Director Nesbick told the House Natural Resources Subcommittee that a December 16 directive ordering a “top-to-bottom” review of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the National Fish Hatchery System is intended to compare each unit’s founding acquisition documents and original purposes against current agency priorities and execution.

“[T]hat portion of the directive… I gave the team broad latitude to look at the documents that were originally used to execute the… acquisition of the refuge and to look at what those purposes were at the time the refuge was established,” Nesbick said, explaining the review will check whether a refuge’s original purpose “still is the mission for that particular refuge and it’s still being executed.”

Ranking Member Huffman pressed for specifics about criteria and whether the audit reflects recent executive and secretarial orders. Nesbick said the review will include current administration policies and secretarial orders among the sources used to compare historic purposes to present execution. Huffman warned of media reports and proposals suggesting divestiture of public lands; Nesbick repeatedly denied the directive is aimed at identifying refuge lands to sell.

“I will follow the law,” Nesbick said when asked how the Service would handle any recommendations that implicate disposal or change of use. He also said that when changes to refuge lands are considered, the Service must follow statutory authorities and existing procedures — including exchanges and other Congress‑authorized mechanisms.

Committee members expressed concern that an agencywide audit could be used to change refuge governance or to transfer lands to states or private parties. Nesbick said he had no preconceived targets, described the order as a culmination of long experience and conversations, and framed the review as a standard businesslike evaluation to ensure units are still performing their original missions and to identify potential gaps in prioritization and deferred maintenance.

The committee left the record open for additional questions for the witness and said members may submit follow‑up requests in writing.