Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?


                                                       Calendar No. 520
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     105-283
_______________________________________________________________________


 
         GREAT LAKES FISH AND WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT OF 1998

                                _______
                                

                 July 31, 1998.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


    Mr. Chafee, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 659]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 659), to amend the Great Lakes Fish and 
Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 to provide for implementation 
of recommendations of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service contained in the Great Lakes Fishery Restoration Study 
Report, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
with an amendment, and recommends that the bill do pass.

                    General Statement and Background

    The Great Lakes--Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and 
Ontario--contain almost 20 percent of the world's fresh surface 
water and cover approximately 95,000 square miles. Only the 
polar ice caps contain more fresh water than the Great Lakes. 
Approximately 25 percent of the total population of Canada and 
10 percent of the United States population live within the 
Great Lakes Basin, and 25 million people use it as their water 
supply. The Great Lakes serve as an enormous natural and 
economic resource to the approximately 35 million people who 
reside in the Basin, generating billions of dollars in economic 
activity, of which almost $7 billion is related to the fishing 
industry. The Basin also serves as home to hundreds of species 
of fish and wildlife, including 24 endangered or threatened 
species.
    Commercial fishing pressures in the post-Civil War period 
led to declines in native fish populations, which further 
declined drastically in the 1950's and the 1960's, due to 
overfishing, pollution and competition with nonidigenous 
species, particularly the sea lamprey. More recently, 
significant demands have been placed on the resources of the 
Great Lakes from boating, shipping, municipal and industrial 
water supply, waste disposal and power production.
    Although efforts by resource management agencies throughout 
the Basin have alleviated some of the problems, the challenges 
to restore the resources of the Basin are profound. This is due 
to a number of factors, including the complexity of the 
ecosystem, and the complexity of the institutional framework 
for managing the ecosystem. Managment authority ranges across 
two countries, eight States, two provinces, Native American 
tribes, municipalities, county boards, and quasi-governmental 
national and international agencies. Universities, research 
institutes, industry groups, conservation orgaizations and 
recreation groups all have an interest in the Basin's 
resources.
    It is in this context that Congress passed the Great Lakes 
Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act (the Act) in 1990. The 
purpose of the Act was to: carry out a comprehensive study on 
the status, management and restoration needs of fishery 
resources of the Basin; develop proposals to implement 
recommendations resulting from that study; and provide 
assistance to the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, States, 
Indian Tribes and other interested entities to encourage 
cooperative conservation, restoration and management of the 
fish and wildlife resources and their habitat.
    As required by the Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(the Service) prepared the Great Lakes Fishery Resources 
Restoration Study (the Study or Report), which was submitted to 
Congress in September 1995. This Study focused on the status of 
fishery resources and habitat in the Great Lakes Basin, 
including the effectiveness of present management plans, and 
analysis of the impacts and management control alternatives for 
recently introduced nonindigenous species. Thirty-two 
recommendations were developed regarding actions necessary to 
restore the fishery resources of the Basin to sustainable 
levels. In general, these recommendations address issues common 
to all five Great Lakes and their watersheds, and they identify 
priorities not currently funded, but nevertheless considered 
necessary for restoration objectives. They include planning, 
research, monitoring, fishery harvest management, habitat 
restoration, nonindigenous species control and pollution 
control.
    The Study concluded that an ecosystem approach in the 
stewardship and management of Great Lakes resources is vital 
for the success of restoration efforts. This approach requires 
coordination of water quality and fish management decisions, as 
well as cooperation among the different authorities.

