Senate Environment and Public Works (Sullivan): Hearings to examine the President's proposed budget request for fiscal year 2027 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

All right, well, good morning everyone. Uh, nice to, to see you, and particularly you, uh, Director Nessek. Thank you for, uh, coming back to the Environment and Public Works Committee. Uh, we sure appreciate having you here today. The Trump administration's fiscal year FY 2027 budget request for the Fish and Wildlife Service reflects a return to an effective and common-sense approach, I think, to carrying out the Service's mission while expanding access to public lands.

I'm particularly appreciative that under your leadership, the Service is showcasing over 570 National Wildlife Refuges by encouraging and expanding access for recreation. As we all know, our hunters and anglers are avid conservationists, and their work represents And their work supports recreation and tourism opportunities in local communities across the state, especially in my state of West Virginia. I'm sure your home state of Wyoming is the same. A continued strong relationship between state wildlife agencies, the Service, and our conservation partners is paramount. This collaboration led to the reintroduction of elk in West Virginia after we lost our elk population in the mid-1800s.

So I'm glad to see the service has prioritized state-led conservation efforts under this administration. Strong bipartisan action from Congress has also led to wins for our wildlife and conservation efforts. Last year, the EPW Committee passed the America's Conservation Enhancement Reauthorization Act. This law reauthorized important efforts such as the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act, the National Fish Habitat Partnership, and the Chesapeake Bay Program, one I'm particularly interested in. It also authorized funding for the Service to address the threats of emerging wildlife diseases, such as chronic wasting disease, protect livestock from predators, and combat invasive species.

I look forward to hearing from Director Nesvik today on the Service's efforts to fully implement the ACE Act. And other laws passed by the Congress. The Service also has the vital task of protecting threatened and endangered species and ensuring that Americans will be able to experience the beauty of our nation for generations to come. The Service should carry out its mission without necessarily slowing down or halting projects, as is done— as has been done under previous administrations. I have long spoken about the issues with the Endangered Species Act and how it is implemented by the Service.

The experiences of public and private entities within the Section 7 consultation process in West Virginia are prime examples of why ESA reform is so important. Several years ago, my staff began holding monthly calls with the services staff at the Elkins field office because of delays with the consultation processes for critical projects. As a result of these calls, progress has been made, and many of these projects have started moving forward. But now, under your leadership, Director Nesvik, there are significantly fewer projects facing delays, and that in turn needs to be discussed on these calls. I'm appreciative of all of you and your team has done to facilitate that outcome.

Thank you. And we talked about that when we met last week. Under the Trump administration, the service is striving to better balance species protection and conservation with the economic development needs of all communities. This also includes returning the ESA to its intended purpose, the recovery and delisting of species. And this is something I have long supported.

To that end, the Service is requesting additional funding for priority recovery activities in the agency's FY 2027 budget request. I was pleased to see that the Service is requesting an increase in funding for energy project reviews, including the development and use of programmatic tools to automate ESA compliance. Known as the Information for Planning and Consultation System, or IPAC. IPAC has been a game changer in our state for our projects, dramatically cutting down the timeframes for Section 7 consultations. Recently, the service issued a final rule designating over 1 million acres of critical habitat for the rusty-patched bumblebee across 6 states, including West Virginia.

Last week, your team briefed my staff on this rule, and I appreciate how quickly your team prepared and provided this information, so thank you. I appreciate the balance that you and your team struck in that final rule. I would remiss not to mention the recent decision out of the D.C. District Court that invalidated the 2020 programmatic biological opinion issued by the service for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation Enforcement's mining regulation program. This decision will negatively impact coal production in the 24 states that have primacy That includes my state. I'm extremely disappointed by this court decision and very concerned about what it will mean for projects in my state moving forward.

Director Nesbick, thank you for being here. I look forward to hearing how you intend to build on the progress you have made at the service over the last few months and your plans for the months ahead. Ranking Member Whitehouse, I now recognize you for your opening statement. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Welcome. The Fish and Wildlife Service is our nation's oldest conservation agency, dating back to 1871, and it's the only agency whose primary responsibility is to conserve and protect America's wildlife. A big job for a small agency. Our conservation agencies have been staffed with the best. Scientists with decades of experience and expertise have flourished at the Fish and Wildlife Service, ensuring that generations of Americans can exist on the same planet as the California condor, the bald eagle, the monk seal, and others.

These responsibilities are not to be taken lightly, so I'm deeply disheartened by the doggy-fueled antics over the past year, compounded by the administration's proposed 20% funding cut for next year. There are reports that the Fish and Wildlife Service has lost as much as a quarter of its staff. The doggy boys chased out nearly 1,800 employees, purging at least 530 biologists and over 100 regional senior staff. These people cannot be readily replaced—experts with deep institutional and species knowledge dedicated to protecting the wildlife of our country. In response to questions for the record from your confirmation hearing, you stated that you have spent your career—and I'm quoting here—working closely with scientists on wildlife issues, and that you, quoting again, deeply value their expertise, commitment, and contributions.

I very much doubt that the 530 staff biologists who left the agency felt deeply valued. The proposed funding cuts won't help. Not cutting all funding for endangered species conservation, including iconic species such as elephants, rhinos, and great apes. Not cutting science support, which provides technical assistance to local communities. For wildlife and habitat conservation, not cutting state and tribal grants which help conserve fish and wildlife before they require protection under the Endangered Species Act.

In your confirmation hearing, you spoke openly about cooperative federalism, but your budget goes out of its way to provide fewer resources to our states. Most managers at our nation's wildlife refuges report that they don't have the resources and staff to fulfill their missions. Democrats and Republicans are eager to see the permitting process move faster. Fish and Wildlife Service staff often play a key role in permitting. How do we expedite permitting processes if staff and resources aren't there?

You've also let Fish and Wildlife get wrapped up in the administration's fraudulent war on low-cost clean energy. This administration blockades clean energy on purpose to drive electric grids to more expensive fossil fuel units. A massive wealth transfer, billions of dollars from family pocketbooks to Trump's big fossil fuel donors. Payback. With consumers' money.

