 . 69 23.51 23 .51 23.51 23 .51 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1. 59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 DOMSURP 1058.27 1058.38 1058.40 1058.40 1058.41 FORSURP 84 .96 85.07 85.07 85.08 85.08 TOTSURP 1143 .23 1143.45 1143.47 1143.48 1143.49 GOVTDFCOST 8 . 34 8.47 8.48 8.49 8.49 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 02 0.10 0.25 0.28 TGOVCST 8 . 34 8.49 8.58 8.74 8.77 NETSURP 1134.89 1134.96 1134.89 1134.74 1134.72 PSURSOUTH 4 .22 4 .17 4.17 4. 17 4 . 17 PSURPNW 1. 64 1. 63 1.63 1. 63 1.63 PSURMIDWST 9.84 9 . 77 9.78 9.78 9.78 PSURELSEWR 7 .99 7.93 7.93 7.93 7 .93 PINDAGCROP 102.26 101.66 101.65 101.64 101.63 QINDAGCROP 100.13 99.77 99.78 99.78 99.79 PIND-LIVE 100 . 37 100.39 100.39 100.39 100.39 QIND-LIVE 99.75 99.81 99.81 99.81 99.81 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0 . 00 2.91 14 .11 36. 51 40. 66 CARBONL 0.00 1.30 6.30 16.30 18. 15 CARBONAP 0. 00 6. 87 6.87 6. 87 6.87 CARBONLAP 0.00 15. 39 15.39 15. 39 15. 39 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 2 .91 14 . 11 36.51 40. 66 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16.30 18. 15 CRP 17 . 19 17 . 19 17 . 19 17 . 19 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 16 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.76 1023.63 1023.64 1023.65 1023.65 AGPROSURP 23.49 23.56 23.56 23.57 23.57 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.53 9.68 9.87 9.92 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.54 1.38 1.21 1.17 DOMSURP 1058.33 1058.26 1058.26 1058.30 1058.31 FORSURP 85.05 85 . 00 85.02 85.04 85.05 TOTSURP 1143.38 1143.26 1143.28 1143.34 1143.36 GOVTDFCOST 8. 51 8.42 8.43 8.44 8.44 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0.01 0. 06 0.19 0. 23 TGOVCST 8. 51 8.43 8.49 8.63 8.67 NETSURP 1134.87 1134.83 1134.79 1134.71 1134.69 PSURSOUTH 4 , 18 4.20 4 .20 4.20 4 . 20 PSURPNW 1. 63 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 PSURMIDWST 9.75 9.76 9.76 9.77 9.77 PSURELSEWR 7.93 7.96 7.95 7.96 7.96 PINDAGCROP 101.75 102.01 101.99 101.96 101.95 QINDAGCROP 99.66 99.77 99.78 99.79 99.80 PIND-LIVE 100.36 100.49 100.49 100.49 100.49 QIND-LIVE 99.80 99.72 99.72 99.72 99. 72 PIND-FOR 100.00 97.46 88 .55 77.54 74 . 64 QIND-FORA 100.00 99 . 67 98 .49 98 .16 97. 38 QIND-FORC 100.00 99.03 95.71 91.92 90.89 CARBONQ 0.00 2 .42 11.72 30.32 33.76 CARBONL 0. 00 1. 30 6.30 16.30 18 .15 CARBONAP 0. 00 3 . 56 4 . 98 6.25 6. 69 CARBONLAP 0. 00 6.61 9.26 11.62 12.44 CARBELSEWR 0.00 2 . 42 11.72 30.32 33 . 76 ACARELSEWR 0.00 1.30 6.30 16.30 18. 15 CRP 17. 19 17. 19 17 .19 17 . 19 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 17 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1022. .96 1023 . , 17 1023. .17 1023. .17 1023 . . 17 AGPROSURP 23 . .52 23 . .39 23. ,39 23. .39 23. . 39 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. ,49 9. .49 9. .49 9. .49 FRPROSURP 1. ,59 1. .59 1. .59 1, .59 1. .59 DOMSURP 1057 . ,56 1057. . 64 1057. .64 1057 , . 64 1057 . , 64 FORSURP 84. ,71 84. .78 84. ,78 84. .78 84 . . 78 TOTSURP 1142 . ,27 1142 . .42 1142. .42 1142. . 42 1142. .42 GOVTDFCOST 7 . ,41 7 . ,72 7. .72 7. ,72 7 , , 72 GOVCARBCS 0. , 00 0. , 02 0. . 10 0. .25 0. .28 TGOVCST 7 . .41 7. ,74 7. .82 7 , ,97 8 . , 00 NETSURP 1134 . .86 1134 . , 68 1134 . . 60 1134 . .45 1134 , ,42 PSURSOUTH 4 . , 19 4 . . 17 4. , 17 4 . . 17 4 . , 17 PSURPNW 1. . 64 1. . 63 1. . 63 1. , 63 1, , 63 PSURMIDWST 9. .72 9. . 66 9. . 66 9. . 66 9 . . 66 PSURELSEWR 7. .97 7 . .92 7. .92 7. .92 7 , , 92 PINDAGCROP 103 . .55 103. . 10 103. .09 103 . . 09 103 . , 09 QINDAGCROP 99. .83 99. . 13 99. . 14 99. . 14 99 . , 14 PIND-LIVE 100. .75 100. .73 100. . 73 100, .73 100. . 73 QIND-LIVE 100. .08 99. .94 99. . 94 99. . 94 99 . , 94 PIND-FOR 100. .00 100. . 00 100. .00 100, ,00 100, , 00 QIND-FORA 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. , 00 100, , 00 100. 00 QIND-FORC 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. , 00 100. , 00 100 . 00 CARBONQ 0. . 00 2 . .91 14 . . 11 36. ,51 40. 66 CARBONL 0. . 00 1. . 30 6. . 30 16. , 30 18 . . 15 CARBONAP 0. . 00 6. , 87 6. . 87 6. , 87 6 . , 87 CARBONLAP 0. . 00 15. . 39 15. . 39 15. , 39 15. . 39 CARBELSEWR 0. . 00 2 . .91 14 . . 11 36. , 51 40. , 66 ACARELSEWR 0. .00 1. . 30 6. . 30 16, , 30 18. , 15 CRP 17. . 19 17 , . 19 17. . 19 17, . 19 17 . , 19 ------- Table WR - 18 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLE AGCONSSURP 1023.19 1023,04 1023.04 1023.05 1023.05 AGPROSURP 23.36 23.46 23.46 23.46 23.46 FRCONSURP 9.49 9. 53 9.68 9.87 9.92 FRPROSURP 1.59 1. 54 1.38 1.21 1. 17 DOMSURP 1057.63 1057.57 1057.56 1057.59 1057.60 FORSURP 84 . 80 84.73 84.75 84.76 84.77 TOTSURP 1142.43 1142.30 1142.31 1142.35 1142.37 GOVTDFCOST 7.71 7.59 7.59 7.60 7.60 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 01 0.06 0.19 0.23 TGOVCST 7.71 7.60 7. 65 7.79 7.83 NETSURP 1134.72 1134.70 1134.66 1134.56 1134.54 PSURSOUTH 4 . 17 4 . 19 4 .19 4 . 19 4. 19 PSURPNW 1. 63 1. 64 1.64 1. 64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9.65 9.68 9. 68 9.68 9. 68 PSURELSEWR 7 .91 7.95 7.95 7.95 7.95 PINDAGCROP 103.06 103.40 103.40 103.39 103.39 QINDAGCROP 99. 08 99.41 99.41 99.41 99.41 PIND-LIVE 100.72 100.87 100.87 100.87 100.87 QIND-LIVE 99.87 99.64 99.64 99.64 99 . 64 PIND-FOR 100.00 97.46 88.55 77 .54 74 . 64 QIND-FORA 100.00 99. 67 98.49 98.16 97.38 QIND-FORC 100.00 99 . 03 95.71 91.92 90. 89 CARBONQ 0. 00 2.42 11.72 30. 32 33.76 CARBONL 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16.30 18 . 15 CARBONAP 0.00 3 . 56 A . 98 6.25 6. 69 CARBONLAP 0.00 6 .61 9.26 11.62 12 .44 CARBELSEWR 0.00 2.42 11.72 30.32 33.76 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 1. 30 6.30 16.30 18 .15 CRP 17. 19 17. 19 17. 19 17.19 17.19 ------- Table WR - 19 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023 , .80 1023 , .87 1023. .88 1023. .89 1023 , . 88 AGPROSURP 23 .61 23, .58 23. .58 23. .58 23 , .59 FRCONSURP 9, .49 9, .49 9. .49 9, .49 9. .49 FRPROSURP 1. .59 1, .59 1, .59 1. .59 1. .59 DOMSURP 1058, .49 1058, .53 1058, .54 1058. .55 1058 .55 FORSURP 85. . 12 85, .16 85. .16 85. .16 85, . 17 TOTSURP 1143. . 61 1143, . 69 1143. .70 1143. .71 1143, .72 GOVTDFCOST 8. .54 8, . 61 8. .61 8. , 62 8, . 62 GOVCARBCS 0. . 00 0. .02 0. . 10 0, ,25 0. . 28 TGOVCST 8. . 54 8. .63 8. .71 8. , 87 8. . 90 NETSURP 1135. . 07 1135. . 06 1134 . .99 1134 . . 84 1134 . . 82 PSURSOUTH 4 . .20 4 , . 19 4 . . 19 4 . , 19 4 . , 19 PSURPNW 1. . 64 1. . 63 1. .63 1. , 63 1. . 63 PSURMIDWST 9. .83 9. .81 9. .81 9 , ,81 9 , , 81 PSURELSEWR 7 . .95 7 . .95 7 . .95 7 , , 95 7 , , 95 PINDAGCROP 101. .51 101. .30 101, .28 101. .27 101. .26 QINDAGCROP 100. , 65 100. .35 100. . 36 100. , 37 100. . 37 PIND-LIVE 100. . 37 100. .28 100. . 29 100, ,29 100. , 29 QIND-LIVE 99 . . 87 99. .79 99. .79 99 . , 79 99 . , 79 PIND-FOR 100. . 00 100. .00 100. , 00 100. ,00 100. , 00 QIND-FORA 100. , 00 100. 00 100. , 00 100. , 00 100. 00 QIND-FORC 100. , 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. , 00 100 . . 00 CARBONQ 0. , 00 2 . .91 14 . . 11 36. .51 40. .66 CARBONL 0. , 00 1. 30 6. , 30 16. .30 18. 15 CARBONAP 0. . 00 6. .87 6. . 87 6. ,87 6. 87 CARBONLAP 0. . 00 15. . 39 15. , 39 15. . 39 15. ,39 CARBELSEWR 0. . 00 2 . . 91 14 . . 11 36. . 51 40. , 66 ACARELSEWR 0. . 00 1. , 30 6. .30 16. . 30 18. 15 CRP 17 . . 19 17 . , 19 17. . 19 17. . 19 17. 19 ------- Table WR - 20 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.82 1023.77 1023.77 1023.76 1023.78 AGPROSURP 23.60 23.60 23.61 23.61 23.61 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.53 9.68 9.87 9.92 FRPROSURP 1.58 1.54 1.38 1.21 1.17 DOMSURP 1058.49 1058.44 1058.44 1058.45 1058.48 FORSURP 85.14 85.11 85.13 85.15 85.15 TOTSURP 1143.63 1143.55 1143.57 1143.60 1143.63 GOVTDFCOST 8.53 8.46 8.47 8.47 8.48 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0.01 0.06 0. 19 0.23 TGOVCST 8.53 8.47 8.53 8.66 8.71 NETSURP 1135.10 1135.08 1135.04 1134.94 1134.92 PSURSOUTH 4 .19 4 . 19 4.19 4 . 20 4 .19 PSURPNW 1.63 1.63 1. 64 1. 64 1.63 PSURMIDWST 9. 82 9.82 9.82 9.82 9.82 PSURELSEWR 7 . 96 7 . 96 7.96 7.96 7 . 96 PINDAGCROP 101.43 101.60 101.59 101.59 101.58 QINDAGCROP 100.33 100.41 100.41 100.42 100.42 PIND-LIVE 100.32 100.34 100.34 100.34 100.34 QIND-LIVE 99 .78 99 .74 99.74 99.74 99.74 PIND-FOR 100.00 97.46 88.55 77.54 74 .64 QIND-FORA 100.00 99.67 98.49 98.16 97.38 QIND-FORC 100.00 99.03 95.71 91.92 90. 89 CARBONQ 0. 00 2.42 11.72 30.32 33.76 CARBONL 0.00 1. 30 6.30 16.30 18. 15 CARBONAP 0.00 3 .56 4 . 98 6.25 6 . 69 CARBONLAP 0. 00 6.61 9.26 11.62 12 . 44 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 2 . 42 11.72 30.32 33.76 ACARELSEWR 0.00 1.30 6. 30 16.30 18.15 CRP 17 .19 17 . 19 17. 19 17 . 19 17. 19 ------- Table WR - 21 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-2 5D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023 . .22 1023 . .47 1023 . 48 1023. ,47 1023 . ,49 AGPROSURP 23 . , 36 23 . .23 23 . , 23 23. ,24 23 . .24 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9, ,49 9. ,49 9. ,49 9. ,49 FRPROSURP 1. .59 1. . 58 1, ,58 1. , 58 1. .58 DOMSURP 1057. , 66 1057 , .77 1057 , .78 1057. .78 1057. .80 FORSURP 84 . .77 84 . .84 84 . ,85 84. ,85 84. .85 TOTSURP 1142. .43 1142 . , 61 1142. ,63 1142. .63 1142. .65 GOVTDFCOST 7. .53 7 . .71 7. ,72 7. ,72 7. .73 GOVCARBCS 0. .00 0. .02 0. , 10 0. ,25 0. .28 TGOVCST 7. .53 7 . .73 7 . , 82 7. .97 8. . 01 NETSURP 1134. .90 1134 . . 88 1134 . ,81 1134. , 66 1134 . . 64 PSURSOUTH 4 . . 16 4 . . 13 4 . , 13 4. , 13 4 . . 13 PSURPNW 1. . 62 1, .61 1, , 61 1. , 61 1. . 61 PSURMIDWST 9. .70 9 , . 66 9 . . 66 9. , 66 9 . . 66 PSURELSEWR 7 . .88 7 , .83 7 . . 83 7. ,83 7. .83 PINDAGCROP 103. . 01 102 , . 57 102 , . 56 102 . , 55 102. . 54 QINDAGCROP 100, .32 99 , .86 99 , .86 99. , 87 99. . 87 PIND-LIVE 100. .76 100, .46 100, .46 100. ,46 100. .46 QIND-LIVE 99. . 94 99 . .88 99 , . 88 99. . 88 99. .88 PIND-FOR 100. .00 100, .00 100, . 00 100. .00 100. .00 QIND-FORA 100. .00 100, . 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 QIND-FORC 100. . 00 100, . 00 100. , 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 CARBONQ 0. .00 2 . .91 14 . , 11 36. .51 40. .66 CARBONL 0. .00 1, . 30 6. , 30 16. , 30 18. . 15 CARBONAP 0. . 00 6 . . 87 6 . . 87 6. , 87 6. . 87 CARBONLAP 0. . 00 15 , . 39 15. . 39 15. , 39 15. . 39 CARBELSEWR 0, . 00 2 , .91 14 , . 11 36. . 51 40. . 66 ACARELSEWR 0, . 00 1, . 30 6 , . 30 16. , 30 18. .15 CRP 17, . 19 17 , . 19 17 , . 19 17. . 19 17. . 19 ------- Table WR - 22 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.47 1023.36 1023.39 1023.38 1023.40 AGPRQSURP 23.21 23.28 23.27 23.28 23.28 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.53 9.68 9.87 9 . 92 FRPROSURP 1.58 1.54 1.38 1.21 1. 17 DOMSURP 1057.75 1057.71 1057.72 1057.74 1057.77 FORSURP 84 .84 84 . 82 84.84 84.86 84.87 TOTSURP 1142.59 1142.53 1142.56 1142.60 1142.64 GOVTDFCOST 7.71 7. 66 7.67 7.68 7.69 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 01 0. 06 0. 19 0.23 TGOVCST 7.71 7. 67 7.73 7.87 7. 92 NETSURP 1134.88 1134.86 1134.83 1134.73 1134.72 PSURSOUTH 4 . 13 4 . 14 4 .14 4 .14 4 . 14 PSURPNW 1.61 1. 62 1. 62 1.62 1. 62 PSURWIDWST 9. 64 9. 67 9.67 9.67 9. 67 PSURELSEWR 7.82 7 . 85 7.85 7.85 7 . 85 PINDAGCROP 102.59 102.74 102.70 102.69 102.67 QINDAGCROP 99.83 99.82 99.83 99.84 99.85 PIND-LIVE 100.43 100.53 100.53 100.53 100.53 QIND-LIVE 99.88 100.01 100.01 100.01 100.01 PIND-FOR 100.00 97.40 88.55 77.54 74.64 QIND-FORA 100.00 99.81 98.49 98.16 97 . 38 QIHD-FORC 100.00 99.00 95.71 91.92 90.89 CARBONQ 0 . 00 2 .44 11.72 30.32 33.76 CARBONL 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16. 30 18.15 CARBONAP 0. 00 3.54 4 .98 6 . 25 6. 69 CARBONLAP 0. 00 6. 63 9.26 11. 62 12.44 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 0. 16 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 CARBELSEWR 0.00 2.27 11.72 30. 32 33.76 ACARSOUTH 0 . 00 0 . 08 0.00 0 . 00 0. 00 ACARELSEWR 0.00 1. 22 6.30 16.30 18. 15 CRP 17 . 19 17 . 11 17 . 19 17. 19 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 23 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLE AGCONSSURP 1021.42 1021.37 1021.35 1021.34 1021.34 AGPROSURP 20.38 " 20.46 20.49 20.49 20. 49 FRCONSURP 9.49 9 .49 9.49 9.49 9 .49 FRPROSURP 1.58 1. 58 1. 58 1.58 1. 58 DOMSURP 1052.87 1052.90 1052.91 1052.90 1052.90 FORSURP 83.83 83.81 83.81 83.81 83.81 TOTSURP 1136.70 1136.71 1136.72 1136.71 1136.71 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0. 02 0. 10 0.25 0.28 TGOVCST 0. 00 0. 02 0. 10 0.25 0.28 NETSURP 1136.70 1136.69 1136.62 1136.46 1136.43 PSURSOUTH 3 . 63 3 . 62 3 . 64 3 . 64 3. 64 PSURPhTW 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 PSURMIDWST 8 . 38 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 PSURELSEWR 6.93 6. 97 6. 98 6.98 6. 98 PINDAGCROP 109.33 107.81 107.81 107.81 107.81 QINDAGCROP 138.27 99.83 99.80 99.80 99. 80 PIND-LIVE 101.46 101.42 101.45 101.45 101.45 QIND-LIVE 99.91 99. 87 99 .81 99.81 99.81 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 2 .91 14 . 11 36.51 40. 66 CARBONL 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16.30 18. 15 CARBONAP 0. 00 6.87 6.87 6.87 6. 87 CARBONLAP 0. 00 15.39 15.39 15. 39 15. 39 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 2.91 14 . 11 36. 51 40. 66 ACARELSEWR 0.00 1. 30 6.30 16. 30 18. 15 CRP 17 . 19 17. 19 17 . 19 17 . 19 17. 19 ------- Table WR - 24 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1021.36 1021.46 1021.29 1021.15 1021.18 AGPROSURP 20.47 20.32 20.68 . 20.87 20.85 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.56 9.73 9.97 10.02 FRPROSURP 1.58 1.50 1.33 1.13 1. 