                     Objectives of the Legislation

    The purposes of this legislation are to develop and 
implement proposals, based on the results of the Great Lakes 
Fishery Resources Restoration Study, for the restoration of 
fish and wildlife resources in the Great Lakes Basin.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short Title
    Section 1 designates the bill as the ``Great Lakes Fish and 
Wildlife Restoration Act of 1998.''
Section 2. Findings
    Section 2 sets forth the findings of Congress with respect 
to the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study. The 
Study found that despite the progress that has been made, 
additional actions and better coordination are needed to 
protect and manage fisheries and related resources in the Great 
Lakes Basin. The Study also recommended actions that are not 
currently being funded but are essential to meet goals and 
objectives in managing the resources of the Great Lakes Basin.
Section 3. Reference; Repeal
    Congress passed two identical versions of the Great Lakes 
Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 in Public Laws 101-
573 and 101-646. This section repeals title II of Public Law 
101-646, and clarifies that any reference to the Great Lakes 
Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 is a reference to the 
Act enacted by title I of Public Law 101-573.
Section 4. Purposes
    This section updates and revises the purposes of the Act, 
contained in section 1003, to include development and 
implementation of proposals for the restoration of fish and 
wildlife resources in the Great Lakes Basin.
Section 5. Definitions
    This section amends Section 1004 of the Act to provide 
definitions for ``Committee'', ``non-Federal source'', 
``Report'', and ``restoration''. In addition, the definition of 
``nonindigenous species'' is amended to include ``other 
organism.''
Section 6. Identification, Review, and Implementation of Proposals
    This section replaces section 1005 of the Act, which 
provided for the Study, with provisions for developing and 
implementing restoration proposals. Specifically, the Director 
of the Service is required to request, on an annual basis, 
proposals for the restoration of fish and wildlife resources 
from State Directors and Indian Tribes, in cooperation or 
partnership with other interested entities. Proposals must be 
based on the results of the Report, and must further be 
consistent with the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality 
Agreement, as revised in 1987, the 1954 Great Lakes Fisheries 
Convention, State and tribal fishery management jurisdiction, 
the 1980 Joint Strategic Plan for the management of Great Lakes 
fishery resources, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 
Prevention and Control Act, and the North American Waterfowl 
Management Plan and joint ventures established under the plan.
    The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Proposal 
Review Committee (the Committee) is established to review the 
proposals, and make recommendations to the Director of the 
Service. The Committee shall meet at least once a year and will 
operate under the auspices of the Council of Lakes Committee. 
The Committee shall include representatives from all State 
Directors and Indian Tribes with Great Lakes fish and wildlife 
management authority in the Great Lakes Basin. Nothing in this 
bill should be construed to enlarge or diminish the authority 
of any Indian Tribe with respect to management of fish and 
wildlife in the Great Lakes Basin. The Great Lakes Coordinator 
of the Service will serve on the Committee as an observer. 
Committee members must recuse themselves from consideration of 
proposals that the member, or the entity that the member 
represents, has submitted. This is intended to avoid any 
conflicts of interest in the Committee members' review and 
recommendation of individual proposals.
    In reviewing proposals, the Committee shall assess their 
effectiveness and appropriateness in fulfilling the purposes of 
the Act. In recommending proposals to the Director, the 
Committee shall prioritize their recommendations, taking into 
account the effectiveness and appropriateness of proposals in 
fulfilling the purposes of the laws applicable to restoration 
of the fishery resources and habitat of the Great Lakes Basin. 
As emphasized in the Report, coordination on an ecosystem-wide 
basis is essential for restoration of the Great Lakes Basin 
resources. Proposals that reflect this coordination and fulfill 
purposes of multiple laws to restore the Great Lakes Basin 
should be encouraged. After considering the recommendations of 
the Committee, the Director of the Service shall select and 
fund proposals, subject to available appropriations. Not less 
than twenty-five percent of the cost of any proposal must be 
funded by non-Federal sources, either in cash or through in-
kind contributions.
    Control of sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes Basin 
shall remain under the authority of the Great Lakes Fisheries 
Commission, and are not subject to the cost-sharing provision.
Section 7. Reports to Congress
    This section requires the Director of the Service to submit 
a report to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
Works and the House Committee on Resources describing actions 
taken to solicit, review and implement proposals under section 
1005, and the progress made toward the accomplishment of the 
goals specified in section 1006.
Section 8. Authorization of Appropriations
    This section authorizes up to $3.5 million in 
appropriations for each of the fiscal years 1998-2003 for the 
operation of the Great Lakes Coordination Office, the Upper 
Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office and the Lower Great Lakes 
Fishery Resources Office. The legislation also authorizes $4.5 
million for each of the fiscal years 1999-2003 for 
implementation of fish and wildlife restoration proposals 
selected by the Director of the Service, of which none shall be 
available for costs incurred in administering the proposals.

                                Hearings

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works held a 
hearing on S. 659 on July 7, 1998. Testimony was received from 
Mr. John Rogers, Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service; Mr. Gary Taylor, Legislative Director of the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and 
Mr. Thomas Crane, Program Manager of the Great Lakes 
Commission.