Your IPAC database helps developers quickly determine if a project could affect a protected species. IPAC has received bipartisan praise, but in July of last year, you banned wind and solar projects from using the online IPAC system. Who does that help? Developers can once again access the system, but that thanks to a court order. And the pattern at DOI remains to abuse every process to stall clean energy projects.

This is especially irritating coming from you as the former director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Wind power accounts for about 20% of Wyoming's electricity generation. Surely, in your time as the director, you saw how helpful this database was for your state. In closing, I'm reminded of this image displaying the biomass of mammals on Earth. Humans?

Sheep, cattle, buffalo, goats, pigs, wild mammals. 5% Of the Earth's biomass. 95% Of Earth's mammals are humans and livestock and pets. A mere 5% of mammal biomass on planet Earth is still wild. We are living through a biodiversity crash, often called the sixth mass extinction.

This mass extinction is unique because it's being driven primarily by human activity: climate change, deforestation, habitat destruction, pollution, overexploitation, and more. We need to do better. By what wildlife remains. That is your job at the Fish and Wildlife Service. Zeroing out wildlife conservation funding for imperiled and iconic species does not help.

Invoking the God Squad to remove Endangered Species Act protections from, for instance, the Risers whale, of which only 50 are left, just to promote more oil and gas development does not help. Mr. Nesvik, generations will look back to understand why species on your watch went the way of the dodo. How much of God's creation must be a sacrifice to the fossil fuel industry right now? It's not a good look. Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. So this morning we have— we are joined by the Honorable Brian Nesvik, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I look forward to hearing from Director Nesvik about the service's proposed budget of fiscal year 2027 and the implementation of current programs through the end of the year. Again, thank you for being here.

Before we move forward, I will administer the oath to receive your sworn testimony. So if you would please stand and raise your right hand and answer the following question.

Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Thank you. Let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative. So we will now proceed. Director Nesbick, you are recognized for your opening statement.

Well, good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee. As you mentioned, I'm Brian Nesvik, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. It's good to be back with this committee again, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on President Trump's FY27 budget request for Fish and Wildlife Service. The budget requests $1.3 billion for the service in FY27. It presents new opportunities for a future driven by innovation, dedicated to optimizing sustainable use of our natural resources and reflects our commitment to delivering efficient and superior service to the American people.

In line with President Trump's leadership, the service's budget reflects a proactive approach to unleashing American energy dominance through effective and efficient implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The FY27 budget proposes an increase of $5.1 million for ESA Section 7 consultations for energy projects. With this funding, the service will be able to accelerate the review of priority energy projects, and we anticipate being able to reduce consultation timeframes from 30 to 14 days. The budget also reflects a commitment to the recovery of listed species. We are requesting a $2.6 million increase for work to support the development of recovery plans, 5-year status reviews, and rulemakings.

At this funding level, we expect to be able to finalize 15 de— or downlisting rules in FY27. Additionally, we are requesting a $19.7 million increase for priority recovery activities, including implementation of a new multi-year recovery initiative. This effort would catalyze activities outlined in recovery plans for priority species. The budget also includes a request for resources and authority to integrate the National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources into the service. This unification will streamline permitting activities and ensure consistent implementation of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The Service's FY27 budget aligns directly with presidential and secretarial priorities to enhance America's access to public lands and foster outdoor recreation. In May, the Service announced the largest proposed expansion of hunting and fishing opportunities in the agency's history. The proposal would open or expand more than 1,450 new hunting or fishing opportunities across 32 states. The proposed expansion reflects the Trump administration's commitment to American hunters and anglers supporting rural economies and fostering community engagement. This budget request supports effective implementation of these new opportunities.

It also includes an increase of $2.5 million for visitor services at wildlife refuges. This funding will enable the service to better support gateway communities and facilitate high-quality recreational opportunities through increased access. This investment emphasizes the role of hunting and fishing activities as the backbone of the North American model of wildlife conservation. To provide safety and security for the visiting public, the budget also requests a $3 million increase for refuge law enforcement. The Service's federal wildlife officers are charged with protecting refuge resources but are also supporting efforts to combat drug trafficking, address border security, and aid in other security challenges.

The service's infrastructure projects also help millions of visitors experience our natural treasures and support American jobs. This budget allocates roughly $113 million for refuge system maintenance and $14 million for new construction projects. This request reflects the service's ongoing efforts to prioritize safety and accessibility while addressing important maintenance needs. President's FY27 budget also proposes reauthorizing President Trump's Great American Outdoors Act Legacy Restoration Fund. Reauthorization of GOA will allow the service to continue utilizing lifecycle efficient methods to address priority deferred maintenance needs.

Infrastructure investments under a reauthorized LRF will enhance operational efficiency and public safety, improve recreational access and service delivery, reduce liabilities associated with deferred maintenance, and help to ensure the facilities on public lands meet the needs of visitors and communities. In conclusion, this budget is intended to enable the service to deliver superior service to the American people, to look towards innovation, not regulation, to improve application of the Endangered Species Act, to embrace our state and tribal wildlife partners, and to improve our National Wildlife Refuge System. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you, uh, Director Nesvik, and I will start off with the questions. I'd like to go to something I alluded to in my opening statement, which is the U.S. District Court of District of Columbia vacating the biological opinion that governs consultations under the Endangered Species Act for coal mining activities in states that have primacy under SMACRA.

This is very problematic for our state, my state, my state in particular. And as you know, we have, we have experienced considerable delays with the ESA consultations anyway during the pres— the previous administration. So, Mr. Director, do I have your commitment to work with the Office of Surface Mining, state regulators including West Virginia's EPA, and the mining industry on a path forward that allows ESA consultations to take place in an efficient manner and avoid unnecessary delays in the permitting process after this court decision? If you have any other thoughts on this as well. Yes, so I certainly appreciate the question.

As you mentioned, this is a recent development. This is a pretty recent court decision. We are aware of it in the Department of Interior, and we've already begun looking at what the options may be in order to ensure that this doesn't disrupt our abilities to issue those permits that previously state primacy was able to address. So I don't have specific options identified here today, but please know that we are working on those, and myself as well as senior officials in the department are very well aware. Well, thank you, and we'll look forward to working with that and keeping close communication.