08 DOMSURP 1052.90 1052.84 1053.03 1053.12 1053.13 FORSURP 83.81 83.81 83.71 83.69 83.70 TOTSURP 1136.71 1136.65 1136.74 1136.81 1136.83 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 00 0.04 0.22 0.26 TGOVCST 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.22 0.26 NETSURP 1136.71 1136.65 1136.70 1136.59 1136.57 PSURSOUTH 3 . 63 3.60 3.69 3.74 3.73 PSURPNW 1.45 1.44 1.47 1.48 1.48 PSURMIDWST 8.43 8.37 8.52 8.60 8.59 PSURELSEWR 6.97 6.91 7.00 7.05 7 . 05 PINDAGCROP 107.82 107.74 108.42 108.70 108.68 QINDAGCROP 99 .78 100.17 99 . 86 99.75 99.76 PIND-LIVE 101.41 101.14 101.22 101.33 101.33 QIND-LIVE 99.81 100.12 100.06 100.01 100.01 PIND-FOR 100.00 96. 08 86.41 73.89 70. 80 QIND-FORA 100.00 102.19 111.20 113.52 112.28 QIND-FORC 100.00 98 . 48 94.71 89.92 88.77 CARBONQ 0. 00 3 .01 13.23 32.19 35. 60 CARBONL 0 . 00 1.43 6.30 16. 30 18.15 CARBONAP 0.00 0 . 00 3 . 19 6.71 7 .26 CARBONLAP 0. 00 0. 00 6.70 13 . 26 14 .24 CARBSOUTH 0.00 3 .01 13.23 16.48 16 . 18 CARBELSEWR 0 . 00 0.00 0.00 15 .71 19 .42 ACARSOUTH 0.00 1.43 6.30 7.86 7.71 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.44 10.44 CRP 17 . 19 16 .72 16 .72 16.63 16. 63 ------- Table WR - 25 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PRO Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1024.30 1024.43 1024.43 1024.44 1024.44 AGPROSURP 23.71 23.61 23.61 23.61 23.61 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.58 1.58 1. 58 1. 58 DOMSURP 1059.09 1059.11 1059.11 1059.12 1059.12 FORSURP 85.39 85. 44 85.44 85.44 85.44 TOTSURP 1144.48 1144.55 1144.55 1144.56 1144.56 GOVTDFCOST 9.35 9.42 9.42 9. 42 9.42 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.27 0.31 TGOVCST 9.35 9 .44 9.52 9 . 69 9.73 NETSURP 1135.13 1135.11 1135.03 1134.87 1134.83 PSURSOUTH 4 .20 4 .18 4.18 4.18 4. 18 PSURPNW 1. 64 1. 64 1.64 1.64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9.88 9 . 85 9.85 9.85 9.85 PSURELSEWR 7 . 98 7 . 95 7.95 7.95 7 .95 PINDAGCROP 100.21 100.04 100.04 100.03 100.03 QINDAGCROP 100.40 100.04 100.04 100.05 100.05 PIND-LIVE 99 . 97 100.01 100.01 100.01 100.01 QIND-LIVE 99 . 53 100.09 100.09 100.09 100.09 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0 . 00 3 . 00 15.00 40.00 45.00 CARBONL 0. 00 1. 34 6.70 17.86 20.09 CARBONAP 0. 00 6 . 87 6.87 6.87 6.87 CARBONLAP 0. 00 15.39 15.39 15. 39 15.39 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 3 . 00 15. 00 40.00 45. 00 ACARELSEWR 0 . 00 1.34 6.70 17 .86 20.09 CRP 17. 19 17. 19 17 . 19 17.19 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 26 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PRO Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1024.43 1024.42 1024.42 1024.43 1024.41 AGPROSURP 23 . 62 23 . 62 23.62 23.62 23.62 FRCONSURP 9 . 49 9 .54 9.72 9.94 9.94 FRPROSURP 1.59 1. 53 1.35 1.15 1.15 DOMSURP 1059.13 1059.11 1059.11 1059.14 1059.12 FORSURP 85.44 85.44 85.46 85.48 85 .48 TOTSURP 1144.57 1144.55 1144.57 1144.62 1144.60 GOVTDFCOST 9.45 9 .41 9.41 9.41 9.40 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 01 0. 08 0.28 0.31 TGOVCST 9 .45 9 .42 9 .49 9.69 9.71 NETSURP 1135.12 1135.13 1135.08 1134.93 1134.89 PSURSOUTH 4 . 18 4 . 18 4. 18 4.19 4 . 19 PSURPNW 1. 63 1.64 1.64 1.64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9 . 85 9 . 85 9.84 9.84 9.84 PSURELSEWR 7 . 95 7 . 96 7.96 7.96 7.96 PINDAGCROP 100.00 100.07 100.07 100.08 100.08 QINDAGCROP 100.00 100.47 100.48 100.48 100.48 PIND-LIVE 100.00 100.02 100.02 100.02 100.02 QIND-LIVE 100.00 99 . 97 99.97 99.97 99.97 PIND-FOR 100.00 96. 86 86. 59 73.39 73.52 QIND-FORA 100.00 99 . 59 98. 53 96.94 96.98 QIND-FORC 100.00 98 . 79 95. 04 90.44 90. 49 CARBONQ 0. 00 3 . 00 15.00 40.00 45.00 CARBONL 0. 00 1. 61 8.06 21.05 23.27 CARBONAP 0. 00 3 . 66 5 . 19 6.89 6.87 CARBONLAP 0.00 6 . 80 9.65 13 .09 13.29 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 3 . 00 15 . 00 40.00 45.00 ACARELSEWR 0.00 1. 61 8 . 06 21.05 23 . 27 CRP 17 . 19 17 . 19 17 . 19 17 .19 17 .19 ------- Table WR - 27 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023. , 50 1023, .81 1023. ,80 1023. .81 1023. , 82 AGPROSURP 23. , 69 23, .52 23. .52 23. .52 23. . 52 FRCONSURP 9. ,49 9, .49 9. ,49 9. .49 9. ,49 FRPROSURP 1. , 59 1, .59 1. ,59 1. .59 1. . 59 DOMSURP 1058. .27 1058, .41 1058. .40 1058 , .41 1058, .42 FORSURP 84 . . 96 85, .08 85. . 09 85 . . ~ 9 85, . 09 TOTSURP 1143 . ,23 1143 . .49 1143 , ,49 1143, . 50 1143, .51 GOVTDFCOST 8. . 34 8. .49 8. ,49 8. .50 8. . 50 GOVCARBCS 0. . 00 0 , .02 0. , 10 0. .27 0. .31 TGOVCST 8. , 34 8, .51 8. , 59 8. .77 8. ,81 NETSURP 1134 . . 89 1134 . .98 1134 . , 90 1134 . .73 1134 . ,70 PSURSOUTH 4 . , 22 4 . . 18 4 . , 18 4. . 18 4 . , 18 PSURPNW 1. , 64 1, . 63 1, , 63 1. . 63 1. , 63 PSURNIDWST 9. . 84 9 , .78 9. , 78 9. .78 9. , 78 PSURELSEWR 7 . ,99 7 . .93 7 . ,93 7, .93 7 . ,93 PINDAGCROP 102 . .26 101, . 62 101, , 61 101. , 60 101. , 60 QINDAGCROP 100. , 13 99 , .79 99 , . 80 99. .80 99. , 80 PIND-LIVE 100. , 37 100. . 39 100, .40 100. .40 100. ,40 QIND-LIVE 99 . .75 99. .81 99, .81 99. .81 99. .81 PIND-FOR 100. , 00 100. .00 100, ,00 100. .00 100. , 00 QIND-FORA 100 . , 00 100. . 00 100. , 00 100. ,00 100. , 00 QIND-FORC 100. , 00 100, . 00 100. . 00 100. ,00 100. 00 CARBONQ 0. , 00 3 . . 00 15. . 00 40. ,00 45. 00 CARBONL 0. , 00 1. . 34 6. ,70 17. ,86 20. . 09 CARBONAP 0. , 00 6. .87 6. , 87 6. .87 6. , 87 CARBONLAP 0. , 00 15, .39 15. , 39 15. .39 15. , 39 CARBELSEWR 0. , 00 3 , . 00 15. , 00 40. .00 45. , 00 ACARELSEWR 0. , 00 1. .34 6. .70 17 . .86 20. .09 CRP 17 . , 19 17 , . 19 17, . 19 17. . 19 17 . . 19 ------- Table WR - 28 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.76 1023.65 1023.64 1023.64 1023.64 AGPROSURP 23.49 23.57 23.57 23.57 23.57 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.54 9.72 9.94 9.94 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.53 1.35 1.15 1.15 DOMSURP 1058.33 1058.29 1058.28 1058.30 1058.30 FORSURP 85.05 85.02 85.04 85.06 85. 06 TOTSURP 1143.38 1143.31 1143.32 1143.36 1143.36 GOVTDFCOST 8.51 8.44 8.43 8.43 8.43 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.27 0.31 TGOVCST 8.51 8.45 8.51 8.70 8.74 NETSURP 1134.87 1134.86 1134.81 1134.66 1134.62 PSURSOUTH 4 . 18 4 .20 4.20 4.20 4.20 PSURPNW 1. 63 1. 64 1. 64 1. 64 1.64 PSURMIDWST 9 . 75 9.77 9.77 9.77 9.77 PSURELSEWR 7.93 7 .96 7.96 7.96 7.96 PINDAGCROP 101.75 101.95 101.95 101.95 101.95 QINDAGCROP 99 . 66 99.79 99.79 99.79 99.79 PIND-LIVE 100.36 100.49 100.49 100.49 100.49 QIND-LIVE 99 . 80 99.72 99 .72 99.72 99-72 PIND-FOR 100.00 96.86 86.59 73.52 73.52 QIND-FORA 100.00 99 . 59 98.53 96.98 96.98 QIND-FORC 100.00 98.79 95.04 90.49 90. 49 CARBONQ 0. 00 3 . 00 15 . 00 40. 00 45. 00 CARBONL 0. 00 1.61 8 . 06 21.04 23.27 CARBONAP 0. 00 3 . 66 5.19 6.87 6. 87 CARBONLAP 0. 00 6.80 9.65 13 . 06 13.29 CARBELSEWR 0 . 00 3 . 00 15.00 40.00 45. 00 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 1. 61 8 . 06 21.04 23 .27 CRP 17. 19 17. 19 17 . 19 17 .19 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 29 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1022, ,96 1023. , 17 1023. .17 1023. .17 1023 . , 18 AGPROSURP 23 . ,52 23, ,39 23. .39 23. .39 23. ,39 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. .49 9. .49 9. .49 9. ,49 FRPROSURP 1. .59 1. .59 1, .59 1. .59 1. , 59 DOMSURP 1057 . .56 1057. .64 1057, . 64 1057, .64 1057, . 65 FORSURP 84, .71 84, .78 84 , .78 84, .78 84, .78 TOTSURP 1142, .27 1142, .42 1142, .42 1142, .42 1142, ,43 GOVTDFCOST 7 , .41 7. .72 7 , .72 7, .72 7. ,72 GOVCARBCS 0 , . 00 0. . 02 0. . 10 0, .27 0. .31 TGOVCST 7 , .41 7, .74 7. .82 7, .99 8. . 03 NETSURP 1134 , .86 1134 . . 68 1134 . , 60 1134 . .43 1134 . .40 PSURSOUTH 4 , , 19 4 . . 17 4 . , 17 4. .17 4 . , 17 PSURPNW 1. . 64 1. . 63 1. . 63 1. ,63 1. 63 PSURMIDWST 9 . ,72 9. ,66 9. , 66 9. ,66 9. . 66 PSURELSEWR 7 . .97 7. ,92 7. ,92 7. ,92 7 . .92 PINDAGCROP 103 . , 55 103 . ,09 103. , 09 103. .08 103 . . 08 QINDAGCROP 99 , , 83 99. .14 99. , 14 99. . 14 99 . . 14 PIND-LIVE 100. . 75 100. .73 100. .73 100. .73 100. ,73 QIND-LIVE 100. , 08 99 . .94 99. , 94 99. .94 99. . 94 PIND-FOR 100. ,00 100. .00 100. , 00 100. ,00 100. , 00 QIND-FORA 100 . , 00 100. . 00 100. , 00 100. ,00 100. . 00 QIND-FORC 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. , 00 100, . 00 100. 00 CARBONQ 0. , 00 3 . , 00 15. , 00 40. , 00 45. 00 CARBONL 0. , 00 1. , 34 6. , 70 17. ,86 20. 09 CARBONAP 0. , 00 6 . .87 6. , 87 6. ,87 6 . 87 CARBONLAP 0. , 00 15. .39 15. , 39 15. ,39 15. 39 CARBELSEWR 0. . 00 3 . , 00 15. ,00 40. ,00 45. 00 ACARELSEWR 0, . 00 1, .34 6, ,70 17, .86 20. , 09 CRP 17 , . 19 17 . . 19 17 , . 19 17. . 19 17 , , 19 ------- Table WR - 3 0 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.19 1023.04 1023.05 1023.05 1023.05 AGPROSURP 23.36 23.46 23 .46 23.46 23.46 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.54 9.72 9.94 9. 94 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.53 1.35 1.15 1.15 DOMSURP 1057.63 1057.57 1057.58 1057.60 1057.60 FORSURP 84.80 84.74 84.75 84.77 84.77 TOTSURP 1142.43 1142.31 1142.33 1142.37 1142.37 GOVTDFCOST 7-71 7. 60 7.60 7.60 7 .60 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0.01 0. 08 0.27 0.31 TGOVCST 7.71 7.61 7. 68 7.87 7.91 NETSURP 1134.72 1134.70 1134.65 1134.50 1134.46 PSITRSOUTH 4 .17 4 . 19 4 .19 4.19 4 .19 PSURPNW 1.63 1.64 1. 64 1. 64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9. 65 9. 68 9. 68 9.68 9 . 68 PSURELSEWR 7.91 7 . 95 7. 95 7.95 7.95 PINDAGCROP 103.06 103.38 103.38 103.38 103.38 QINDAGCROP 99.08 99 . 41 99.41 99.41 99.41 PIND-LIVE 100.72 100.87 100.87 100.87 100.87 QIND-LIVE 99.87 99 . 64 99.64 99.64 99.64 PIND-FOR 100.00 96 .86 86.59 73.52 73 . 52 QIND-FORA 100.00 99. 59 98.53 96. 98 96.98 QIND-FORC 100.00 98 . 79 95. 04 90.49 90. 49 CARBONQ 0. 00 3 . 00 15.00 40. 00 45 . 00 CARBONL 0. 00 1.61 8.06 21.04 23 . 27 CARBONAP 0. 00 3 . 66 5 . 19 6 . 87 6.87 CARBONLAP 0. 00 6.80 9.65 13 .06 13 . 29 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 3 . 00 15.00 40.00 45. 00 ACARELSEWR 0.00 1.61 8.06 21.04 23 . 27 CRP 17 . 19 17 . 19 17 . 19 17. 19 17. 19 ------- Table WR - 31 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023 . 80 1023 . .88 1023, .89 1023, .90 1023 , .90 AGPROSURP 23 . . 61 23 , .59 23, .59 23 , .59 23 , .58 FRCONSURP 9 . .49 9. . 49 9. .49 9. .49 9 . . 49 FRPROSURP 1. .59 1. .59 1, .59 1. .59 1, . 59 DOMSURP 1058. , 49 1058. .55 1058. .56 1058, .57 1058, .56 FORSURP 85. , 12 85. . 17 85. . 17 85. . 17 85, . 18 TOTSURP 1143 . , 61 1143 . , 72 1143. .73 1143 . .74 1143 , , 74 GOVTDFCOST 8. , 54 8. . 62 8. .63 8. .63 8. , 62 GOVCARBCS 0. , 00 0. , 02 0. .10 0. ,27 0. ,31 TGOVCST 8. . 54 8 . . 64 8 . .73 8. .90 8. ,93 NETSURP 1135. . 07 1135. . 08 1135. .00 1134 . .84 1134 . .81 PSURSOUTH 4 . , 20 4 . . 19 4 . . 19 4 . , 19 4 . , 19 PSURPNW 1. . 64 1. . 63 1. .63 1. ,63 1. . 63 PSURMIDWST 9. ,83 9. . 82 9. .82 9. .82 9 . , 82 PSURELSEWR 7 . , 95 7 . . 95 7. ,95 7. ,95 7 . , 95 PINDAGCROP 101. , 51 101. .25 101. ,25 101. .24 101. ,23 QINDAGCROP 100. , 65 100. . 38 100. ,38 100. ,39 100. ,40 PIND-LIVE 100. , 37 100. . 29 100. .29 100. .30 100. .29 QIND-LIVE 99 . . 87 99. .79 99. ,79 99, .79 99 , ,79 PIND-FOR 100. , 00 100, ,00 100. ,00 100, .00 100, , 00 QIND-FORA 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. , 00 QIND-FORC 100. , 00 100. , 00 100. , 00 100, . 00 100. 00 CARBONQ 0 . , 00 3 . . 00 15. . 00 40. . 00 45. 00 CARBONL 0. 00 1. , 34 6. ,70 17. .86 20. 09 CARBONAP 0. 00 6. . 87 6. ,87 6. ,87 6 . 87 CARBONLAP 0. 00 15. . 39 15. , 39 15. .39 15. 39 CARBELSEWR 0 . , 00 3 . , 00 15. .00 40, . 00 45. , 00 ACARELSEWR 0. , 00 1. , 34 6. .70 17. .86 20. , 09 CRP 17 . , 19 17. , 19 17. . 19 17. . 19 17. , 19 ------- 32 Results for following scenario nd on which carbon can be placed CRP quantity restriction CARBQ ogram Assumption 1990PR-10D ^jtion about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 .GCONSSURP 1023.82 1023.78 1023.78 1023.78 1023.79 AGPROSURP 23 . 60 23.61 23 . 61 23.61 23 . 61 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.54 9.72 9.94 9 . 94 FRPROSURP 1. 58 1.53 1.35 1.15 1. 15 DOMSURP 1058.49 1058.46 1058.46 1058.48 1058.49 FORSURP 85.14 85.12 85.14 85.16 85.16 TOTSURP 1143.63 1143.58 1143.60 1143.64 1143.65 GOVTDFCOST 8.53 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.48 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0.01 0. 08 0.27 0.31 TGOVCST 8 . 53 8.49 8. 56 8.75 8.79 NETSURP 1135.10 1135.09 1135.04 1134.89 1134.86 PSURSOUTH 4 . 19 4 . 19 4.20 4.20 4 .20 PSURPNW 1. 63 1. 64 1. 64 1. 64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9 . 82 9.82 9.82 9 .82 9.82 PSURELSEWR 7 . 96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 PINDAGCROP 101.43 101.56 101.56 101.55 101.55 QINDAGCROP 100.33 100.43 100.43 100.43 100.43 PIND-LIVE 100.32 100.34 100.34 100.34 100.34 QIND-LIVE 99.78 99.74 99.74 99.74 99.74 PIND-FOR 100.00 96.86 86.59 73 . 52 73. 52 QIND-FORA 100.00 99.59 98.53 96. 98 96.98 QIND-FORC 100.00 98.79 95. 04 90. 49 90.49 CARBONQ 0. 00 3 . 00 15. 00 40. 00 45. 00 CARBONL 0.00 1.61 8. 06 21.04 23.27 CARBONAP 0. 00 3 . 66 5. 19 6 . 87 6.87 CARBONLAP 0. 00 6. 80 9.65 13 . 06 13 .29 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 3 . 00 15.00 40.00 45. 00 ACARELSEWR 0.00 1.61 8.06 21.04 23.27 CRP 17 . 19 17.19 17. 19 17. 19 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 33 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023. .22 1023 . .49 1023. ,49 1023. .48 1023. .48 AGPROSURP 23. .36 23 . .24 23. ,24 23 . .24 23. .24 FRCONSURP 9. , 49 9. .49 9. ,49 9. .49 9. .49 FRPROSURP 1. ,59 1. .58 1. .58 1. .58 1. .58 DOMSURP 1057. , 66 1057 . .80 1057. . 