                          Legislative History

    On April 25, 1997, Senator Glenn introduced S. 659, the 
Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1998, which 
was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 
On Wednesday, July 22, 1998, the Committee held a business 
meeting to consider this bill. Senator Chafee offered an 
amendment in the form of a substitute. S. 659, as amended, was 
favorably reported by voice vote.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes evaluation of 
the regulatory impact of the reported bill. The reported bill 
will have no regulatory impact. This bill will not have any 
adverse impact on the personal privacy of individuals.

                          Mandates Assessment

    In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4), the Committee finds that S. 659 would 
impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State, 
local, or tribal governments. All of its governmental 
directives are imposed on Federal agencies. The bill does not 
directly impose any private sector mandates.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the 
reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be 
included in the report. That statement follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 24, 1998.

Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 659, the Great Lakes 
Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1998.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Victoria V. 
Heid (for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and 
Marjorie Miller (for the State, local, and tribal impact), who 
can be reached at 225-3220.
            Sincerely,
                                           June E. O'Neill,
                                                          Director.
                                ------                                


               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

S. 659, Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1998, 
as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works on July 22, 1998
Summary
    S. 659 would authorize the appropriation of $8 million for 
each of the fiscal years 1999-2003 to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the Department of the Interior for 
fish and wildlife restoration activities in the Great Lakes 
Basin.
    CBO estimates that implementing S. 659 would result in 
outlays of about $8 million in fiscal year 1999 and of $40 
million over the 1999-2003 period, assuming appropriation of 
the authorized amounts. Because S. 659 would not affect direct 
spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
    S. 659 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal 
governments.
Description of the bill's major provisions
    S. 659 would authorize the appropriation of $3.5 million 
for each of the fiscal years 1999-2003 for the operation of the 
three offices that coordinate all USFWS activities in the Great 
Lakes Basin: the Great Lakes Coordination Office, the Upper 
Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office, and the Lower Great Lakes 
Fishery Resources Office. These offices also provide 
administrative and technical support to carry out these 
activities. The previous authorization of appropriations for 
these offices expired in fiscal year 1995.
    S. 659 also would authorize the appropriation of $4.5 
million for each of the fiscal years 1999-2003 for the Federal 
costs associated with implementing fish and wildlife 
restoration projects approved by the Director of USFWS. The 
bill would establish a Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife 
Restoration Proposal Review Commission, composed of 
representatives of States and Indian tribes to evaluate 
proposed projects. Under S. 659, at least 25 percent of the 
total cost of implementing a proposal would have to be paid by 
non-federal sources in cash or through in-kind contributions. 
The bill also would direct USFWS to prepare a report on the 
review, implementation, and results of fish and wildlife 
restoration proposals in the Great Lakes Basin by December 31, 
2002.
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government
    The estimated budgetary impact of S. 659 is shown in the 
following table. For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes 
that the amounts authorized for these USFWS programs will be 
appropriated near the start of each fiscal year and that 
outlays will follow historical patterns for similar activities. 
We also assume that non-federal sources will provide matching 
contributions for restoration proposals on a timely basis. The 
costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 
(natural resources and the environment).

                                                                                                                
                                     by fiscal year, in Millions of Dollars                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Spending Subject to Appropriation                                                               
Spending Under Current Law:                                                                                     
    Budget Authority \1\........................................       2       0       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       1    *\2\    *\2\    *\2\       0       0
Proposed Changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization Level.........................................       0       8       8       8       8       8
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       0       7       8       8       8       8
Spending Under S. 659:                                                                                          
    Authorization Level \1\.....................................       2       8       8       8       8       8
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       1       8       8       8       8       8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1998 level is the amount appropriated for that year.                                                    
\2\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                         

    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
S. 659 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal 
governments. State or tribal governments that seek and receive 
Federal funds for fish and wildlife restoration projects, as 
authorized by this bill, would be required to pay at least 25 
percent of the projects' costs. In addition, State and tribal 
governments would incur some minor costs should they choose to 
participate in the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration 
Proposal Review Committee. These costs would be incurred 
voluntarily.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: S. 659 contains no 
private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Victoria V. Heid (226-
2860); Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie 
Miller (225-3220).
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill 
as reported are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in [black brackets], new matter is printed 
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown 
in roman:
                                ------                                


