House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries (Begich): Legislative Hearing

Thank you. I'm sorry.

The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries will come to order. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to welcome members, witnesses, and our guests in the audience to today's hearing. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Under Committee Rule 4, any oral opening statement at hearings are limited to the chair and the ranking member.

I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3. Without objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the congressman from Washington, Mr. Baumgartner, Congressman from Texas, Dr. Jackson, the Congresswoman from California, Ms. Matsui, the Congresswoman from Oregon, Ms. Dexter, the Congresswoman from Washington, Ms. Gluzenkamp-Perez, the Congresswoman from Washington, Ms. Randall, and the Congressman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. We are here today to consider 4 legislative measures: H.R.

7332, Whale Charts Act of 2026, sponsored by Representative Matsui of California. H.R. 7466, Safe Cattle Act, sponsored by Representative Jackson of Texas. H.R. 8876, Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention Act of 2026, sponsored by Representative Wahlberg of Michigan.

And H.R. 9621, Northwest Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act of 2026. Sponsored by Representative Baumgartner of Washington. I now recognize, recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement. This afternoon, the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will hold a hearing on 4 bipartisan bills that are focused on supporting tribal treaty fishing rights and recovering salmon populations, combating the threat of the New World Screwworm, and addressing aquatic invasive species.

The bill at the center of this hearing, H.R. 9621, The Northwest Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act of 2026, led by Representatives Michael Bumgardner and Emily Randall. And the conflict between the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act is preventing the recovery of threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest. Pinnipeds, including stellar sea lions, California sea lions, and harbor seals, are opportunistic predators. That are decimating salmon and steelhead populations in the region.

This predation also undermines the billions of dollars invested to recover these salmon and steelhead populations. In some years, predation on the lower Columbia River from Astoria to Bonneville Dam has exceeded 50% of the entire run of spring Chinook salmon, while a recent study found that harbor seals consume up to one-third of steelhead smolts outmigrating from the Nisqually River into the Puget Sound. In 2018, Congress enacted limited authority for the Northwest states and tribal co-managers on the Columbia River to take certain individually identifiable sea lions for the purposes of protecting and restoring salmon. This authority, however, has proved too rigid and covers an insuff— insufficient stretch of the river. Predation continues unabated across approximately 100 river miles on the Columbia between Bonneville Dam and Astoria, Oregon.

In December 2025, over— during a December 2025 oversight hearing, the subcommittee heard from NOAA officials and tribal fishery managers that the geographic scope of current authorities prevents fishery co-managers from appropriately managing key predator-prey interactions to the benefit of listed salmon and steelhead species. Further, current law restricts the method of take to chemical euthanasia in the Columbia River, which requires cumbersome trapping of individual sea lions at specific locations and has therefore suppressed management. In Western Washington, current law requires the state to document individual pinnipeds causing significant negative impacts on fish species, an unworkable requirement. H.R. 9621 Reforms, reforms the MMPA to authorize take by state and tribal fishery co-managers throughout the Columbia River and Western Washington.

The bill removes unworkable restrictions on methods of take by authorizing NOAA to incorporate adaptive management principles in its Section 120 permits, allowing fish and wildlife managers to address predator-prey conflicts in the most appropriate manner. This bill was developed in consultation with tribal fishery co-managers in the state of Washington, who understand the obstacles that pinnipeds' predation poses for salmon recovery and upholding tribal treaty rights. The future of salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest rests on whether or not Congress acts to solve this problem. I want to thank Representatives Baumgartner and Randall for their leadership on this important issue, and I look forward to discussing this bill further with state and federal leaders. Turning our attention to other bills at today's hearing, I would like to recognize Representative Ronny Jackson's leadership in responding to the outbreak of the New World Screwworm, an issue of great importance to cattle producers across the nation, including in my home state of Wyoming.

As a co-lead on the SAFE Cattle Act, I am pleased we are considering this bill at today's hearing. Texas has been ground zero for the incursion of this invasive pest into the United States, and we must work to eradicate the problem where it currently exists and prevent its spread to wildlife and livestock throughout the country. Representative Jackson's bill would direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to work together to establish a memorandum of understanding to eradicate the New World Screwworm and prevent its spread on federal lands. This will ensure effective coordination to address this urgent current problem. Representative Wahlberg's legislation, H.R.

8876, Expands federal aquatic invasive species work in an effort to address key ecological threats both in the Great Lakes region and across the country. Finally, H.R. 7332, The Whale Charts Act, establishes new grant programs aimed at developing technological solutions to reduce vessel conflicts with whale species. With that, I want to thank the witnesses that are here with us today and the members of the committee for their interest in these important issues. With that, I yield back.

I now recognize Ranking Member Hoyle for her opening statement.

Thank you, Chair Hageman. Good afternoon. The communities we represent here today depend on healthy lands, rivers, and oceans as a way of life. Conservation and economic opportunity are not competing priorities. They go hand in hand.

And our goal on this subcommittee is to find practical, science-based solutions that protect our natural resources while supporting the people and communities who depend on them. And today we'll discuss 4 bills that take important steps toward that goal. I want to start by addressing H.R. 9621, The Northwest Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act. This issue is deeply important to me, and anyone that has heard me talk in this committee for longer than a day understands how much I care about this issue.

And, uh, the issue is deeply important to the people and tribes I represent in Oregon. In Oregon, salmon is the backbone of our our fishing economy, the Columbia River ecosystem, and tribal sovereignty. As many Oregonians know, California sea lions are invasive and have learned to travel hundreds of miles upriver to eat concentrated endangered salmon and steelhead. In Newport, we see large male sea lions break our docks and prey on our salmon runs. This hurts our commercial fisheries, ports, tribal communities, and working families.

Let me be clear. We must do more to restore our salmon runs, and I strongly support giving communities and specifically our tribal nations on the front lines the tools they need to effectively manage sea lion predation. I also believe tribes in both Washington and Oregon must be at the center of this conversation. Tribes have managed these waters since time immemorial, and they deserve to be respected as equal partners and resource managers. This is a management issue, which means Oregon tribes need to be consulted.

I'm disappointed that Oregon tribes and the communities in my district affected most by this legislation were not included in this development. The people who fish these waters, manage these resources, and depend on healthy salmon populations deserve a real seat at the table. And sea lions cross both sides of the river. They go from Washington to Oregon and back again. So we can't have a one-state solution.

We also need to be realistic. Any bill affecting the Columbia River will have to move through a House Natural Resources Committee with Oregon members and a Senate committee with Oregon senators. Now, I've heard from many different constituents and groups who would like to see some changes in this bill to better define which pinniped species are covered, to ensure state and tribal fishery managers have the data and resources they need to carry out their work, and make clear that all tribes with management needs are included in future legislation. And if we're serious about long-term salmon recovery, then conversations cannot just be about sea lions. We need to restore habitat, fix aging infrastructure, provide sustained federal funding for NOAA and fishery managers who carry out this work.

Work every day. Everyone— now, I'm not subtle. Everyone knows where I stand on this issue, and I strongly support long-term salmon recovery and strengthening tribal management practices. But good management depends on good science, trusted partnerships, and a collaborative approach. These issues need to be addressed before the bill moves forward, and I look forward to working with the sponsors of this bill.

I work— look forward to working with Representative GlucenCamp-Perez on her bill to actually bring something forward that will actually pass by the end of this year. This issue is too critical to get wrong or to sit on it. Now I'll turn to the other bills before us. H.R. 7466, The SAFE Cattle Act, gives local partners greater access to new technology and research to fight the New World Screwworm.

My ranchers are extremely concerned about this. The bill is a great way to get federal agencies to stop finger-pointing and actually start cooperating on how to protect our farmers and the wildlife before the crisis grows. This is just common sense. Good bill. H.R.

8876, The Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention Act, gives federal, state, and tribal partners better tools to address the spread of invasive organisms in our waterways that contribute to skyrocketing costs for our ports and disrupt marine food chains. Finally, H.R. 7332, The Whale Charts Act, is a practical bipartisan solution that protects large whales from vessel strikes while also recognizing the realities facing our commercial fishermen. We do not have to choose between protecting endangered species and supporting working waterfronts. Better data and technology can help us do both.

So whether we're protecting salmon runs, responding to invasive species, reducing whale strikes, the goal should be the same: real solutions rooted in science, developed in a meaningful collaboration with local communities on the ground. As we hear from our panels, I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and discussing how we can strengthen these bills to better serve our ecosystems, economies, and the people who depend on both. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you. And I now recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his opening statement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So we have 4 consequential pieces of legislation on the agenda today that deal with urgent wildlife issues facing our district and our our districts and our constituents. The SAFE Cattle Act, H.R. 7466, Responds to the threat of this screw worm, the New World screw worm. The larvae of this worm feeds on the living tissue of warm-blooded animals, causes severe infection, suffering, and, and can be fatal.

It's a big deal, and the U.S. last experienced a major infestation in Texas in 1976. If an outbreak —of that scale of economic loss, which totaled billions of dollars for the Texas economy alone, were to spread elsewhere, obviously that's a big problem for Texas and for so many other states. So the interagency coordination called for with this bill will help speed up the critical efforts of federal agencies to address the threat before it gets out of control. H.R. 8876, The Aquatic Invasives Evasive Species Control and Prevention Act, strengthens efforts to prevent, control, and eradicate aquatic invasive species.

These actions will help strengthen our nation's ability to address aquatic invasive species and effectively manage or stop invasions. Then we have H.R. 7332, The Whale Charts Act, which improves mapping and data collection for large-scale— or large whale migration in U.S. waters. This is important— understanding whale distribution and movement, um, and combining that knowledge with technology that can help reduce human impacts on whales, such as vessel strikes. So I support all of that.

Uh, then we get to HR 9621, which unfortunately is a flawed piece of legislation. I've got serious concerns about it. It would dramatically expand a permit program, which I support, and helped put in place. This is for the Pacific Northwest. It allows a narrowly tailored lethal take and management program for sea lions and harbor seals to protect salmon, steelhead, and other fisheries.

And I do understand that treaty tribes are facing a tough time right now. They are watching sea lions eat countless salmon with few tools in the toolbox to do anything about it as salmon populations continue to decline, and this is happening, of course, as the Trump administration and House Republicans shirk federal responsibility to actually recover those salmon populations. So I get the situation, I get the frustration, but this bill goes too far. As written, it would dramatically expand the program that we put in place in 2018 to the entire Columbia River. It would add a new program for all of Western Washington.

It would allow NOAA to permit the take of harbor seals, California sea lions, and stellar sea lions in coastal areas, estuaries, and rivers without adequate safeguards. And it could pave the way for simply issuing, issuing hunting permits to shoot and kill these federally protected marine mammals. Now we need to get much more serious about salmon recovery. That requires more than just blaming sea lions and seals for declining salmon populations. We need to work together to rebuild NOAA, to deliver the resources the region needs to monitor progress, to restore salmon habitat, and to identify durable strategies that rebuild fish populations, as the ranking member mentioned in her opening remarks.