80 1057. .79 1057. .79 FORSURP 84. .77 84 . .85 84. , 85 84. .86 84. .86 TOTSURP 1142. , 43 1142 . .65 1142. .65 1142, .65 1142. ,65 GOVTDFCOST 7. ,53 7 . .73 7. .73 7. .73 7 . .73 GOVCARBCS 0. , 00 0. . 02 0. , 10 0. .27 0. .31 TGOVCST 7. . 53 7 . .75 7. .83 8. .00 8. .04 NETSURP 1134 . . 90 1134 . .90 1134. . 82 1134 . .65 1134 . , 61 PSURSOUTH 4. , 16 4 . . 13 4 . . 13 4 . .13 4. , 13 PSURPNW 1. . 62 1. .61 1. . 61 1, .61 1. , 61 PSURMIDWST 9. .70 9 , . 66 9 . . 66 9 , .66 9. . 66 PSURELSEWR 7. . 88 7 . .83 7. .83 7 . .83 7. .83 PINDAGCROP 103 . . 01 102 . . 53 102. ,53 102 . .52 102. .52 QINDAGCROP 100. . 32 99 . ,87 99. .88 99. .88 99. .88 PIND-LIVE 100. ,76 100. ,46 100. ,46 100. .46 100. .46 QIND-LIVE 99. , 94 99 . .88 99. .88 99. .88 99. .88 PIND-FOR 100. , 00 100. ,00 100. , 00 100. .00 100. ,00 QIND-FORA 100. , 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. .00 100. , 00 QIND-FORC 100. , 00 100. .00 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 CARBONQ 0. , 00 3 . . 00 15. , 00 40. .00 45. , 00 CARBONL 0. , 00 1. , 34 6. .70 17. .86 20. , 09 CARBONAP 0. , 00 6. .87 6. . 87 6. .87 6. . 87 CARBONLAP 0. , 00 15. ,39 15. . 39 15. .39 15. ,39 CARBELSEWR 0. , 00 3 . . 00 15. . 00 40. .00 45. . 00 ACARELSEWR 0. . 00 1. , 34 6. .70 17. .86 20. . 09 CRP 17 . . 19 17 , , 19 17 . . 19 17 , . 19 17. . 19 ------- Table WR - 34 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023 .47 1023.38 1023.38 1023.39 1023.40 AGPROSURP 23.21 23.29 23.29 23.29 23.29 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.54 9.72 9.94 9.94 FRPROSURP 1.58 1.53 1.35 1.15 1.15 DOMSURP 1057.75 1057.74 1057.74 1057.77 1057.78 FORSURP 84.84 84.84 84.86 84 .88 84.88 TOTSURP 1142.59 1142.58 1142.60 1142.65 1142.66 GOVTDFCOST 7.71 7. 69 7.69 7.69 7.70 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0.01 0.08 0.27 0.31 TGOVCST 7.71 7 .70 7.77 7.96 8. 01 NETSURP 1134.88 1134.88 1134.83 1134.69 1134.65 PSURSOUTH 4 . 13 4 .14 4 .14 4 .14 4 . 15 PSURPNW 1.61 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 PSURMIDWST 9 . 64 9 . 67 9 . 67 9 . 67 9.67 PSURELSEWR 7 .82 7.86 7.86 7.86 7.86 PINDAGCROP 102.59 102.66 102.65 102.65 102.64 QINDAGCROP 99.83 99.85 99.86 99.86 99. 86 PIND-LIVE 100.43 100.53 100.53 100.54 100.54 QIND-LIVE 99. 88 100.01 100.01 100.01 100.01 PIND-FOR 100.00 96.86 86.59 73.52 73.52 QIND-FORA 100.00 99.59 98.53 96 . 98 96. 98 QIND-FORC 100.00 98.79 95.04 90.49 90. 49 CARBONQ 0. 00 3 . 00 15.00 40. 00 45 . 00 CARBONL 0. 00 1.61 8 . 06 21. 04 23 .27 CARBONAP 0 . 00 3 . 66 5. 19 6. 87 6 .87 CARBONLAP 0.00 6.80 9.65 13 . 06 13.29 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 3 . 00 15 . 00 40. 00 45 . 00 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 1.61 8.06 21.04 23.27 CRP 17 . 19 17 . 19 17 . 19 17 .19 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 35 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE AGCONSSURP AGPROSURP FRCONSURP FRPROSURP DOMSURP FORSURP TOTSURP GOVCARBCS TGOVCST NETSURP PSURSOUTH PSURPNW PSURMIDWST PSURELSEWR PINDAGCROP QINDAGCROP PIND-LIVE QIND-LIVE PIND-FOR QIND-FORA QIND-FORC CARBONQ CARBONL CARBONAP CARBONLAP CARBELSEWR ACARELSEWR CRP CARBLEVI 1021.42 20.38 9.49 1.58 1052.87 83.83 1136.70 0. 00 0. 00 1136.70 3.63 1.45 8 . 38 6.93 109.33 138 . 27 101.46 99.91 100.00 100.00 100.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 00 00 00 00 00 00 19 CARBLEV2 1021.34 20.49 9. 1, 49 58 1052.90 83 .81 1136.71 0. 02 0. 02 1136.69 3 1. 64 45 8.43 6.98 107.81 99 . 80 101.45 99.81 100.00 100.00 100.00 3 . 00 1.34 6. 87 15.39 3 . 00 1. 34 17. 19 CARBLEV3 1021.34 20.49 9.49 1.58 1052.90 83.81 1136.71 0.10 0.10 1136.61 3 . 64 1.45 8.43 6.98 107.81 99.80 101.45 99.81 100.00 100.00 100.00 15.00 6.70 6.87 15.39 15.00 6 . 70 17 . 19 CARBLEV4 1021.34 20.49 9.49 1. 58 1052.90 83.81 1136.71 0.27 0.27 1136.44 3.64 1.45 8.43 6. 98 107.81 99. 80 101.45 99. 81 100.00 100.00 100.00 40. 00 17.86 6. 87 15. 39 40. 00 17.86 17 . 19 CARBLEV5 1021.34 20.49 9.49 1.58 1052.90 83 .81 1136.71 0.31 0.31 1136.40 64 45 8 .43 6.98 107.81 99.80 101.45 99.81 100.00 100.00 100.00 45. 00 20. 09 6.87 15.39 45.00 20.09 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 36 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1021.36 1021.57 1021.19 1021.08 1021.09 AGPROSURP 20.47 20.28 20.79 20.98 20.98 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.56 9.75 9.94 9.94 FRPROSURP 1.58 1. 50 1.31 1.15 1.15 DOMSURP 1052.90 1052.91 1053.04 1053.15 1053.16 FORSURP 83.81 83.81 83.70 83.66 83.66 TOTSURP 1136.71 1136.72 1136.74 1136.81 1136.82 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0. 00 0.05 0.27 0.31 TGOVCST 0. 00 0.00 0.05 0.27 0.31 NETSURP 1136.71 1136.72 1136.69 1136.54 1136.51 PSURSOUTH 3.63 3.60 3.71 3.79 3.79 PSLFRPNW 1.45 1.45 1.48 1.50 1.50 PSURMIDWST 8.43 8.34 8.57 8. 62 8. 62 PSURELSEWR 6. 97 6.90 7.03 7 . 07 7 . 07 PINDAGCROP 107.82 107.69 108.58 108.87 108.87 QINDAGCROP 99 .78 100.06 99.78 99.71 99 .71 PIND-LIVE 101.41 101.10 101.30 101.35 101.35 QIND-LIVE 99.81 100.11 100.02 100.00 100.00 PIND-FOR 100.00 96.09 85.32 75.58 75.58 QIND-FORA 100.00 102.19 113.01 116.25 116.25 QIND-FORC 100.00 98.48 94.27 90.49 90.49 CARBONQ 0. 00 3 .00 15.00 40.00 45 . 00 CARBONL 0.00 1.43 7.14 19.45 21.68 CARBONAP 0.00 -0. 06 3.51 6.87 6.87 CARBONLAP 0. 00 -0. 12 7 . 38 14 . 13 14 . 26 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 3 . 00 15.00 18 . 75 18.75 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 21.25 26.25 ACARSOUTH 0.00 1.43 7 . 14 8.94 8 . 94 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0.00 0.00 10. 51 12 . 74 CRP 17 . 19 16.80 16.72 16.63 16. 63 ------- Table WR - 37 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPREG Farm Program Assumption 1990PRO Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1024 . ,30 1024 . , 37 1024 . ,05 1023. .34 1023 . .29 AGPROSURP 23. ,71 23 . .68 23. ,82 24 . .15 24 . .20 .FRCONSURP 9. ,49 9. ,49 9. ,49 9. .49 9. .49 FRPROSURP 1. , 59 1. ,58 1. .59 1. .59 1. .59 DOMSURP 1059. , 09 1059. .12 1058. ,95 1058. .57 1058. .57 FORSURP 85. , 39 85. ,40 85. ,26 84 . .93 84 . .92 TOTSURP 1144 , , 48 1144 . , 52 1144 . ,21 1143 . .50 1143. .49 GOVTDFCOST 9. ,35 9. , 37 9. , 14 8. .53 8. .50 GOVCARBCS 0 . , 00 0. .07 0. .34 0. .90 1. . 00 TGOVCST 9 . , 35 9. ,44 9. ,48 9. ,43 9. .50 NETSURP 1135. , 13 1135. ,08 1134 . ,73 1134 . .07 1133. ,99 PSURSOUTH 4 . ,20 4 . ,20 4 . , 23 4 . .31 4 . . 33 PSURPNW 1. , 64 1. ,64 1. , 65 1. ,68 1. . 68 PSURMIDWST 9, . 88 9. . 88 9 . ,91 10. . 04 10. . 06 PSURELSEWR 7 . ,98 7 . ,97 8. . 01 8. .12 8, . 13 PINDAGCROP 100. ,21 100. .23 100. .95 102. ,70 102 , .78 QINDAGCROP 100, ,40 99. ,93 99. ,44 98 . .84 98. .71 PIND-LIVE 99 . . 97 100. . 05 100. ,21 100. . 68 100. .76 QIND-LIVE 99. , 53 100. , 06 99. ,98 99. .82 99. .71 PIND-FOR 100, , 00 100. , 00 100. ,00 100, .00 100. .00 QIND-FORA 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. , 00 100. .00 100. .00 QIND-FORC 100, , 00 100. , 00 100. , 00 100. . 00 100. , 00 CARBONQ 0 , , 00 3 . .23 15. , 65 40. .48 45. ,07 CARBONL 0. , 00 1. . 30 6. .30 16. .30 18. , 15 CARBONAP 0, , 00 21. . 36 21. . 61 22 . .20 22 . , 21 CARBONLAP 0, . 00 53. . 06 53 . . 66 55, . 12 55. , 16 CARBSOUTH 0. . 00 2 . .73 13 . .22 34 , .20 38. . 08 CARBMIDWST 0 , . 00 0. . 27 1. .31 3 , .39 3 . ,77 CARBPNW 0, . 00 0, .01 0. . 03 0, . 08 0. . 09 CARBELSEWR 0, . 00 0. . 22 1. . 09 2 , .82 3 , . 14 ACARSOUTH 0, . 00 1. . 09 5. .30 13 , .72 15, .28 ACARMIDWST 0, . 00 0, . 12 0, . 56 1, .45 1. .62 ACARPNW 0, . 00 0, .00 0, . 02 0 . 04 0, .04 ACARELSEWR 0, . 00 0, .09 0, .42 1, .09 1, .21 CRP 17, . 19 16, . 36 15, . 88 14 , .77 14 , .70 ------- Table WR - 38 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPREG Farm Program Assumption 1990PRO Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1024.43 1024.29 1023.82 1023.35 1023.22 AGPROSURP 23 . 62 23 .72 23.95 24.17 24 .21 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.54 9.72 9.94 10.00 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.53 1.35 1.15 1. 10 DOMSURP 1059.13 1059.08 1058.64 1058.61 1058.53 FORSURP 85 . 44 85.41 85.20 84 .98 84 . 90 TOTSURP 1144.57 1144.49 1144.04 1143.59 1143.43 GOVTDFCOST 9.45 9 . 33 8.93 8.55 8.42 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 02 0.15 0.45 0.53 TGOVCST 9.45 9 . 35 9.08 9 . 00 8.95 NETSURP 1135.12 1135.14 1134.96 1134.59 1134.48 PSURSOUTH 4 .18 4 .21 4.26 4.32 4.33 PSURPKVJ 1. 63 1.64 1.66 1.68 1.69 PSURMIDWST 9 . 85 9 . 87 9 . 97 10. 05 10.06 PSURELSEWR 7.95 7 . 99 8.06 8 .12 8.13 PINDAGCROP 100.00 100.31 101.47 102.62 103.04 QINDAGCROP 100.00 100.30 99. 82 99 .16 99 . 04 PIND-LIVE 100.00 100.11 100.40 100.72 100.77 QIND-LIVE 100.00 99 . 90 99.78 99.59 99.58 PIND-FOR 100.00 96 . 79 87 . 14 75. 81 72.66 QIND-FORA 100.00 101.28 107.22 122.37 124.58 QIND-FORC 100.00 98.76 95. 05 90.51 89. 15 CARBONQ 0. 00 2 . 60 12 . 61 32 . 64 36. 34 CARBONL 0. 00 1.30 6. 30 16.30 18 . 15 CARBONAP 0 . 00 9 . 11 11. 61 13 . 88 14 . 69 CARBONLAP 0. 00 18 . 25 23 . 24 27 .78 29 . 41 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2 . 19 10. 63 27 . 51 30. 63 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0.22 1.06 2.75 3.06 CARBPfW 0. 00 0. 01 0. 02 0. 06 0. 07 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 0. 18 0. 89 2.31 2.58 ACARSOUTH 0 . 00 1.09 5 . 30 13 .72 15.28 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 0. 12 0. 56 1.45 1. 62 ACARPNW 0.00 0. 00 0. 02 0.04 0.04 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0.09 0.42 1.09 1.21 CRP 17 . 19 16. 36 15.88 14.77 14 . 70 ------- Table WR - 39 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPREG Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023. . 50 1023. ,71 1023. .27 1022. ,57 1022. .45 AGPROSURP 23. , 69 23. ,60 23. .78 24. ,09 24 . , 16 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. ,49 9. .49 9. .49 9. .49 FRPROSURP 1. .59 1. .59 1. .59 1. .59 1. , 59 DOMSURP 1058. .27 1058. .39 1058. .13 1057. .74 1057. .69 FORSURP 84 . .96 85. .05 84. .87 84. .56 84 . .52 TOTSURP 1143. ,23 1143. ,44 1143. .00 1142. .30 1142. .21 GOVTDFCOST 8 . . 34 8 . ,40 8. ,01 7. .37 7 . ,21 GOVCARBCS 0. . 00 0. , 07 0. .34 0. .90 1. . 00 TGOVCST 8 . . 34 8 . ,47 8. .35 8. .27 8. .21 NETSURP 1134 . .89 1134 . , 97 1134. ,65 1134. .03 1134 . , 00 PSURSOUTH 4 . .22 4 . . 19 4. .24 4. .31 4 . .32 PSURPNW 1. .64 1. .64 1. .65 1. .68 1. . 68 PSURMIDWST 9. .84 9. .81 9. .87 9. .98 10. .00 PSURELSEWR 7. ,99 7. .96 8. .02 8. . 12 8. .15 PINDAGCROP 102 . ,26 101. .86 102. .90 104 . ,59 104. .83 QINDAGCROP 100. , 13 99. ,71 99. .33 98. .41 98. . 30 PIND-LIVE 100. . 37 100. ,49 100. .73 101. . 22 101. . 32 QIND-LIVE 99. ,75 99. ,76 99. .63 99. ,32 99 , . 33 PIND-FOR 100. , 00 100. ,00 100. .00 100. .00 100. ,00 QIND-FORA 100. , 00 100. , 00 100. . 00 100. ,00 100. . 00 QIND-FORC 100. , 00 100. , 00 100. . 00 100. ,00 100. , 00 CARBONQ 0. , 00 3 . .23 15. .65 40. ,48 45. , 07 CARBONL 0. , 00 1. . 30 6. . 30 16. , 30 18. , 15 CARBONAP 0. ,00 21. . 32 21. .79 22. .25 22 . , 28 CARBONLAP 0. .00 52. ,94 54 . . 12 55. ,26 55. , 33 CARBSOUTH 0. . 00 2 . .73 13. .22 34. .20 38. ,08 CARBMIDWST 0. , 00 0. .27 1. .31 3 . .39 3 . ,77 CARBPNW 0. . 00 0. . 01 0. .03 0. .08 0. ,09 CARBELSEWR 0. . 00 0. . 22 1. .09 2. .82 3 , , 14 ACARSOUTH 0, , 00 1. .09 5, .30 13. .72 15. . 28 ACARMIDWST 0. . 00 0. . 12 0, . 56 1, .45 1, . 62 ACARPNW 0. . 00 0. . 00 0, .02 0. .04 0. . 04 ACARELSEWR 0. . 00 0. . 09 0, .42 1, .09 1. .21 CRP 17. . 19 16, .36 15, .88 14 , .77 14 . .70 ------- Table WR - 40 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPREG Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLF AGCONSSURP 1023.76 1023.58 1023.18 1022.72 1022.48 AGPROSURP 23.49 23.63 23 . 88 24.05 24 .15 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.54 9.72 9.94 10.00 FRPROSURP 1. 59 1.53 1.35 1.15 1.10 DOMSURP 1058.33 1058.28 1058.13 1057.86 1057.73 FORSURP 85.05 84 .99 84 .85 84.66 84.56 TOTSURP 1143.38 1143.27 1142.98 1142.52 1142.29 GOVTDFCOST 8. 51 8.40 8.06 7.61 7.25 GOVCARBCS 0 . 00 0. 02 0.15 0.45 0.53 TGOVCST 8.51 8 .42 8.21 8.06 7.78 NETSURP 1134.87 1134.85 1134.77 1134.46 1134.51 PSURSOUTH 4 . 18 4 . 22 4.26 4.31 4.32 PSURPNW 1. 63 1. 64 1.66 1.67 1.68 PSURMIDWST 9 . 75 9.80 9 .90 9.96 10.00 PSURELSEWR 7 . 93 7.97 8.06 8.10 8 .14 PINDAGCROP 101.75 102.12 103.07 104.19 104.80 QINDAGCROP 99. 66 99.75 99.40 98.60 98.45 PIND-LIVE 100.36 100.56 100.84 101.15 101.29 QIND-LIVE 99. 80 99. 69 99.55 99.26 99.22 PIND-FOR 100.00 96.79 87 .14 75.81 72.66 QIND-FORA 100.00 101.28 107.22 122.37 124.58 QIND-FORC 100.00 98 . 76 95.05 90.51 89. 15 CARBONQ 0. 00 2. 60 12 . 61 32.64 36.34 CARBONL 0. 00 1. 30 6.30 16.30 18.15 CARBONAP 0. 00 9 . 28 11. 67 13 .83 14 . 64 CARBONLAP 0.00 18 . 58 23 . 36 27.69 29.32 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2 . 19 10. 63 27 . 51 30.63 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0.22 1. 06 2.75 3. 06 CARBPNW 0. 00 0. 01 0. 02 0. 06 0. 07 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 0.18 0 . 89 2.31 2 . 58 ACARSOUTH 0.00 1. 09 5.30 13.72 15. 28 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 0. 12 0.56 1.45 1. 62 ACARPNVJ 0. 00 0. 00 0 . 02 0.04 0. 04 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0. 09 0.42 1.09 1.21 CRP 17 . 19 16 . 36 15. 88 14 . 77 14.70 ------- Table WR - 41 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPREG Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLE AGCONSSURP 1022.96 1023.17 1022.87 1022.25 1022.13 AGPROSURP 23.52 23.40 23.55 23 .88 23.91 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1. 