                           United States Code

                         Title 16--Conservation

Chapter 15B--Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    Sec. 941a. Purpose
    The purposes of this chapter are--
            [(1) to carry out a comprehensive study of the 
        status, and the assessment, management, and restoration 
        needs, of the fishery resources of the Great Lakes 
        Basin;]
            [(2) to develop proposals to implement 
        recommendations resulting from that study; and] (1) to 
        develop and implement proposals for the restoration of 
        fish and wildlife resources in the Great Lakes Basin; 
        and
            [(3)] (2) to provide assistance to the Great Lakes 
        Fisheries Commission, States, Indian Tribes, and other 
        interested entities to encourage cooperative 
        conservation, restoration and management of the fish 
        and wildlife resources and their [habitat of] habitat 
        in the Great Lakes Basin.
    Sec. 941b. Definitions
    In this chapter--
            (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
            (2) the term ``Committee'' means the Great Lakes 
        Fish and Wildlife Restoration Proposal Review Committee 
        established by section 1005(c);
            [(2)] (3) the term ``Director'' means the Director 
        of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
            [(3)] (4) the term ``fish stock'' means.--
                    (A) a taxonomically distinct species or 
                subspecies of fish; or
                    (B) any other aggregation of fish that are 
                geographically, ecologically, behaviorally, or 
                otherwise limited from breeding with 
                individuals from other groups of fish and are 
                capable of management as a unit;
            [(4)] (5) the term ``Great Lakes Basin'' means the 
        air, land, water, and living organisms within the 
        drainage basin of the Saint Lawrence River at or 
        upstream from the point at which the river becomes the 
        international boundary between Canada and the United 
        States;
            [(5)] (6) the term ``Indian Tribe'' means any 
        Indian tribe, band, village, nation, or other organized 
        group or community that is recognized by the Bureau of 
        Indian Affairs as eligible for the special programs and 
        services provided by the United States to Indians 
        because of their status as Indians;
            [(6)] (7) the term ``lower Great Lakes'' means the 
        region in which is located that portion of the Great 
        Lakes Basin which is downstream from the confluence of 
        the Saint Clair River and Lake Huron near Port Huron, 
        Michigan;
            (8) the term ``non-Federal source'' includes a 
        State government, local government, Indian Tribe, other 
        non-Federal governmental entity, private entity, and 
        individual;
            [(8)] (9) the term ``nonindigenous species'' means 
        a species of [plant or animal] plant, animal, or other 
        organism that did not occur in the Great Lake Basin 
        before European colonization of North America;
            (10) the term ``Report'' means the United States 
        Fish and Wildlife Service report entitled `Great Lakes 
        Fishery Resources Restoration Study', submitted to the 
        President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
        Representatives on September 13, 1995;
            (11) the term ``restoration'' means rehabilitation 
        and maintenance of the structure, function, diversity, 
        and dynamics of a biological system, including 
        reestablishment of self-sustaining populations of fish 
        and wildlife;
            [(9)] (12) the term ``Secretary'' means the 
        Secretary of the Army; [and]
            [(10)] (13) the term ``State Director'' means the 
        head of the agency, department, board, commission, or 
        other governmental entity of each of the States of New 
        York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, 
        Minnesota, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which 
        is responsible for the management and conservation of 
        the fish and wildlife resources of that State[.] ; and
            [(7)] (14) the term ``upper Great Lakes'' means 
        that portion of the Great Lakes Basin which is upstream 
        from the confluence of the Saint Clair River and Lake 
        Huron near Port Huron, Michigan.
    [Sec. 941c. Great Lakes fishery resources restoration 
study.--
    [(a) In general.--The Director shall conduct a 
comprehensive study of the status of, and the assessment, 
management, and restoration needs of, the fishery resources of 
the Great Lakes Basin and shall provide the opportunity for the 
Secretary, the Administrator, State Directors, Indian Tribes, 
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, appropriate Canadian 
Government entities, and other appropriate entities to 
participate in the study. The Director shall complete the study 
by October 1, 1994.
    [(b) Memorandum of understanding.--To provide opportunities 
for the full participation of all affected entities in the 
planning and conduct of the study, the Director shall invite 
the entities identified in subsection (a) of this section to 
enter into a memorandum of understanding regarding the scope 
and focus of the study and the responsibilities of each 
participant for conducting the study.
    [(c) Content of study.--A study under this section shall 
include, but not be limited to--
            [(1) identifying and describing the component 
        drainages of the Great Lakes Basin (including the 
        drainage for each of the Great Lakes), analyzing how 
        the characteristics and current or expected land and 
        water uses of those drainages have affected, and can be 
        expected to affect in the future, the fishery resources 
