President's FY 2027 Budget Request for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

All right. Well, good morning everyone. Uh, nice to to see you and particularly you, uh, Director Nesik. 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 twenty twenty-seven budget request for the Fish and Wildlife Service reflects a return to an effective and common sense approach, 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 five hundred and seventy national wildlife refuges by encouraging and expanding access for recreation. As we all know, our hunters and anglers are avid conference conservationists, and their work represents, uh, 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 w- state wildlife agencies, the service, and our conservation partners is paramount. This collaboration led to the re-introduction of elk in West Virginia after we lost our elk population in the mid-eighteen hundreds. 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, that 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 seven sec- section seven 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, proj progress has been made and many of these projects have started moving forward. But now, under your leadership, Dir- uh Director Nesbitt, there are significantly fewer projects facing delays and that in turn needs to be discussed on these calls. I'm appreciated 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 twenty twenty seven 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 Systems or IPAC. IPAC has been a game changer in our state for our projects, dramatically cutting down the time frames for section seven consultations. Recently, the service issued a final rule designating over a million acres of critical habitat for the rusty patched bumblebee across six states, including West Virginia. Last week your team briefed my staff on this rule, and I appreciate how quickly your team uh 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 DC District Court that invalidated the twenty twenty programmatic biological opinion issued by the service for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's Mining Regulation program. This decision will negatively impact coal production in the twenty-four 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 Nesbitt, thank you for being here. I look forward to hearing how you intend to build on the progress you have

Thank, thank you very much, uh, Madam Chair. Um, Mr. Nesvick, welcome. The Fish and Wildlife Service is our nation's oldest conservation agency, dating back to eighteen seventy-one. 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 twenty percent funding cut for next year. There are reports that Fish and Wildlife Service has lost as much as a quarter of its staff. The Doggie Boys chased out nearly eighteen hundred employees, purging at least five hundred and thirty biologists, and over a hundred 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 commitment, and contributions. I very much doubt that the five hundred and thirty 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 twenty percent 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. Five percent of the Earth's biomass. Ninety-five percent of Earth's mammals are humans and livestock and pets. A mere five percent 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 rice's whale, of which only fifty are left, just to promote more oil and gas development, does not help. Mr. Nesbitt, 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.

Uh, thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Uh, so, this morning we have uh, we are joined by the Honorable Brian Nesvik, Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I look forward to hearing from Director Nesvik uh about the services proposed budget of fiscal year twenty twenty seven and the implementation of current programs to the end of the year. Uh, again, 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 Nesvik, you are recognized for your opening statement.

Well, good morning, Chairman Capito. Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee, as as you mentioned, I'm Brian Nesvik, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Um, it's good to be back with this committee again. Um, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on President Trump's FY twenty-seven budget request for fish and wildlife service. The budget request, one point three billion for the service in in FY twenty-seven. It presents new opportunities for 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 services budget reflects a proactive approach to unleashing American energy dominance through effective and efficient uh implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The FY twenty-seven budget proposes an increase of five point one million for ESA section seven 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 time frames from thirty to fourteen days. The budget also reflects a commitment to the recovery of listed species. We are requesting a two point six million dollar increase for work to support the development of recovery plans, five year status reviews and rule makings. At this funding level, we expect to be able to finalize fifteen D or downlisting rules in FY twenty seven. Additionally, we are requesting a nineteen point seven million dollar 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 FY twenty-seven 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 fourteen hundred and fifty new hunting or fishing opportunities across thirty-two 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 two point five million dollars 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 three million dollar increase for refuge law enforcement. The services 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. projects also help millions of visitors experience our natural treasures and support american jobs this budget allocates roughly a hundred and thirteen million for refuge system maintenance and fourteen million for new construction projects this request reflects the services ongoing efforts to prioritize safety and accessibility while addressing important maintenance needs president's fy twenty seven budget also propose proposes reauthorizing president trump's great american outdoors act legacy restoration fund Reauthorization of GOA will allow the service to continue utilizing life-cycle 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 that facilities on public lands meet the needs of visitors and communities. In conclusion, this budget

Thank you, uh, Director Nesbitt. And I will start off with the questions. Uh, I'd like to go to something I alluded to in my, uh, opening statement, which is the U. S. District Court. Yes. District of Columbia vacating the biological opinion that governs consultations under the Endangered Species Act for coal mining uh activities in states that have primacy under SMACRA. Um this is very problematic for uh our state, my state, my state in particular uh and uh as you know we have uh we have experienced considerable delays with the ESA consultations anyway during the pres- uh, the previous administration. So um Mister 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 um court decision, if you have any other thoughts on this as well.