Also, in my opening statement, I mentioned the successful bipartisan reauthorization of the ACE Act, uh, um, and so, uh, we haven't had the chance really to talk about the implementation at this committee level. Can you provide us with an update on the implementation of the ACE Act including what is working well and any challenges that you might have encountered. Yeah, certainly, Chairman. So the, um, first of all, I'll tell you that, you know, with specifically with the National Fish Habitat Partnerships, we're able— we've got right now in place 20 different partnerships, and this is a great opportunity to deliver conservation on the ground, habitat work, recreational fisheries, and increase public access. We have, as you mentioned, you specifically talked about issues with wildlife conflict that are identified in the ACE Act, and we're able to take some steps to help livestock producers who are, who are having depredation problems with black vultures.

That work is underway. We've already identified ways, and we're delivering that in the field now. And, and certainly along the, the lines of wildlife disease, we've worked with our state partners to look at ways that— new innovative ways that we can address wildlife disease, as you mentioned. And so I, I don't have any concerns with implementation and, and know that it is ongoing. Great, great.

I want to ask about the IPAC project planning tool. We've actually had testimony in previous meetings that, oh, it's coming, it's going to happen, and it was getting delayed and had great promise to make the permitting process or the consultation process more efficient. Uh, can you describe the, the, uh, success of the IPAC planning tool and how additional funding in the budget will help that? And I would give you a chance— I know the, uh, the ranking member mentioned somebody was cut out of the IPAC process. I think you mentioned that in your statement.

If you could respond to that as well. Yeah, so, um, first of all, I will tell you that IPAC has been a game changer, as you alluded to. Our partners who use IPAC are very interested in seeing it continued. And also there are opportunities to enhance IPAC and to make it, to make it more efficient and usable. For example, in West Virginia, you know, 80% of the projects that are initially submitted through IPAC are almost approved immediately.

With improvements to IPAC, we believe we can cut down permitting timelines, you know, by half. And so there is interest within the department. There's, as you indicated, there's lots of support for moving forward with IPAC, and I believe that we can, we can do better, particularly by focusing on it and on these improvements. You know, specific to the ranking member's questions regarding clean energy projects, you know, I think that that folks are aware that this administration directed a review process for all energy projects, and part of that review process included initially a prohibition from those particular energy proponents from being able to submit their projects. That's— those reviews are ongoing, and I don't have much more on that.

Okay. I'll go ahead and turn to the ranking member then.

Well, let's stay on that subject for a moment, because I think you're now required to provide IPAC data to solar and wind projects by court order. So that has stabilized. Is that correct? That is correct. You've also indicated in your testimony to us that you intend to reduce informal Endangered Species Act consultation timeframes from 30 to 14 days and formal ESA consultation timeframes from 135 to 30 days.

Is that goal applicable also to clean energy projects? So the, the current direction that we provided regarding clean energy projects has not changed, with exception to changes we've made in response to the court decision that, that you referenced. Um, at a time when those projects, um, were moved through IPAC, yes, it would apply the same. So just to be clear here, if you are successful in reducing the informal consultation time frame to 14 days and the formal consultation time to 30 days, that would apply equally to wind and solar projects. They would also receive the benefit of those time reductions.

Yes, Senator, any project that was submitted through IPAC and working its way through this process would, would have the same timelines under the— under IPAC. Thank you. When we first spoke in your confirmation hearings, I pointed out that you're from the great and mighty American West. Hasn't been ocean there in billions of years. And I'm a coastal state, and I was interested in what ocean expertise you would make sure the service provided.

Now your FY27 budget actually moves things from NOAA to Fish and Wildlife. So there's even more demand for oceans and coastal expertise. How are you doing on that? And how many of the 530 biologists who fled were ones that had oceans and coastal competence? Yeah, so thank you for the question, Senator.

So, you know, certainly if this merger, this integration was to was to come to fruition, there is existing expertise within NOAA NIMPS that potentially would be available. The details of that potential are not worked out yet, but, you know, certainly we would leverage expertise that currently relies within NIMPS. And then within the Fish and Wildlife Service, we do have several very highly qualified biologists that understand marine biology, that understand Marine Mammal Protection Act, and that we do have biologists that work on these issues now. Well, I'll ask you in a question for the record to specify that, if you don't mind. Lastly, I co-lead every year a Senate appropriations letter supporting the state and tribal wildlife grants.

You will not be surprised to learned that that letter enjoys immense bipartisan support. In your time as the Wyoming Game Commissioner, did you pursue and receive these state and tribal grants? Yes, Senator, we, we did apply and routinely utilize those grants. So explain to me the logic of zeroing out those grants in your budget proposal? Well, it's a reality, um, or I guess the impetus is, is that we had to make some very hard decisions to reduce spending, um, in line with the president's priority to ensure his commitment can come to fruition to reduce government spending.

We are at a point, um, and we need to do our part as the Fish and Wildlife Service to, um, reduce spending. We made hard decisions. There's there were areas that we had to focus on cutting, and we have to rely heavier on our state tribal partners, other private partners, non-governmental organizations, conservation groups, other folks to help in these areas because we— our fiscal reality indicates that we can't continue to spend at the current level that we are. Yeah, well, I would say that our fiscal reality also includes billionaires who don't pay any damn taxes, so they're Ought to be ways to solve our fiscal problem without taking it out on what little remains of our planet's wildlife. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Dr. Demme. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, appreciate that. Ranking Member, Director Nesbick, thank you very much for your leadership at Fish and Wildlife, and thank you very much for being here.

Thank you also for opening up the grazing access to the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge following the devastating wildfires that we had here in Nebraska. It has been something where we've had the most fire damage in the state's history. Over 1 million acres were burned, and everything we can do to be able to help out our ranchers recover is greatly appreciated. So Thank you for that. In addition, it was great to talk to you yesterday to hear your perspectives on what the agency can do to improve ESA implementation.