        and fish habitats of the Great Lakes Basin;
            [(2) analyzing historical fishery resource data for 
        the Great Lakes Basin to identify the causes of past 
        and continuing [de]clines of the fishery resources and 
        the impediments to restoring those resources;
            [(3) evaluating the adequacy, effectiveness, and 
        consistency of current Great Lakes interagency 
        fisheries management plans and Federal and State water 
        quality programs, with respect to their effects on 
        Great Lakes fishery resources;
            [(4) analyzing the impacts of, and management 
        control alternatives for, recently introduced 
        nonindigenous species, including the zebra mussel, the 
        ruffe, and the spiny water flea in accordance with the 
        Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 
        U.S.C. 4701 et seq.);
            [(5) developing recommendations regarding--
                    [(A) an action plan to analyze the effects 
                of contaminant levels on fishery resources;
                    [(B) an action plan for the cooperative 
                restoration and enhancement of depleted, 
                nationally significant fish stocks, including 
                lake trout, yellow perch, lake sturgeon, 
                walleye, forage fish, and Atlantic salmon;
                    [(C) planning and technical assistance that 
                should be provided to the Great Lakes Fisheries 
                Commission, States, and Indian Tribes to assist 
                their fishery resource restoration efforts;
                    [(D) mitigation measures to restore and 
                enhance fishery resources adversely affected by 
                past Federal (including federally assisted or 
                approved) water resource development projects 
                and other activities;
                    [(E) increasing the involvement of the 
                International Joint Commission, the Great Lakes 
                Commission, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 
                and other interjurisdictional entities 
                regarding fishery resources protection, 
                restoration, and enhancement;
                    [(F) research projects and data gathering 
                initiatives regarding population trends of fish 
                stocks, including population abundance and 
                structure, interspecific competition, survival 
                rates, and behavioral patterns;
                    [(G) important fishery resource habitat and 
                other areas that should be protected, restored, 
                or enhanced for the benefit of Great Lakes 
                fishery resources;
                    [(H) how private conservation 
                organizations, recreational and commercial 
                fishing interests, the aquaculture industry, 
                and the general public could contribute to the 
                implementation of the fishery resource 
                restoration and enhancement recommendations 
                developed pursuant to this chapter; and
                    [(I) appropriate contributions that should 
                be made by States and other non-Federal 
                entities to the cost of activities undertaken 
                to implement the recommendations, including a 
                description of.--
                            [(i) the activities that shall be 
                        cost-shared;
                            [(ii) the entities or individuals 
                        which shall share the costs of those 
                        activities;
                            [(iii) the proportion of 
                        appropriate project and activity costs 
                        that shall be borne by non-Federal 
                        interests; and
                            [(iv) how the entities or 
                        individuals who share costs should 
                        finance their contribution.
    [(d) Proposals for implementing recommendations.--The 
Director shall develop proposals for implementing the 
recommendations of the study developed under subsection (c)(5) 
of this section. The proposals shall be consistent with the 
goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, as revised in 
1987, the 1954 Great [L]akes Fisheries Convention, State and 
tribal fishery management jurisdiction, and the 1980 Joint 
Strategic Plan for the management of Great Lakes fishery 
resources.]
    Sec. 941c. Identification, review, and implementation of 
proposals._
    (a) In General.--The Director, in consultation with the 
Committee, shall encourage the development and, subject to the 
availability of appropriations, the implementation of proposals 
based on the results of the Report.
    (b) Identification of Proposals.--
            (1) Request by director.--The Director shall 
        annually request that State Directors and Indian 
        Tribes, in cooperation or partnership with other 
        interested entities and based on the results of the 
        Report, submit proposals for the restoration of fish 
        and wildlife resources.
            (2) Requirements for proposals.--A proposal under 
        paragraph (1) shall be submitted in the manner and form 
        prescribed by the Director and shall be consistent with 
        the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 
        as revised in 1987, the 1954 Great Lakes Fisheries 
        Convention, State and tribal fishery management 
        jurisdiction, the 1980 Joint Strategic Plan for the 
        management of Great Lakes fishery resources, the 
        Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control 
        Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.), and the North 
        American Waterfowl Management Plan and joint ventures 
        established under the plan.