Part of that means we have to recognize that dams, altered waterways, and other infrastructure have significantly disrupted salmon runs. Changing both salmon behavior and pinniped feeding patterns. Narrowly tailored sea lion management is surely going to be part of the solution, but we have to get it right. We need to find a bipartisan, bicameral solution that has a chance to actually make a meaningful difference. Before this bill advances any further, I do hope that we can get some substantial answers from NOAA, from the states and the tribes about how this would work in coastal areas and whether it will make a measurable difference for the thing that we say we care about here, which is salmon recovery.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and hope that this is a constructive discussion. Yield back. Thank you. I now recognize Chairman Westerman for his opening statement. Thank you, Chair Hagaman.

And good evening. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank the witnesses for being here today. And I thank you, Chair Hagaman, for holding this important legislative hearing. The Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act are in direct conflict in the Pacific Northwest, and the result is the continued decline of salmon and steelhead populations.

Predation from abundant populations of California sea lions, stellar sea lions, and harbor seals is preventing the recovery of listed fish species, and existing management authorities have been inadequate to address the scale of the problem. HR 9621 addresses this conflict by expanding lethal management throughout the Columbia River, authorizing the use of adaptive management principles in place of the rigid method of take provided in current law, and expanding these authorities throughout Western Washington. In 2022, I visited the Nisqually Indian Tribe in Western Washington, where I saw firsthand impacts of pinniped predation on salmon survival at the mouth of the Nisqually River. We saw significant congregations of seals in the Nisqually Flats taking advantage of the natural bottleneck. We have already heard today about recent research finding that harbor seals consume up to 1/3 of steelhead smolts outmigrating from the Nisqually River.

It is no wonder why tribal fishery management managers routinely find trackers from hatchery fish in the seal scat around the flats. The tribal members the day I visited told me they actually recover 90% of the trackers they put in fish in seal scat there in the Sound. In December, the subcommittee held an oversight hearing on this issue where we received testimony from tribal leaders representing treaty tribes across the region. Urging Congress to reform federal law to recover salmon populations. I've been encouraged by, encouraged by the engagement from Columbia River and Eastern Washington tribal leaders who have helped to craft the solution that's before us today.

I also want to commend Representatives Baumgartner and Randall for their leadership on this bipartisan issue. We need to think holistically about ecosystem management. For too long, we have allowed pinnipeds to grow to unsustainable levels across the Pacific Northwest, some populations of which are likely at or above their carrying capacities. We must also recognize that the tribes, states, and the federal government have invested significant financial resources into restoring and recovering salmon populations. Allowing pinniped populations to grow at unchecked levels undermines the significant ratepayer and taxpayer investments in salmon recovery.

The bill before us is a concrete step in fixing this problem by extending current authorities for treaty tribes in the states on the Columbia River and granting similar authorities to the treaty tribes in Western Washington and Puget Sound. We can continue to solve this pressing problem. Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today. I look forward to a robust discussion, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank— we're going to have a first panel? Okay. I am now going to introduce our panel. Dr. Timothée Petty, the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at the U.S. Department of Commerce and Deputy Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in Washington, D.C. Under committee rules, you must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record.

To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone, and we use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn yellow, and at the end of the 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. Dr. Petty, you have been in front of us several times.

I have always appreciated your testimony and your willingness to engage. With the members, and I now recognize you for your 5-minute statement. Thank you, Congresswoman Hagemeyer, uh, Hagerman, and Ranking Member Hoyle and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to come today here and actually focus on 3 of the bills. We'll go through those one at a time.

NOAA appreciates our ongoing work with the subcommittee, and I look forward to discussing these bills with us, with each of you today, and answering any of your questions. First, H.R. 7332 Would direct— with regards to the Whale Charts Act— would direct NOAA to map and survey migratory whale population, including calving, mating, and feeding grounds, and factors those maps into future stock assessments under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It also establishes a competitive grant program managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to fund research and build technologies that reduces whale interaction with ocean users. NOAA supports the efforts to better document whale location, and our nautical charts are essential to safe navigation and healthy coastal economics.

That said, NOAA is not currently able to meet the bill's specific requirements to produce additional chart layers showing whale distribution and predicted migratory routes. Our charts must align with the International Hydrography Organization standards so that all the vessels, both U.S. as well as foreign flag, can rely on the same data. And the IHO standards for marine protected area layers, which is where these whales are located, must fit within the expected operations until approximately 2029. We'd recommend that the subcommittee consult with the Coast Guard as well as continue interaction with NOAA, which oversees the carriage requirements for U.S. flag vessels, as we move forward. We continue to work with NOAA and this committee on those opportunities to build and develop this charting program.

The second bill that I'd like to just reference is H.R. 8876. The Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention Act would increase the membership of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, codify the 6 regional panels, and currently supported and strengthened coordination with the National Invasive Species Council. As a co-chair of the task force, NOAA works with the federal, state, tribal, territorial, and other partners to implement the Aquatic Nuisance Species Program. Including the monitoring, prevention, and early detection and rapid response on-the-ground controls of aquatic invasive species nationwide.

We look forward to working with the committee to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollar. Third, I'd like to move on to the pinniped predation, H.R. 9621, The Northwest Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act. Pinniped predation is a real and significant obstacle to recovery. ESA-listed salmon and steelhead are part of the Pacific Northwest.

NMFS West Coastal Region has a long history of partnerships with both Washington and Oregon, and including Idaho Fish and Wildlife agencies and numerous federal recognized tribes to co-manage pinniped predation. The Marine Mammal Protection Act already allows for targeted removal of predatory sea lions, and since 1995, NOAA has issued 12 such authorizations in both Puget Sound and the Columbia River Basin, including a new recent permit issued in August of 2025. But that process has currently had structures— hasn't moved the needle on salmon recovery in the scale that we need to move. The MMPA does provide other mechanisms, including a waiver of the take moratorium and the return of management authority back to the states, both requiring lengthy formal law rulemaking that has never been successful in completing at this purpose. So Section 120 and Sections 120 remain the more, workable authority even though they haven't been effective at the scale we are needing.

This bill would actually help in moving that needle in two ways: to expand where removals are authorized within the Columbia River and its tributaries, as well as creating authorities within Washington State and covered tribes to remove pinnipeds in their designated state waters. I'd like to take just a last moment and just thank this committee. And NOAA looks forward to working with this committee and the bills that this administration is working so hard with, unleashing prosperity through deregulation as restoring American seafood competitiveness to rebuild fisheries. Thank you for your time today. Thank you, Dr.

Petty. We appreciate your testimony. And I am now going to recognize members for 5 minutes each for questions. The first one will be the chairman of our committee, Mr. Westerman. Thank you again, Chair Hagerman.

Thank you, Dr. Petty. The slide behind me shows the distribution of 4 different harbor seal stocks in Puget Sound, Salish Sea, and Washington Coast. The next poster shows the abundance estimate for these 4 stocks. The 3 abundance estimates for complete stocks show populations at or above their carrying capacities.

I like to talk about carrying capacities when we talk about forestry because we see the same, same thing happen when all the nutrients and availability is used up. Things happen. What happens when a population exceeds its carrying capacity in the ecosystem related to these species?

Yeah, Chairman, thank you for the great question. And this is really getting to the heart of part of this discussion with the Peniped component in the legislation that is presented today. You're exactly right with regards to looking at this optimal sustainable population within these three different Peniped communities and relationships. I think your chart that you have gives that type of example in the different research and science that we're working on, not only in Puget Sound, but then also up in the Columbia River. And it's important to realize that, one, this is a marine mammal protection that we're focused on, but yet at the same time, if you look at those charts, what we're looking at are what we refer to as like hotspots.

They've become— the pinnipeds have become very smart, and they know exactly where these areas and locations are at. And they set in these locations and, and actually feast. And that is what's given them that continual capability and growth to a point of optimal sustainable capabilities, which then comes to this piece of legislation on then addressing what then do we do and how then do we do the science. Our goal is to recover the salmon. And to do that means we also need to manage these pinnipeds, and that's the important part of this discussion today.

So thank you for your illustration and question. Well, and not to state the obvious too much, but what happens to salmon populations and steelhead populations if pinniped populations continue to climb? Yeah, that, that's exactly the question, which is part of what NOAA is responsible for in working with our co-partners in allowing us to focus in on these areas of where the, where the pinnipeds actually congregate. And it's the same place where these species either heading out of the river systems or heading up into the river systems that really become this bottleneck. And they are smart.

The pinnipeds know where those pinch points are, and we have a lot of science and resources to look at those capabilities. And our goal with NOAA is to work with the state, both Fish and Game communities, on helping and working with them on dealing with these pinniped predators. So opponents of H.R. 9621 Say that it would result in widespread culling of sea— of seal and sea lion populations. Without regard to predation impacts on listed fish species.

Can you shed light on NOAA's permitting process and the scientific rigor that will be used to justify authorizing lethal removal in specific locations within the bill's geographic scope? Yes, Chairman. Actually, that's a really important question for us to address. And so on both the importance of addressing them. So since 1995, like in my testimony, we have issued over 12 permits, and yet we have consistently seen increases in the pinniped growth rate and birth rates increasing.

And so with the work, with the science, along with all the state Fish and Game as well as the tribe and local communities, our goal is to work specifically on continually building the take issue so that we can manage through a small percentage of what the take number would be, but yet well below its continual optimal growth. And so that's going to be the balance that we want to work with those states so that we can address those, those questions.

Yeah, I appreciate you taking a holistic approach to this. We sometimes look in a vacuum. We're looking only at the pinnipeds or we're looking only at the fish, but there is a balance there. And that's where we need to get to, is where the balance is so that these fish populations can recover. I yield back.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chair now recognizes Ranking Member Hoyle to give her perspective from Oregon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Dr. Petty, really good to see you here today on this important hearing. I'm really concerned that NOAA Fisheries is already dealing with massive backlogs for processing using existing permits and disaster relief. The National Marine Fisheries has reported a 40% staffing reduction within the West Coast Regional Office.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's closest NOAA collaborator on marine mammal research was mostly dissolved last year from RIFs. So does NOAA currently have the staffing capacity to effectively review expanded Section 120 permit applications or calculate the potential biological removal levels? Ranking Member, yes. Thank you for the question. And overall, yes, we do.

We've been working on issuing these permits now for a length of time. I was just meeting with our staff yesterday, just going through this. The importance of co-management is the critical part. NOAA's focus is making sure that we're working with the permitting in the process. But it's the staff, the state staff, as well as the tribes and communities that are actually boots on the ground.

And that's the continual work that we're going to continue to do and moving forward. And I had the assurance from our staff that we have the capability to really address this issue, which is a needed one for us to continue in our efforts for recovery of the salmon. Great. I agree. And we rely a lot on our, our NOAA staff staff.

They are, they are stellar. Um, what practical barriers currently limit implementation of Section 120 management actions by states and tribes? Yes, actually, that really gets to the crux of the important part of even working with this legislation. Both Section 120 and the section on 120 and 120 is this area of flexibility. And this part that is encouraging of what you're working on together in this committee is giving NOAA more of that flexibility, not only on the Columbia but also up in Puget Sound and in other areas and harbors that are up the West Coast that really address the pinniped issue.