59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 DOMSURP 1057.56 1057.65 1057.50 1057.21 1057.12 FORSURP 84.71 84 .77 84.65 84.41 84 .35 TOTSURP 1142.27 1142.42 1142.15 1141.62 1141.47 GOVTDFCOST 7.41 7.71 7.20 6.46 6.29 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 07 0.34 0.89 1.00 TGOVCST 7.41 7 .78 7.54 7.35 7.29 NETSURP 1134.86 1134.64 1134.61 1134.27 1134.18 PSURSOUTH 4. 19 4 . 18 4.20 4.28 4.29 PSURPNW 1. 64 1.63 1.64 1. 67 1.67 PSURMIDWST 9.72 9 . 67 9.73 9.87 9.88 PSURELSEWR 7.97 7 . 92 7.97 8.07 8 . 08 PINDAGCROP 103.55 103.17 103.92 105.38 105.74 QINDAGCROP 99. 83 99 . 01 98.65 97.84 97 .71 PIND-LIVE 100.75 100.71 100.88 101.34 101.42 QIND-LIVE 100.08 99.84 99.70 99.73 99.67 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 3 .23 15.65 40.48 45.07 CARBONL 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16.30 18. 15 CARBONAP 0. 00 21. 18 21.58 22.02 22 . 11 CARBONLAP 0. 00 52 . 60 53.59 54 . 67 54 .92 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2 .73 13.22 34 . 20 38 . 08 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0.27 1.31 3 . 39 3.77 CARBPNW 0. 00 0 .01 0.03 0.08 0.09 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 0.22 1.09 2.82 3 . 14 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 1. 09 5. 30 13 .72 15.28 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 0. 12 0.56 1.45 1.62 ACARPNW 0. 00 0. 00 0.02 0. 04 0.04 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0. 09 0.42 1. 09 1.21 CRP 17. 19 16.36 15.88 14 . 58 14 .41 ------- Table WR - 42 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPREG Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023. , 19 1022. . 98 1022. .76 1022. . 18 1022, . 09 AGPROSURP 23. , 36 23. .52 23. .66 23. .92 23 . 93 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. .54 9. .72 9. .94 10, . 00 FRPROSURP 1, .59 1 .53 1. .35 1, .15 1. . 10 DOMSURP 1057, .63 1057, .57 1057. .49 1057 , .19 1057, . 12 FORSURP 84. .80 84, .72 84. .66 84 . .42 84 . 38 TOTSURP 1142 . .43 1142, .29 1142. .15 1141, .61 1141, . 50 GOVTDFCOST 7. .71 7 , . 58 7. .13 6, . 38 6 , . 25 GOVCARBCS 0. .00 0. .02 0. .14 0, .45 0, . 53 TGOVCST 7 . .71 7 . .60 7. .27 6. .83 6 .78 NETSURP 1134. .72 1134. .69 1134. .88 1134, .78 1134 , .72 PSURSOUTH 4 . , 17 4. .20 4 . .22 4. .28 4 . . 29 PSURPNW 1. . 63 1, . 64 1. .65 1. , 67 1. , 67 PSURMIDWST 9. . 65 9. .71 9, ,77 9. .88 9, . 88 PSURELSEWR 7. .91 7 . .96 8 . . 01 8 . . 09 8 . .09 PINDAGCROP 103 . .06 103 , .52 104 . .05 105. ,56 105. ,83 QINDAGCROP 99. . 08 99, .26 98, .90 98. , 02 97. .90 PIND-LIVE 100. .72 100. .91 101, .04 101. .39 101. .44 QIND-LIVE 99. .87 99. .55 99 . .42 99. ,45 99. .41 PIND-FOR 100. . 00 96. .79 87. .14 75. ,81 72. . 66 QIND-FORA 100. , 00 101. .28 107 , , 22 122. . 37 124 . . 58 QIND-FORC 100. ,00 98. .76 95, . 05 90. , 51 89. .15 CARBONQ 0. , 00 2. , 60 12 . .61 32. , 64 36. . 34 CARBONL 0. , 00 1. , 30 6, .30 16. ,30 18. . 15 CARBONAP 0. 00 9 . .31 11. .43 13 . , 81 14 . .49 CARBONLAP 0. 00 18. . 64 22 . , 88 27. , 66 29. .02 CARBSOUTH 0. .00 2 . . 19 10. .63 27 . , 51 30. . 63 CARBMIDWST 0. , 00 0. .22 1, .06 2 . .75 3 . . 06 CARBPNW 0. . 00 0, .01 0, . 02 0. . 06 0. .07 CARBELSEWR 0. . 00 0. . 18 0 , . 89 2 . .31 2 . . 58 ACARSOUTH 0. . 00 1. .09 5, . 30 13. .72 15. .28 ACARMIDWST 0. , 00 0. . 12 0, .56 1, .45 1. , 62 ACARPNW 0. 00 0. . 00 0, , 02 0. . 04 0. , 04 ACARELSEWR 0. .00 0. ,09 0, .42 1, .09 1. ,21 CRP 17 . . 19 16. . 36 15. . 88 14 . , 58 14 . ,41 ------- Table WR - 4 3 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPREG Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023 , .80 1023. ,85 1023 , .49 1022. .72 1022 , . 61 AGPROSURP 23 , , 61 23. ,63 23 . .78 24. .09 24 , . 13 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. ,49 9. .49 9. .49 9, .49 FRPROSURP 1. .59 1. ,59 1. .59 1. .59 1, . 59 DOMSURP 1058. ,49 1058. ,56 1058. .35 1057. .89 1057 , . 82 FORSURP 85. . 12 85. , 16 85. .00 84. ,66 84 , .61 TOTSURP 1143 . .61 1143 . ,72 1143 . .35 1142. ,55 1142 , .43 GOVTDFCOST 8 . , 54 8. ,57 8. .23 7. ,50 7 . .43 GOVCARBCS 0. , 00 0. ,07 0. .34 0. ,90 1. , 00 TGOVCST 8. . 54 8. .64 8. .57 8. ,40 8, ,43 NETSURP 1135. .07 1135. . 08 1134 . .78 1134. . 15 1134 . , 00 PSURSOUTH 4 . .20 4 . .20 4 . .23 4. ,30 4 . , 32 PSURPNW 1. . 64 1. , 64 1. .65 1. , 67 1. . 68 PSURMIDWST 9 . .83 9 . . 84 9. .90 10. . 00 10, . 01 PSURELSEWR 7 . .95 7 . , 96 8 . .01 8. , 11 8 , . 13 PINDAGCROP 101. .51 101. ,37 102 . .26 104 . . 16 104 . , 38 QINDAGCROP 100. ,65 100. ,33 99 . .88 98. .97 98 . .81 PIND-LIVE 100. , 37 100. ,33 100. .57 101. , 07 101. , 14 QIND-LIVE 99 . .87 99. ,76 99 . .55 99. .33 99 . ,31 PIND-FOR 100. ,00 100. ,00 100. ,00 100. ,00 100, ,00 QIND-FORA 100 . , 00 100. , 00 100. , 00 100. , 00 100. , 00 QIND-FORC 100. ,00 100. , 00 100 , .00 100. ,00 100 . ,00 CARBONQ 0. . 00 3 . .23 15. .65 40. , 48 45. ,07 CARBONL 0. , 00 1. , 30 6. .30 16. , 30 18. , 15 CARBONAP 0. , 00 21. ,36 21. , 67 22. . 22 22 . .26 CARBONLAP 0. , 00 53 . , 04 53 . .83 55. , 19 55. ,29 CARBSOUTH 0. , 00 2 . ,73 13 . .22 34 . ,20 38 . . 08 CARBMIDWST 0. , 00 0. . 27 1. .31 3. , 39 3 . .77 CARBPNW 0. , 00 0. . 01 0. ,03 0. , 08 0. .09 CARBELSEWR 0. , 00 0. .22 1. .09 2. , 82 3 . . 14 ACARSOUTH 0. .00 1. . 09 5. .30 13 . .72 15. .28 ACARMIDWST 0. .00 0. , 12 0. .56 1. .45 1. . 62 ACARPNW 0. , 00 0. , 00 0. .02 0. .04 0. .04 ACARELSEWR 0. , 00 0. , 09 0. .42 1. . 09 1. .21 CRP 17, . 19 16, , 36 15, .88 14 . .77 14 , .70 ------- Table WR - 44 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPREG Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023, .82 1023 . . 69 1023, .39 1022.73 1022, .63 AGPROSURP 23. .60 23 . ,70 23, .84 24.09 24 , . 14 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. . 54 9, .72 9.94 10, . 00 FRPROSURP 1. ,58 1. , 53 1. .35 1.15 1, . 10 DOMSURP 1058, .49 1058 . , 46 1058. .30 1057.91 1057, .87 FORSURP 85, . 14 85. . 10 84. .98 84.70 84, , 65 TOTSURP 1143 . .63 1143. , 56 1143. .28 1142.61 1142. .52 GOVTDFCOST 8. .53 8. . 42 8. .15 7.49 7. . 44 GOVCARBCS 0, . 00 0. . 02 0. , 15 0.46 0. .53 TGOVCST 8. .53 8 . , 44 8. .30 7.95 7. .97 NETSURP 1135. . 10 1135. , 12 1134. .98 1134.66 1134. .55 PSURSOUTH 4 , . 19 4 . .21 4. . 25 4 .30 4 . . 32 PSURPNW 1. . 63 1. . 64 1. .65 1.68 1. . 68 PSURMIDWST 9. .82 9 . , 86 9. .92 10.00 10. , 02 PSURELSEWR 7. . 96 7 . . 98 8. . 03 8.11 8. .13 PINDAGCROP 101. .43 101. , 74 102. .48 104.15 104 . .38 QINDAGCROP 100, . 33 100. , 36 100. . 00 99.13 98. .91 PIND-LIVE 100. .32 100. , 43 100. .66 101.10 101. , 16 QIND-LIVE 99. .78 99. . 70 99. .55 99.31 99. , 30 PIND-FOR 100. . 00 96 . , 79 87 . . 14 75.81 72 . . 66 QIND-FORA 100, . 00 101. . 28 107 . .22 122.37 124 . ,58 QIND-FORC 100. .00 98 . , 76 95. ,05 90.51 89. 15 CARBONQ 0. .00 2 . , 60 12 . . 61 32.64 36. 34 CARBONL 0. . 00 1. , 30 6. , 30 16.30 18 . , 15 CARBONAP 0. , 00 9 . , 34 11. . 53 13.97 14 . 68 CARBONLAP 0. , 00 18. , 71 23. , 08 27.97 29. . 39 CARBSOUTH 0. .00 2 . 19 10. , 63 27 .51 30. 63 CARBMIDWST 0. . 00 0 . , 22 1. .06 2.75 3 . 06 CARBPNW 0. , 00 0. 01 0. .02 0. 06 0. 07 CARBELSEWR 0. , 00 0. 18 0. .89 2.31 2 . .58 ACARSOUTH 0. .00 1. . 09 5. .30 13.72 15. ,28 ACARMIDWST 0. . 00 0. , 12 0. ,56 1.45 1. , 62 ACARPNW 0. , 00 0. 00 0. .02 0.04 0. . 04 ACARELSEWR 0. .00 0. ,09 0. .42 1.09 1. ,21 CRP 17 . , 19 16 . . 36 15. , 88 14 .77 14 . ,70 ------- Table WR - 45 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPREG Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.22 1023.41 1022.99 1022.28 1022.23 AGPROSURP 23 .36 23.31 23 . 48 23.79 23 .81 FRCONSURP 9 . 49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1. 59 1.59 1.59 1.59 DOMSURP 1057.66 1057.80 1057.55 1057.15 1057.12 FORSURP 84.77 84 .83 84 . 67 84.37 84.35 TOTSURP 1142.43 1142.63 1142.22 1141.52 1141.47 GOVTDFCOST 7.53 7 . 67 7.27 6.54 6.40 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0. 07 0.34 0.89 0.99 TGOVCST 7.53 7.74 7 . 61 7.43 7.39 NETSURP 1134.90 1134.89 1134.61 1134.09 1134.08 PSURSOUTH 4.16 4 . 15 4 .18 4.25 4.26 PSURPNW 1.62 1.62 1.63 1.65 1. 65 PSURMIDWST 9.70 9. 69 9. 76 9. 87 9.88 PSURELSEWR 7.88 7 .85 7 . 91 8. 02 8.02 PINDAGCROP 103.01 102.69 103.72 105.38 105.51 QINDAGCROP 100.32 99 . 80 99 . 36 98.42 98.23 PIND-LIVE 100.76 100.53 100.80 101.34 101.36 QIND-LIVE 99.94 99 . 84 99.67 99.55 99 .50 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 3.23 15. 65 40.48 45.07 CARBONL 0. 00 1. 30 6.30 16.30 18. 15 CARBONAP 0. 00 21. 16 21. 52 22 . 02 22. 05 CARBONLAP O.'OO 52.56 53 .44 54 . 68 54 .76 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2.73 13 . 22 34 . 20 38 . 08 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0.27 1.31 3.39 3.77 CARBPNW 0.00 0.01 0. 03 0.08 0.09 CARBELSEWR 0.00 0.22 1.09 2.82 3. 14 ACARSOUTH 0.00 1.09 5.30 13.72 15.28 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 0 .12 0.56 1.45 1.62 ACARPNW 0. 00 0.00 0. 02 0. 04 0. 04 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0.09 0.42 1.09 1.21 CRP 17 .19 16.36 15 . 88 14 .77 14.70 ------- Table WR - 46 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPREG Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLE AGCONSSURP 1023.47 1023.38 1022.95 1022.28 1022.23 AGPROSURP 23.21 23.32 23.54 23.79 23.83 FRCONSURP 9.49 9. 54 9.72 9.94 10. 00 FRPROSURP 1. 58 1.53 1.35 1.15 1.10 DOMSURP 1057.75 1057.77 1057.56 1057.16 1057.16 FORSURP 84.84 84.82 84.70 84.42 84.40 TOTSURP 1142.59 1142.59 1142.26 1141.58 1141.56 GOVTDFCOST 7.71 7. 67 7.28 6.52 6.43 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.45 0.52 TGOVCST 7.71 7.69 7.42 6.97 6.95 NETSURP 1134.88 1134.90 1134.84 1134.61 1134.61 PSURSOUTH 4 .13 4 . 15 4 .20 4.26 4.26 PSURPNW 1. 61 1. 62 1.63 1.65 1.66 PSURMIDWST 9.64 9.69 9.77 9.86 9.88 PSURELSEWR 7.82 7.86 7.94 8.02 8 . 03 PINDAGCROP 102.59 102.77 103.67 105.37 105.52 QINDAGCROP 99.83 99.74 99.40 98.43 98.22 PIND-LIVE 100 .43 100.50 100.89 101.33 101.36 QIND-LIVE 99.88 99.99 99.84 99.79 99.73 PIND-FOR 100.00 96.79 87.14 75.81 72.66 QIND-FORA 100.00 101.28 107.22 122.37 124.58 QIND-FORC 100.00 98 .76 95.05 90.51 89 . 15 CARBONQ 0.00 2 . 60 12 .61 32.64 36.34 CARBONL 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16 .30 18. 15 CARBONAP 0. 00 9. 10 11.31 13 .75 14 . 42 CARBONLAP 0.00 18.21 22.64 27 . 52 28 . 87 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2 . 19 10. 63 27 . 51 30 . 63 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0.22 1.06 2.75 3 . 06 CARBPNW 0.00 0.01 0. 02 0.06 0.07 CARBELSEWR 0 . 00 0. 18 0.89 2.31 2 . 58 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 1.09 5.30 13 .72 15 . 28 ACARMIDWST 0.00 0.12 0. 56 1.45 1. 62 ACARPNW 0.00 0. 00 0. 02 0 . 04 0.04 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0.09 0.42 1.09 1.21 CRP 17 . 19 16. 36 15.88 14 .65 14 . 57 ------- Table WR - 47 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPREG Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1021. .42 1021. ,27 1020. ,98 1020. ,73 1020. . 64 AGPROSURP 20. , 38 20. . 60 21. ,02 21. ,40 21. .52 FRCONSURP 9. , 49 9. ,49 9. ,49 9. .49 9 . .49 FRPROSURP 1. . 58 1. , 58 1. ,58 1. , 58 1. .58 DOMSURP 1052. .87 1052 . , 94 1053. ,07 1053 . ,20 1053 , .23 FORSURP 83 . .83 83 . ,78 83. .66 83 . ,55 83 . .52 TOTSURP 1136. .70 1136. ,72 1136. ,73 1136. ,75 1136, .75 GOVCARBCS 0. . 00 0. . 06 0. ,30 0. ,80 0, ,90 TGOVCST 0. , 00 0. , 06 0. ,30 0. ,80 0. . 90 NETSURP 1136. ,70 1136. , 66 1136. ,43 1135. ,95 1135. .85 PSURSOUTH 3. , 63 3 . ,66 3 . ,74 3 . ,83 3 . . 86 PSURPNW 1. ,45 1. ,45 1. ,48 1. .51 1. .52 PSURMIDWST 8. , 38 8. ,48 8. .64 8. , 82 8 . .86 PSURELSEWR 6. , 93 7 . , 01 7. ,15 7 . , 24 7 , .28 PINDAGCROP 109 . ,33 108 . , 01 108. .74 109. , 52 109. .74 QINDAGCROP 138. , 27 99. .75 99. ,56 98. .56 98. . 37 PIND-LIVE 101. ,46 101. , 51 101. .73 101. .79 101. .81 QIND-LIVE 99. , 91 99. ,79 99. .70 99. .81 99. .79 PIND-FOR 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. .00 100. , 00 100. . 00 QIND-FORA 100. .00 100, .00 100. ,00 100. , 00 100, . 00 QIND-FORC 100. , 00 100, . 00 100. .00 100. . 00 100. .00 CARBONQ 0. , 00 3 . ,23 15. , 65 40. ,48 45. , 07 CARBONL 0. , 00 1. , 30 6. ,30 16. ,30 18. , 15 CARBONAP 0. , 00 18 . ,31 19. ,05 19. ,82 19. ,97 CARBONLAP 0. , 00 45. .48 47. ,31 49. , 23 49 . , 60 CARBSOUTH 0. , 00 2 . , 73 13. .22 34 . . 20 38. .08 CARBMIDWST 0. , 00 0. , 27 1. ,31 3 . .39 3 . .77 CARBPNW 0. , 00 0 , , 01 0. .03 0. . 08 0. .09 CARBELSEWR 0. , 00 0, .22 1. ,09 2. ,82 3. .14 ACARSOUTH 0. , 00 1, , 09 5. .30 13 . , 72 15. .28 ACARMIDWST 0. .00 0, , 12 0. .56 1. .45 1. . 62 ACARPNW 0. .00 0. . 00 0. .02 0. . 04 0. . 04 ACARELSEWR 0. . 00 0, . 09 0, .42 1. . 09 1, ,21 CRP 17. . 19 16, . 05 15, .49 14 . .58 14 , ,41 ------- Table WR - 48 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed CRP Type of quantity restriction CRPREG Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1021.36 1021.57 1021.25 1020.66 1020.55 AGPROSURP 20. 47 20.28 20.71 21.53 21.68 FRCONSURP 9.49 9. 54 9.72 9.94 10. 00 FRPROSURP 1.58 1.52 1.34 1.15 1. 10 DOMSURP 1052.90 1052.91 1053.02 1053.28 1053.33 FORSURP 83.81 83.81 83.72 83.54 83.52 TOTSURP 1136.71 1136.72 1136.74 1136.82 1136.85 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 01 0.10 0.37 0.44 TGOVCST 0. 00 0.01 0.10 0.37 0.44 NETSURP 1136.71 1136.71 1136.64 1136.45 1136.41 PSURSOUTH 3 . 63 3.60 3.68 3.85 3.88 PSURPNW 1.45 1.44 1.47 1.52 1. 54 PSURMIDWST 8.43 8.35 8.54 8.87 8.93 PSLJRELSEWR 6. 97 6.90 7.03 7.28 7.33 PINDAGCROP 107.82 107.69 108.36 109.76 110.00 QINDAGCROP 99.78 100.08 99.82 99.42 99. 32 PIND-LIVE 101.41 101.12 101.40 101.82 101.87 QIND-LIVE 99 . 81 100.11 99.99 99.84 99.82 PIND-FOR 100.00 96.79 87. 14 75.81 72.66 QIND-FORA 100.00 101.28 107.22 122.37 124.58 QIND-FORC 100.00 98.76 95.05 90.51 89.15 CARBONQ 0. 00 2. 60 12.61 32.64 36.34 CARBONL 0. 00 1.30 6.30 16.30 18. 