This administration's Fish and Wildlife Service has reinstated several of the first Trump administration's rulemakings that improve the ESA implementation. Thank you for your continued efforts to improve transparency, reduce regulation overreach— regulatory overreach— and provide clear definitions for those impacted by ESA regulations. As chairman of the Water, Fisheries and Wildlife Subcommittee, I hosted a hearing on ESA and found that a greater focus on species recovery and transparency is critical to reforming a law that has too often failed to meet its conservation objectives. Since the ESA was enacted in 1973, only 57 of the more than 1,700 listed species have been delisted. That's roughly 3% of the species ever listed as endangered or threatened have been recovered.

That does not sound like a very successful recovery metric to me and really encourages us to take a look at the programs and see what we can do to improve the rate of recovery among species. The pallid sturgeon is one of those species. It's in the Missouri River and has been the focus of a longstanding effort to be able to achieve recovery efforts under the ESA since it was listed as endangered in 1990. Since 1994, researchers have carried out a propagation program that has released millions of age-zero pallid sturgeon and over 150,000 pallid sturgeon over 1 year old into the Missouri River. These propagation efforts have continued with the establishment of the Missouri River Recovery Program by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2006.

Under Section 7 of the ESA, the Corps is required to consult with Fish and Wildlife Service. The recovery plan sets numeric standards for— numeric standard downlisting the pallid sturgeon. So we want to have 5,000 genetically diverse adult fish in each management unit sustained for over 2 generations. So we're talking 20 or 30 years. Currently, the data indicates the pallid sturgeon population is estimated at 2,517 fish as of October 2024.

So after more than 30 years of attempting this, we've made it about halfway there. I will note that about two-thirds of the fish I just mentioned are actually from the propagation efforts. However, we can see that we're not making a ton of progress. Director Nesbick, what steps can U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service take to better align the recovery and delisting framework for the pallid sturgeon and other species with long-term recovery efforts with more realistic and achievable benchmarks to be able to get this done?

Well, thank you. Certainly appreciate the question, Senator. So first, I would, I would just highlight that, you know, on the endangered species list, and you alluded to this, There are, there are species that are imperiled and need help and investment with recovery. And there are species that are on the list that are recovered but just simply have not had the investment to be able to remove them from the list. And what that does is, is it diverts resources.

Every species that's on the list requires some level of support and investment from the federal government. Delisting species that are recovered but just need to be pushed over the line through the regulatory process creates an opportunity to then use those resources for those species on the list that generally need help. The other thing I think that's important with, with regards to specifically— I, I don't know the, the biology and the history and background with pallid sturgeon, but I would say that one of the— one of, one of our focuses is, and if these ESA regulations are finalized, a provision will enable us to use basically the same criteria that you use. The 5-factor analysis that we use to list a species will also be used to determine if a species should be delisted. Same exact process for both.

And I think that is, uh, something that will help us with these species that I described that have reached recovery but simply haven't had the investment to get them through the regulatory process to get them delisted. Okay, well, I'm just about out of time, but I do want to wrap up on some other things real quickly. On special status assessments for species, what I encourage you to do is can have a lot of transparency with regard to that so the public can know ahead of time as you're going through this, uh, whether it's the data sets, modeling assumptions, the analytical methods that you're using on the SSA, so the public can know what's going on. And then I'd also encourage you to make sure that you're doing the best you can to encourage, to educate landowners what they are responsible for with regard to endangered species as well. I'll just give you an example.

When I was governor of Nebraska, there was a rancher who was talking to me about, you know, he's going to re-up his CRP land. You have to do it every 7 years. And what had been put in there is that you had to protect the habitat of the swift fox. He had never seen a swift fox. He went to his FSA office and said, what do I have to do to be able to comply with this new rule you want me to sign up for in my CRP agreement?

And they couldn't answer him. And so he declined to sign up for the CRP land because he's like, I'm not going to agree in a contract, a written contract, to protect the habitat of an animal I haven't even seen on my property. And you can't even tell me what I have to do to protect it. So we need to be able to make sure we're giving landowners the information they need and what their responsibilities are. If they're going to sign these agreements so that we can continue to have these programs.

So I'd encourage you, whatever you can do to be able to help encourage that, that would help landowners be responsible and also protect them against being sued for things that they may not have any control over or obligations they may not have understood they had. So thank you, Director. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Senator Husted.

Thank you, Chairman Capito. Director Nesvik, thank you for your many years of service to protecting wildlife and our natural places. I know we have members of this committee from the East Coast and the West Coast and the Gulf Coast. I represent the North Coast, the Great Lakes. Mm-hmm.

And as the only member of the committee that represents a Great Lakes state, I'm going to focus my thoughts on, on the Great Lakes. They have been— the Great Lakes have been vulnerable and resilient over the time period that we have been studying them. When they became open for global commercial trade in 1959, though, we have seen threats from invasive species, from different things were brought in in ballast water and the like that range from sea lamprey to zebra mussels to the round goby that have had varying impacts on the Great Lakes. The sea lamprey, though, being the most devastating of them all. But there was a response, a coordinated response from wildlife experts and biologists to address that issue, and those coordinated efforts have kept the lamprey under control.

And— but they— we must always remain vigilant in making sure that that stays true. The Great Lakes are a commercial venue. They are where people get their, their fresh water, but it's also home of recreational and commercial fishing, a huge economic impact for all of the Great Lakes states. And I bring this up Regarding invasive species, because the great threat that's out there for the Great Lakes is the invasive carp, which I know you know about. I know the President has spoken about the issue.

And I also see in the budget that there is a, a cut of $17 million for programs that are part of the strategic response for the Asian Invasion Act, and for the Asian carp. Please explain to me, if you would, your awareness of this, the efforts that are being made to make sure that the invasive carp does not find its way into the Great Lakes through the many tributaries where it could occur, and just give us some perspective on your what's being done and your commitment. I just want to know what your commitment is to making sure that this does not become a problem for the Great Lakes. So certainly appreciate the question, Senator, and I will tell you that, you know, I know that you're focused on, on your constituents in the Great Lakes. I would say that this is one of my largest conservation concerns in our country, is the cancer of invasive species, whether they're aquatic or terrestrial.