And so what I want to be able to do here today is a combination of what this this legislation does is work on the flexibility for NOAA to work with our co-managers of both state and federal and tribal communities on giving them the authority, especially in these choke points or these hot spots of where the, the pinnipeds are located, and address the ones that are specifically smart enough to be right in those areas that we need to address for good management of management of our salmon, but also management of the pinnipeds. Right. Great. I have a separate question that is Pacific Northwest specific. My district, we are proud to host the NOAA facility in Newport.

We've extended an invitation to you. I know that NOAA is working through renewing the lease and determining whether or not that NOAA facility stays in Newport or goes somewhere else. And I know there are advocates on both sides. As I see that we have budget issues and we see staff being riffed and we're being told that we don't have money to put into conservation efforts and many other things, I would think that moving an entire facility to another state would be an expensive proposition. Furthermore, the coast of Oregon is, is is unique in terms of the conditions and also the partnership with Oregon State University's Hatfield Marine Institution.

So could you— we've been not able to get a whole lot of information about that process, and, um, just wondering if you could daylight that either now or in a follow-up. I would like to make sure we have transparency and no one is surprised by what happens. Yes, Riki, remember, two parts. Um, I have not had the chance to do any travel yet, so I still remember the promise that I made in my last committee meeting. So I'd love to get up, uh, to, um, the famous Portman Harbor, the area that's right there, and interact with, uh, our NOAA office and our team.

They do incredible and important work there. The fisheries that come in come in and out of that port is very important. And so we see that as something that we're going to be working with you closely on into the future. And so when we get that chance, and when in the future I get a chance to start doing some traveling, I'll be in contact with your office, and I'd love to just sit down and come up and have more interaction with you and, and your staff going, uh, going forward. Thank you, Dr.

Petty. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Petty. The focus of H.R.

9621 Is recovering salmon and steelhead populations to support tribal treaty fishing rights. And we can solve this problem if Congress has the willingness to act. As you note in your testimony, billions of dollars have been spent to recover listed salmon. Can you please be a bit more specific in terms of the amount of money that has been invested in salmon recovery across the Pacific Northwest? Yes, Chairman, thank you.

That is a significant amount of resources that we all know, especially this committee knows very well, and the Pacific Northwest membership know. As a staffer for over 10 years in the Pacific Northwest, all those decade-plus of the millions, and even with all of the efforts into the billions since the '90s, that we have been spending on fish recovery, that's funding on hatcheries, funding on working on all of these different areas that's holistically for the recovery of the salmon is really important. The science that we apply that goes into that also is a huge resource that we work with the states and tribes and all the co-managers and even some of the foundations. All of that adds up to a significant amount of resources and money. Millions of dollars.

Millions of dollars, as we indicated, but How does pinniped predation undermine that investment? Yeah, it very much— in the work that we've done on the science working with the states, it has demonstrated the impact. Some of the research in the science centers and some of the communities and some of the subsets and basins have had significant impact demonstrating that the pinniped impact is significant. It's a variable of the bigger holistic aspect, But it's exactly where these, these species have learned to go to actually feast on these salmon. And we need to address it.

One of, one of the frustrations that I've had in Congress is there's a lot of times that we know how to fix things and we don't do it right. And I think that this is an example of that, isn't it? We know one of the risk factors associated with recovering our salmon and steelhead populations Isn't that correct, Dr. Petty? It is.

And yet we constantly sit around and we have opponents to these efforts to try to address this predation and make it more difficult and look at other things that are not going to be nearly as significant or nearly as successful. And so we do have an opportunity right now with this administration, with this legislation, even potentially as it may be amended, but with this legislation to actually go in and protect our steelhead and salmon populations. Would you agree with that, Dr. Patty? Yes, I would.

Okay. Opponents of the bill have argued that predation management will somehow have minimal impact on salmon recovery. Instead, we should focus on efforts like habitat restoration. They would have you believe it is somehow impossible to manage predation on listed fish species and restore habitats. And frankly, I don't agree with that and I don't believe it.

And I don't believe that the science demonstrates that. Do you agree with that, or do you believe that pinniped predation is worth addressing while we can also do longer-term habitat restoration work at the same time. Yes, the work that we have done with our partners in this and with the tribes who have given us clear historic impact that's taken place, the invasives that have come up the river that they have not seen historically in all of their knowledge, gives us clear information that that, uh, we need to be addressing it. We are so focused on trying to manage the salmon. We need to take that same application and also manage the pinnipeds in the same way because it has a direct impact.

All right, I appreciate that testimony. And again, I really do understand how significant this is for the Pacific Northwest. I understand. I have been listening to the folks from Oregon and Washington. I know how important this is.

I've had the tribal members come into my office and talk to me about the historical significance of the salmon and the steelhead trout to their culture, why it is critical that we do this. This is an opportunity when we can work together and fix this. We have an opportunity. We need to take it. We need to stop listening to the naysayers and the doomsdayers, and we need to actually fix this problem, which Mr.

The chairman has been talking about since the very first day that I arrived in Congress 3.5 years ago. We look forward to working with you and everybody on this committee to fixing this problem. And we can do it if we actually are trying to solve the problem rather than focusing on politics. With that, I am now going to call on Ms. Alfred, Alfred, for 5 minutes of questioning. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Dr. Petty, thank you for being here. Thank you. I'm really excited to have this hearing. I have been a broken record about invasive aquatics species, all Congress, and I want to thank the chairman for working with me and Mr. Whitman on another bill that addresses blue catfish in the Chesapeake Bay.

But of course, we know we have carp in the Mississippi. We're talking about the loss of salmon in the northeast or northwest. This is an incredibly important ecological, but also I cannot overstate economic challenge for many of our communities. I had a constituent ask me the other day, what the heck does blue catfish have to do with the price of milk or bread. And I said, well, have you tried to get a bushel of crabs this year?

And you'll see the direct connection between the two when a system is this out of balance as we're discussing today. I know you're familiar, I hope you're familiar with invasive blue catfish that's really harming Virginia and Maryland. No natural predator. They gobble up baby oysters and baby rockfish and baby crabs. Mr. Whitman actually just showed me a picture yesterday of one of the rivers in his district, just the entire river is full of these blue catfish.

It is terrifying. You also mentioned, sir, the coordination, what your office, you endeavor to do best, is coordination, especially between states, but also with local governments as well, tribal nations as well. And I think we can all agree here, bipartisanly, we have an antiquated system in which to address these challenges. So the bill in front of us, H.R. 8876, That I worked with, uh, with Mr. Wahlberg on, I think is a step in the direction of helping you better coordinate and collaborate, but also modernizing the system to address these invasive aquatic species.

We also know— I have an outdated number from 2010, but USDA estimate— estimates that there's a $26 million in economic loss every year as a result of these invasive aquatic species. I'm curious, sir, from your perspective, what that new number is 16 years later?

Thank you, great question. That, um, first of all, for those numbers, let me work with my staff to get you back some actually, uh, accurate numbers. Updated, just be great. Holistically, it is, it's critical. The seafood effort that we're trying to make within this administration, the efforts on the Chesapeake, is— has such great flourishing of capability for all areas of seafood development and capabilities.

So we look forward to working with you. NOAA is a co-chair on that. We work very closely with the Department of Interior. Previously, I worked as the Assistant Secretary over at Interior with the US Geological Survey, who does also a ton of work on the Chesapeake in those efforts. So you're very familiar with it?

Very familiar with it. But I couldn't tell by your testimony your position on Mr. Wahlberg's bill. It's a little vague. Can I get some understanding, some color on that, please? We—.

For NOAA and NOAA's responsibility, we work really hard at collecting that data, but we put— and put resources into those states and into those other agencies and collaborate with the data sets. But if not you, then who should be responsible for this? Well, it's the whole task force that we work on. NOAA is part of that, co-chair of that task force of making sure that all of those resources are focused in on those areas, prioritizing especially the blue catfish and others. So I'm reading this as you are supportive of H.R.

876. We are supportive of addressing specifically invasives, and we understand the importance of doing that. Okay. I'm going to move on to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. It was recently reported that BOEM is considering leasing the area off of the Virginia coast for mineral extraction.

Sir, I serve on the House Armed Services Committee. I am very familiar with the national security challenges we face, particularly when it comes to our deficit compared to China on critical minerals. At the same time, the ecologically sensitive area that BOEM is looking to, to work in could further exacerbate the ecological and economic challenges for both Virginia and Maryland. So I just want to understand NOAA's role in consulting BOEM on this to ensure that we can actually do both. We can take this national security threat seriously without harming one of the most important economic engines of the entire Mid-Atlantic.

How are you working with them? Yeah, literally we work alongside Interior and with MMA and their efforts that they do. We are responsible for NOAA Fisheries and the habitat and the work that goes on. So we give them that consultation, we work with them in processing permit as well as environmental assessments that take place. With my remaining time, could I ask you and your team— and we'll work with BOEM as well— to brief the, the Marylanders and Virginians on this committee on this effort?

Because I, I think it's going to be a very big challenge if we move ahead with it to begin with.. But if I'm in the minority, I don't have control over that. If it does happen, we have a full-throated effort to make sure that there are no economic or ecological consequences. Yes, we have a great staff that will be able to come up and provide even more detail and resources for your— you and your staff. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Representative Randall for 5 minutes. Thank you, Chair Hegeman and Ranking Member Hoyle, for allowing me to appear appear before the subcommittee to speak in support of H.R.

9621. I'm here on behalf of my neighbors in Washington 6th. They have been clear: pinniped predation—seals and sea lions eating our salmon—is a major problem in the Pacific Northwest. In recent decades, pinniped populations, as you've heard, have grown exponentially. They're swimming further and further, up to 145 miles upstream upstream into watersheds like the Columbia Basin to hunt in critical spawning grounds and have been seen in Lake Quinault.

Salmon are a way of life for our communities, and current runs including the Snake River sockeye salmon and the Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon are struggling to survive due to multiple factors— toxins like 6PPD, rising ocean temperatures, habitat loss, and barriers like defunct culverts. Saving our salmon and the southern resident orca that rely on them is not an easy fix, but we have to use every tool in our toolbox to save these runs before it's too late. Washington State has a $1.5 billion seafood economy that absolutely depends on the health and well-being of our marine ecosystems and our salmon runs. The industry supports 23,000 jobs in salmon harvests alone. Generate $14 million annually.

Critically important to me also is the impact of this issue on Indian tribes with treaty-reserved fishing rights in Washington 6th. This Congress has a constitutionally derived trust obligation to tribes, and this issue is directly and severely impacting tribes and their treaty fishing rights. When tribal nations in Washington State signed treaties with Governor Stevens in the 1850s, they were guaranteed fishing rights in exchange for ceding lands. These treaty fishing rights were reaffirmed in the 1970s through litigation and after years of civil disobedience in which tribal members put their bodies on the line for the promises made by their ancestors and the federal government. And I couldn't be prouder that Washington is replacing our statue in Statuary Hall with one to honor Billy Frank Jr., one of those warriors for fishing rights.