15 CARBONAP 0. 00 5. 10 7.97 11.27 12.09 CARBONLAP 0. 00 10.20 15. 95 22.56 24.20 CARBSOUTH 0.00 2 . 19 10.63 27.51 30. 63 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0.22 1.06 2.75 3. 06 CARBPNW 0. 00 0. 01 0. 02 0.06 0. 07 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 0. 18 0.89 2.31 2.58 ACARSOUTH 0.00 1.09 5.30 13 .72 15.28 ACARMIDWST 0 . 00 0.12 0. 56 1.45 1. 62 ACARPNW 0.00 0.00 0.02 0. 04 0. 04 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0.09 0.42 1.09 1.21 CRP 17 . 19 16.05 15.49 14 .58 14.26 ------- Table WR - 49 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PRO Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1024 . .30 1024 . .29 1024. .37 1024 . .36 1024 . .51 AGPROSURP 23. .71 23. , 69 23. .65 23, .71 23, .76 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. . 49 9. .49 9, .49 9. .49 FRPROSURP 1. .59 1. . 58 1. . 58 1. .58 1, .58 DOMSURP 1059. .09 1059. .05 1059. . 09 1059, .14 1059, .34 FORSURP 85. ,39 85. .39 85. .42 85. .43 85, .48 TOTSURP 1144 . .48 1144 . . 44 1144 . .51 1144 . .57 1144. .82 GOVTDFCOST 9. .35 9. . 34 9. .39 9. .41 9. .50 GOVCARBCS 0. .00 0. .22 0. .44 0, .78 1. .82 TGOVCST 9. .35 9. .56 9. .83 10. . 19 11. .32 NETSURP 1135. . 13 1134 . . 88 1134 . . 68 1134 , .38 1133 . .50 PSURSOUTH 4 . .20 4. .20 4 . . 19 4 . .19 4 . , 16 PSURPNW 1. .64 1. . 64 1. . 64 1. .64 1. .63 PSURMIDWST 9. .88 9. .86 9. .86 9. .91 10. .01 PSURELSEWR 7. .98 7 . , 98 7 . ,97 7 . .97 7 . .96 PINDAGCROP 100. .21 100. .28 100. . 16 100. . 13 99. .83 QINDAGCROP 100. .40 100. .40 100. , 54 100. .46 100. . 19 PIND-LIVE 99 . . 97 99. .91 100. , 00 99. . 94 99. . 86 QIND-LIVE 99. . 53 99. . 27 99. ,41 99. . 10 98. .97 PIND-FOR 100. .00 100. . 00 100. ,00 100, .00 100. , 00 QIND-FORA 100. , 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. .00 100. , 00 QIND-FORC 100. .00 100. . 00 100. , 00 100. .00 100. , 00 CARBONQ 0. . 00 13. . 88 27. ,75 47 , ,32 102. ,59 CARBONL 0. ,00 7 . . 50 15. , 00 25. .00 50. , 00 CARBONAP 0. , 00 15. .71 15. . 68 16. ,52 17 . ,71 CARBONLAP 0. . 00 29. . 06 29. , 00 31. .26 36. ,34 CARBSOUTH 0. , 00 0. , 00 0. . 00 0. ,00 35. , 15 CARBMIDWST 0. . 00 13 . . 87 27. .75 41. ,41 50. , 31 CARBELSEWR 0. . 00 0. . 00 0. . 00 5, .91 17 , . 12 ACARSOUTH 0. . 00 0. . 00 0. . 00 0. . 00 15. .23 ACARMIDWST 0. . 00 7 . . 50 15. . 00 22 , .39 27 . .20 ACARELSEWR 0. , 00 0. . 00 0. . 00 2 . .61 7. . 58 CRP 17. . 19 17. . 19 17 , . 19 17 , . 19 17. . 19 ------- Table WR - 50 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PRO Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARB LEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1024. .43 1024 . .41 1024. .41 1024. .39 1024. .47 AGPROSURP 23. .62 23. , 65 23. . 66 23. ,79 23, .81 FRCONSURP 9. ,49 9. .72 9. ,87 10. .18 10. .37 FRPROSURP 1. .59 1, .35 1. .20 0, .98 0. .84 DOMSURP 1059. . 13 1059. . 13 1059. . 14 1059, . 34 1059, .49 FORSURP 85. .44 85. .46 85, .48 85, .49 85, .53 TOTSURP 1144 . .57 1144 . . 59 1144. .62 1144, . 83 1145. .02 GOVTDFCOST 9. .45 9 . ,46 9. ,43 9, .42 9, .48 GOVCARBCS 0. .00 0. . 09 0. .22 0. .64 1. .49 TGOVCST 9. .45 9. .55 9. .65 10. , 06 10, .97 NETSURP 1135. . 12 1135. .04 1134. .97 1134. , 77 1134 . .05 PSURSOUTH 4 . , 18 4 . .20 4 . .19 4. ,32 4 . .36 PSURPNW 1. , 63 1. . 64 1. . 64 1. , 64 1, . 63 PSURMIDWST 9. ,85 9. .86 9, .86 9, .87 9 , . 89 PSURELSEWR 7 , .95 7 . .96 7, .97 7, .97 7 , .93 PINDAGCROP 100, , 00 100. ,02 100, .04 100, . 08 99 , . 92 QINDAGCROP 100. , 00 100. , 09 100, .22 100, , 23 100, .25 PIND-LIVE 100 , .00 100. , 00 100. .00 100, . 01 99 , .83 QIND-LIVE 100 , .00 99 . .88 99 , .76 99, . 67 99 , .05 PIND-FOR 100, . 00 86. .91 78. ,76 63 . .98 54 , .05 QIND-FORA 100, . 00 106. .35 114 . .42 120. .17 126. , 68 QIND-FORC 100. , 00 94 , ,98 91. . 80 85. ,63 81. , 73 CARBONQ 0. , 00 13 . ,96 28. , 06 46. ,28 85. 70 CARBONL 0. , 00 7. , 50 15. , 00 25. ,00 50. .00 CARBONAP 0. . 00 6. , 62 7 . .79 13 , . 89 17. , 38 CARBONLAP 0. , 00 12. .33 14 . . 58 25. .71 29. . 80 CARBSOUTH 0 . , 00 13 . .96 28. . 06 44 . . 00 48. , 61 CARBHIDWST 0. , 00 0. .00 0. . 00 2, .28 34 . , 03 CARBELSEWR 0. , 00 0. ,00 0. , 00 0. . 00 3. , 07 ACARSOUTH 0 . , 00 7 . , 50 15. .00 23 , . 50 25. ,96 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 0. , 00 0. ,00 1. .50 22. , 39 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0. .00 0. .00 0. . 00 1. 66 CRP 17 . 19 17. , 19 17 . , 19 17. , 19 17. . 19 ------- Table WR - 51 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land HONE CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.50 1023.55 1023.56 1023.63 1023.70 AGPROSURP 23.69 23.64 23.62 23 .62 23.77 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.59 1.58 1.58 1.58 DOMSURP 1058.27 1058 . 27 1058.25 1058.32 1058.54 FORSURP 84 .96 85. 00 85. 00 85.01 85.05 TOTSURP 1143.23 1143.27 1143.25 1143.33 1143.59 GOVTDFCOST 8. 34 8.37 8.34 8.38 8.49 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0.22 0.44 0.77 1.82 TGOVCST 8.34 8.59 8.78 9.15 10.31 NETSURP 1134.89 1134.68 1134.47 1134.18 1133.28 PSURSOUTH 4 .22 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.19 PSURPNW 1.64 1.64 1. 64 1. 64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9.84 9.81 9.80 9.82 9.95 PSURELSEWR 7.99 7 . 99 7.98 7.96 7 .99 PINDAGCROP 102.26 102.13 102.15 102.04 101.80 QINDAGCROP 100.13 100.09 100.00 99.97 99.78 PIND-LIVE 100.37 100.34 100.57 100.50 100.42 QIND-LIVE 99. 75 99. 58 99.24 99.11 98.81 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0.00 13.88 27.75 47 . 32 102.57 CARBONL 0. 00 7.50 15.00 25. 00 50. 00 CARBONAP 0.00 15.81 15.73 16. 27 17.75 CARBONLAP 0.00 29.24 29. 10 30.79 36.42 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 34 .99 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 13.87 27.75 41.41 50. 42 CARBELSEWR 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.91 17 . 16 ACARSOUTH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 15. 15 ACARMIDWST 0.00 7 . 50 15. 00 22 . 39 27.25 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 2 . 61 7.59 CRP 17.19 17. 19 17. 19 17. 19 17.19 ------- Table WR - 52 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023. .76 1023. .71 1023. .70 1023 , .66 1023 , . 68 AGPROSURP 23. .49 23. .57 23. .58 23, .71 23 , .83 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. .72 9. .87 10, . 18 10, . 37 FRPROSURP 1. ,59 1. .35 1. .20 0. .98 0, . 84 DOMSURP 1058. .33 1058. ,35 1058. .35 1058, .53 1058, .72 FORSURP 85. .05 85. .06 85. .08 85, .10 85, . 11 TOTSURP 1143. . 38 1143. .41 1143. .43 1143 , . 63 1143 . . 83 GOVTDFCOST 8. . 51 8. ,50 8. .49 8. .48 8 , .50 GOVCARBCS 0. .00 0. .09 0. .22 0, . 64 1, . 52 TGOVCST 8. .51 8. ,59 8. .71 9, . 12 10, . 02 NETSURP 1134. .87 1134. .82 1134. .72 1134. .51 1133, .81 PSURSOUTH 4. . 18 4 . .20 4. .20 4 .33 4 , .40 PSURPNW 1. . 63 1. .64 1. . 64 1 . 64 1, . 64 PSURMIDWST 9. .75 9. .77 9. .78 9 , .78 9 , .83 PSURELSEWR 7, .93 7, ,96 7. .96 7 , . 96 7 . . 96 PINDAGCROP 101, .75 101. ,80 101. .83 101, .86 101. ,90 QINDAGCROP 99. .66 99. ,77 99. .83 99, .84 99. , 93 PIND-LIVE 100, . 36 100. ,47 100. ,47 100, . 48 100. , 33 QIND-LIVE 99. . 80 99. . 64 99. ,45 99, . 34 98. , 91 PIND-FOR 100. .00 86. .90 78. , 76 63 . , 95 53 . 77 QIND-FORA 100, . 00 106. , 34 114 . ,41 120. , 16 126. 71 QIND-FORC 100, . 00 94 . .98 91. ,80 85, ,62 81. 53 CARBONQ 0, . 00 13 . .96 28. , 06 46. ,30 85. 29 CARBONL 0. , 00 7. ,50 15. . 00 25. , 00 50. , 00 CARBONAP 0, . 00 6. . 65 7 . ,81 13 . , 92 17 . 85 CARBONLAP 0. .00 12. .37 14. .61 25. .79 30. 45 CARBSOUTH 0. . 00 13 . .96 28. , 06 44 . , 05 49 . 30 CARBMIDWST 0. . 00 0. .00 0. . 00 2 , , 25 35. , 99 ACARSOUTH 0, . 00 7. .50 15. . 00 23 , . 52 26. . 32 ACARMIDWST 0. , 00 0, . 00 0, . 00 1, .48 23 , . 68 CRP 17 , . 19 17. . 19 17, . 19 17 , . 19 17 , . 19 ------- Table WR - 53 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1022. .96 1023. ,18 1023. .19 1023, .20 1023 . .36 AGPROSURP 23, .52 23. ,39 23, .39 23 .42 23 . 51 TRCONSURP 9, .49 9 . .49 9, .49 9, .49 9, .49 FRPROSURP 1, .59 1. .58 1. .58 1, .59 1, . 59 DOMSURP 1057 , .56 1057 . . 64 1057. .65 1057, .70 1057, .95 TORSURP 84 . .71 84 . ,77 84. .78 84. .81 84 . .85 TOTSURP 1142. .27 1142 . ,41 1142. .43 1142. .51 1142, . 80 GOVTDFCOST 7 , .41 7. , 68 7. .70 7, .76 7 , ,89 GOVCARBCS 0. . 00 0. .22 0. .44 0. .78 1, ,82 TGOVCST 7 . .41 7 . . 90 8. .14 8. .54 9, ,71 NETSURP 1134. .86 1134 . ,51 1134 . ,29 1133. .97 1133 . ,09 PSURSOUTH 4 . . 19 4 . , 17 4. .17 4. .17 4. ,15 PSURPNW 1. . 64 1. . 63 1. .63 1. .63 1, . 62 PSURMIDWST 9 . .72 9 . . 67 9, .67 9, .70 9 , .81 PSURELSEWR 7 . . 97 7 . , 92 7 . .92 7, .93 7 , . 93 PIKSAGCROP 103 . . 55 103 . 10 103 , .08 103, .00 102, . 66 QINDAGCROP 99. .83 99. . 62 99. .65 99. ,38 99, , 15 PIND-LIVE 100. , 75 100. .51 100, .50 100. .74 100 , , 62 QIND-LIVE 100. . 08 99 . , 78 99. .55 99. . 06 98. .91 PIND-FOR 100, ,00 100. .00 100. .00 100. .00 100. ,00 QIND-FORA 100. ,00 100. 00 100. ,00 100. . 00 100. ,00 QIND-FORC 100. . 00 100. , 00 100. .00 100. .00 100. ,00 CARBONQ 0. .00 13 . . 88 27 . ,75 47. .32 102. .56 CARBONL 0. . 00 7 . , 50 15. , 00 25. , 00 50. ,00 CARBONAP 0. . 00 15. , 82 15. .82 16. .38 17. 76 CARBONLAP 0, .00 29 . ,26 29. ,27 31. .00 36. 43 CARBSOUTH 0. .00 0. 00 0. . 00 0. . 00 34 . 97 CARBMIDWST 0. .00 13. 87 27. .75 41. .41 50. ,44 CARBELSEWR 0. .00 0. 00 0. ,00 5. .91 17. ,16 ACARSOUTH 0. . 00 0. , 00 0. . 00 0. .00 15. , 14 ACARMIDWST 0. . 00 7 . 50 15. .00 22. .39 27 . ,26 ACARELSEWR 0. .00 0. , 00 0, .00 2. .61 7 . ,59 CRP 17. , 19 17 . , 19 17, . 19 17. . 19 17. , 19 ------- Table WR - 54 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023 . , 19 1023. .19 1023. ,20 1023. .21 1023 , .23 AGPROSURP 23. .36 23. .37 23. .38 23. .52 23. .62 FRCONSURP 9, .49 9, .72 9, .87 10, .18 10, . 37 FRPROSURP 1. ,59 1, .35 1, .21 0, .97 0, .84 DOMSURP 1057 , , 63 1057, .63 1057, .66 1057. .88 1058, . 06 FORSURP 84 . .80 84. .82 84. .83 84. .86 84 , . 88 TOTSURP 1142. .43 1142. .45 1142. .49 1142. .74 1142 . . 94 GOVTDFCOST 7 , .71 7, .72 7. .73 7. .75 7 , .79 GOVCARBCS 0. , 00 0. , 09 0. .22 0. .65 1, . 52 TGOVCST 7 . ,71 7. ,81 7. .95 8. .40 9 . ,31 NETSURP 1134 . , 72 1134 . .64 1134 . .54 1134. .34 1133 . .63 PSURSOUTH 4 . . 17 4. . 17 4. .17 4. . 30 4 . . 37 PSURPNW 1. , 63 1. , 63 1. .63 1. . 63 1, . 63 PSURMIDWST 9 . . 65 9 . , 65 9, .66 9. .67 9, .71 PSURELSEWR 7 , ,91 7. ,91 7. .92 7. ,92 7, .91 PINDAGCROP 103 . .06 103. .04 103 . .02 103. .03 102 . .98 QINDAGCROP 99. . 08 99. . 19 99. .26 99. . 30 99. .27 PIND-LIVE 100. ,72 100. .73 100. .74 100. ,75 100. .66 QIND-LIVE 99. .87 99. ,71 99. .53 99. ,44 98 . .92 PIND-FOR 100. . 00 86. ,90 78. ,76 63. ,87 53 . , 77 QIND-FORA 100. . 00 106. , 34 114 . .41 120. , 17 126. .71 QIND-FORC 100. . 00 94 . .98 91. .80 85. . 58 81. . 53 CARBONQ 0. . 00 13. .96 28 . .06 46. . 32 85. .29 CARBONL 0. , 00 7. . 50 15. , 00 25. . 00 50. , 00 CARBONAP 0. . 00 6. . 66 7 . .82 13 . . 98 17 . .85 CARBONLAP 0. ,00 12. .39 14 . .64 25. .90 30. ,45 CARBSOUTH 0. . 00 13 . . 96 28 . .06 44 . . 17 49 . . 30 CARBMIDWST 0. , 00 0. , 00 0. .00 2. . 15 35. ,99 ACARSOUTH 0. ,00 7. ,50 15. ,00 23. .59 26. ,32 ACARMIDWST 0. .00 0. . 00 0. .00 1. .41 23 . . 68 CRP 17 . , 19 17. . 19 17 . . 19 17 . , 19 17 . . 19 ------- Table WR - 55 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.80 1023.81 1023.87 1023.97 1023.99 AGPROSURP 23.61 23.58 23 .56 23.53 23.73 ^RCONSURP 9 . 49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9 .49 FRPROSURP 1. 59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 DOMSURP 1058.49 1058.47 1058.51 1058.58 1058.80 ¦FORSURP 85.12 85.13 85.18 85.21 85.21 TOTSURP 1143.61 1143.60 1143.69 1143.79 1144.01 GOVTDFCOST 8.54 8.57 8.63 8.69 8.71 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0.22 0.44 0.78 1.82 TGOVCST 8 . 54 8.79 9.07 9.47 10.53 NETSURP 1135.07 1134.81 1134.62 1134.32 1133.48 PSURSOUTH 4.20 4.18 4. 18 4 .17 4 . 17 PSURPNVJ 1.64 1. 63 1. 63 1.63 1. 63 PSURMIDWST 9 .83 9 . 82 9 . 80 9.82 9.97 PSURELSEWR 7.95 7.95 7.94 7.92 7 .96 PINDAGCROP 101.51 101.47 101.28 101.08 101.03 QINDAGCROP 100.65 100.20 100.41 100.28 100.01 PIND-LIVE 100.37 100.24 100.25 100.13 100.09 QIND-LIVE 99.87 99.60 99. 62 99.14 99.09 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 13 . 88 27.75 47. 32 102.56 CARBONL 0.00 7 . 50 15.00 25.00 50. 00 CARBONAP 0.00 15.79 15.76 16.48 17 . 77 CARBONLAP 0.00 29.21 29.16 31. 19 36. 44 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34 . 94 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 13.87 27.75 41.41 50.45 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 5.91 17. 17 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 15. 13 ACARMIDWST 0.00 7 .50 15.00 22.39 27.27 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0 . 00 0. 00 2.61 7 . 60 CRP 17 . 19 17 . 19 17.19 17. 19 17. 19 ------- Table WR - 56 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023 . .82 1023. .88 1023, .93 1023. .97 1023 , .90 AGPROSURP 23 , .60 23, .54 23. .52 23. .64 23, .81 FRCONSURP 9 . .49 9 . .72 9. .87 10, . 18 10, .37 FRPROSURP 1. .58 1. ,35 1. .20 0. .97 0, .84 DOMSURP 1058. ,49 1058. ,49 1058. .52 1058. .76 1058, .92 FORSURP 85, .14 85, .17 85, .20 85. .25 85, .27 TOTSURP 1143, .63 1143 , .66 1143, .72 1144. .01 1144 , .19 GOVTDFCOST 8. .53 8. ,57 8. .58 8. .63 8. .59 GOVCARBCS 0. .00 0. ,09 0. .22 0. .65 1. .52 TGOVCST 8. .53 8. ,66 8. .80 9. .28 10. . 11 NETSURP 1135, . 10 1135. ,00 1134 . .92 1134. .73 1134. , 08 PSURSOUTH 4 , . 19 4 . , 19 4 . . 18 4 . . 30 4 . .37 PSURPNW 1, . 63 1. .63 1. , 63 1. .63 1. .63 PSURMIDWST 9. .82 9. ,79 9 , ,79 9. .79 9. .86 PSURELSEWR 7 , ,96 7 . .93 7 . ,93 7 . .92 7 . .95 PINDAGCROP 101, ,43 101. ,34 101, .26 101. .16 101. . 