And I have spent a significant amount of my time in, in this profession working on dealing with, trying to figure out how to solve that problem. I think the future of solving that problem lies in, in places we haven't gone before, using innovation and technology, using genomics, looking at opportunities for private investment to help us figure out how to use— you've probably heard of the idea of using YY introduced all kinds of different species. It doesn't have to be carp to deal with these problems, basically sterile fish, so that you eventually over time eliminate an invasive population. So specific to the Great Lakes, we have worked very closely with our state partners both at the Great Lakes and upstream as well. We've been able to provide significant support through our We have invasive— an invasive species task force within the Fish and Wildlife Service that we've been able to use to provide expertise and also help.

We've, you know, this year, I don't remember the number, it's several folks that we've hired to help deliver lampricide for dealing with sea lamprey. And this invasive carp issue, we've had multiple discussions with private industry to try to figure out, and the White House. So I want to try to understand. So when you talk about trying to prevent them from reproducing with sterile fish, you're talking about not in the Great Lakes, you're talking about down, downstream in the tributaries. And tell me what's going on there.

Yeah. And in all the states, too, you know, the states are investing. This past year, we've provided grants for those states to continue to do that work with regards to carp. And then additionally, I think, you know, looking forward, There's a lot of discussion going on about trying to figure out what the solutions are here with carp, and it's probably doing some things that we haven't done before. And again, what would—.

Just quickly, what would those be? Genomics is one example. I mean, you know, using genetics to be able to figure out how to create a way for the system to take care of the problem itself, essentially. There's still the removal, you know, there's the efforts now are focused on commercial entities and private entities or non-commercial entities that are harvesting and killing invasive carp. But, you know, that is a Band-Aid.

We got to— the long-term solution is, is bigger than that. Yeah. Well, thank you, Chairman Capito. And I just want to reiterate the importance of this. It would be devastating to the Great Lakes if, if this, if this invasive carp was allowed to enter the Great Lakes system.

And so please, you and your team, let us know what we can do to support you. But please make it a priority and do everything you can and be innovative to make sure that it— that is a problem that hopefully we'll never have to contend with in the Great Lakes. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Schiff.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Director Nesbitt, in December, I sent a letter with 19 of my colleagues to you and Secretary Bergum, raising concerns about the staffing crisis at Fish and Wildlife. Some estimates suggest the agency has lost 26% of its staff. I ask for your plan to address this crisis to ensure that your agency and the refuge system have enough staff to protect wildlife and, and other refuges as you're required to do by statute. To date, I have not received any response, which highlights my concern.

So let me just ask you to start out. You've gotten a letter from fully one-fifth of the Senate asking about the staffing crisis. When can we expect a response? Well, Senator, thank you for the question, and I can't commit to you on a timeline when you'll receive a response, but I will tell you that this has been aligning our workforce with available resources and with our our core mission and what we're required by law to do has been a large part of our work related to our workforce and how we're going to, um, how we're going to produce the outcomes for the American people that they expect and require in the future. Director, um, it's been half a year since we asked you how you're going to deal with these staffing shortages.

Uh, it's not too much to ask Indeed, if we're going to take our oversight responsibility seriously, we need to insist on answers to very basic questions about how you can meet your statutory obligation after losing a quarter of your staff. Let me— and we will follow up with your office on this to make sure we get an answer. Last summer, we learned about 9% of wildlife refuges have been classified as shuttered. Meaning they have no on-the-ground management. What percentage of the refuges are now shuttered without on-the-ground management?

And I think on the same day that I sent my letter to you in December, you said you were going to look for refuges that no longer aligned with the mission, but you've offered no information about what that mission is or how you're undertaking this nationwide review. So let me ask you, what percentage of these refuges are now shuttered, and how are you determining whether refuges align with the mission? Well, first of all, Senator, I, I completely acknowledge the fact that we do have refuges where we don't have staff working on the refuges. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're shuttered or closed to public use. We— this refuge review that has been very important to me, very important to the service, is, is getting close to being wrapped up to where we can talk publicly about what the findings of that are.

But it's really focused on putting more— realigning to put more boots on the ground in the field, doing the work on the ground for these— for refuges across the country. It's looking at finding efficiencies. It's looking at dealing with deferred maintenance backlogs. And then, and again, I think LRF reauthorization is such an important part of that. The refuge review also is looking at ways that we can be more efficient with the resources that we have.

There's a, there's a lot of technology and a lot of opportunities and a lot of— we have 160 different partners groups that are standing at the door waiting to go and help us with our needs. And so there's opportunities to do it in a different way and focus more on the outcomes than the inputs. I would just suggest, Director, if you've had about a quarter of your workforce lost, it's going to be very difficult to put more boots on the ground in these refuges as you're suggesting. Let me move to a different topic. In March, Senator Ricketts and I held a hearing in the Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife Subcommittee on how to improve recovery efforts for species listed or threatened— as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

And I was pleased, given the strong feelings on both sides of the aisle about the ESA, that we were— able to have a reasonable and bipartisan discussion, and I thank Senator Ricketts for a great hearing. Do you agree with the notion that private landowners who have implemented positive conservation practices should be afforded some degree of regulatory flexibility, such as under Section 4 rules, in exchange for helping species population numbers rebound and meeting specific conservation milestones? Wouldn't this kind of regulatory flexibility be appropriate? Senator, in short, absolutely. And there's also Section 10 of the ESA that, you know, I've heard loud and clear from landowners that they are frustrated with because it's difficult to maneuver their way through obtaining the right permits that address exactly what you're saying.

You do good things, we're going to make sure that you're not negatively impacted for doing good things with with listed species. So we are focused right now, we have an effort going on to look at Section 10, both the major outcomes of Section 10, to make it more streamlined and better, easier for landowners to use without a significant amount of cost for landowners to be able to participate in those programs. Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome.

Mr. Nesvik, so how much time and money does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spend defending itself in court? Uh, that's a great question, Senator, that I don't have an answer to, but I will tell you it's significant. And it comes out of your budget when you have to defend yourself in court? Certainly it comes out of, um, yes, it comes out of Department of Interior's funding, and it would if it wasn't being used to deal with litigation, it could be applied to other things like recovery of species.

