Northwest Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill expands lethal removal authority for pinnipeds in the Pacific Northwest to reduce predation on vulnerable salmon and fish populations, while also promoting non-lethal exclusion technologies.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to significantly expand the authority for the lethal taking of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) in the Columbia River, its tributaries, and specific waters of the State of Washington. The primary purpose is to reduce predation on endangered or threatened salmon and other fish species. Additionally, it establishes a program to stimulate innovation in non-lethal pinniped exclusion technologies for the Columbia River.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that current pinniped populations have recovered to a point where their predation severely threatens already struggling salmon and steelhead populations, many of which are listed under the Endangered Species Act. They contend that expanded lethal removal is a necessary and immediate management tool to aid salmon recovery efforts, protect tribal fishing rights, and support local economies dependent on fishing.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that lethal removal of marine mammals is inhumane and may not be the most effective or sustainable solution for salmon recovery, pointing to other significant factors like habitat degradation, dams, and climate change. They might also raise concerns about the precedent set for marine mammal protection and advocate for a greater focus on non-lethal deterrence and broader ecosystem restoration.
The bill is concise and its core changes are clearly articulated, making it accessible for a quick and informed review by interested parties.
Section 2(a)(1) amending 16 U.S.C. 1389(f)
Expanded Adaptive Pinniped Management in Columbia River
This provision broadens existing authority under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to allow for the intentional lethal taking of pinnipeds (sea lions and seals) in the Columbia River and its tributaries. It removes previous geographic limitations, making the authority applicable throughout the Columbia River system, and expands the scope from 'sea lions' to 'pinnipeds,' allowing for the management of a wider range of species.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that current geographic restrictions are insufficient to protect vulnerable fish populations throughout the river system, and expanding the area of lethal take is critical for effective predation management. They contend that pinniped populations are robust and can sustain these removals without being jeopardized.
Critics contend
Opponents would argue that expanding lethal take geographically without clear evidence of its effectiveness across the entire river system is an overreach. They might also express concern about the potential for increased harm to pinniped populations and the precedent it sets for marine mammal protection.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between the conservation of marine mammal populations and the recovery of endangered fish species, as well as the economic and cultural interests of tribal and recreational fisheries.
Section 2(a)(1)(I) adding new paragraph (10) to 16 U.S.C. 1389(f)
Columbia River Pinniped Exclusion Technology Accelerator Program
This provision establishes a program within the National Marine Fisheries Service, in coordination with the Department of the Interior and the governors of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Its purpose is to stimulate innovation in developing non-lethal technologies to exclude pinnipeds from upstream salmon habitat and juvenile salmonid outmigration areas in the Columbia River and its tributaries, ensuring these technologies do not impede navigation or fish migration.
Section 2(a)(2) adding new subsection (k) to 16 U.S.C. 1389
New Lethal Take Authority for Washington State Waters
This provision grants new authority to the Secretary of Commerce to issue permits to the State of Washington and federally recognized Indian Tribes with treaty-reserved fishing rights in western Washington. These permits would allow for the intentional lethal taking of 'covered pinnipeds' (harbor seals, California sea lions, Steller sea lions not categorized as depleted or strategic) in 'covered waters' (rivers, streams, estuaries, bays, Puget Sound, and the Pacific Coast of Washington, excluding the Columbia River and its tributaries) to protect 'covered fish' (endangered/threatened salmon, steelhead, euchalon, or species of concern).
Section 2(a)(2) adding new paragraph (7) to 16 U.S.C. 1389(k)
Annual Take Limitations for Washington State Waters
This provision establishes a limit on the cumulative number of covered pinnipeds that can be taken each year under the new Washington State permits. This limit is set at 10 percent of the annual potential biological removal (PBR) level for covered pinnipeds, applying the existing process for sea lion take limitations under subsection (c) of the MMPA.
Section 2(b)
Study and Report on Pinniped Management Effect on Salmon Recovery
This section mandates the Secretary of Commerce, through the National Marine Fisheries Service, to conduct a 10-year study. The study will assess the effect of the expanded pinniped management actions authorized by the bill on the recovery of endangered or threatened salmon and steelhead species in the Columbia River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon. A report on the study's results must be submitted to Congress after 10 years.
The definition of 'covered fish' for the new Washington State lethal take authority includes not only Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species but also 'fish that is a species of concern.'
Section 2(a)(2) adding new 16 U.S.C. 1389(k)(8)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:This could be standard legislative practice to provide flexibility for conservation managers to address species before they reach critical status. Alternatively, it could be seen as an attempt to broaden the scope of the bill's application without explicitly listing all potential species, which might otherwise draw more scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents would argue that including 'species of concern' allows for proactive management to prevent species from becoming endangered or threatened, providing flexibility to address emerging conservation needs before they reach crisis levels.
Case against: Critics might argue that this term is vague and could lead to the lethal removal of pinnipeds for species that do not have the same level of protection or scientific justification as ESA-listed species, potentially expanding the scope of lethal take beyond what is strictly necessary.
Estimated impact: Potentially expands the scope of fish species for which lethal pinniped removal can be authorized in Washington State waters, increasing the potential for pinniped take.
States that nothing in the Act or its amendments may be construed to enlarge, confirm, adjudicate, modify, or otherwise affect any treaty or other right of an Indian Tribe.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to protect existing treaty rights when new legislation might otherwise be interpreted as impacting them. It is a common and often requested safeguard to ensure federal law respects tribal sovereignty.
Case for: Proponents would emphasize this as crucial for respecting and upholding the sovereign rights of Indian Tribes, ensuring that the bill's provisions for pinniped management do not inadvertently undermine or alter established treaty-reserved fishing rights.
Case against: No direct case against, as it is a protective clause. However, some might argue that while it protects existing rights, it doesn't necessarily enhance them or fully address the impacts of pinniped predation on tribal fisheries, which is a key concern for many tribes.
Estimated impact: Legally safeguards existing tribal treaty rights from unintended consequences of the bill, ensuring their continued legal standing.