Yeah, so I certainly appreciate the question. As you mentioned, this is a a recent development. This is a pretty recent court decision. We are aware of it in the Department of Interior and we've already be- uh 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 um address. So um I don't have specific options identified here today, but um please know that we are working on those and um my myself as well as senior officials in the department are very well aware.

Well thank you, Mm.

Yeah, certainly, Chairman. So the um first of all, I'll tell you that, you know, with specifically with the national fish um habitat partnerships we're able we've got right now in place twenty different partnerships and this is a great opportunity to deliver um conservation on the ground habitat work recreational fisheries and increase public access um we have as you mentioned um you you specifically talked about issues with wildlife conflict that are identified in the ace act and we're able to um take some steps to help livestock producers who are um who are having depredation problems with black vultures, that work is underway. We've already identified ways and - and we're delivering that in the field now. Um, and - and certainly along the - uh, the lines of, um, wildlife disease, we've worked with our state partners to look at ways that - new, innovative ways that we can address wildlife disease, as - as you mentioned. And so I - I don't have any concerns with implementation, um, and - and know that it is ongoing.

Great, great. Um, I wanna, uh, I wanna ask about the IPAC um project planning tool. We we've actually had testimony in previous um previous uh meetings that, oh it's coming, it's gonna happen, and and it it was getting delayed and and uh had great promise to make the uh 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 i would give you a chance i know the uh the ranking member mentioned that somebody was cut out of the ipac process uh i think you mentioned that in your statement

yeah

um if you could respond to that as well

yeah so um first of all i'll tell you that ipac has been a game changer as you alluded to um our partners who use ipac um are very interested in seeing it continued and also there are opportunities to enhance IPAC and to make it um uh to to make it more efficient and usable for example in West Virginia you know eighty percent of the projects that are initially submitted through IPAC are are almost um approved immediately

mmm

with improvements to IPAC we believe we can cut down permitting timelines you know by half

Mm-hmm.

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, um, particularly by focusing on it in, um, on, on these improvements. You know, specific to, uh, the ranking members' questions regarding, um, clean energy projects, you know, I think that, that folks are aware that this administration, um, directed a a review process um for all energy projects and part of that review process included um initially a a prohibition from uh those particular energy proponents from being able to submit their projects that's um those reviews are are ongoing and um i i don't have much more on that

ok um uh i i'll go ahead and turn to the ranking member then

well let's stay on that subject for a moment because i think uh 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

um you've also indicated in your testimony to us that you intend to reduce informal uh endangered species act consultation time frames from thirty to fourteen days and formal ESA consultation time frames from hundred and thirty-five to thirty days. Is that goal uh applicable also to clean energy projects?

So the the current um 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 uh if you are successful in reducing the informal consultation time frame to fourteen days and the formal consultation time to thirty days that would apply equally to wind and solar projects they would also receive the benefit of those uh time reductions.

Yes, senator, any project that was submitted through IPAC in working its way through this process would um would have the same uh timelines under the I under IPAC.

Thank you. Um when we first spoke in your confirmation hearings I pointed out that you are from the great and mighty American west hasn't been ocean there in billions of years and uh I'm a coastal state and i was interested in what ocean's expertise you would make sure the service provided um now your fy twenty seven budget actually moves things from NOAA to fish and wildlife so there is even more demand for oceans and coastal expertise um how you doing on that and how many of the five hundred and thirty biologists who fled uh were ones that had oceans and coastal competence

Yeah, so thank you for the question, Senator. So, you know, certainly, um, if this merger, this, um, integration was to, was to come to fruition, um, there is existing expertise within NOAA NIMS, um, that, um, potentially would be available. The d- the details of, um, of that potential, um, are not worked out yet, but, you know, certainly we would leverage expertise that currently relies within NIMS. And then within the Fish and Wildlife Service, we do have several um very highly qualified biologists that understand marine biology, that understand Marine Animal 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, uh if you don't mind. Um lastly, I uh co-lead every year a senate appropriations letter supporting the state and tribal wildlife grants. You will not be surprised to learn that that letter enjoys immense bipartisan support. Uh, in your time as the Wyoming uh Game Commissioner, did you pursue and receive uh these state and tribal grants?