For nearly 15 years as natural resources co-managers with the state of Washington, the treaty tribes have battled with growing numbers of pinnipeds with all the tools available to them. And now they need Congress to help to provide additional tools that will bring the ecosystem back into balance and ensure the integrity of tribal treaty fishing rights. Let's talk about the science, which is also very important. In 2022, the Washington State Legislature directed the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to request that the Washington State Academy of Sciences conduct a scientific technical review of the science of pinniped predation on salmonids with an emphasis on Washington's portion of the Salish Sea and Washington's outer coast. This study found that the populations of harbor seals, stellar sea lions, and California sea lions have increased substantially in the Salish Sea and coastal waters of Washington State following the implementation of the MMPA in 1972.

Great news! We can all celebrate the success of the MMPA and the healthy restored populations of endangered species. However, the study also found what we all know now, that populations of Pacific salmon in Washington waters, which are at depressed levels and several of which are federally listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, have declined in abundance or have failed to recover and continue to exist at low abundance. The study found that pinniped predation is an explanation for reduced abundance of salmon in Washington State waters and a lack of salmon recovery following efforts to protect them.

There's a critical policy gap here that we have to address, a rare occurrence where there is bipartisan support to do something about it. In addition to the bipartisan H.R. 9621, Which I'm proud to be a co-sponsor, Representative Lucín Campérrez has introduced legislation to empower tribes to address pinniped management and has been a loud voice for a solution to this issue since she came to Congress. And I'm so grateful to her leadership in this area. The message being sent to this committee by multiple members of the Washington delegation and from our Oregon colleagues is that we have to find ecosystem balance.

And non-lethal methods of controlling the pinniped population haven't worked for us. H.R. 9621 Includes really important guardrails, limitations on the number of pinnipeds taken at 10% of the applicable population, a 5-year permitting period, and a suspension of permits if they're no longer necessary to protect salmon. By empowering tribal nations Washington State to manage pinniped populations will honor tribal sovereignty, honor treaties, and help to make the ecosystem healthier. This bill addresses a problem directly impacting tribes and does so in the right way by empowering tribal nations to manage pinniped populations, their treaty management authority.

In so doing, we're honoring our commitment to sovereignty, to co-management, to self-governance, and we honor our commitment to protecting tribal treaty rights. Thank you. I yield back. The chair now recognizes Ms. Dexter. Representative Dexter, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to participate today, and thank you, Dr. Petty, for joining us. I represent Oregon's 3rd District, right across the Columbia River from Representative Glusenkamp-Perez's, and I've spent time with the tribes and fishery managers who have watched salmon runs they've depended on for generations become harder and harder to sustain. On the West Coast, we know that salmon are the beating heart of the Columbia River and central to our ecosystems, and this federal government has made a commitment time and time again to keep it that way.

I'm deeply concerned about the status of Columbia River salmon runs and about this administration's commitment or lack thereof to restoring those populations and fulfilling our treaty obligations to the tribes. When the United States signed treaties with the Lower Columbia River Treaty Tribes, those tribes reserved their right to fish at all their usual and accustomed places. At that time, some 16 million adult salmon returned to spawn in the Columbia River and its tributaries each year. Today, many of our salmon runs are closer to extinction than they are to recovery. So let's look at the status of Snake River sockeye as an example, Dr.

Petty. Do you happen to know how many adult sockeye historically return to spawn in the Snake River each year on average, and how many returned last year? And I've got the answer, it's not meant to be a test question. Yeah, I do not know those numbers. I actually used to know those numbers, but right now I, I'm not up to speed on those numbers.

Understood. And according to NOAA's Species and Critical Habitat Summary Update for Snake River sockeye released just this April, approximately 150,000 adult sockeye historically return to spawn every year, and last year just 207 returned. So part of the reason for that decline is the sea lions that coalesce near dams and prey on these fish. And HR 9621 before us today would expand NOAA's role in authorizing and overseeing the removal of these sea lions on the Columbia River. So my second question, to your knowledge, how many pinniped scientists does NOAA currently have on staff?

Staff? Currently, I don't know the current number. I absolutely can get back to you. Um, when my interactions the last several weeks with our team, there is amazing knowledge that they have on the pinniped, and their work with these other scientists in the state are pretty significant. They're, they're critical experts.

And so if you could potentially get those numbers to us within the next 30 days, that'd be amazing. The legislation would also expand the species from sea lions to all pinnipeds, including harbor seals. What data does NOAA have on harbor seal predation of listed salmon and steelhead in the Columbia system? Well, I do actually have some research that we've been doing with the harbor seal stocks up in Oregon, and so I'm happy to get you that information that we have available. With those numbers of kind of up through that system.

To be exact, I really want to get you those right numbers, so let me just get back to you on those numbers. I mean, as you are, I'm a scientist by training, and so I know firsthand how critical it is to make policy decisions based on real, accurate, informed data. So I appreciate that. I ultimately support salmon recovery efforts and opportunities to strengthen them, but I'm concerned we're getting ahead of ourselves with the changes in this legislation. I'd be strongly encouraged, or I strongly encourage this committee to take time to think through the best path forward.

Salmon recovery in this, in the Columbia River, depends on far more than pinniped predation. It depends on dam operations, habitat, and hatchery and harvest management. So Dr. Petty, are we in agreement that it is our federal trust responsibility to the tribes that we do everything we can to aid salmon recovery efforts. Yes.

Thank you. I don't think anyone on this committee wants to see any of our Columbia River salmon runs disappear on our watch. And I believe we can find the right path forward together if we let the data lead us there. So thank you very much. Yeah, thank you.

Looking forward to working with you. Thank you. Likewise. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield.

Thank you. And thank you, Dr. Petty, for your testimony and for the— to the members for your questioning. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witness, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. And while the clerk is resetting the table, I will re— I will introduce the witnesses for our third panel.

Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Petty. Thank you.

Dr. Mark Gayden, Executive Secretary of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mr. Jared Blankenship, State Director, District 1 of Texas Farm Bureau, from Herford, Texas. Dr. Richard Merrick, independent marine scientist and retired Chief Science Advisor for NOAA Fisheries from Falmouth, Massachusetts. And Mr. Nate Pamplin, Director of External Affairs of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife from Olympia, Washington. Under committee rules, you must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes.

But your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone. And as you previously heard, we use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn yellow.

And at the end of your 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will also allow all witnesses to testify before the member questioning. I now recognize Dr. Gaiden for 5 minutes. Thank you, Chairman Hegeman and Ranking Member Hoyle, for having me here today to testify in support of the Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention Act. My name is Mark Gaiden.

I'm the executive secretary of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and I especially like to thank Congressman Wahlberg and Congresswoman Elfreth for introducing this important legislation. I'd also like to acknowledge the presence today of Vice Chairman of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the Honorable Ethan Baker. Who has led our commission with an eye towards invasive species prevention and control, science, and cross-border cooperation. I had the honor to serve as a member of the Aquatic Invasive Species Commission, which was established in 2002 by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and with outdoor industry partners. I served at the request of the American Sport Fishing Association.

The AAS Commission was established to help stop and reverse the introduction and spread of AIS into and throughout the United States. We're all concerned about AIS because of the destruction they bring and the costs they inflict—costs to the economy and to the ecosystem. It's estimated conservatively that invasive species have inflicted $345 billion in damages globally over the past few decades, with nearly half of those costs incurred in North America. The harmful effects of aquatic invasive species extend across ecosystems, industries, and communities. After several meetings and after hearing from experts from across the nation, the AAS Commission issued a report with several recommendations, and I ask that the executive summary of that report be included with my testimony.

After several meetings and after hearing from— I'm pleased to say— let me say that again. I'm pleased to say Congressman Wahlberg and Congresswoman Alferez-Bill addressed many of the AAS Commission's recommendations includes many provisions the Great Lakes Fishery Commission would like to see enacted. The bill will strengthen the nation's ability to prevent, detect, respond, and respond to aquatic invasive species. We like to say in AIS management that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and a central theme of this bill is that preventing spread and establishment is the most effective and fiscally responsible approach to managing aquatic invasive species. By investing in early detection, coordinated prevention strategies, and rapid response capabilities, this bill seeks to address what to do when a species does arrive.

Speed and preplanning are critical. This legislation also expands federal coordination through the existing Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the National Invasive Species Council, with the goal of enhancing collaboration among state and federal governments, tribes, recognized organizations, academic institutions, and nonprofit partners. Strengthening support for the task force facilitates data sharing, use of science and technologies, and sharing of management practices. All very critical. Would this allow agencies at all orders of government to respond more effectively to emerging threats that often cross jurisdictional boundaries?

We need to respond quickly is the key point. Building on this collaborative framework, the bill also required— requires the development of national regional management plans to establish priorities, identify vulnerable ecosystems, and guide prevention and control efforts using the best available science. More collaboration puts more eyes out there so that we may identify waterways at the highest risk, risk for invasion. This promotes essential interstate collaboration and facilitates coordinated watercraft inspection and decontamination strategies. The goal, of course, is to help prevent the spread of invasive species throughout North America before they come established.

Zebra mussels, for instance, was started the North American journey in the Great Lakes, would not be in Lake Mead but for interstate movement. We need more coordination, and this bill helps in that regard. Early investment in research and emerging technologies can increase management effectiveness and reduce long-term control costs. Likewise, dedicated rapid response funding enables resource managers to act quickly while infestations remain localized, which increases the likelihood of successful eradication, or maybe even stopping an invasive species in its tracks and preventing it from becoming permanently established. So in conclusion, overall, this act is important legislation that reflects many of the recommendations presented by the AIS Commission, many of the priorities of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and certainly many of the priorities for export efforts throughout the nation.

Money in this area is extremely well spent. Preventing sea lamprey in the 1920s, for instance, would have saved Great Lakes tens of billions of dollars in lost fish and control costs. And as such, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission would support funding levels even beyond what are provided in this bill for this important work. Again, I want to thank the committee for considering this important legislation, and I look forward to answering questions. Thank you.

Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Merrick for 5— or excuse me, Mr. Blankenship for 5 minutes.

Chairman Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I feel a little out of my element. All the talk about fish and my part of the world is a little drier. My name is Jared Blankenship, and I'm representing Texas Farm Bureau and our more than 480,000 member families across the state of Texas. I serve as the state director for Texas Farm Bureau, representing District 1 farmers and ranchers, and this is in the Panhandle of Texas.

In addition, I am also a cattle producer, and I am here today to voice Texas Farm Bureau's strong support for H.R. 7466, The SAFE Cattle Act, authored by my own Congressman, Ronnie Jackson, and co-led by Chairman Hagerman and Representative Soto, who serve on this subcommittee.

While it is important that we remain alert, we should not be alarmed as we address the New World Screwworm threat. Livestock producers across Texas are diligently monitoring their herds, remaining vigilant, and quickly reporting any suspected cases. Combined with the swift and coordinated response from state and federal animal health officials, these efforts are helping ensure that cases are identified, contained,— and addressed with urgency and a clear plan of action. It is also critical to emphasize that New World Screwworm is an animal health issue, not a food safety issue. America's food supply remains safe, wholesome, and secure.