So litigation against your decisions, especially if it's by an environmental group, and let me use an example. The grizzly bear was twice delisted and determined to be recovered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. That predates your time here. And the courts determined that that decision needed to be vacated. So a lot of time and money was spent preparing to defend the US Fish and Wildlife Service determination, and then the courts just vacated it, and we were back to where we were— where we are now.

So litigation is taking money away from species recovery. Is that true? That is absolutely true, and it's also a burden on, on those state wildlife agencies that have spent north of $50 million just on that species now to recover it. The biology indicates that that species is recovered, but we have not been able to, to get it delisted. And that goes back to the question that I addressed with Senator Ricketts, that when we get these species that are recovered biologically off the list, we can invest those resources in species that actually need the work.

Yeah, I was interested in, in Senator Ricketts' questions about the swift fox, because we used to have a whole lot of swift fox on our ranch in Laramie County, Wyoming, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service used to come in and trap them with our permission and take them to places where they needed to increase the population. So sometimes with these species, it's just a matter of concentrations of a species someplace and less of them in another. Clearly, Nebraska was one of those places where there was a depletion, uh, of swift fox. I'm glad we could help with that.

Um, so there was a, a previous question while I was here about, uh, your core mission and aligning the agency's work with that mission. So can you talk a little bit about how you're going about trying to align both human resources and financial resources with the core missions of the agency? Yeah, absolutely. So first and foremost, I think, you know, one of the things that I've made a priority for Fish and Wildlife Service and the way that we go about our job every day is we have to remember every morning when we wake up who we work for. And superior service to the American people is a top priority.

We are working hard, as I've mentioned, in some of our work with the refuge system to figure out how to run the refuge system better and make it better for the American people. The wildlife refuge system is part of our core mission. I've talked a lot today about the Endangered Species Act. That's part of our core mission. We're working hard on things like migratory bird conservation.

That's core mission. The law requires that the service, along with the states, manages migratory waterfowl as an example. So the operational daily cost to do permitting for legally required permits that Americans need in order to do the things that they do every day, whether they're private landowners trying to ranch or whether they're energy companies trying to achieve our energy dominance priority.

Well, I wish you well because I think that that's an important alignment that needs to— and it doesn't happen overnight. It takes a lot of work. Hey, I want to switch a little bit to invasive species and give you an example. So on my ranch in Platte County, Wyoming. We had a wildfire, and of course then cheatgrass comes in and just takes over.

So the local weed and pest control district and conservation district had some biologics that we could spray out of helicopters to try to prevent the spread of cheatgrass. But we had to very carefully, and we were paying for it, the ranchers were pitching in to pay for this, um, and, but we had to make sure we never sprayed on the adjacent federal lands because they didn't want, uh, the biologic treatment on federal land. And of course in this area they're all peppered, uh, federal land, state land, private land, they're all interspersed. What are you doing to try to implement collective federalism where if there's an effort by a state wildlife agency, Wyoming Game and Fish or whoever, to either deal with an invasive species or to use scientific data that's generated by the state Game and Fish to provide you with additional data, to help inform your decisions about threatened and endangered species. Is there, is there progress being made to implement collective federalism so states and locals who have boots on the ground experience can help inform the debate for the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service? Yeah, so great question, and you're right, there is a significant amount of frustration, particularly with the issue you bring up with the use of, I suspect it was with the use of Rejuvra, most likely. And we have taken some monumental steps to improve that situation. So just as an example, in the case you bring up, you know, the law requires NEPA review for anything like cheatgrass spraying on federal land. And there was, NEPA had been conducted and was approved and was an approved use on Forest Service lands.

But the NEPA wasn't done on the BLM lands. And so literally you could spray and apply this treatment to a cancer of the West on one piece of federal land, but you had to stop at the border because the NEPA wasn't approved. Our new NEPA regulations eliminate that. Basically, you can use another agency's NEPA as long as it applies and it's legal. And that— and it includes multiple categories.

Exclusions which allow a more programmatic look across a larger group of lands where you know that the answer at the end is going to be yes, we want to do this. It's really important for habitat restoration. Yeah, but the process is taking us so long. So we've made some significant progress on that issue. Well, thank you, Director.

Appreciate you being here. Thank you. Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you, Chair Capito and Ranking Member Whitehouse, for holding today's hearing. And also want to say good morning to Director Nesvik, and thank you for joining us.

For nearly 90 years, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration and Dingle-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Programs have been among the most successful conservation partnerships in our nation's history. Rather than relying on taxpayer dollars, these programs are funded by taxes paid by hunters, anglers, recreational shooters, and boaters and returned to the states for wildlife conservation, fisheries management, and boating access. For Maryland alone, these formulas fund roughly $14 million that come to our state, and the state builds its conservation budget and annual work plan around the expectation that the Service will distribute these funds in a timely and predictable manner. Uncertainty about the availability or timing of these funds can disrupt habitat restoration projects, fishery management activities and public access improvements. Can you commit that the Fish and Wildlife Service will continue to distribute wildlife and sport fish restoration funds on schedule and without administrative delays so that states like my state, Maryland, can effectively plan and execute their conservation programs?

Well, Senator, first of all, I'm not aware of any, um, Delays we've had specific to the Wild Sport— Wildlife Sport Fisheries Recreational, the WSFR funds that you speak of with Pittman-Robertson, those are statutorily directed to be— to go to the states under the formula that, that you described. But that certainly is— and I know this well from working in a state before— it's very important to the states, and we are committed to continuing that funding as we're directed by the law. And if there are delays in Maryland, for example, would you commit then to working with us to make sure that we're able to get those distributions? Absolutely. Okay, thank you.

And I wonder also whether the service anticipates any staffing or administrative challenges that might be able—. Might affect future distributions with regards to the delivery of Pittman-Robertson, Dingle-Johnson, Wallerboro. I don't anticipate any issues with, um, with— you know, there are— there have been There, there have been changes in— not necessarily specific to your question on grant delivery within the department. There have been movements of employees. It hasn't necessarily been a loss to the Fish and Wildlife Service when a certain group of employees were moved from one particular bureau or into the department.