19 QINDAGCROP 100. ,33 100. .28 100, ,27 100, .28 100. ,38 PIND-LIVE 100, .32 100. ,25 100, .23 100. . 19 100. .25 QIND-LIVE 99. ,78 99. , 73 99. ,73 99. .64 99. , 07 PIND-FOR 100. .00 86. ,91 78, ,76 63. .92 53. ,76 QIND-FORA 100. .00 106, , 34 114 , .42 120. , 17 126. ,72 QIND-FORC 100. ,00 94 . , 98 91. .80 85. , 60 81. , 52 CARBONQ 0. ,00 13 . .96 28 . .06 46. ,30 85. 29 CARBONL 0. ,00 7 . .50 15. .00 25. ,00 50. ,00 CARBONAP 0 , . 00 6. , 74 7 . .91 13 . .94 17. , 84 CARBONLAP 0. ,00 12. .55 14 . .79 25. .81 30. 44 CARBSOUTH 0. , 00 13 , , 96 28 . , 06 44 . , 10 49. ,32 CARBMIDWST 0. ,00 0. ,00 0. .00 2 . ,21 35. ,97 ACARSOUTH 0. ,00 7 , , 50 15, .00 23 , .55 26, , 33 ACARMIDWST 0. ,00 0. , 00 0. . 00 1. ,45 23 . , 67 CRP 17 . . 19 17 . , 19 17. . 19 17. , 19 17. , 19 ------- Table WR - 57 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.22 1023.27 1023.33 1023.46 1023.55 AGPROSURP 23 . 36 23 . 34 23.31 23.31 23.43 "FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.58 DOMSURP 1057.66 1057.69 1057.72 1057.85 1058.05 'FORSURP 84.77 84.79 84.82 84.87 84.90 TOTSURP 1142.43 1142.48 1142.54 1142.72 1142.95 GOVTDFCOST 7 . 53 7.62 7.68 7.77 7.81 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 22 0.44 0.78 1.82 TGOVCST 7.53 7 . 84 8.12 8.55 9.63 NETSURP 1134.90 1134.64 1134.42 1134.17 1133.32 PSURSOUTH 4. 16 4 .15 4.15 4.14 4.12 PSURPNW 1. 62 1. 62 1.62 1. 61 1. 61 PSURMIDWST 9.70 9 . 69 9. 67 9.71 9 . 84 PSURELSEWR 7.88 7.88 7.87 7.85 7 .87 PINDAGCROP 103.01 102.87 102.74 102.45 102.26 QINDAGCROP 100.32 99.81 99.81 99.83 99.67 PIND-LIVE 100.76 100.65 100.61 100.47 100.31 QIND-LIVE 99.94 99 . 63 99.32 99.03 99.50 PIHD-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 13 . 88 27.75 47.32 102.54 CARBONL 0. 00 7 . 50 15.00 25.00 50. 00 CARBONAP 0. 00 15.80 15.80 16.50 17 .80 CARBONLAP 0.00 29.24 29.22 31.24 36. 50 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 34.82 CARBMIDWST 0.00 13 .87 27.75 41.41 50. 52 CARBELSEWR 0.00 0.00 0. 00 5.91 17.19 ACARSOUTH 0 . 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 15.08 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 7.50 15. 00 22 .39 27 . 31 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0.00 0.00 2.61 7.61 CRP 17. 19 17 . 19 17 . 19 17 . 19 17.19 ------- Table WR - 58 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023. .47 1023. .45 1023. .52 1023 . .45 1023. .52 AGPROSURP 23. .21 23. .23 23. ,21 23 . .40 23. ,48 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. .72 9, ,87 10, . 18 10, .37 FRPROSURP 1. ,58 1. .35 1. ,20 0, .97 0. .84 DOMSURP 1057. .75 1057. .75 1057. ,80 1058, .00 1058, .21 FORSURP 84. .84 84. .87 84. .89 84. .93 84, .98 TOTSURP 1142. .59 1142. .62 1142. .69 1142, .93 1143 , .19 GOVTDFCOST 7. .71 7. .72 7. .74 7 , .75 7, .82 GOVCARBCS 0, .00 0. .09 0. .22 0, , 65 1, .52 TGOVCST 7. .71 7. .81 7, .96 8, .40 9, .34 NETSURP 1134. .88 1134, .81 1134. .73 1134, .53 1133 , .85 PSURSOUTH 4. . 13 4, . 14 4 . . 13 4 . .26 4 . .33 PSURPNW 1. .61 1, .61 1, . 61 1. . 61 1. . 61 PSURMIDWST 9. . 64 9 , . 65 9, . 65 9 . . 66 9 , .71 PSURELSEWR 7, .82 7, .83 7 , .82 7 , .85 7 , .84 PINDAGCROP 102. . 59 102, ,56 102. .48 102 . .46 102. .30 QINDAGCROP 99. ,83 99, .82 99. .82 99. .80 99 . ,89 PIND-LIVE 100. .43 100. .48 100, .42 100. .57 100. ,39 QIND-LIVE 99. .88 99. .85 99. .87 99. .80 99. ,45 PIND-FOR 100. . 00 86. .91 78, .76 63 , .85 53. ,77 QIND-FORA 100. .00 106. .34 114 . .42 120, . 17 126. ,70 QIND-FORC 100. . 00 94 . .98 91, , 80 85, , 57 81. .53 CARBONQ 0. , 00 13 , .96 28 . , 06 46. ,33 85. , 29 CARBONL 0. . 00 7. .50 15, , 00 25. , 00 50. .00 CARBONAP 0. . 00 6. .76 7 . .91 13 . , 99 17 . .85 CARBONLAP 0. . 00 12 . . 58 14 . ,81 25, ,93 30. ,45 CARBSOUTH 0. .00 13 , .96 28 , , 06 44 . . 20 49 . ,30 CARBMIDWST 0. . 00 0, .00 0, ,00 2 . . 12 35. .99 ACARSOUTH 0. , 00 7 , . 50 15. , 00 23 , . 60 26, ,32 ACARMIDWST 0. .00 0. .00 0, . 00 1. .40 23 , . 68 CRP 17. . 19 17 , . 19 17. . 19 17 , . 19 17 , . 19 ------- Table WR - 59 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLE AGCONSSURP 1021.42 1021.48 1021.50 1021.39 1021.39 AGPROSURP 20.38 20.29 20.27 20.47 20. 61 "FRCONSURP 9.49 9 .49 9. 49 9 .49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1-58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 DOMSURP 1052.87 1052.84 1052.84 1052.93 1053.07 TORSURP 83.83 83 . 86 83.86 83.82 83.83 TOTSURP 1136.70 1136.70 1136.70 1136.75 1136.90 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0.23 0.46 0.81 1.84 TGOVCST 0. 00 0.23 0.46 0.81 1.84 NETSURP 1136.70 1136.47 1136.24 1135.94 1135.06 PSURSOUTH 3.63 3 .60 3.60 3.62 3 .62 PSURPNW 1.45 1.44 1.43 1.44 1. 44 PSURMIDWST 8 .38 8 .36 8.35 8.47 8.58 PSURELSEWR 6.93 6.89 6.89 6.94 6. 97 PINDAGCROP 109.33 107.58 107.53 107.80 107.68 QINDAGCROP 138.27 99 . 09 98.91 99.36 99 . 04 PIND-LIVE 101.46 101.50 101.49 101.56 101.63 QIND-LIVE 99 .91 99 . 65 99.42 99. 12 98.85 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0.00 13 . 88 27.75 46. 37 101.84 CARBONL 0.00 7 . 50 15. 00 25 . 00 50. 00 CARBONAP 0.00 16. 43 16.51 17.43 18. 11 CARBONLAP 0. 00 30.40 30.55 32. 32 36.88 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 0.00 0.00 1. 12 31. 18 CARBMIDWST 0.00 13.87 27.75 45. 25 53 . 26 CARBELSEWR 0 . 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 17.39 ACARSOUTH 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0. 54 13 . 52 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 7 . 50 15.00 24 .46 28.79 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 . 69 CRP 17. 19 17 . 19 17 .19 17.19 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 60 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1021. .36 1021. . 34 1021.35 1021, .35 1021, .36 AGPROSURP 20. ,47 20. ,50 20.49 20. .61 20. . 67 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. .72 9.87 10. .20 10. .37 FRPROSURP 1. .58 1. , 34 1.20 0, .96 0, .83 DOMSURP 1052 . .90 1052. , 90 1052.91 1053. .12 1053 , .23 FORSURP 83 . .81 83 . ,83 83.85 83. .88 83. .90 TOTSURP 1136. .71 1136. ,73 1136.76 1137. ,00 1137, . 13 GOVCARBCS 0. .00 0. , 10 0.23 0. .67 1. .52 TGOVCST 0. . 00 0. . 10 0.23 0. ,67 1. .52 NETSURP 1136. .71 1136. , 63 1136.53 1136. ,33 1135. ,61 PSURSOUTH 3. .63 3 . , 64 3.64 3. ,77 3. . 82 PSURPNW 1. ,45 1. ,45 1.44 1. ,44 1. 44 PSURMIDWST 8. .43 8. , 44 8.43 8. ,43 8. .45 PSURELSEWR 6. ,97 6. ,97 6.97 6. ,97 6. ,96 PINDAGCROP 107. .82 107 . .81 107.80 107. , 79 107. ,76 QINDAGCROP 99, ,78 99. ,70 99. 63 99. ,60 99. , 32 PIND-LIVE 101. .41 101. ,45 101.45 101. ,45 101. ,41 QIND-LIVE 99. .81 99. ,78 99.78 99. ,78 99. , 19 PIND-FOR 100. . 00 86. ,91 78.76 63 . ,05 53. ,78 QIND-FORA 100. . 00 106. .35 114.42 120. .28 126. ,70 QIND-FORC 100. .00 94 . , 98 91.80 85. ,20 81. . 53 CARBONQ 0. , 00 13 . ,96 28.06 46, ,55 85. .29 CARBONL 0. . 00 7 . , 50 15.00 25, , 00 50. . 00 CARBONAP 0. . 00 6. , 87 8.03 14 . .48 17 . .84 CARBONLAP 0. . 00 12 . , 79 15. 02 26, ,97 30. ,43 CARBSOUTH 0. . 00 13 . , 96 28.06 45, ,40 49. . 29 CARBMIDWST 0. , 00 0. , 00 0. 00 1, , 15 35. .99 ACARSOUTH 0. . 00 7 . . 50 15.00 24 . , 24 26. . 32 ACARMIDWST 0. , 00 0. . 00 0. 00 0. ,76 23 . 68 CRP 17 . , 19 17 . , 19 17. 19 17 , , 19 17 . , 19 ------- Table WR - 61 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PRO Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1024.30 1024.64 1024.67 1024.64 1024.50 -AGPROSURP 23.71 23 .49 23.50 23.56 23 .70 I'RCONSURP 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9 . 49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.58 1.58 1. 58 1.58 DOMSURP 1059.09 1059.20 1059.24 1059.27 1059.27 FORSURP 85.39 85.53 85.54 85. 55 85 . 49 TOTSURP 1144.48 1144.73 1144.78 1144.82 1144.76 GOVTDFCOST 9. 35 9 . 60 9. 62 9.62 9.51 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 05 0.28 0.73 1. 69 TGOVCST 9 . 35 9 . 65 9.90 10.35 11.20 NETSURP 1135.13 1135.08 1134.88 1134.47 1133.56 PSURSOUTH 4 . 20 4 . 15 4 .15 4.16 4.21 PSURPNW 1.64 1. 63 1. 63 1.63 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9. 88 9. 80 9.79 9.82 9 .85 PSURELSEWR 7.98 7. 90 7.93 7.95 8.01 PINDAGCROP 100.21 99 . 53 99.45 99. 49 99.80 QINDAGCROP 100.40 99.86 99.78 99.97 100.42 PIND-LIVE 99.97 99 .86 99.80 99.82 99.85 QIND-LIVE 99. 53 99 . 80 99.63 99.46 98.94 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0.00 3.70 17.90 46.30 103.00 CARBONL 0. 00 1. 64 7.91 20.15 49.20 CARBONAP 0. 00 13.57 15. 65 15. 66 16.42 CARBONLAP 0.00 30.67 35.44 36. 00 34 .37 CARBSOUTH 0.00 0. 00 1.21 29.60 44 . 12 CARBMIDWST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.41 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 3.70 16. 69 16.70 17.46 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 0. 00 0.52 12.76 19.09 ACARMIDWST 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 22 . 39 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 1.64 7.38 7.39 7.73 CRP 17. 19 17. 19 17.19 17.19 17. 19 ------- Table WR - 62 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PRO Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1024 . .43 1024 . .39 1024 . ,42 1024, .42 1024. ,43 AGPROSURP 23. .62 23 , . 68 23. .64 23 . .81 23. , 86 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. .56 9. .76 10, .21 10. .25 FRPROSURP 1. .59 1, .51 1. .31 0, .96 0. .93 DOMSURP 1059 . . 13 1059. . 14 1059. , 13 1059 , .40 1059. .47 FORSURP 85. .44 85, .45 85. ,48 85, .52 85, .53 TOTSURP 1144 . .57 1144 . .59 1144 . , 61 1144 , .92 1145, .00 GOVTDFCOST 9 , .45 9 . ,42 9. ,44 9, .44 9, .46 GOVCARBCS 0. .00 0. .02 0. , 12 0, . 69 1. . 62 TGOVCST 9. .45 9. .44 9. .56 10, . 13 11. . 08 NETSURP 1135. . 12 1135. .15 1135. ,05 1134. .79 1133. .92 PSURSOUTH 4 . .18 4 . .20 4. . 19 4. .34 4 . .37 PSURPNW 1. .63 1, . 64 1. ,63 1, .64 1. . 64 PSURMIDWST 9. .85 9. .88 9. .86 9. . 87 9. .86 PSURELSEWR 7 , .95 7 . .97 7 . ,96 7 . .96 8. , 00 PINDAGCROP 100, . 00 100. . 08 100. .01 100. .03 99. ,97 QINDAGCROP 100. .00 100, .20 100. , 13 100. .22 100. ,22 PIND-LIVE 100. .00 100. .09 100. . 02 100. . 06 99. , 87 QIND-LIVE 100. .00 99. .94 99 . , 92 99. .71 99. . 08 PIND-FOR 100. , 00 95. .73 84 . , 69 62 . , 57 60. , 97 QIND-FORA 100. . 00 101. .55 108. , 66 120. , 25 120. ,75 QIND-FORC 100. . 00 98 . .35 94 . , 15 84 . , 97 84 . ,26 CARBONQ 0, . 00 3 . ,70 17 . ,90 46. , 30 103. , 00 CARBONL 0. .00 2 . , 04 9 . ,59 24 . ,72 53. ,71 CARBONAP 0 . . 00 5 . .27 6. . 84 14 . , 80 15. 72 CARBONLAP 0. , 00 9 . ,55 12. ,77 27. ,72 30. 14 CARBSOUTH 0. , 00 3 . ,70 17 . . 90 46. . 30 48. 24 CARBMIDWST 0. .00 0. .00 0. , 00 0. , 00 38. , 00 CARBELSEWR 0. .00 0, .00 0. , 00 0, , 00 16. , 76 ACARSOUTH 0. . 00 2 , . 04 9 , , 59 24 , , 72 25. ,75 ACARMIDWST 0. .00 0, . 00 0. , 00 0, . 00 20. . 54 ACARELSEWR 0. .00 0, . 00 0. , 00 0, . 00 7. ,41 CRP 17 . . 19 17 , . 19 17, , 19 17 , . 19 17. . 19 ------- Table WR - 63 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.50 1023.78 1023.76 1023.70 1023.72 AGPROSURP 23.69 23.49 23.54 23.59 23 . 67 FRCONSURP 9 .49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.58 1.58 1.59 1. 58 DOMSURP 1058.27 1058.34 1058.37 1058.37 1058.46 FORSURP 84.96 85. 06 85.07 85. 06 85. 07 TOTSURP 1143.23 1143.40 1143.44 1143.43 1143.53 GOVTDFCOST 8.34 8.49 8.51 8.48 8 . 54 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0.05 0.28 0.73 1.69 TGOVCST 8.34 8.54 8.79 9.21 10. 23 NETSURP 1134.89 1134.86 1134.65 1134.22 1133.30 PSURSOUTH 4.22 4 .18 4.18 4. 19 4 . 22 PSURPNW 1. 64 1. 64 1.63 1. 64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9.84 9.75 9.75 9.77 9 . 81 PSURELSEWR 7.99 7.93 7 .97 7 . 99 8 . OO PINDAGCROP 102.26 101.74 101.71 101.82 101.76 QINDAGCROP 100.13 99.56 99.51 99. 65 99 . 84 PIND-LIVE 100.37 100.34 100.32 100.34 100.30 QIND-LIVE 99.75 99.72 99.54 99.40 98. 66 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 3.70 17.90 46.30 103.00 CARBONL 0. 00 1. 64 7 . 91 20.15 49.20 CARBONAP 0.00 13 . 55 15. 68 15. 69 16.43 CARBONLAP 0.00 30.61 35 . 50 36.05 34.40 CARBSOUTH 0.00 0. 00 1. 18 29. 57 44 . 11 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 41.41 CARBELSEWR 0.00 3.70 16.72 16.73 17.47 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 0. 00 0. 51 12.75 19.08 ACARMIDWST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.39 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 1. 64 7 . 40 7.40 7.73 CRP 17.19 17. 19 17. 19 17.19 17. 19 ------- Table WR - 64 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVI CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023 . .76 1023. .84 1023. ,83 1023. .67 1023. .73 AGPROSURP 23 . ,49 23. ,42 23. ,44 23. .70 23. .75 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9, .56 9. .76 10, .19 10. .25 FRPROSURP 1. .59 1, .51 1. .31 0. .97 0. . 93 DOMSURP 1058. .33 1058 , .33 1058. .34 1058, .53 1058, .66 FORSURP 85. .05 85, , 08 85. .10 85, .11 85. . 15 TOTSURP 1143 . .38 1143 . .41 1143. .44 1143 . .64 1143 . .81 GOVTDFCOST 8 . ,51 8. .50 8. .51 8 . .44 8. . 51 GOVCARBCS 0. , 00 0. . 02 0. .12 0. .65 1. . 62 TGOVCST 8. ,51 8 . .52 8. ,63 9, .09 10. . 13 NETSURP 1134 . ,87 1134 , .89 1134. .81 1134 . .55 1133. . 68 PSURSOUTH 4 . . 18 4 . . 16 4 . .17 4 . .33 4 . .37 PSURPNVJ 1. ,63 1. . 63 1. .63 1, .64 1, . 63 PSURMIDWST 9 . ,75 9 , . 72 9. ,72 9. .78 9 , . 77 PSURELSEWR 7 . .93 7 . .91 7. .91 7. .96 7. . 98 PIHDAGCROP 101. ,75 101. . 66 101. .66 101, .88 101. ,70 QINDAGCROP 99. .66 99. .78 99. .68 99, .81 99. . 77 PIND-LIVE 100. , 36 100. ,29 100. .28 100. .47 100. , 30 QIND-LIVE 99 . , 80 99. . 97 99. , 92 99. ,37 98. , 89 PIND-FOR 100. . 00 95. , 74 84 . ,69 63. .50 60. . 97 QIND-FORA 100. , 00 101. . 55 108. . 65 120. ,22 120. , 74 QIND-FORC 100. . 