And the SAFE Cattle Act is about supporting ongoing animal health and eradication efforts so that producers, animal health officials, and federal agencies can expand on their unified response. The legislation would establish a formal partnership between USDA and the Department of Interior to support surveillance, monitoring, and eradication activities in wildlife species coordinated with state officials and regular reporting to Congress as we work collectively toward eradication. I would like to recognize the work already being done by USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, the Trump administration, state animal health officials, and many industry partners. Producers across Texas appreciate the leadership, the resources,— the attention that has been devoted to addressing New World Screwworm. The SAFE Cattle Act simply builds on that momentum and helps ensure federal agencies remain focused on the shared goal of eradication.

As a cattle producer, I know success depends on having everyone working together toward the same objective. On our operation, whether we're managing herd health responding to severe weather, handling day-to-day activities and challenges. Clear roles and teamwork make all the difference. That is why we support this legislation. It does not create a new program or add unnecessary bureaucracy.

Instead, it strengthens the framework for the agencies already engaged in this effort. The bill recognizes that USDA leads animal health efforts, while the Department of Interior manages wildlife and federal lands that can play an important role in prevention and eradication activities. By bringing these agencies together under a formal agreement, the SAFE Cattle Act strengthens joint surveillance, supports coordinated eradication strategies, and improves engagement with state animal health and wildlife officials. It also increases transparency to ensure Congress can provide responders with the resources that are needed to eliminate this devastating pest. These practical steps can help protect producers moving forward, and Texas Farm Bureau believes the SAFE Cattle Act is exactly the type of common-sense legislation that Congress should support.

It reinforces the strong work already underway and clearly defines the responsibilities, strengthens the tools available. And on behalf of Texas Farm Bureau, I respectfully urge the subcommittee to advance the SAFE Cattle Act and move this legislation to the full House of Representatives. Thank you for your opportunity— for the opportunity to testify, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Blankenship. I now recognize Dr. Merrick for 5 minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair Hegman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the— or member of the committee. Thanks for the opportunity to testify on the Whale Sharks Act of 2026 and the Northwest Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act of 2026. And I'll provide today my observations as a marine scientist on these acts based on my experience at NOAA, where I began my career as a fishery observer in 1983, and now I'm retired. As the director of scientific programs in 2017. Throughout my career, I focused on providing scientific advice to managers and constituents on the conservation of marine mammals and fish.

The Whale Sharks Act of 2026. It's a great idea. It basically is like a program that NOAA has run for North Atlantic right whales since 1998, and the benefits to right whales have been legion. Data from this effort is the primary input to the right whale population assessment model. It helps design management actions and it provides whale alerts to mariners.

All this has really been important because it has resulted in significant reductions in mortalities from vessel strikes and fishery interactions, and it has allowed the population to stabilize. WhaleCharts will help right whales and other large whale conservation by expanding programs like these through the U.S. EZ, and through a continuing partnership between NOAA scientists, managers, and the state, NGO, and academic organizations.

I am not, as an ecosystem scientist, as comfortable with the Northwest Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act. Here's my background, that during 1983 to '97, I worked in the West Coast and Alaska focusing on finna-ped fishery interactions. And that included work with the very first captures at Ballard Locks in Seattle, basically what Washington and Oregon are now doing in the Columbia River. And there we were trying to remove sea lions who were preying on steelhead. I then did my PhD, and that was focused on diets of pinnipeds.

All this has given me an understanding of the impact of predation on the recovery of listed fish species. So based on my experience, I'm concerned that this well-intentioned act will really do little to recover West Coast salmon.

So I look at this and I say, can it— these widespread removals that could occur under this program benefit salmon recovery? Well-established science has shown that habitat loss is a primary factor that limits recovery of most depleted fish stocks. While it's true that predation on adult salmon will reduce subsequent recruits, the size of salmon stocks is most limited by the habitat that's available for adult spawning.

The diet data that we've seen is actually— that shows salmon to be a part of the Piniped diet in many ways is lacking. The Washington Academy of Sciences report was really powerful, but most of the data that was presented in there on diet is old or was really focused on very small collections spatially and temporally. More recent reports, and I've listed these in my longer presentation, show that these reports are likely to have significantly underestimated salmon consumption by pinnipeds. For example, an up-to-date study of harvest seal diets in the Salish Sea that was published just this year indicates that salmon make up a very small portion of harvest seal diets. So something like that, comparable wide-ranging and multi-season, multi-year study of sea lion diets is really necessary to understand the overall effect of pinniped predation on salmon.

Then widespread reductions in pinniped numbers will likely have some unintended consequences. Reducing the pinniped population in Washington waters would allow Pacific hake stocks to expand, increasing their predation on smolts. And a consequence of the reduction in the Salish Sea pinniped population would be its impact on ESA-threatened transient killer whales, Bigg's killer whales, which are known to rely on seals for prey. Targeted removals of pinnipeds like Washington is doing now with Oregon would help. They'll help localize salmon survival.

But like we learned at Ballard Locks, these removal efforts only have short-term effects. New sea lions will return. And so you're going to go in for the long term for this if you want to keep doing this. It may be more effective to remove some of those hydrodynamic bottlenecks that cause salmon to queue up at high predation sites or develop barriers that separate pinnipeds from salmon or provide sound deterrents. But ultimately, looking at this as an ecosystem scientist, I'm concerned that because habitat remains limited and ocean conditions are not favorable, It's unlikely that widespread removal of seals and sea lions will have little measurable effect on overall salmon stocks.

Thanks for the opportunity to talk, and I'll await your questions, which I'm sure will be legion. I now recognize Mr. Pamplin for 5 minutes.

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Nate Pamplin, and I'm the director of external affairs with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. We appreciate the opportunity to provide remarks about pinniped predation and express our support for H.R. 9621. And we thank Representatives Baumgartner and Randall for leading this legislation.

At WDFW, we collaborate with numerous partners and take a comprehensive approach to recover ESA-listed salmon. One area that hinders our ability is unchecked pinniped predation. The pinniped stocks in the Pacific Northwest that impact salmon are healthy, robust, and none are listed under the ESA, and all are protected by the MMPA. We are committed to ensuring that pinnipeds are a significant functioning element of the ecosystem and managed at the optimum sustainable population size. In 2018, Governor Inslee established a Southern Resident Killer Whale Task task force to identify actions that address threats to their recovery, including the lack of prey availability.

Two of the prey recommendations focus on reducing pinniped predation. One recommendation for the Columbia River called for amending the MMPA to allow for more effective management of pinniped predation. The other recommendation was directed at Puget Sound and the coast and include convening a science panel and securing authorization if pinniped removal was needed. Turning now to the Columbia, research by NMFS estimates that 20 to 44% of upriver spring and summer Chinook in the lower Columbia died due to pinniped predation annually. Congress amended the MMPA in 2018 to provide the co-managers greater flexibility, and the subsequent permitted removal efforts show signs of success.

With the declines in sea lion presence at the dam and tens of thousands of salmon estimated to be saved. A great example of the benefits is from Willamette Falls. Prior to lethal removal, listed winter steelhead faced an 89% risk of extinction. After 2 years of targeted removals, the risk of extinction fell to 11%. Future work should expand authorities to predation hotspots This bill increases flexibility by addressing the method of take and the geographic area where removals can occur.

I'll now turn to Puget Sound and the coast. Pinniped predation in Puget Sound and the coast has more recently focused on harbor seal predation on outmigrating smolts. One researcher estimated that 6 to 14% of Chinook smolts are consumed by seals each year in Puget Sound. NIMPS estimated harbor seals consumed between 9 and 33% of steelhead smolts in the Nisqually River in southern Puget Sound. The Department of Fish and Wildlife contracted the Washington State Academy of Sciences, and they concluded that the preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesis that current populations of pinnipeds are likely impeding the recovery of salmon.

The report authors also noted that the MMPA constraints effectively block most pinniped removal. NIMPS reports going back to the 1990s have shown that non-lethal measures are largely ineffective, and the MMPA, especially Section 120, is a barrier to implementation, primarily because of the individually identifiable provision. While 120 in the Columbia recognizes the critical role tribes have in resource management, there is not a similar provision in other sections of 120,, and this bill rectifies that omission. All too often, ESA-listed species are facing more than one threat, with habitat degradation being a common denominator. The salmon in the Pacific Northwest are the quintessential example of this, and there is no single recovery activity that will resolve this crisis.

Ultimately, the lack of flexibility to conduct science-based, focused efforts to reduce pinniped predation at hotspots hinders our ability to recover salmon.

We have a proven track record of working across threats to recover fish and wildlife species. Limited predator management is used judiciously and humanely by the professional staff at the Department of Fish and Wildlife and our co-manager tribes, and is part of a comprehensive approach to protect vulnerable life history stages while a suite of other recovery efforts take hold. This bill provides us and the tribes with the authority to do that for salmon. Again, I want to thank the sponsors for introducing this important legislation and express thanks to Chairwoman Hageman for convening a hearing on this bill. And I'm happy to respond to any questions that you may have.

Thank you. Thank you to each of you for your testimony. And I am now going to recognize members for 5 minutes each for questioning. And I'm going to start with me. I just think it's important to point out that we have wandered a long way from our December oversight oversight hearing, which featured majority and minority witnesses in full-throated agreement on the need to manage pinniped populations to promote salmon recovery.

Today we have a minority witness who seems to reject that premise, and Dr. Merrick's testimony is filled with so many mischaracterizations of the bill— written testimony before us— that it is hard to know where to begin. But I'm going to go with Mr. Pamplin. I want to talk to you about what your office has done and your expertise in this area. And what you have personally observed, especially in more recent times. We've heard from your fellow panelists that removal efforts have no more than a short-term effect, but is wildlife management intended to function as a series of one-and-done interventions, or is it an ongoing effort?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the question. Um, no, uh, wildlife management is not a one-and-done intervention. This is a, this is a long-standing issue. It is something that we'll need to continue to push forward on. I look at the work that we've done, uh, that our partners have done, in particular at Willamette Falls that I mentioned, where that risk of extinction dropped from 89% to around 11%.

That's a significant result, and it will require a sustained level of removals of a few animals that will continue to find Willamette Falls as a choke point. So while there was an initial surge of removals that saw that benefit, there will be a longer-term need to maintain that. Well, he also says that any predation reduction program should focus on specific animals at localized high predation sites. But that's really kind of the problem, isn't it? Wouldn't you say that the current authorities under Section 120 provide for lethal management at all localized high predation sites in the Columbia River and Western Washington, but it's not working.

Correct.

Thanks, Chairwoman. I agree that when I think about the different localized sites, we need to do the work to demonstrate that intervention is necessary. But there's a number of sites where this is possible, and the current 120 and the current 120 do not have the tools for allow us to address an intervenance in a number of these areas. Ballard Locks, Nisqually, throughout the mainstem of the Columbia and the tributaries. It's proving to be a real challenge for us to, to be able to do those interventions.