And so there still continues to be resources to be able to do that important work. Okay, thank you. Um, also want to ask you, so current Fish and Wildlife Service policy provides compensatory hunting days for states that prohibit Sunday hunting for migratory game birds. However, the existing framework does not provide sufficient flexibility for states to adopt species-specific Sunday hunting policies while preserving those compensatory days. Instead, it effectively forces an all-or-nothing approach limiting states' ability to tailor hunting regulations to local needs and stakeholder input.

In Maryland, the Sunday hunting policy has historically been considered on a species-by-species basis, balancing the interest of hunters, landowners, conservationists, and local communities. Greater flexibility within the federal framework would allow the state to make incremental policy decisions without affecting overall conservation objectives or the total number of hunting days. The Trump administration has repeatedly emphasized empowering states and reducing one-size-fits-all federal requirements, allowing additional flexibility in the compensatory days framework, and this would be consistent with that goal. So, if allowing species-specific Sunday hunting would not increase the number of hunting days or undermine conservation objectives, Why does the current compensatory days framework continue to require an all or nothing approach? Well, great question, Senator.

And I actually— I've heard from some of your constituents here very recently about this. I actually didn't even know it was an issue until recently. I know it's important to your constituents, and I'm committed to working with you, your staff, and also the states to try to figure out how we tackle this thing. I don't have a great solution today, but You're right, our working with our state wildlife agency partners is a very high priority. Thank you.

And then finally, the Trump administration's FY 2027 budget proposes eliminating state and tribal wildlife grants, and this is a program specifically designed to help states conserve at-risk species before they require federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. And these grants support habitat management, and, and research, scientific research, wildlife surveys, and conservation planning. In Maryland, this funding has supported efforts like habitat restoration in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. So has the service analyzed whether eliminating the program could ultimately increase federal costs by resulting in more species needing protection and recovery under the Endangered Species Act? Well, Senator, specifically the grants that you mentioned were part of what I discussed earlier in the hearing about the hard decisions that we had to make to right-size our spending with our fiscal reality and aligning available resources with our core mission.

That was one of those hard decisions that was made. And, you know, we're very focused on continuing to work with the states to figure out how co-management, how private partnerships, how non-governmental organizations, how others can help us with the lift when the federal government's committed to reducing our federal spending. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair. Director Nesvik, good to see you again. I vividly recall the love fest between you and Senator Lummis at your confirmation hearing last year. But in your previous role as director of Wyoming's Game and Fish Department, as president, uh, you were a leader in working with stakeholders to identify and conserve wildlife migration corridors.

We talked about this during the hearing process. Now, under the first Trump administration, then-Secretary Zinke issued Secretarial Order 3362, which directs the Department of Interior to work in partnership with western states to improve the the quality of big game winter range and migration corridor habitats on federal lands. Now, through that order, the Department of Interior has provided millions of dollars in funding for priority projects, for data analysis, and for mapping assistance for western state wildlife agencies. And over the last two Congresses, I've been able to work with now Congressman Zinke and Congressman Beyer on the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act. Which would codify the great work done through the order and expand its scope to cover all 50 states.

So, Director, can you highlight why the work done through this order is so important to conserving habitat and protecting migration corridors, and would you support codifying this program? Well, great question, Senator. Something that, as you mentioned, I worked on extensively in the past, and the, you know, the really important parts of of the migration corridor work that's been done under this secretarial order and also under the leadership of many of the state agencies in the West is that these efforts have all been focused on voluntary work that doesn't require, you know, federal designations like a federally designated migration corridor. Those were things that were hard lines in the sand that nobody ever wanted to cross, that had to remain voluntary, had to keep that regulatory directive kind of approach out of it. And because of that, and because it was state-led and states were able to look at their data for their particular state and say, this is where we have issues with wildlife movement, they developed a plan.

And that was the basis for how the executive order was implemented. That's why it was so successful, and that's why it's survived 3 administrations now. And, um, so certainly there's opportunities to continue that work. Yeah. And again, the premise of the question, because it's been so successful, it's number one, codify it, and number two, expand on it from not just the Western states, but all 50 states, each one of them being unique, not just in terms of needs, but also in terms of capacity and capability, right?

Some states, some agencies within some states are better funded and staffed than others. But let's collaboratively maximize our collective experience and expertise. In my time remaining, I do want to bring up one other topic. As you're probably aware, this last month, boat inspectors working for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency stopped a boat with live attached golden mussels at one of the lake's watercraft inspection stations. The inspectors' discovery highlighted the importance of proactive prevention to stop the spread of aquatic invasive species.

If we don't stop the golden mussels soon, it could have devastating impacts not just on Lake Tahoe's ecosystem and the clarity of the water, but on the $5 billion annual recreation and tourism-based economy. And that's just Lake Tahoe. The mussels are rapidly spreading throughout California's water system and could cost hundreds of millions of dollars per year to treat and remove if we don't continue to be aggressive through inspections and removal. Uh, so Director, what actions is the Fish and Wildlife Service taking to partner with state and local agencies to respond to the rapidly spreading threat of golden mussels in California? Well, Senator, certainly for, you know, many administrations now over the last at least 15 years, we've been partners with the states on inspection stations, on decontamination units, on providing states financial assistance with dealing with these aquatic invasive species as well as other invasive species.

So, you know, I don't anticipate that— you know, that's been a priority and it continues to be a priority, and I don't anticipate that our partnerships with the states are going to change. I've, uh— you definitely have a constituency that is very passionate because I have seen hundreds of your constituents fly all the way to Washington, D.C. to meet with me and talk about things like this. And in fact, just as recently as yesterday, I had 20 or 30 water-related NGOs in my office. And so, yeah, there's— you highlighted a real problem. It's a problem in other parts of the country.

It's a problem not only in the West, but across the entire country. Well, if the volume of outreach coming to you is any indicator, let me reiterate, this is a break-glass moment. This isn't just typical lobbying advocacy, keep us in your funding plan for next year. The discovery of this golden mussel and its rapid spread is a crisis moment. So there's ongoing support.