Yes, Senator, we we did apply and routinely um 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 reduced 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 there oughta 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 very much, Madam Chair, appreciate that. Thank you, member. Director Nesvik, 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 Valentine National Wildlife Refuge following the devastating wildfires that we had here in Nebraska. It w- has been something where we've had the most fire damage, uh, in the state's history. Over a million acres were burned. And, uh, 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 uh 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 nineteen seventy-three, only fifty-seven of the more than seventeen hundred listed species have been delisted. That's roughly three percent 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 it's been the focus of a long-standing effort to be able to achieve a recovery efforts under the ESA since it was listed as endangered in nineteen ninety. Since nineteen ninety-four, researchers have carried out a propagation program that has released millions of age zero pallid sturgeon and over a hundred and fifty thousand pallid sturgeon with over one year old into the Missouri River. These propagation efforts have continued with the establishment of the Missouri River recovery program by the US Army Corps of Engineers in two thousand six. Under section seven of the ESA, the Corps is required to consult with Fish and Wildlife Service. The recovery plan sets numeric standards for d- uh numeric standard for downlisting to palisad sturgeon. So we wanna have five thousand genetically diverse adult fish in each management unit sustained for over two generations. So we're talking twenty or thirty years. Currently, the data indicates the pallid sturgeon population is estimated at twenty five hundred and seventeen fish as of October of twenty twenty four. So, after more than thirty years of attempting this, we've made it about halfway there. I will note that um 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 Nesbitt, what steps can US Fish and Wildlife Service take to better align the recovery and de-listing framework for the pallid sturgeon and other species? with long-term recovery efforts with a 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, um, 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, um, 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, um, creates an opportunity to then use those resources for those species on the list that generally need help. Um, the other thing I think that's important with, um, with regards to specifically i i don't know the the biology and the history and background of paludar sturgeon but i would say that it one of the one of one of our focuses is and if these e. s. a. regulations are finalized um a provision will enable us to use basically the same criteria that you use the five 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.

Great. Well, I'm I'm just about out of time, but I do wanna wrap up on some other things real quickly, on special status assessments for species. What I encourage you 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 sense, model, modeling assumptions, the analytical methods 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 uh the best you can to encourage uh to educate landowners what they are responsible for with regard to endangered species as well and i'll i'll just give you an example uh when i was governor of nebraska there was a rancher who was talking to me about uh uh uh uh you know he's gonna re up his crp land you have to do it every seven years and what had been put in there is that he 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 the, my CRP agreement?" And they couldn't answer him.

Hmm.

And so he declined to sign up for the CRP land, cuz he's like, " I'm not gonna 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 the responsibilities are, if they're gonna sign these agreements, so that we can continue to have these programs. Um, 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 uh they may not have any control over or obligations they may not have understood they had. So. Thank you, Director Neves Neves, thanks for being here.

Thank you, Senator.

Uh, S- Senator Hustad.

Uh, thank you, Chairman Capito. Um, Director Neves, um, thank you for your many years of of service to protecting wildlife and and our natural places. Uh, 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.

committee that represents the great lake state i'm gonna focus my thoughts on on the great lakes um they have been uh the great lakes have been vulnerable and resilient over the time period that uh we have been studying them uh when they became open for global commercial commercial trade in nineteen fifty nine though we have seen threats from invasive species from uh different things were brought in in ballast water and and the like that range from uh 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 uh but there was a response a coordinated response from wildlife experts and biologists to uh address that issue and uh 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 are a commercial venue there where people get their their fresh water but it's also home of recreational commercial fishing a huge economic impact uh for all of the great lake states and uh 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 uh i also see in the budget that there is a a cut of seventeen million dollars for programs that are part of the strategic response for the asian invasion act and for the asian carp

hmm

uh please explain to me if you would uh your awareness of of this the the efforts that are being made to make sure that the invasive carp does not uh find its way into the great lakes through the many tributaries where it could could occur and just give us some perspective on on your uh what's being done and your your commitment i would just wanna know what your commitment is to making sure that this does not become a problem for the great lakes

so certainly appreciate the the question, Senator, and I will tell you that, you know, I 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, um, 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 um looking at opportunities for private investment to help us figure out how to use um you've probably heard of the the idea of using y y um introduced all kinds of different species it doesn't have to be carp um 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 um we've been able to provide significant support through our um 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 this year i don't remember the number it's several folks that we've hired to help deliver um lamprey side for dealing with sea lamprey um and this invasive um issue we've had multiple discussions with private industry to try to figure out and the white house uh uh has

