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

-------