House subcommittee hears tribal, industry calls to expand area-based lethal removal authority to protect salmon

WASHINGTON — The House Committee on Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries held an oversight hearing on sea lion predation in the Pacific Northwest, where tribal leaders, industry representatives and a senior National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration official offered sharply different emphases on solutions while agreeing the issue is contributing to salmon declines.

Chair Hageman opened the hearing by framing the conflict at the heart of the discussion: “We are here today to hold an oversight hearing titled sea lion predation in the Pacific Northwest,” and said members would examine the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s interaction with the Endangered Species Act and recent authority granted for the Columbia River.

The hearing spotlighted two strands of evidence. NOAA’s Samuel Rauch told the subcommittee that pinniped predation “is clearly a factor that is limiting recovery of the salmon stocks,” while also noting the agency’s view that pinniped populations on the West Coast are at or near their optimal sustainable levels. Rauch said NOAA has issued a dozen authorizations under Section 120/120f since the mid-1990s and that states have removed roughly 514 sea lions through those authorizations, and that removals tied to Columbia River authorities have likely saved “more than 110,000 adult salmonids.”

Tribal leaders and fishing-industry witnesses emphasized local impacts and cultural stakes. Asia Dakota, executive director of the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission, described the 2018 Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act that enabled Section 120f permits and said removals produced dramatic local benefits: “After removing 30 sea lions at Willamette Falls, winter steelhead losses from the pinniped predation went from 25% to just under 2%.” Ken Choque, chairman of the Nisqually Tribe, told lawmakers salmon “are not just a food source for us, they are the heart of our culture, our economy, and our identity,” and urged faster, place-based tools that preserve treaty fishing rights.

Witnesses and members agreed there are implementation hurdles. Representatives and witnesses described the removal process as expensive and operationally taxing; Representative Glusenkamp Perez cited a stakeholder estimate that removal costs run roughly $38,000 per animal in Columbia River operations, while panelists and NOAA staff said costs vary and that nonlethal methods have repeatedly failed to provide durable protection in many river bottlenecks.

Lawmakers also pressed NOAA on staffing and funding. Ranking Member Hoyle warned that proposed budget cuts to NOAA and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund “would put salmon in further jeopardy,” and asked how staff reductions affect permitting and coordination with tribal co-managers. Rauch said NOAA maintains a regional tribal coordinator and outreach, pledged to follow up with written responses about specific activities at risk, and said agency resourcing constrains the stock assessments needed to demonstrate population-level effects outside the Columbia River.

On policy responses, tribal witnesses and the American Sport Fishing Association proposed expanding the Columbia River’s area-based Section 120f model to other predation hotspots (including Puget Sound and parts of the coast), increasing federal funding for monitoring and removal operations, and investing in new deterrent technologies. Rauch said the administration had no formal position on amending the statute but noted the current Section 120 process outside the Columbia River requires individually identifying ‘bad-acting’ animals, a burdensome step not required by the Columbia River provision.

Members repeatedly called for a balanced approach that preserves marine mammals where they are recovering while giving local managers workable tools to protect ESA-listed salmon and treaty-reserved fisheries. Several lawmakers highlighted the lack of sufficient scientific capacity and monitoring funds to tie local removals to coastwide population impacts, and panelists urged that any statutory change be accompanied by rigorous monitoring and funding to evaluate results.

The hearing did not produce legislation or a vote. Chair Hageman left the record open for additional written questions and required members to submit questions by a specified date; the subcommittee adjourned with members and witnesses agreeing to continue work on potential statutory and administrative solutions.

The committee transcript shows a mix of scientific, cultural and policy arguments centered on whether Congress should expand the Columbia River model more broadly, provide dedicated funding for monitoring and removal operations, and streamline permitting so tribal co-managers and states can act more quickly in predation hotspots.