And I see this bill as a way to give us the tools necessary to intervene when it's appropriate. Well, he's also criticized what he refers to as the indiscriminate lethal removals of pinnipeds. Um, is that how the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife manages predator-prey interactions, through indiscriminate lethal removals, or is it more targeted? Thanks, Madam Chair. No, we, we would be looking at specific geographic areas that are known to be a problem, that are impacting listed fish or species of concern.

And then doing the removal if this bill were to proceed. To me, the— once those areas are identified, we would be working with the tribes and submitting an application to NIMPS, and then NIMPS would be conditioning that permit. But it would be two different areas. What I'm nervous about, I guess, is I saw all the work that we went into amend the MMPA in 2018 is we've got an incremental adjustment.. And I'd be worried that we come back in a few years and ask for yet another incremental adjustment.

I don't see this bill as being an avenue for widespread removals. That is not something that's envisioned in the bill, and it's not something that we would do. But in those areas where we see interventions necessary, we would have the ability to proceed. I appreciate that testimony. Mr. Blankenship, I'm going to turn to you real quickly to discuss H.R.

7466, The SAFE Cattle Act. How did the New World Screwworm come into contact with the U.S. livestock? How did it get here?

Thank you. I would note that it's been here before.

But we eradicated it. So how did it get here this time? In most recent history, a combination of natural movement of the flies northward Secondarily, movement of livestock, and then thirdly, movement of wildlife has been the transport of the parasite. So what measures have been most effective in preventing or eradicating screwworm outbreaks in the United States? With no hesitation, the most effective method has been the sterile fly technique that was employed in the late '60s and '70s that pushed it back to the Darién Gap.

That same technology, that same methodology is currently the most effective treatment because it also deals with wildlife, which cannot be managed in the same way that livestock. Does it also help to have the border closed to livestock coming from Mexico?

Again, as I've characterized, livestock is but one component, one vector of transportation. So it's difficult to say that keeping the border closed to livestock really makes that much difference because that is one element where we have a means of control— the quarantine, the procedures that I believe have scientifically been demonstrated to be effective. At quarantining. I'm now going to recognize Ms. Stansbury for 5 minutes of questions. All right.

Good afternoon. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member. I'm here today to stand with our ranchers and farmers who are the backbone of our communities. And Dr. Merrick, I'm grateful you're here today to represent— and Mr. Blankenship— to represent our cattlemen back home.

So thank you so much for that. I am a co-sponsor of this bipartisan bill that we are hearing here today, and I do want to thank the chairwoman for her leadership on this issue, because New Mexico is truly on the front lines of the new— of the new world screwworm outbreak, and our ranchers and our farmers deserve to know that Congress has their back. And so I want to talk a little bit about what we're doing, what this bill is about, and how we're helping to support our farmers and ranchers back home. And also to talk about how we ended up in this place, because the reality is that the United States actually successfully eradicated the New World Screwworm in the 1960s. And that was an achievement that was sustained through science, investment, and a whole of government commitment, as this bill is trying to accomplish.

It was a hard-won protection. And unfortunately, as we all know, it's back. And not only is it a pest that has crossed our border, but it is a pest that threatens the health and well-being of our livestock and that could threaten the entire cattle industry if it takes hold here in the southern, especially United States. And this is not a partisan issue. Our, our cattlemen don't care if you're a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, you don't vote at all.

What they care about is their herds and taking care of their animals. And so do I. That is what I care about. And so I think our cattle ranchers out there now, currently New Mexico and Texas have a combined 34, 39 confirmed cases of screwworm. These are real animals.

These are real ranchers. My office has heard accounts from ranchers in my district who are proactively monitoring their herds, the cost, the burdens. And unfortunately the minimal support that they're actually getting from the federal government. And the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association has been raising the alarm for, frankly, months before it ever crossed the border. And unfortunately, the fundamental programs that help to support monitoring and to stop the screwworm in the very beginning were gutted and, what they were unable to ultimately stop it from crossing the border.

But essentially, as we are headed into monsoon season in New Mexico, as cattle shipping, calf season is coming, and screwworm is thriving in hot and moist conditions, it's really essential in this moment that we get legislation across the finish line to help support our cattle growers. So I want to just ask Mr. Blankenship, thank you for being here, for testifying today. In addition to the bill that's in front of us, what do you feel that we can do to help support our ranchers in this moment?

Thank you for the question. Obviously, the surveillance, the continued whole of government is the phrase that you used. I appreciate that sentiment. Which is why this particular bill makes sense, because we have a cooperation of agencies. USDA involved with the livestock, Department of Interior with wildlife.

That surveillance, that continual scrutiny, is going to be the greatest asset that can be employed. We know what works. We've done this before. Now it's just simply implementation and allowing the process to proceed and move forward. Thank you very much.

And, you know, I'll just say it— America beat this pest once before. We can do it again. I believe in our ranchers and our farmers, and I know that we have the can-do spirit to get it done and the science. And so I am grateful for the efforts to get this done. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

The chair now recognizes Mr. Eazel for 5 minutes of questioning. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for being here today and taking some leadership on this legislation. I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention Act of 2026. Aquatic invasive species may not always make the headlines, but they're a real headache for districts on the coast. They're more than just a nuisance.

They create real problems. We've seen invasive carp threaten native fisheries in the Mississippi River Basin, while species like giant salamander and hydrilla clog waterways, drainage habitat, and make it harder for our state agencies to manage the resources that sportsmen, anglers, and families rely on. The longer these invasive species stick around, the harder and more expensive they are to control. That's why I appreciate this bill's focus on prevention, early detection, and giving states the tools they need to respond before these problems get out of hand. Dr. Gaddon, Mississippi has already invested significant time and resources into managing the aquatic invasive species.

From your From your perspective, how will this legislation help states like Mississippi build on these efforts and better protect our native fisheries and aquatic habitats? Thank you for that question. The pointing out of the invasive carp is a great case study really about why cooperation and collaboration among the states need to happen. So what we learned in a study called the Great Lakes Mississippi River Interbasin Study is that the Great Lakes could give as good as it can get in terms of the movement of invasive species. In other words, what appears in one region of the country is very likely to move to another region of the country.

Invasive species move, they invade, they move around, and a local problem becomes a national problem very quickly. What this bill does is it helps the states work more closely together, but also with the federal government By enhancing coordination, we enhance the speed by which management and the response to these invasive species can occur. And by sharing information, by working together to monitor that, we also enhance the chances that a species seen where it shouldn't be, when you have more eyes on the water, can be dealt with quickly. What's important about this bill is early detection, rapid response. Thank you.

One last question. Could you help me put this into perspective? When aquatic invasive species gets established, what does that actually mean for a state's fisheries and aquatic systems? Well, we know too much from history, all too well from history, that it does not mean a good thing. So, you know, not all invasive species cause economic harm or ecological damage, but the ones that do can inflict serious damage on that.

So in the Mississippi River with the invasive carp, it wasn't long after they made their way throughout the Mississippi-Illinois systems, the Ohio River systems, clawing at the gates of the Great Lakes, that these fish became the dominant fish species in those ecosystems. So a commercial fisherman, for example, in the Mississippi River, in some places is not catching anything else but bighead carp or silver carp. And that changes everything. In the Great Lakes, where probably the most notorious invader is the sea lamprey, before we brought sea lampreys under control through a coordinated effort among the states and with Canada, they were basically putting commercial fishers out of business. And there's no— very little chance of eradication once something makes the system home.

In fact, it gets worse. They make more of themselves. They spread. You might have pollution that you can clean up, but invasive species are going to reproduce and spread unless you can keep them under control. Thank you, Chair.

I yield back. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Randall for 5 minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Mr. Pamplin, you mentioned earlier to me before this hearing how long you'd been working on, uh, this issue around salmon management and pinniped predation. Remind me how long that was.

Madam Chair, through the, uh, through the chair, I should say, uh, Congresswoman Randall, we have been engaged in pinniped investigations as an agency going back decades. I personally have been engaged on this issue for about 25 years. Thank you so much. I— it was impressive to me, and I felt like it was important to bring up here before the committee before launching into some questions. And I know you touched on this a little bit in your original testimony, but can you explain a little bit more about the impact of unchecked pinniped predation on salmon from Department of Fish and Wildlife's perspective?

Thanks for the question. Yeah, I really want to call out those, those three areas. Um, the, the study that NMFS did in the Lower Columbia where 20 to 44% of the upriver Spring Chinook run was being consumed, that's— this is a vulnerable life stage at this point. These are adult returning salmon that, that are going to spawn, and, and here they are, they didn't have a chance. And when you think about where the pinniped populations levels are and how depleted salmon are, that's, I think, a pretty striking example.

Also, I would note that the steelhead study in the Nisqually were upwards of 33% of outmigrating smolts. That's a huge impact on our key stone populations in the state that are essential to our economy, you know, tribal fishing rights, and to a community that relies on fish and is so grateful to have it as, you know, one of our, our beautiful exports. And, you know, salmon that we're able to, to harvest and enjoy as part of living in Washington State. Being able to rely on the science that you mentioned is so important to, like, good co-management. Would you agree that a lack of flexibility to conduct science-based predator management in order to reduce pinniped predation at hotspots in Washington hinders our ability to recover salmon?

I think we sometimes— our neighbors are, you know, overwhelmed by how cute salmon or a sea lion or a seal is, and We have to follow the science and being able to do so without inflexibility is important. Can you tell us any more about that science?

Through the, through the chair, thanks for the question, Congresswoman. Yes. And I think it's really important. I want to characterize this as not something that is going to just be— sometimes I hear from the opponents, it's going to be like a rampant, you know, widespread cull. This would be a very focused removal.

And the bill has ceilings on the number of pinnipeds that can be removed. There's a potential biological removal under the MMPA and there's a cap of 10%. And even there, for instance, for California sea lions or Steller sea lions, I don't see us approaching that cap. It's just nice to have, I think, through the optics and making the bill political viable to have those ceilings in place. But the science on where predation is occurring, a lot of times harbor seals are, for instance, generalists.

They eat all kinds of prey. But when they move into the rivers where they're spawning habitat of salmon, we kind of know what they're doing there. And that's where having that ability to do those removals on harbor seals, California sea lions, and stellar sea lions in those areas makes sense to us. Absolutely. And something that's, I think, very important for us to touch on here is the Department of Fish and Wildlife's partnership with tribal and federal partners to, you know, do this active management work.

Can you tell us a little bit more about the co-management resources and your partnership with treaty tribes in Washington State? Thank you for the question. Through the chair, Um, there's actually a state law that every state agency has a tribal liaison, and we certainly have one. But we also have the expectation that our staff, whether they're executives to senior managers, wildlife area managers, hatchery specialists, field biologists, we are integrated with the tribes in Washington. This is not something where we have just an annual meeting with tribes.

It's daily, weekly, dozens of meetings with tribes across our, our staff. And we work with tribes on all aspects of salmon recovery, whether it's working on hydropower relicensing and trying to make sure that fish passage is good, to habitat restoration works, to coordinating harvest and hatchery frameworks. It's, it's very integrated. What this bill does is actually allow for Treaty tribes in Western Washington to engage with us. Right now, they don't have the authority under Section 109, and they don't have the authority under Section 120.