so so i wanna i wanna try to understand so when you talk about uh 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 uh and all the states too you know the states are investing um this past year we've provided um grants for those states to continue to do that work with regards to um carp and then additionally i think for you know looking forward there there's a lot of discussion going on 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 and again what would just quickly what would those be

genomics is one example i mean

genomics

you know using genetics to be able to figure out how to create a way for the system um to take care of the problem itself essentially there's still the 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 gotta the long-term solution is is bigger than that

yeah well thank you uh jermyn capito and i just wanna reiterate the importance of this it would be devastating to the great lakes uh if if this if this invasive carp uh was allowed to uh enter the great lake system and so please you and your team uh let us know what we can do to support you but please make it a priority and 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. Um, Director Nesbitt, in December I sent a letter, uh, with nineteen of my colleagues to UN Secretary Burgum, raising concerns about the staffing crisis at Fish and Wildlife. Some estimates suggest the agency has lost twenty-six percent of its staff. I asked for your plan to address this crisis, to ensure that your agency and the refuge system have enough staff to protect wildlife and con- um, and uh, other refuges. as you're required to do by statute. To date I have not received any response, uh, which highlights, uh, my concern. Um, so let me just ask you to start out. Um, 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, um, 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 core mission,

uh director um it's been half a year since we asked you how you're gonna deal with the staffing shortages uh it's not too much to ask indeed if we're gonna take our oversight responsibility seriously uh, we need to insist on answers to very basic questions about how you can meet your statutory obligation, uh, after losing a quarter of your staff. Um, let me, uh, and we will follow up with your office on this to make sure we get an answer. Last summer we learned about nine percent of wildlife refuges have been classified as shuttered, uh, meaning they have no on the ground management. What percentage of the refuges are now shuttered without on the ground management um and uh i think on the same day that i sent my letter to you in december you said you were gonna look for refuges that no longer aligned with the mission um 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 refuge is aligned with the mission

well first of all senator i'd i um completely acknowledge the fact that we do have refuges where we don't have um staff working on the refuges that doesn't necessarily mean that they're shuttered or closed to public use um we this refuge review that um has been very important to me very important to the service um is is getting close to being wrapped up to where we can 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 refugees across the country it's look at looking at finding efficiencies it's looking at dealing with um 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 uh 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 a hundred and sixty different partners groups that are standing at the door waiting to go and help us with our needs. And um, so I, there's opportunities to do it in a different way and focus more on the outcomes than the inputs.

I, I would just suggest, director, if you had about a quarter of your workforce lost, it's gonna be very difficult to put more boots on the ground in these refuges as you're suggesting. Let me move to a different topic. Uh, 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 um 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 uh and i thank senator rickets for a great hearing um do you agree with the notion that private landowners who have implemented positive conserve conservation practices should be afforded some degree of regulatory flexibility, such as under section four D rules, in exchange for helping species population numbers rebound and meeting specific conservation milestones. Wouldn't this kind of regulatory flexibility be um appropriate?

Senator, um in short absolutely, and um there's also section ten of the ESA that um 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 the right um permits that address exactly what you're saying you do good things we're gonna 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 ten both the the major um outcomes of section ten to do 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.

Uh, Senator Lemus.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and uh welcome uh Mister Nesvik. So how much time and money does the US 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 and it would, if it wasn't being used to um deal with litigation, it could be applied to other things like recovery of species.

So uh litigation against your decisions, uh specially if it's by an environmental group, and let me use an example, uh the grizzly bear uh was twice uh delisted. and determined to be recovered uh by the US Fish and Wildlife Service that predates your time here uh and the courts uh determined that that decision needed to be vacated. So a lot of time and money was spent preparing to defend uh the US Fish and Wildlife Service determination uh and then the courts just vacated it and we were back to where uh 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 um, on those state wildlife agencies that have spent north of fifty million dollars just on that species now to recover it. The biology indicates that that species is recovered, but we have not been able to, um, 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 uh Senator Ricketts' questions about the swift fox uh because we used to have a whole lot of swift fox on our ranch in Laramie County, Wyoming. And the US Fish and Wildlife Service used to come in and trap them,

Mm-hmm.

with our permission, and take them to places where uh they needed uh uh 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?