            (3) Sea lamprey authority.--The Great Lakes Fishery 
        Commission shall retain authority and responsibility 
        for formulation and implementation of a comprehensive 
        program for eradicating or minimizing sea lamprey 
        populations in the Great Lakes Basin.
    (c) Review of Proposals.--
            (1) Establishment of committee.--There is 
        established the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife 
        Restoration Proposal Review Committee, which shall 
        operate under the auspices of the Council of Lake 
        Committees.
            (2) Membership and appointment.--
                    (A) In general.--The Committee shall 
                consist of representatives of all State 
                Directors and Indian Tribes with Great Lakes 
                fish and wildlife management authority in the 
                Great Lakes Basin.
                    (B) Appointments.--State Directors and 
                Tribal Chairs shall appoint their 
                representatives, who shall serve at the 
                pleasure of the appointing authority.
                    (C) Observer.--The Great Lakes Coordinator 
                of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
                shall participate as an observer of the 
                Committee.
                    (D) Recusal.--A member of the Committee 
                shall recuse himself or herself from 
                consideration of proposals that the member, or 
                the entity that the member represents, has 
                submitted.
            (3) Functions.--The Committee shall at least 
        annually--
                    (A) review proposals developed in 
                accordance with subsection (b) to assess their 
                effectiveness and appropriateness in fulfilling 
                the purposes of this title; and
                    (B) recommend to the Director priorities 
                for implementing the proposals, taking into 
                account the effectiveness and appropriateness 
                of the proposals in fulfilling the purposes of 
                other laws applicable to restoration of the 
                fishery resources and habitat of the Great 
                Lakes Basin.
    (d) Implementation of Proposals.--After considering the 
recommendations of the Committee and the goals specified in 
section 1006, the Director shall select proposals to be 
implemented and, subject to the availability of appropriations 
and subsection (e), fund implementation of the proposals.
    (e) Cost Sharing.--
            (1) In general.--Not less than 25 percent of the 
        cost of implementing a proposal selected under 
        subsection (d) (not including the cost of establishing 
        sea lamprey barriers) shall be paid in cash or in-kind 
        contributions by non-Federal sources.
            (2) Exclusion of federal funds from non-federal 
        share.--The Director may not consider the expenditure, 
        directly or indirectly, of Federal funds received by a 
        State or local government to be a contribution by a 
        non-Federal source for purposes of this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 941f. Annual reports.--[Not later than 1 year after 
the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, 
the Director shall submit a report to the Committee on Merchant 
Marine and [F]isheries of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. Each 
such report shall describe--
            [(1) the progress and findings of the studies 
        conducted under section 941c of this title, including 
        recommendations of implementing activities, where 
        appropriate, that would contribute to the restoration 
        or improvement of one or more fish stocks of the Great 
        Lakes Basin; and
            [(2) activities undertaken to accomplish the goals 
        stated in section 941d of this title.]
    On December 31, 2002, the Director shall submit to the 
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
report that describes--
            (1) actions taken to solicit and review proposals 
        under section 1005;
            (2) the results of proposals implemented under 
        section 1005; and
            (3) progress toward the accomplishment of the goals 
        specified in section 1006.
    Sec. 941g. Authorization of appropriations.
    [(a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Director--
            [(1) for conducting a study under section 941c of 
        this title not more than $4,000,000 for each of fiscal 
        years 1991 through 1994;
            [(2) to establish and operate the Great Lakes 
        Coordination Office under section 941f(a) of this title 
        and Upper Great Lakes Fishery Resources Offices under 
        section 941f(c) of this title, not more than $4,000,000 
        for each of fiscal years 1991 through 1995; and
            [(3) to establish and operate the Lower Great Lakes 
        Fishery Resources Offices under section 941f(b) 
        (FOOTNOTE 1) of this title, not more than $2,000,000 
        for each of fiscal years 1991 through 1995.
    [(b) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary to carry out this chapter, not more than $1,500,000 
for each of fiscal years 1991 through 1995.]
    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director--
            (1) for the operation of the Great Lakes 
        Coordination Office, the Upper Great Lakes Fishery 
        Resources Office, and the Lower Great Lakes Fishery 
        Resources Office under section 1007, $3,500,000 for 
        each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003; and
            (2) for implementation of fish and wildlife 
        restoration proposals selected by the Director under 
        section 1005(d), $4,500,000 for each of fiscal years 
        1999 through 2003, of which no funds shall be available 
        for costs incurred in administering the proposals.