HR-10136-119
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Sponsored by Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
What it does
This bill would require the U.S. Forest Service to convey the Crossett Experimental Forest, the R.R. Reynolds Research Natural Area, and associated facilities in Arkansas to the State of Arkansas at no cost, if the state requests the transfer within 180 days of enactment. The state would have to redesignate the land as "Crossett State Forest," use it for forestry research and education in coordination with the University of Arkansas at Monticello and the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, and the land could revert to federal ownership if the state fails to meet these conditions. The bill also exempts the conveyance from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and from historic preservation review requirements.
Who benefits
The State of Arkansas, which gains ownership and management control of the forest land; the University of Arkansas at Monticello and the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, which gain guaranteed research and education access; and Arkansas state forestry agencies that would assume management responsibilities.
Who is hurt
The federal government and U.S. Forest Service, which lose direct control over a long-standing federal research forest; national and out-of-state researchers or institutions who previously accessed the site as a federal research facility and may face less certain access under state management; and potentially the public interest in NEPA-reviewed environmental analysis, since the conveyance is exempted from that review.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that transferring the forest to Arkansas allows a state and its universities, which already conduct much of the research there, to manage the land more directly and efficiently without federal bureaucratic layers. They contend the reversionary clause and use restrictions ensure the land stays dedicated to its historic forestry research mission even under state control, and that exempting the routine conveyance from NEPA review avoids unnecessary delay for a transfer that does not itself change land use.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that exempting the transfer from NEPA and historic preservation review removes established public input and analysis before ceding federal land, even if no immediate use change is planned. They contend that state forestry programs may have less stable long-term funding than a federal research designation, and that removing this forest from the national experimental forest network could reduce the continuity and independence of decades of federal research data.