Crossett Experimental Forest Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill transfers a federal experimental forest to the State of Arkansas for continued research and educational purposes, under specific conditions that ensure its historic mission is maintained.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretary of Agriculture to convey all federal right, title, and interest in the Crossett Experimental Forest, the R.R. Reynolds Research Natural Area, and associated facilities to the State of Arkansas. The conveyance is contingent on the State's written request within 180 days of enactment and is subject to specific conditions, including the State's commitment to manage the land for forest research, education, and demonstration, and a federal reversionary interest if these conditions are not met.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill allows for more localized and responsive management of a valuable research asset, potentially enhancing collaboration with Arkansas universities and ensuring the forest's historic research mission continues under state stewardship. They contend it streamlines administrative oversight and fosters regional scientific development while reducing federal administrative burdens.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns about the transfer of federal assets to states without monetary consideration, potentially setting a precedent for other federal lands. They might also question whether state management can fully replicate the resources and expertise of the USDA Forest Service, or if the reversionary clause provides sufficient protection for federal interests and the forest's long-term research integrity.
The bill is exceptionally short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(b)
Mandated Conveyance of Crossett Experimental Forest
This section requires the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer all federal rights, title, and interest in the Crossett Experimental Forest, including the R.R. Reynolds Research Natural Area and associated facilities, to the State of Arkansas. This transfer is contingent on the State submitting a written request within 180 days of the bill's enactment, ensuring the State actively seeks the property.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision empowers the State of Arkansas to manage a local asset, potentially leading to more responsive and regionally focused research and educational programs, while reducing federal administrative burden.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that transferring federal land without consideration could be seen as a giveaway of public assets, and that federal oversight might be more consistent or better resourced for maintaining the forest's long-term research integrity.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between federal control and localized state management, balancing national research priorities with regional needs and resource allocation.
Section 2(c), 2(d), 2(f)
Conditions for State Management and Federal Reversion
The conveyance is made without monetary consideration, subject to existing rights, and by quitclaim deed. Crucially, the State must designate the land as the 'Crossett State Forest' and manage it for forest research, education, and demonstration, consistent with its historic mission, in coordination with the University of Arkansas at Monticello and the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. If the State fails to meet these conditions, the Secretary of Agriculture has the discretion to revert all or part of the forest back to the United States after providing notice and a 180-day correction period. The State also bears all conveyance costs.
This subsection exempts the conveyance of the forest from being considered a 'major Federal action' for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and states that Section 306108 of Title 54, United States Code (related to the effect of undertakings on historic property under the National Historic Preservation Act), shall not apply.
Section 2(g)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for land conveyances to streamline the transfer process by exempting it from certain environmental and historic preservation reviews that would typically apply to federal actions. It prevents potential delays and costs associated with extensive assessments for a transfer of ownership rather than a change in land use.
Case for: Proponents argue these exemptions are necessary to facilitate a swift and efficient transfer of the property, avoiding redundant environmental reviews for a change in ownership where the land's use is intended to remain consistent with its historic mission.
Case against: Opponents might argue that even a change in ownership could have unforeseen environmental or historical impacts, and that bypassing these reviews removes an important layer of public and expert scrutiny, potentially setting a precedent for other land transfers.
Estimated impact: Reduces administrative burden and potential delays for the conveyance process by bypassing standard federal environmental and historic preservation reviews.