This bill provides authority under Section 120 with a new 120. Thank you so much. And my time has expired. But Madam Chair, I'd like to submit some letters in support, a unanimous, unanimous Consent request, letters of support from Washington Hatchery Coalition, Puget Sound Anglers, and the Ilwako Charter Association. Without objection, so ordered.

And I also would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the American Sports Fishing Association, the minority witness from our December hearing supporting H.R. 9621, H.R. 8876, And H.R. 7332. Without objection, so ordered.

The chair now recognizes Mr. Downing for 5 minutes of questions. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I'm going to start with Mr. Blankenship. Uh, back in my home district of Central and Eastern Montana, our ranchers are continuing to monitor the spread of New World Screwworm down in Texas, with USDA recording, I think it was 41 total cases of screwworm in livestock this year.

It's critical that we mitigate any future spread. And in your testimony, you stated that Texas cattle producers such as yourself remain alert but not alarmed about the New World Screwworm threat. And can you elaborate on what sentiments amongst ranchers on the ground in Texas— you know, what are the sentiments, what are you hearing about the current status of the screwworm?

In response to the question, We are alert, but the lack of alarm comes from a recognition of we know how to deal with this. While I personally am not quite old enough to have lived through this cycle before, my grandfather did. And those techniques, those visual clues, those that identification process is being— has been passed down. And you ask about Texas producers specifically. We are watching very carefully.

I'm in the Texas Panhandle. I have not yet seen, knock on wood, to this date anything close. It has been isolated south. I would also suggest that we're well ahead of what we thought we would be. Texas Farm Bureau was raising red flags and screaming and yelling 18 months ago.

We thought this was going to be here last summer. Right. Ramping this up pushed this back and slowed down the progression. Right. Thank you.

So I'm just curious, um, what's been the economic impact, uh, for Texas producers? Are, are they delaying some sales, breeding, any management decisions because of this uncertainty?

From my perspective and my anecdotal information, no, we're not. We're conducting business as usual within the obvious scientific constraints. If we have an impacted animal, they're addressed, they're dealt with. Excellent. And reported.

So last year I had the chance to speak with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, and about the resurgence of the New World Screwworm. And I urged her administration to do more to mitigate future outbreaks, and, you know, have since been extremely disappointed in the unreliability of Mexico as a partner in controlling this parasite. And you mentioned earlier in your testimony about the, you know, vectors, the movement of, you know, flies, livestock, wild animals. So, Mr. Blankenship, what additional steps do you believe need to be taken to address the threat that the southern border poses in facilitating the spread of future parasitic outbreaks?

Again, I would suggest that we know the game plan. Now, anytime you allow something to get slightly ahead of you, it's difficult to be patient and let what we know works to work.

Obviously, we know the game plan: ramp up sterile fly production.

That is in place. We need cooperation with Mexico. We need transparency with Mexico. We need cooperation with Mexico. Right.

So cooperation, transparency from Mexico. I appreciate that. And to move on here, in your testimony, you mentioned the importance of the SAFE Cattle Act introduced by Representative Ronnie Jackson, and which I'm a co-sponsor of. Can you elaborate on the benefits of formal coordination between the USDA and the Department of Interior in mitigating future outbreaks? Well, I'll speak from my perspective on my side of the desk as a livestock producer.

I can control my livestock. I can control transportation. I can control the means of prevention, etc. Wildlife I cannot control. We got to have greater surveillance to be able to utilize sterile fly technique that encompasses both wildlife and livestock.

And that's where this collaboration becomes beneficial. Excellent. I want to thank you for those answers. You know, I appreciate you testifying today as well as my colleague Representative Jackson for for introducing the SAFE Cattle Act. You know, the threat that New World Screwer imposes on the future of the American herd, you know, must be taken seriously.

And I look forward to working with the Trump administration and my colleagues in Congress on mitigating future outbreaks going forward. And on that, Madam Chair, I yield back my time. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. Glutzenkamp-Pérez for 5 minutes.

Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you, Ranking Member for the opportunity to wave on to committee today. And thank you to the witnesses for being here. I live along the Columbia River in southwest Washington near the Bonneville Dam, and I've seen firsthand the hard work that goes into managing these sea lion populations and preserving our local fisheries and tributaries. This is not an issue that policy wonks came up with in D.C. to settle a score with sea lions. This is a topic of conversation at dinner tables in my district for decades.

And, you know, it used to be where we live that if you lost your job, you could count on fishing to feed your family, and that has been eviscerated. It is being turned into a luxury good right now. I actually introduced recently the Protecting Columbia River Salmon Act to restore tribal agency and allow tribes with ancestral ties to the Columbia River to lethally take California and Steller sea lions downstream of McNary Dam. And I understand my bill is not under consideration today, but I wanted to share that to show show how urgent the need for change to protect our salmon from these creatures is for folks in my district. I'd like to start with a baseline.

I have 6 questions, so hope we can be brief here, and I appreciate brevity. Dr. Merrick, in your testimony, you recommend that studies should be considered on the diets of sea lions before conclusions about the consequences of their population-level consumption on salmonids is discussed. Discussed. Dr. Pamplin, could you please share what WDFW has learned about sea lion diets in the Columbia River?

Through the chair, thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. Yeah, there's a, there's a really important study that NIMS conducted where they marked Chinook and released them at river mile 0 and tracked their fate, and that's where 20 to 44% of those, of that run was attributed to be predated by pinnipeds. Are sea lions in the Columbia River eating anything besides salmon? Yes, usually upstream of river mile 112, the diet shifts to salmon, perhaps some steelhead, sturgeon, lamprey. Further down in the lower river, we see other fish in the diet, such as hake.

Thank you. And I agree that we need science to inform policy decisions, but I fail to see what spending more on— more time and money on biologists would provide here that we don't already know. We know that sea lions are heavy predators on our salmon and our steelhead. Dr. Merrick, have you ever been to the mouth of the Cowlitz? To where?

Excuse me? The mouth of the Cowlitz River? I do not think so. Because I see that you spent time on your testimony talking about your experience on pinniped predation on steelhead runs and Ballard Locks in Seattle. But there are differences, profound differences, between Ballard Locks and the mouth of the Cowlitz.

And, uh, Cowlitz. Okay, yes, I understand. Yeah, I understand. You're right. Um, and, and that might be important to note.

That's why it's important to have localized studies. According to the numbers of Oregon's Department of Fish and Wildlife, we're seeing peak levels of 3,400 sea lions at the mouth of the Cowlitz River. In comparison, prior to the implementation of the new 120F removal program, peak numbers at the Bonneville Dam were around 300. Sea lions. Yeah, Dr. Merrick, you're saying that this isn't about sea lions, but rather about hydrodynamic bottlenecks that are harming our salmon stock.

So I feel like there's, there's a missing piece here. Are we not perhaps entertaining some availability heuristic here to point at the first thing we see in the river? So as you may have noticed, I said there are various strategies for reducing predation besides lethal takes or removals. That hydrodynamic bottlenecks is one, barriers are another, acoustic deterrents are a third. All those can work.

I don't think the evidence supports that. Dr. Merrick, do you worry about how the removal of a predator can have unexpected consequences on an ecosystem? But doesn't that work both ways? Wouldn't the protection of a single predator, as the MMPA provides, also have consequences on ecosystems like those we see today on salmon populations? And further, are we not already practicing ecosystem tampering by investing in these efforts to protect salmon?

Yes. I noticed that, Dr. Pamplin, I noticed that your chart cuts off at around 2014. Could you give us an update on what the current annual biological removal population for Californian steller sea lions is?

Through the chair. Thanks for the question. The potential biological removal for California sea lions using the NIMP stock assessment report is around 14,000 animals annually. And is 10% of that ABRP as directed under this bill and the current 120F really sufficient to protect salmon from extinction? And what would it take to get to abundant salmon runs?

Thanks for the question. Yeah, as indicated, I think that the PBR cap is important for the kind of social acceptance of the bill, and I don't think that we're going to be removing nearly that level in the Columbia River. The animals that we can remove at Bonneville Dam, at the different tributaries, like you noted with Cowlitz, in both your bill and the bill that's on your hearing today expands that geographic area. So that animals meet that individually identifiable requirement within that area. So we'd be able to address the issues in the Cowlitz because those animals are actually hauling out in, in the mainstem Columbia.

And so that's the type of solutions that we need to, to see with a bill like this. Thank you. This has been very helpful. Thank you. Thank you.

The chair now calls on Mr. Wahlberg for 5 minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the committee considering my bill, HR 8876, the Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention Act, and I would have loved to have been here to speak to that bill, but for the fact we just finished up in my committee a 10-bill markup that went off the rails for a little while. Aquatic invasive species are one of the biggest threats facing our waters, the fisheries we love, and economies that rely on them. Bottom line, this legislation protects our fisheries, our waterways, our infrastructure,, the $230 billion recreational boating and fishing economy, and more than 1.1 million American jobs.

Dr. Gaddon, it's good to see you, and also good to have another Michigander in the room, and I'd certainly be remiss if I didn't say, "Go Blue!" The Great Lakes have seen firsthand both the impacts of aquatic invasive species and the fishery recovery made possible through sea lamprey control program. Other aquatic invasive species like silver carp, zebra mussels, and cross-state lines and federal jurisdictions, we've seen all of that. Question I have: What lessons, what lessons can other regions of the country learn from the sea lamprey control program, and how would H.R. 8876 Improve coordination among the federal agencies, states and regional partners working to address these shared challenges? I thank you for that question, uh, Congressman, and also for introducing this legislation and for recognizing, uh, just what's at stake with invasive species.

And it is important to note that sea lamprey, like other invasive species, move around. They move from one jurisdiction to another. When we were trying to deal with the lamprey in the initial stages of the invasion, say in the 1930s and 1940s, Michigan was trying, Wisconsin was trying, Pennsylvania, Ontario, and the sum of the parts was never leading to an effective control program. The lamprey were being controlled in Michigan, they'd swim over to Wisconsin and spawn in those streams. So what that really tells you is that coordination among the jurisdictions was paramount.

It was all or nothing. What this legislation does is it heightens the amount of coordination that takes place among the states and also with the federal government, recognizing that invasive species might start in one region and move to another region. It means that the states need to work together to modernize and update their management plans so that they're able to act quickly. Early detection and rapid response is critical when you're dealing with invasive species policy. What this legislation, what your legislation does, is it, it asks the jurisdictions to update their management plan so that in a way we're pre-approved, like we, like a mortgage, like you're ready to act when it happens, not after you've dotted the i's and crossed all the t's when you know you should have taken action.

And that's what's important about this legislation. The lessons from the Lamprey is you have to work together, someone needs to be in charge, you have to coordinate that,. It has to be sustained. You have to apply science to it. And you have to deploy technologies.

A lot of the discussion today, I'm very interested in the conversations about the screw worm and the sterile fly technique. Well, we actually have a sterile male release technique in the lamprey program that we learned from the screw worm control. And it's the sharing of that kind of information and innovation that you're Bill does, it also really helps. And that's a lesson from the lamprey as well, that innovation is going to help. So those fill some of the gaps that are in the federal program right now.