00 98 . .35 94 . . 15 85. .41 84 . ,26 CARBONQ 0. . 00 3 . ,70 17. .90 46. .30 103 . , 00 CARBONL 0. . 00 2 . . 04 9. . 59 24 , ,73 53 . 70 CARBONAP 0. . 00 5. . 24 6. .82 14 . ,05 15. 74 CARBONLAP 0. , 00 9 . . 52 12 . , 73 26. ,31 30. 19 CARBSOUTH 0. .00 3 . .70 17. . 90 44 . .69 48 . 25 CARBMIDWST 0. , 00 0. . 00 0. . 00 0 . . 00 37 . 98 CARBELSEWR 0. . 00 0. . 00 0. . 00 1. .61 16. 78 ACARSOUTH 0. . 00 2 . . 04 9. . 59 23 , .86 25. ,75 ACARMIDWST 0. , 00 0. . 00 0. , 00 0, .00 20. , 53 ACARELSEWR 0. .00 0. . 00 0. .00 0, .87 7 , ,42 CRP 17. . 19 17. . 19 17, . 19 17 , . 19 17 , , 19 ------- Table WR - 65 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1022. .96 1023, .37 1023 , .39 1023 .29 1023, .37 AGPROSURP 23, .52 23, .27 23, .28 23, .38 23. .38 7RC0NSURP 9 .49 9 .49 9 , .49 9 .49 9, .49 FRPROSURP 1, . 59 1, .58 1, .58 1 .58 1 .59 DOMSURP 1057, .56 1057, .71 1057. .74 1057, .74 1057 .83 "FORSURP 84, .71 84 , .84 84 , .86 84 , .84 84 .86 TOTSURP 1142, .27 1142. .55 1142, . 60 1142. .58 1142, .69 GOVTDFCOST 7 , .41 7. , 82 7 , .86 7. .81 7, .85 GOVCARBCS 0. .00 0. .05 0, .28 0. .73 1, .70 TGOVCST 7 , .41 7. .87 8. . 14 8. .54 9, .55 NETSURP 1134 , .86 1134 , .68 1134, .46 1134, ,04 1133 , .14 PSURSOUTH 4 . .19 4 . . 15 4 . . 15 4. .16 4 , .16 PSURPNVI 1. . 64 1. .62 1, . 62 1, .63 1, .63 PSURMIDWST 9 . ,72 9 . .62 9, . 61 9, .65 9 , . 65 PSURELSEWR 7 . ,97 7 . .87 7. , 90 7, .95 7 , .94 PINDAGCROP 103. .55 102 . ,73 102. .62 102. .82 102 , . 69 QINDAGCROP 99 . .83 98 . .99 98. , 93 99. . 13 99 . .33 PIND-LIVE 100. .75 100. .61 100. . 66 100, .75 100, .51 QIND-LIVE 100. . 08 100, , 11 99. .84 99, .29 99, . 14 PIND-FOR 100. .00 100. ,00 100. .00 100. .00 100. , 00 QIND-FORA 100. , 00 100. 00 100. , 00 100. , 00 100. , 00 QIND-FORC 100. . 00 100, ,00 100. .00 100. .00 100. , 00 CARBONQ 0. , 00 3 , .70 17. ,90 46. ,30 103. , 00 CARBONL 0. ,00 1. , 64 7. ,91 20. ,15 49. 20 CARBONAP 0. .00 13 . ,60 15. .62 15. .71 16. ,46 CARBONLAP 0. , 00 30. ,75 35. ,35 36, , 10 34 . , 47 CARBSOUTH 0. ,00 0. , 00 1. ,25 29. ,56 44 . , 08 CARBMIDWST 0. , 00 0. , 00 0. ,00 0. .00 41. ,41 CARBELSEWR 0. , 00 3 . , 70 16. , 65 16. ,74 17. 51 ACARSOUTH 0. .00 0. , 00 0. . 54 12 . ,74 19. , 06 ACARMIDWST 0. .00 0. ,00 0. .00 0, .00 22. . 39 ACARELSEWR 0. , 00 1. , 64 7. .37 7 , .41 7. ,75 CRP 17. , 19 17. . 19 17. . 19 17. , 19 17. , 19 ------- Table WR - 66 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-2 5T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023. .19 1023. .14 1023. .17 1023.20 1023, .26 AGPROSURP 23 . .36 23. .43 23. .38 23.51 23. .58 FRCONSURP 9. .49 9. .56 9. ,76 10.19 10. .25 FRPROSURP 1. ,59 1. ,51 1. ,31 0.97 0, .93 DOMSURP 1057 , . 63 1057 , . 64 1057. .62 1057.87 1058, .02 FORSURP 84 , .80 84 . ,77 84. .82 84.86 84 , .89 TOTSURP 1142 . .43 1142. .41 1142. .44 1142.73 1142 . . 91 GOVTDFCOST 7 . .71 7 , . 67 7. .71 7.73 7 , .83 GOVCARBCS 0. .00 0. , 02 0. . 12 0.65 1, . 63 TGOVCST 7 . .71 7 . , 69 7. .83 8.38 9, .46 NETSURP 1134 . .72 1134 . ,72 1134. .61 1134.35 1133 , ,45 PSURSOUTH 4 . . 17 4 . , 18 4. . 17 4.30 4 . , 35 PSURPNW 1. . 63 1. , 63 1. ,63 1.63 1. , 63 PSURMIDWST 9 . .65 9 . , 68 9. . 66 9.66 9. , 65 PSURELSEWR 7 . .91 7 . .93 7. .92 7.92 7 . , 95 PINDAGCROP 103 . .06 103 . . 19 103. . 08 103.02 102 . ,89 QINDAGCROP 99 , .08 99, ,20 99, . 09 99.17 99 , , 12 PIND-LIVE 100, .72 100, ,79 100. .75 100.74 100. ,59 QIND-LIVE 99 . .87 99, ,79 99. .71 99.47 98 . ,90 PIND-FOR 100. . 00 95, . 74 84 . . 69 63 .45 60. .85 QIND-FORA 100, . 00 101. . 54 108. . 66 120.22 120. , 78 QIND-FORC 100, . 00 98 . ,35 94 . . 15 85.39 84 . .21 CARBONQ 0. . 00 3 . ,70 17. , 90 46.30 103 . . 00 CARBONL 0, .00 2 . . 04 9. . 59 24 .73 53 . .70 CARBONAP 0, . 00 5. ,29 6. . 88 14 .10 15. .81 CARBONLAP 0. . 00 9. , 60 12 . .83 26.40 30. ,33 CARBSOUTH 0, . 00 3 . ,70 17. .90 44 .78 48. .40 CARBMIDWST 0. .00 0, , 00 0. .00 0.00 37 . .75 CARBELSEWR 0 , . 00 0, , 00 0, . 00 1.52 16, ,85 ACARSOUTH 0, .00 2 . , 04 9, , 59 23.90 25, , 84 ACARMIDWST 0. . 00 0, , 00 0. . 00 0.00 20, ,41 ACARELSEWR 0. . 00 0, , 00 0. . 00 0.82 7 . .46 CRP 17 , . 19 17 . , 19 17. . 19 17.19 17 , . 19 ------- Table WR - 67 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 C ARB LEV 5 AGCONSSURP 1023.80 1024.12 1024.05 1024.04 1023.99 AGPROSURP 23.61 23.42 23.54 23.56 23 . 62 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.58 1.59 1.59 1. 59 DOMSURP 1058.49 1058.61 1058.67 1058.68 1058.69 FORSURP 85.12 85. 24 85.24 85.24 85.23 TOTSURP 1143.61 1143.85 1143.91 1143.92 1143.92 GOVTDFCOST 8.54 8 .79 8.79 8.78 8. 64 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0.05 0.28 0.73 1.69 TGOVCST 8.54 8 . 84 9.07 9.51 10. 33 NETSURP 1135.07 1135.01 1134.84 1134.41 1133.59 PSURSOUTH 4.20 4 . 16 4.17 4.17 4. 19 PSURPNVJ 1. 64 1.62 1.63 1.63 1.63 PSURMIDWST 9.83 9. 76 9. 79 9. 80 9.83 PSURELSEWR 7.95 7 . 89 7.95 7.96 7 .98 PINDAGCROP 101.51 100.87 100.88 100.90 101.01 QINDAGCROP 100.65 99.96 99.88 100.02 100.23 PIND-LIVE 100.37 100.03 100.12 100.12 100.12 QIND-LIVE 99 . 87 99 . 95 99.66 99 . 40 98 . 86 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 3 . 70 17.90 46.30 103.00 CARBONL 0. 00 1. 64 7.91 20. 15 49.20 CARBONAP 0 . 00 13 . 60 15.71 15.71 16.43 CARBONLAP 0. 00 30.73 35.55 36. 10 34.40 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 0.00 1.16 29.55 44 . 11 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 41.41 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 3.70 16. 74 16. 75 17.47 ACARSOUTH 0 . 00 0. 00 0.50 12 . 74 19. 08 ACARMIDWST 0 . 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 22 . 39 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 1.64 7.41 7 .41 7.73 CRP 17. 19 17.19 17.19 17. 19 17. 19 ------- Table WR - 68 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.82 1023.98 1024.02 1024.02 1024.00 AGPROSURP 23.60 23.49 23.45 23.61 23 .71 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.56 9.76 10.21 10.25 FRPROSURP 1.58 1.51 1.31 0.96 0.93 DOMSURP 1058.49 1058.54 1058.54 1058.80 1058.89 FORSURP 85. 14 85.21 85.24 85.28 85. 30 TOTSURP 1143.63 1143.75 1143.78 1144.08 1144.19 GOVTDFCOST 8.53 8.60 8 . 59 8.61 8.64 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0.02 0.12 0.69 1. 62 TGOVCST 8.53 8.62 8 . 71 9.30 10. 26 NETSURP 1135.10 1135.13 1135.07 1134.78 1133.93 PSURSOUTH 4 . 19 4 .17 4.16 4.31 4.34 PSURPNW 1.63 1. 63 1. 62 1.62 1.62 PSURMIDWST 9.82 9.79 9.78 9. 77 9.79 PSURELSEWR 7 . 96 7.91 7.90 7.90 7.95 PINDAGCROP 101.43 101.16 101.08 101.09 100.97 QINDAGCROP 100.33 100.33 100.26 100.38 100.40 PIND-LIVE 100.32 100.18 100.14 100.13 100.12 QIND-LIVE 99 . 78 100.03 100.00 99 .94 99.16 PIND-FOR 100.00 95.74 84 .69 62.57 60.89 QIND-FORA 100.00 101.55 108.66 120.25 120.77 QIND-FORC 100.00 98. 35 94 .15 84 .97 84 . 23 CARBONQ 0. 00 3.70 17.90 46. 30 103.00 CARBONL 0 . 00 2 . 04 9. 59 24 .72 53 .70 CARBONAP 0. 00 5.29 6. 84 14 . 80 15. 78 CARBONLAP 0.00 9.60 12.76 27 .73 30.26 CARBSOUTH 0 . 00 3.70 17 .90 46. 30 48.35 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 37.83 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 16.82 ACARSOUTH 0.00 2.04 9.59 24 . 72 25.81 ACARMIDWST 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 20.45 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 7.44 CRP 17 . 19 17 .19 17. 19 17 . 19 17.19 ------- Table WR - 69 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction CABBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023 , . 22 1023 , .72 1023, .76 1023, .53 1023, .57 AGPROSURP 23 . .36 23 , . 07 23 . . 08 23. . 31 23. . 31 FRCONSURP 9 , ,49 9, .49 9. .49 9. .49 9. .49 FRPROSURP 1. .59 1, .58 1. .58 1, ,58 1, .59 DOMSURP 1057. . 66 1057. .86 1057 , .91 1057 , .91 1057, .96 FORSURP 84. .77 84 , .93 84 , .97 84. .91 84 , .94 TOTSURP 1142 . . 43 1142 , .79 1142, .88 1142, . 82 1142 , .90 GOVTDFCOST 7 . ,53 7 , . 89 7. ,93 7 , .82 7 , .87 GOVCARBCS 0. , 00 0, .05 0, , 28 0, ,73 1, .69 TGOVCST 7 . , 53 7 , . 94 8. .21 8, ,55 9. .56 NETSURP 1134 . , 90 1134 . , 85 1134 . ,67 1134 , ,27 1133 . . 34 PSURSOUTH 4 . , 16 4 . . 09 4 . , 08 4 . , 14 4 . . 15 PSURPNW 1. , 62 1. . 60 1. .60 1. . 61 1. . 61 PSURMIDWST 9 . , 70 9 . . 50 9. . 59 9. , 67 9. , 67 PSURELSEWR 7 , ,88 7 , , 78 7. . 80 7, ,89 7. .87 PINDAGCROP 103. , 01 102. . 09 101, .91 102 . .29 102, . 14 QINDAGCROP 100 . . 32 99 . .29 99 , .31 99. . 63 99. .59 PIND-LIVE 100. ,76 100, . 19 100. . 13 100. . 45 100. .36 QIND-LIVE 99. ,94 100, .50 100. , 26 99. . 65 99. .04 PIND-FOR 100. , 00 100. . 00 100. ,00 100. , 00 100. , 00 QIND-FORA 100 . . 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. . 00 100. , 00 QIND-FORC 100. .00 100. , 00 100. . 00 100. , 00 100. . 00 CARBONQ 0. , 00 3 . , 70 17 . ,90 46. , 30 103 . , 00 CARBONL 0. , 00 1. , 64 7 . . 91 20. . 15 49 . , 20 CARBONAP 0. .00 13 . . 63 15. , 62 15. ,71 16. 43 CARBONLAP 0. . 00 30. . 81 35. , 37 36. . 09 34 . . 39 CARBSOUTH 0. , 00 0. , 00 1. . 24 29 . , 56 44 . , 12 CARBMIDWST 0. , 00 0, . 00 0 . , 00 0. , 00 41. 41 CARBELSEWR 0. .00 3 , .70 16, .66 16, ,74 17 , ,47 ACARSOUTH 0. . 00 0 , . 00 0. , 54 12. .74 19 . , 08 ACARMIDWST 0. .00 0 , . 00 0. , 00 0. . 00 22 . , 39 ACARELSEWR 0. , 00 1. , 64 7 . ,37 7 , ,41 7 . ,73 CRP 17. .19 17 , . 19 17 . , 19 17 . , 19 17 . , 19 ------- Table WR - 70 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLE AGCONSSURP 1023.47 1023.55 1023.51 1023.42 1023.58 AGPROSURP 23.21 23 . 19 23.22 23.47 23 .41 FRCONSURP 9.49 9. 56 9.76 10.21 10.25 FRPROSURP 1. 58 1. 51 1.31 0.96 0.93 DOMSURP 1057.75 1057.81 1057.80 1058.06 1058.17 FORSURP 84.84 84.89 84.91 84.93 84 .98 TOTSURP 1142.59 1142.70 1142.71 1142.99 1143.15 GOVTDFCOST 7.71 7.77 7.77 7.74 7.83 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 02 0.12 0.69 1.63 TGOVCST 7.71 7.79 7.89 8.43 9 .46 NETSURP 1134.88 1134.91 1134.82 1134.56 1133.69 PSURSOUTH 4 . 13 4 . 13 4.13 4.30 4.30 PSURPNW 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.62 1.61 PSURMIDWST 9 . 64 9. 64 9.65 9.69 9 . 65 PSURELSEWR 7.82 7 . 81 7.83 7 .87 7.86 PINDAGCROP 102.59 102.42 102.41 102.53 102.22 QINDAGCROP 99.83 99.81 99.74 99.83 99.87 PIND-LIVE 100.43 100.36 100.44 100.56 100.28 QIND-LIVE 99.88 99.99 99.95 99.82 99.50 PIND-FOR 100.00 95.74 84.69 62.57 60.94 QIND-FORA 100.00 101.54 108.66 120.23 120.75 QIND-FORC 100.00 98.35 94.15 84.97 84 .25 CARBONQ 0. 00 3 .70 17.90 46.30 103.00 CARBONL 0. 00 2.04 9.59 24.71 53 .70 CARBONAP 0. 00 5.32 6.85 14 . 82 15.79 CARBONLAP 0. 00 9.65 12.78 27.77 30.30 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 3.70 17.90 46.30 48.29 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 37 .88 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0 . 00 16.83 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 2 . 04 9.59 24.71 25.78 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 20.48 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 7.45 CRP 17. 19 17.19 17.19 17 . 19 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 71 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLE AGCONSSURP 1021.42 1021.33 1021.35 1021.38 1021.39 AGPROSURP 20.38 20.49 20.49 20.47 20.49 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.58 1.58 1. 58 1.58 1. 58 DOMSURP 1052 .87 1052.89 1052.91 1052.92 1052.95 FORSURP 83.83 83.82 83.83 83.83 83 .84 TOTSURP 1136.70 1136.71 1136.74 1136.75 1136.79 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0. 05 0.28 0.74 1.72 TGOVCST 0. 00 0. 05 0.28 0.74 1.72 NETSURP 1136.70 1136.66 1136.46 1136.01 1135.07 PSURSOUTH 3.63 3 . 64 3.63 3.63 3.65 PSURPNW 1.45 1.45 1.44 1.44 1.43 PSURMIDWST 8. 38 8 .42 8.43 8.43 8 .42 PSURELSEWR 6. 93 6. 98 6.99 6. 98 6. 97 PINDAGCROP 109.33 107.83 107.76 107.72 107.67 QINDAGCROP 138.27 99.72 99.56 99 .44 99. 08 PIND-LIVE 101.46 101.45 101.38 101.37 101.36 QIND-LIVE 99.91 99.73 99.54 99.54 98.99 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 3.70 17.90 46.30 103.00 CARBONL 0.00 1. 64 7.91 20.15 48.99 CARBONAP 0. 00 14 . 01 15. 88 15. 88 16.70 CARBONLAP 0. 00 31. 66 35.93 36.49 35.11 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 0. 00 0. 95 29.34 45.72 CARBMIDWST 0 . 00 0 . 00 0.00 0. 00 39.50 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 3 . 70 16.95 16.96 17 . 78 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 0. 00 0.41 12 . 65 19 . 77 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 21.35 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 1. 64 7 . 50 7 . 50 7 . 87 CRP 17.19 17 . 19 17 .19 17. 19 17. 19 ------- Table WR - 72 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed PASTURE Type of quantity restriction CARBQ Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVl CARBLEV2 CARBLEV3 CARBLEV4 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1021. .36 1021. .51 1021. .34 1021. ,35 1021. .37 AGPROSURP 20. ,47 20. ,35 20. .52 20. , 65 20. ,72 FRCONSURP 9 . ,49 9 . , 56 9. ,76 10. ,21 10. ,30 FRPROSURP 1. ,58 ^ , ,50 1. .30 0, ,95 0. .90 DOMSURP 1052 . ,90 1052. ,92 1052. ,92 1053, . 16 1053. .29 FORSURP 83. .81 83 . .80 83. .82 83. ,87 83. .91 TOTSURP 1136. .71 1136. ,72 1136. .74 1137 . ,03 1137. .20 GOVCARBCS 0. ,00 0. . 02 0. ,13 0. ,69 1. .76 TGOVCST 0. ,00 0. , 02 0. ,13 0. ,69 1. .76 NETSURP 1136. ,71 1136. ,70 1136. .61 1136. ,34 1135, .44 PSURSOUTH 3 . ,63 3 . , 60 3. ,65 3. ,79 3 . . 84 PSURPNW 1. .45 1. . 44 1, ,45 1. ,45 1, .44 PSURMIDWST 8. .43 8. ,40 8. .46 8. ,45 8. .44 PSURELSEWR 6. ,97 6. ,91 6. ,97 6. ,97 7. . 00 PINDAGCROP 107 . .82 107. .83 107. .92 107. . 89 107. . 68 QINDAGCROP 99 . .78 100. . 01 100. . 00 99, ,93 99. .30 PIND-LIVE 101. ,41 101. .33 101. .55 101, .53 101. . 39 QIND-LIVE 99 . ,81 99. .91 99, .84 99, ,87 99. ,03 PIND-FOR 100. , 00 95. .74 84 . .69 62 . .57 58. ,67 QIND-FORA 100. . 