House subcommittee hears tribal, NOAA and industry calls to expand tools to address sea lion predation on salmon

The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries held an oversight hearing examining pinniped (sea lion and seal) predation on threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest.

Chairwoman Hageman opened the session by framing the core tension: protections under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) have coincided with a recovery of pinniped populations that, witnesses said, now exert heavy predation pressure on multiple ESA‑listed salmon runs. The committee heard from Samuel Rauch, deputy assistant administrator for regulatory programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries; tribal leaders who say predation threatens treaty fishing rights; and industry representatives who called for statutory updates plus dedicated funding and monitoring.

NOAA’s Samuel Rauch told the panel that NOAA recognizes pinniped predation is “having a significant negative impact” on the recovery of ESA‑listed salmonids in certain parts of the region. Rauch said California sea lion abundance grew from roughly 10,000 in the 1950s to about 250,000–275,000 today and that Steller sea lion numbers are also robust. He reported that NOAA has issued a small number of targeted authorizations under sections 120 and 120(f) of the MMPA—12 authorizations since 1995 and a few hundred animals removed—and said those actions have had local benefits but limited coast‑wide effect.

Tribal witnesses described tangible local impacts and urged congressional action. Asia Dakota, executive director of the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission, told the subcommittee the 2018 Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act—which amended section 120 of the MMPA to authorize limited lethal removal in parts of the Columbia River Basin—has produced measurable local gains. "After removing 30 sea lions at Willamette Falls, winter steelhead losses from pinniped predation went from 25 percent to just under 2 percent," Dakota said, and she noted NOAA recently extended the Columbia River permit through August 2030. Ed Johnstone of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Ken Choque, chairman of the Nisqually Indian Tribe, said continued predation reduces returns, constrains tribal and non‑tribal fisheries, and erodes treaty‑protected fishing rights.

Industry and recreational fishing representatives echoed the call for changes and funding. Larry Phillips of the American Sport Fishing Association said recreational fishing contributes billions annually and that pinniped predation has outpaced recovery gains from habitat and hatchery investments. Multiple members cited Willamette Falls and Bonneville Dam as case studies where targeted removals produced near‑term reductions in predation days or rates.

Committee members repeatedly asked NOAA whether the Columbia River model could be applied more broadly. Rauch said the administration had no formal position on whether Congress should amend the statute, but he described the statutory 120 process outside the Columbia Basin as “cumbersome,” noting it requires individual identification of animals and findings tying individual animals to population‑level impacts—burdens that tribes and managers have said impede practical implementation. He added NOAA is willing to work with tribes and states and pointed to resource and staffing constraints that limit NOAA’s and co‑managers’ capacity to implement removals and associated monitoring.

Several members, including Ranking Member Hoyle and Representative Glusenkamp Perez, raised concerns about funding and staffing. Hoyle cited proposed cuts to NOAA and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund and said layoffs have disrupted tribal and hatchery communications; Rauch said NOAA would follow up with written answers but affirmed ongoing coordination and some funding commitments. Glusenkamp Perez noted that authorized removal totals under some permits (for example, the five‑year Columbia River permit caps described in testimony) have rarely been reached and offered a committee request for a NOAA study on cost‑effective removal strategies; she also offered a back‑of‑the‑envelope estimate in testimony that removals can be expensive (she cited an estimate of roughly $38,000 per removal and about $203 per salmon saved, derived from local calculations she presented).

Witnesses and members emphasized that predator management should complement, not replace, broader recovery strategies including habitat restoration, hatchery modernization, hydropower mitigation, and harvest reform. Tribal leaders stressed treaty and cultural stakes: Johnstone and Choque told the committee that without meaningful fish returns treaty fishing rights are effectively hollow.

The hearing produced no votes or formal actions. The record will remain open and members were instructed to submit questions for the witnesses by 5 p.m. Eastern on Monday, December 8; the chair said the record would be held open for 10 business days for responses.

What’s next: Members signaled interest in drafting statutory options that expand area‑based management authorities modeled on the Columbia River provision, increase dedicated federal funding for monitoring and removal capacity, and reduce procedural burdens that managers say limit use of existing authorities. NOAA said it would provide follow‑up answers on specific funding and staffing questions.