That's right. And there are— so this act, some of the regimes that we have, or the mechanisms to work together, haven't been updated in many years, and that your legislation does that. It expands the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force so that we have more people working together, more capabilities of of coordinating, and the more you can coordinate, the more able you are to take the early action that you need to potentially stop an invasive species and its spread. And I think that's very important that we identify the vulnerable ecosystems, that we work together to know when the species might be moving into that, and then be ready to take immediate action. Grass carp, for example, on the sort of the eastern part of your district in Lake Erie, is trying to get a toehold.

That's a type of invasive carp, and we've been dedicating, with your help, significant resources to try and prevent that from happening. Your legislation does focus on that type of activity nationwide. And our record, record walleye and perch population there shows some of the results of that type of work. Yes, indeed. And you don't want to put that risks.

So thank you. Thank you. I know my time has expired, but Madam Chair, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter two documents. One, a letter from the National Marine Manufacturers Association in support of this legislation, and secondly, a coalition of organizations, conservation, marine, and sportsmen associations in support of this. Without objection, so ordered.

The chair now recognizes Ranking Member Hoyle for 5 minutes. Thank you, Dr. Merrick. I appreciate you being here in that with my Democratic colleagues, we have a wide spectrum of opinions on Penn and Penn management. I'm in a different place than you are, but I think it's important to have of all the information out there. Having said that, and I appreciate that you went to Oregon State.

I represent Oregon State. I would ask you a question with all of your experience. Whatever Peniped management system we're using, would you agree that it wouldn't— that it is more strategic to have that management system operating on both sides of the river as opposed to just one side of the river? Yes. As pinnipeds actually go to both sides of the river, correct?

Indeed. Yes. They don't respect that boundary going down the middle of the river. That's exactly right. Thank you.

And Mr. Pamplin, really impressive 25-year history working on this issue. It is a major, major problem. For my district, I represent the Central and South Coast and also a third of the members of the Grand Ronde, third of the members of the California tribe, Tolowa-Dene, and work with a lot of our tribes. I would like to know, have you coordinated with Oregon tribes and co-managers on these issues, and how much so and how?

Thank you, Ranking Member Hoyle, for the question. Yes, we've been working in the Columbia with the 4 member tribes of the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. So Yakama Nation and then your state— excuse me, Umatilla and Warm Springs, and then the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho. And we have been working with them for, for decades. They, under the original MMPA permit that we received in 2008.

They were leading a lot of the hazing efforts. And then more recently, as a result of the 2018 legislation, they were fellow permit authors that requested the permit that NMFS provided us in like 2018, 2020. So it's, it's been extensive coordination, not just on the pinniped removal. I should also say, as part of salmon recovery throughout the Columbia River Basin. Right.

And treaty tribes specifically, not other tribes that rely on salmon, but treaty tribes specifically.

Yes, on this issue it has been treaty tribes. I would say on salmon recovery fronts, we've worked with a number of non-tribes that do not have treaties. But, you know, we are focused in Washington State and work with the other executive order tribes throughout the Columbia River Basin as well. Sure. And then on this bill specifically, this particular bill, have you coordinated with Oregon tribes and co-managers?

I know you've worked with ODF&W, and I appreciate that. Yes, thank you. We have coordinated with ODF&W and as I mentioned, the two Oregon tribes that we've coordinated with on this bill include the representatives via the Warm Springs Tribe and Umatillas through the Columbia Basin Intertribal Fish Commission. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.

Also, I will ask you the question: do you think it's important to address both sides of the river and also for salmon recovery? I mean, what happens on the Columbia affects all of our salmon recovery efforts. Yes, thanks for the question. Uh, yes, absolutely. It's, it's an issue that doesn't recognize the, the state boundaries, and that's also why I— for me, I would just express support for the new Section 120 that also would provide the authorities to work in other localized areas to do removals, kind of apply that same geographic envelope that meets the definition of individually identifiable in principle.

Thanks. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Chairman Westerman for 5 minutes. Thank you, Chair Hageman, and thank you again to the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Pamplin, we've heard some pretty outlandish claims that are from opponents of H.R. 9621, That the bill would somehow open the door to the shooting of pinnipeds by recreational hunters. Do you have any response to that?

Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman, for the question. You know, I, I just want to start by just acknowledging I understand, uh, the public's concern about pinniped predation and sometimes voicing, uh, the, the frustration about the MMPA, the frustration of natural resource managers, the ability to intervene, and they're saying like, well, maybe we can help. But the fact is, the way this bill is written, and something that I'm very supportive of, is that the authority would go to the agencies and the tribes. So removals would be conducted humanely by professional staff of, of the state Fish and Wildlife agencies and the tribes. The bill speaks to the ability to contract entities, and in that instance, I think it would be that the, for instance, the Western Washington Treaty Tribes bringing in the Northwest Indian Fish Commission potentially as their entity, or the Lower Columbia Treaty Tribes delegating their authority to the Columbia Intertribal Fish Commission.

On our end, I— we have not had discussions with, but I could imagine partnering with USDA Animal Wildlife Services, which is a federal agency that has expertise and authority for dealing with all kinds of wildlife conflict scenarios. So this would all be done by professionals, and some— this would not be done by members of the public. Thank you. The poster that is being put up behind me shows the Common Hall outside near the estuary at Astoria, Oregon. While not in Washington, can you explain what pinniped management can occur in this stretch of the Columbia River where significant levels of predation have occurred?

Thanks for the question, Mr. Chairman. Uh, well, uh, that's outside of the geographic area of Section 120 that was amended in 2018. So the authorities that we would have to rely on if we needed to intervene in that particular situation, uh, would be a 120, where we would need to individually mark animals and then demonstrate that those individuals are consuming salmon and then ask NMPS the authority to remove that animal. Others avenues that are, are not used— Section 109 has never been used, which would be a transfer of management authority to the states, or Section 101, 103, 104, where you ask for a waiver of the take moratorium. And those, uh, in my understanding, in my career of following MMPA issues, that's been used less than 10 times and usually are not successful.

One application that I'm very familiar with because I co-authored it, uh, we submitted when I worked for the Makah Tribe in 2005, and that application is still being reviewed by NIMPS. It's 21 years later. You, you mentioned Section 120. The next poster shows where the current authority under Section 120 ends. There are roughly 100 miles between that point and the mouth of the Columbia River.

What challenges have fishery co-managers faced in the Columbia River without the ability to manage predation in this stretch?

Yeah, thanks, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and the figure is very helpful. Um, well, two main areas that, that jump out to me. One is, uh, under 120, the geographic area that removals can occur is above river mile 112, which is the I-205 bridge, um, and then in the tributaries to the Columbia. What we have in the case of the example Congresswoman Gluzenkamp-Perez had noted about the concerns about the Cowlitz River is the animals are actually hauled out in the main stem of the Columbia, which is off limits for 120F. They're going up and foraging into the tributary, but they're hauling out outside of the area that we could do removal.

How would the geographic scope covered by this bill improve state and tribal efforts to recover salmon populations? Thank you. It would, it would, it would allow the, the states and tribes to submit a permit to address areas throughout that, that region. So NOAA gave a presentation earlier this year and stated that, quote, while these MMPA authorizations to intentionally take Predatory sea lions have helped reduce predation at a small scale and in certain areas. They have not been particularly effective at achieving the overall goal of balancing the requirements of the ESA and the MMPA, end quote.

Why is that?

Yeah, I think that really comes down to the root of this issue is the balancing of the ESA and the MMPA. Um, the team had displayed, uh, the charts of, of harbor seal stocks, for instance, and they showed them essentially at the carrying capacity. I don't have similar charts for salmon. Salmon are imperiled. They're listed as endangered or as threatened.

And having some additional tools to continue to the suite of recovery actions that we have going, but also to address to unchecked pinniped predation is very important and appreciate that this bill allows for that opportunity. Thank you. I'm out of time, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the chair now recognizes Mr. Min for 5 minutes of questions.

Thank you, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Ahoyl, for holding this hearing. I'm here to express my support for Congresswoman Matsui's Whale Charts Act, which would develop new maps and tools to reduce deadly collisions with whales and other iconic marine animals. My district, which includes the coastlines around Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach, is a biodiversity hotspot. Among the types of marine life that we have are whales, and it's of course heartbreaking when we see these beautiful animals get injured by boats or wash up on shore. We have an institute called the Pacific Marine Mammal Center in my district in Laguna Beach, and we've been working with them, and they've been reporting increasing incidents of— this phenomenon, unfortunately.

And California's waters are, of course, home to some of the busiest shipping routes in the world, but they're also critical migration paths for endangered and threatened marine mammals. Whales face existential threats when their habitats are threatened by increased human activity and changing ocean conditions brought on by climate change. Last year, NOAA estimated that the Eastern North Pacific gray whale, which migrates off the coast of my district year round, saw its lowest population count since they began formal data collection in the 1960s. Whale entanglements are an enormous driver of these declines in population, and my district in Orange County has seen the consequences firsthand. In 2021, the carcass of a fin whale, the second largest mammal in the world behind the blue whale, washed onto Bolsa Chica State Park.

Investigators later discovered it to be an adult whale that was killed along with her calf by a vessel near near San Diego. Last year, a dead humpback whale was found near the Huntington Beach Pier with evidence of severe blunt force that was probably due to another vessel strike. A lot of this is happening because of El Niño, which you all are aware of, and we have seen several marine heat waves in the Pacific in recent years, which are having pretty dramatic effects on marine habitats. Later this year and going into the next, NOAA projects some of the strongest El Niño conditions to hit California on record, which may also incidentally bring around another harmful algal bloom. These compounding threats can be disastrous for marine mammals that are already on the brink of extinction.

Marine heat waves compress habitats and force species to move near cooler waters, pushing endangered whale populations into active fishing zones, increasing the risk of entanglements. When California last faced another strong El Niño in 2015, 2016, the strandings and deaths of marine mammals surged. According to the Pacific Marine Mammal Center that I mentioned, they typically test— rescue— or I'm sorry, during that time they rescued or rehabilitated around 600 animals during that time. The normal number for them is about 150 or so. Congresswoman Matsui's bill would provide a reasonable legislative solution to try to address these problems by ensuring that the maritime industry and the general public have the data needed to understand whale migration paths while funding new tools to help ensure that we avoid ship strikes and protecting these at-risk species.

Marine mammals, as has, I think, has been discussed, are not just an invaluable part of our nation's ecosystems, but also enable thriving coastal economies where thousands of Americans from across the country travel to districts like mine just to see these species up close and firsthand. So I'm proud to support this bill, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record House Joint Memorial 4004 from the Washington State Legislature, which in part stated that its authors respectfully pray that Congress modify the Marine Mammal Protection Act to address the pinniped predation on salmon stocks. Without objection, so ordered. I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today and for providing your very valuable testimony. I also want to thank the members for their engagement and their questioning. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing.

Under Committee Rule 3, members of the committee must submit such questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5:00 p.m. Eastern on Friday, July 24th, and the hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for those responses. If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.