This is a break glass moment. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chair Capito and Ranking Member Whitehouse, as well as you, Mr. Director. Thank you so much for being here.

Delaware, we're known to be small, but we are also home to a remarkable diversity of wildlife and habitat. On the screen, potentially, but definitely in my hand is a picture of 9-year-old, a 9-year-old from Milton. His name is Quinton. And in Delaware, there's his picture. Quinton loves to go birding.

In April, he participated in a bird-a-thon where he raised money for restoring and conserving the Bayshore habitat in Delaware, which the red knot calls home during the long, long-distance migration. The red knot is listed as a threatened species, and Quinton is doing his part to protect them. Unfortunately, I heard as I was coming into the hearing that you've had to make tough decisions, and the current administration— it's my understanding in the proposed budget would eliminate funding for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program, which helps states like mine preserve and conserve, do conservation activities, and also for threatened and endangered species like the red knot. Mr. Director, it appears, as I said, from the budget that this popular program is being cut. Is that correct?

Yes, Senator, that's our proposal. That's in the President's current proposed budget. And, and I guess one of the questions I would have is, um, how you would and could explain to states where there might be other places to get revenue to do this kind of critical conservation activity. I mean, I was thinking maybe you put this program in another pot somewhere because it really is vital. Could you talk a little bit about what you would say to our state and local governments to be able to support such a program.

Yes, certainly. So I think for— this is a time when looking for places like we may not have looked before, like additional— you know, states have the same issue as we do in the federal government. They have to look at how much money they take in and how much money they spend, and when that's lopsided, they've got to make adjustments. And what I would tell states is, is that this is a time when there's not going to be as much federal money because our priority is to reduce government spending. You're going to have to look to non-governmental organizations.

You're going to have to look at your own priorities within your own budget. And, and I agree, these are, these are hard decisions, but they have to be made. I think sometimes people think programs like this are nice-to-dos. It's not just a nice-to-do. You know, in Delaware, not only do we have the red knot, but we're home to horseshoe crabs.

The horseshoe crab has existed for 400 million years, which is why it is actually our state marine animal. It's known as a living fossil, and they are critical not just to the ecosystem, and it's not just a fun thing to do, but they have blue blood in them, and this blood is used actually in biomedical and pharmaceutical industries. To test bacteria contamination. So it is also about our safety, our economy, our culture. I just recently surveyed them at Cape Henlopen Park, and I want to ask that you reconsider looking at that state and tribal wildlife grants program, because it is, it is not just a nice thing.

It's a necessary thing. And I know in your state of Wyoming, you used it yourself, so I know you can relate. I want to turn to another important conservation resource. Congress provided $26 million through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to, to the bipartisan Delaware River Basin Restoration Program to support the watershed for my state and the entire region. And it's my understanding that for fiscal year 2026, funding has not yet been obligated.

What is the status of those funds? And more specifically, uh, when should Delaware communities, watershed communities, expect those dollars to be available for projects on the ground? Well, thank you, Senator. I don't know specifically about that particular project, but all, all, um, grant spending was, um, delivered through an elevated review process in the Department of Interior to ensure that the money that we were spending, American taxpayer dollars that we were spending, was was a good use of the money and aligned with the administration. I suspect that the, the, the particular project or grant you're talking about is in that elevated review process.

Could you give us, uh, after this hearing, give us a sense of an update on that funding as well as the National Coastal Wetland Grant for my state's Milford Neck Preserve? They also had not received confirmation of when they will be receiving the funding. So if you could get back to me on those two items, I would greatly appreciate it. We will do that. Thank you.

And I yield back. Thank you. Well, I think that pretty much draws to conclusion. I have no further questions. And we have— our members are pretty much attended that were going to come.

So I'd like to thank you, Mr. Director. Say a quick word. Yes, you may. Of course. Yeah.

Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, sure. With Senator Blunt Rochester here, I just wanted to emphasize her comments about the red knot and the horseshoe crab. I've been to Delaware Bay for the arrival of the red knot, which flies to Delaware Bay in order to feed on horseshoe crab eggs. It's the cafeteria for the red knot.

And they are these amazing, awkward, multimillion-year-old creatures kind of bumbling around on the shore where they come to breed with one another. But the remarkable thing is actually the travel of the red knot, which flies to Delaware Bay from Brazil. Straight shot. It is such a Herculean physical effort that the little red knot actually has to physically morph during the voyage. I flew to the COP in Belém.

I flew in an airplane, and I flew from Miami, and that was a pretty darn long trip. And here's this little bird that goes from Brazil, not to Miami, but all the way up to Delaware Bay. And the continued existence of the red knot depends on its ability to stop in Delaware Bay and feed up for its further transition to Arctic lands to its own breeding grounds. And if the things that mankind is doing on our planet start moving those schedules around so that when the red knot shows up in Delaware, there is not the wide-open feast and cafeteria of horseshoe crab eggs for them, then they will starve. So It's just a small story of the heroic nature of some of these small creatures that we pay very, very little attention to.

And particularly in Congress, where everything dials back to money and valuation and monetization. You know, it's impossible to put a price on having a planet in which there is a little bird that will fly from Brazil to Delaware and has the instinct to know when those horseshoes are going to be out and their eggs are going to be available. We lose that, and you cannot put a price on it. And so we tend to ignore it here in Congress because we cannot put a price on it. But the flip side of we cannot put a price on it is that these kind of things matter to our human experience, to see that others of God's creatures do these remarkable things as, I think, an appropriate way of humbling us a little bit.

So I'm really, really pleased that Senator Ossoff brought up this remarkable thing that's taking place in her home state, right down on Delaware Bay. Well, now I have to ChatGPT a red knot. We— I don't think we have any of those in the mountains of West Virginia. I know we don't have any horseshoe crabs. Anyway, I'd like to thank you for being here with us this afternoon and all of my colleagues for participation in today's hearing.

Senators who wish to submit written questions to— for the record have until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, June 24th, to do so. The witnesses' response to those questions are due back to the committee no later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, July 8th and will be submitted for the record. With that, this hearing is adjourned, and thank you very much, Mr. Director, for coming. Thank you.