00 101. . 54 108. .66 120. .24 121. ,47 QIND-FORC 100. , 00 98. .35 94, .15 84 . ,97 83. .24 CARBONQ 0. .00 3 . , 70 17. .90 46. ,30 103 . ,00 CARBONL 0. , 00 2 . , 04 9. .59 24 . ,71 53. ,54 CARBONAP 0. , 00 4 . , 67 7. .08 14 . ,81 17. , 12 CARBONLAP 0. . 00 8 . ,49 13 . .21 27 . ,74 32 . , 94 CARBSOUTH 0. , 00 3. ,70 17. .90 46. , 30 51. , 16 CARBMIDWST 0. , 00 0. . 00 0, . 00 0. , 00 33 . , 64 CARBELSEWR 0 . . 00 0. . 00 0. . 00 0, . 00 18 . . 20 ACARSOUTH 0 . . 00 2 . . 04 9, . 59 24 , .71 27. .31 ACARMIDWST 0 . . 00 0. . 00 0, . 00 0, . 00 18 , . 18 ACARELSEWR 0. , 00 0. , 00 0, . 00 0, . 00 8. .05 CRP 17 . , 19 17 . . 19 17, . 19 17, . 19 17. . 19 ------- Table WR - 73 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed WETLAND Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PRO Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1024 .00 1024 . 00 AGPROSURP 23 .83 23 .85 FRCONSURP 9 .49 9 .49 FRPROSURP 1 .59 1 . 59 DOMSURP 1058 .91 1058 . 93 FORSURP 85 .28 85 .28 TOTSURP 1144 . 19 1144 .21 GOVTDFCOST 9 .08 9 .08 GOVCARBCS 0 .00 0 .07 TGOVCST 9 .08 9 . 15 NETSURP 1135 .11 1135, .06 PSURSOUTH 4 , .23 4. .23 PSURPNW 1, . 65 1. . 65 PSURMIDWST 9 , .92 9. .92 PSURELSEWR 8 , , 04 8. . 05 PINDAGCROP 100 . .96 100. .95 QINDAGCROP 100. . 08 100. . 09 PIND-LIVE 100. , 37 100. .37 QIND-LIVE 99 . 32 99 . .32 PIND-FOR 100. .00 100. ,00 QIND-FORA 100. . 00 100. 00 QIND-FORC 100. 00 100. 00 CARBONQ 0. 00 11. 13 CARBONL 0. 00 4. 57 CARBONAP 0. 00 6. 32 CARBONLAP 0. 00 15. 39 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2 . 86 CARBMIDWST 0 . 00 7 . 16 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 1. 11 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 1. 08 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 3 . 06 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0. 43 CRP 17. 19 17. 19 ------- Table WR - 74 Results for following scenario WETLAND LAND 1990PRO OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1024.00 1024.00 AGPROSURP 23 .87 23 .89 FRCONSURP 9 .56 9.65 FRPROSURP 1.51 1.42 DOMSURP 1058.94 1058.96 FORSURP 85.28 85.30 TOTSURP 1144.22 1144.26 GOVTDFCOST 9 . 08 9.09 GOVCARBCS 0 . 00 0.04 TGOVCST 9.08 9.13 NETSURP 1135.14 1135.13 PSURSOUTH 4.26 4 .27 PSURPNW 1.65 1.65 PSURMIDWST 9.91 9.92 PSURELSEWR 8.04 8.05 PINDAGCROP 100.96 100.95 QINDAGCROP 100.08 100.09 PIND-LIVE 100.37 100.36 QIND-LIVE 99.32 99 .32 PIND-FOR 96.06 90.94 QIND-FORA 101.48 100.84 QIND-FORC 98 .48 96. 54 CARBONQ 3 . 06 8.92 CARBONL 1.46 4 . 57 CARBONAP 0 . 00 4.44 CARBONLAP 0. 00 8 . 66 CARBSOUTH 2 .24 2 .24 CARBMIDWST 0.00 5.77 CARBELSEWR 0.82 0.91 ACARSOUTH 1. 08 1. 08 ACARMIDWST 0.00 3 . 07 ACARELSEWR 0.38 0.43 CRP 17 . 19 17 .19 Type of land on which carbon can be placed Type of quantity restriction Farm Program Assumption Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land ------- Table WR - 75 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed WETLAND Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVl CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.51 1023.51 AGPROSURP 23.64 23. 65 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1. 59 DOMSURP 1058.23 1058.24 FORSURP 84.97 84 . 97 TOTSURP 1143.20 1143.21 GOVTDFCOST 8.32 8 .32 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 07 TGOVCST 8 . 32 8.39 NETSURP 1134.88 1134.82 PSURSOUTH 4.21 4 .22 PSURPNV? 1. 64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9.79 9 . 80 PSURELSEWR 7 .99 7.99 PINDAGCROP 102.26 102.26 QINDAGCROP 99.52 99.52 PIND-LIVE 100.58 100.58 QIND-LIVE 99 . 39 99 .39 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 11. 13 CARBONL 0. 00 4 . 57 CARBONAP 0. 00 6.32 CARBONLAP 0. 00 15. 39 CARBSOUTH 0 . 00 2 .86 CARBMIDWST 0 . 00 7 . 16 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 1.11 ACARSOUTH 0.00 1.08 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 3 . 06 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0.43 CRP 17 . 19 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 76 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed WETLAND Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-10T Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.42 1023.41 AGPROSURP 23.71 23 .73 FRCONSURP 9.56 9.65 FRPROSURP 1.51 1.42 DOMSURP 1058.20 1058.21 FORSURP 84 .95 84.95 TOTSURP 1143.15 1143.16 GOVTDFCOST 8.24 8.23 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0.04 TGOVCST 8.24 8.27 NETSURP 1134.91 1134.89 PSURSOUTH 4.25 4.26 PSURPNVJ 1. 65 1.65 PSURMIDWST 9.80 9.81 PSURELSEWR 8.00 8.00 PINDAGCROP 102.45 102.48 QINDAGCROP 99.46 99.46 PIND-LIVE 100.63 100.63 QIND-LIVE 99. 37 99.37 PIND-FOR 96.06 90.94 QIND-FORA 101.48 100.84 QIND-FORC 98.48 96.54 CARBONQ 3.06 8.92 CARBONL 1.46 4 . 57 CARBONAP 0. 00 4.44 CARBONLAP 0. 00 8 . 66 CARBSOUTH 2.24 2.24 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 5.77 CARBELSEWR 0.82 0.91 ACARSOUTH 1.08 1.08 ACARMIDWST 0.00 3 . 07 ACARELSEWR 0.38 0.43 CRP 17. 19 17.19 ------- Table WR - 77 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed WETLAND Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR- Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVl CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.03 1023.02 AGPROSURP 23.47 23.49 •FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.59 DOMSURP 1057.58 1057.59 fORSURP 84 .72 84.72 TOTSURP 1142 .30 1142.31 GOVTDFCOST 7. 54 7.53 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0.07 TGOVCST 7.54 7.60 NETSURP 1134.76 1134 .71 PSURSOUTH 4 .19 4.19 PSURPNW 1. 64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9 . 70 9.71 PSURELSEWR 7 . 95 7.95 PINDAGCROP 103.46 103.47 QINDAGCROP 99 . 25 99.25 PIND-LIVE 100.85 100.85 QIND-LIVE 99 . 59 99.59 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 11. 13 CARBONL 0. 00 4 . 57 CARBONAP 0. 00 6.32 CARBONLAP 0. 00 15. 39 CARBSOUTH 0 . 00 2.86 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 7 . 16 CARBELSEWR 0.00 1.11 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 1. 08 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 3 . 06 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0.43 CRP 17. 19 17.19 ------- Table WR - 78 Results for following scenario WETLAND LAND 1990PR-25T OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.06 1023.05 AGPROSURP 23.48 23.50 FRCONSURP 9.56 9.65 FRPROSURP 1.51 1.42 DOMSURP 1057.61 1057.62 FORSURP 84.73 84.74 TOTSURP 1142.34 1142.36 GOVTDFCOST 7.55 7.55 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0.04 TGOVCST 7.55 7.59 NETSURP 1134.79 1134.77 PSURSOUTH 4 .22 4 .23 PSURPNW 1. 64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9 . 68 9.69 PSURELSEWR 7 . 94 7. 94 PINDAGCROP 103.41 103.40 QINDAGCROP 99 . 28 99. 28 PIND-LIVE 100.83 100.83 QIND-LIVE 99 . 61 99.61 PIND-FOR 96 . 06 90.94 QIND-FORA 101.48 100.84 QIND-FORC 98 . 48 96. 54 CARBONQ 3 . 06 8.92 CARBONL 1.46 4 . 57 CARBONAP 0 . 00 4.44 CARBONLAP 0. 00 8.66 CARBSOUTH 2.24 2 .24 CARBMIDWST 0 . 00 5.77 CARBELSEWR 0.82 0.91 ACARSOUTH 1.08 1.08 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 3 . 07 ACARELSEWR 0.38 0.43 CRP 17 . 19 17. 19 Type of land on which carbon can be placed Type of quantity restriction Farm Program Assumption Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land ------- Table WR - 79 Results for following scenario WETLAND LAND 1990PR-10D NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.57 1023.57 AGPROSURP 23.66 23 . 68 FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1. 59 DOMSURP 1058.31 1058.33 FORSURP 84 . 99 85. 00 TOTSURP 1143.30 1143.33 GOVTDFCOST 8 . 36 8 .36 GOVCARBCS 0 . 00 0.07 TGOVCST 8 . 36 8.43 NETSURP 1134.94 1134.90 PSURSOUTH 4 . 21 4.22 PSURPKW 1. 64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9 . 84 9.85 PSURELSEWR 7 . 97 7.97 PINDAGCROP 102.13 102.11 QINDAGCROP 99 . 66 99. 67 PIND-LIVE 100.58 100.58 QIND-LIVE 99. 62 99.62 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0 . 00 11.13 CARBONL 0 . 00 4 . 57 CARBONAP 0.00 6.32 CARBONLAP 0. 00 15.39 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2.86 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 7 .16 CARBELSEWR 0.00 1.11 ACARSOUTH 0 . 00 1. 08 ACARMIDWST 0 . 00 3.06 ACARELSEWR 0. 00 0.43 CRP 17 . 19 17 . 19 Type of land on which carbon can be placed Type of quantity restriction Farm Program Assumption Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land ------- Table WR - 80 Results for following scenario WETLAND LAND 1990PR-10D OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.65 1023.65 AGPROSURP 23.61 23 . 63 FRCONSURP 9.56 9.65 FRPROSURP 1.51 1.42 DOMSURP 1058.33 1058.35 FORSURP 85.03 85. 05 TOTSURP 1143.36 1143.40 GOVTDFCOST 8.38 8. 39 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 04 TGOVCST 8.38 8.43 NETSURP 1134.98 1134.97 PSURSOUTH 4 . 24 4 . 24 PSURPNW 1. 64 1. 64 PSURMIDWST 9.79 9 . 80 PSURELSEWR 7.95 7.96 PINDAGCROP 101.95 101.92 QINDAGCROP 99.76 99.76 PIND-LIVE 100.55 100.54 QIND-LIVE 99.72 99.72 PIND-FOR 96. 06 90.94 QIND-FORA 101.48 100.84 QIND-FORC 98 . 48 96. 54 CARBONQ 3 . 06 8 .92 CARBONL 1.46 4 . 57 CARBONAP 0. 00 4.44 CARBONLAP 0. 00 8 . 66 CARBSOUTH 2 . 24 2.24 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 5.77 CARBELSEWR 0.82 0.91 ACARSOUTH 1. 08 1. 08 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 3 . 07 ACARELSEWR 0.38 0.43 CRP 17. 19 17 . 19 Type of land on which carbon can be placed Type of quantity restriction Farm Program Assumption Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land ------- Table WR - 81 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed WETLAND Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEVl CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.06 1023.08 AGPROSURP 23.40 23.42 •FRCONSURP 9 .49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.59 1.59 DOMSURP 1057.56 1057.58 FORSURP 84 .71 84.72 TOTSURP 1142.27 1142.30 GOVTDFCOST 7. 45 7.46 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 07 TGOVCST 7 . 45 7.53 NETSURP 1134.82 1134.77 PSURSOUTH 4 . 17 4 . 17 PSURPNW 1. 62 1.63 PSURMIDWST 9 . 70 9.71 PSURELSEWR 7 . 90 7.91 PINDAGCROP 103.38 103.35 QINDAGCROP 99.47 99.47 PIND-LIVE 100.86 100.86 QIND-LIVE 99.84 99 . 84 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 11. 13 CARBONL 0 . 00 4 . 57 CARBONAP 0. 00 6. 32 CARBONLAP 0. 00 15.39 CARBSOUTH 0 . 00 2 . 86 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 7 . 16 CARBELSEWR 0.00 1. 11 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 1. 08 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 3 . 06 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0,43 CRP 17. 19 17. 19 ------- Table WR - 82 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed WETLAND Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption 1990PR-25D Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEV1 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1023.09 1023.10 AGPROSURP 23.44 23.45 FRCONSURP 9.56 9. 65 FRPROSURP 1.51 1.42 DOMSURP 1057.60 1057.62 FORSURP 84.71 84.73 TOTSURP 1142.31 1142.35 GOVTDFCOST 7.45 7.46 GOVCARBCS 0. 00 0. 04 TGOVCST 7.45 7.50 NETSURP 1134.86 1134.85 PSURSOUTH 4 .20 4.21 PSURPNW 1. 63 1. 63 PSURMIDWST 9.70 9.71 PSURELSEWR 7.91 7.91 PINDAGCROP 103.38 103.35 QINDAGCROP 99.47 99. 48 PIND-LIVE 100.86 100.85 QIND-LIVE 99.85 99.85 PIND-FOR 96. 06 90. 94 QIND-FORA 101.48 100.84 QIND-FORC 98.48 96. 54 CARBONQ 3 . 06 8 . 92 CARBONL 1.46 4 . 57 CARBONAP 0. 00 4.44 CARBONLAP 0. 00 8 . 66 CARBSOUTH 2.24 2 . 24 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 5.77 CARBELSEWR 0.82 0.91 ACARSOUTH 1. 08 1. 08 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 3 . 07 ACARELSEWR 0.38 0.43 CRP 17. 19 17 . 19 ------- Table WR - 83 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed Type of quantity restriction Farm Program Assumption WETLAND LAND NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land NONE CARBLEV1 CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1021.54 1021.55 AGPROSURP 20.19 20.20 ¦FRCONSURP 9.49 9.49 FRPROSURP 1.58 1.58 DOMSURP 1052.80 1052.82 TORSURP 83.88 83.88 TOTSURP 1136.68 1136.70 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0.07 TGOVCST 0.00 0.07 NETSURP 1136.68 1136.63 PSURSOUTH 3.59 3.60 PSURPNW 1.42 1.42 PSURMIDWST 8 . 31 8.32 PSLTRELSEWR 6.86 6.86 PINDAGCROP 109.07 109.07 QINDAGCROP 138.27 138.27 PIND-LIVE 101.46 101.46 QIND-LIVE 99.94 99.94 PIND-FOR 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORA 100.00 100.00 QIND-FORC 100.00 100.00 CARBONQ 0. 00 11. 13 CARBONL 0. 00 4 . 57 CARBONAP 0 . 00 6. 32 CARBONLAP 0. 00 15 . 39 CARBSOUTH 0. 00 2 . 86 CARBMIDWST 0 . 00 7 . 16 CARBELSEWR 0. 00 1. 11 ACARSOUTH 0. 00 1.08 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 3.06 ACARELSEWR 0.00 0.43 CRP 17. 19 17. 19 ------- Table WR - 84 Results for following scenario Type of land on which carbon can be placed WETLAND Type of quantity restriction LAND Farm Program Assumption NONE Assumption about tree harvest on sequestered land OPTIONAL CARBLEVI CARBLEV5 AGCONSSURP 1021.53 1021.54 AGPROSURP 20.23 20.24 FRCONSURP 9. 56 9.65 FRPROSURP 1.51 1.42 DOMSURP 1052.83 1052.85 FORSURP 83.89 83.89 TOTSURP 1136.72 1136.74 GOVCARBCS 0.00 0.04 TGOVCST 0. 00 0.04 NETSURP 1136.72 1136.70 PSURSOUTH 3.63 3.63 PSURPNW 1.42 1.42 PSURMIDWST 8.31 8.32 PSURELSEWR 6. 86 6.86 PINDAGCROP 109.07 109.07 QINDAGCROP 138.27 138.27 PIND-LIVE 101.46 101.46 QIND-LIVE 99 . 94 99.94 PIND-FOR 96. 06 90.94 QIND-FORA 101.48 100.84 QIND-FORC 98. 48 96.54 CARBONQ 3.06 8.92 CARBONL 1.46 4 .57 CARBONAP 0. 00 4 .44 CARBONLAP 0. 00 8 . 66 CARBSOUTH 2 . 24 2.24 CARBMIDWST 0. 00 5.77 CARBELSEWR 0.82 0.91 ACARSOUTH 1. 08 1. 08 ACARMIDWST 0. 00 3 . 07 ACARELSEWR 0.38 0.43 CRP 17 . 19 17.19 ------- |