```

[Senate Report 107-328]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 745
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     107-328

======================================================================

 
A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE PROJECT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AT SMITH 
                            ISLAND, MARYLAND

                                _______
                                

                November 4, 2002.--Ordered to be printed

 Filed, under the authority of the order of the Senate of October 17, 
                                  2002

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                         [to accompany S. 2984]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 
referred a bill (S. 2984) to authorize the project for 
environmental restoration at Smith Island, Maryland having 
considered the same, reports favorably without amendment and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                    General Statement and Background

    Projects and project modifications are ready for 
authorization by Congress after they have completed a 
reconnaissance and a feasibility study and received a positive 
recommendation from the Chief of Engineers in the form of a 
completed, signed Chief's Report. The project authorized by S. 
2984 has a completed, signed Chief's Report and has received a 
positive recommendation. This bill authorizes a project for 
environmental restoration at Smith Island, Maryland.
    This project is located in the Chesapeake Bay on Smith 
Island, located about 95 miles south of Baltimore. The island 
straddles the Maryland-Virginia State line, but all of the 
population and all project features are on the Maryland side. 
Smith Island is comprised of 97 percent emergent wetlands. The 
project area is within the largest contiguous submerged aquatic 
vegetation (SAV) bed in the Bay. This area has experienced 
continual decrease in coverage of SAV. It is believed that this 
is due in part to erosion taking place on Smith Island. In the 
last 150 years, Smith Island lost over 3300 acres of wetlands. 
Between 1992 and 1998, it lost almost 2400 acres. This project 
will protect and restore lost wetlands through the construction 
of offshore breakwaters, which will protect Smith Island from 
erosion. The Chief's Report was completed in October 2001, and 
the project received a favorable recommendation.

                     Objectives of the Legislation

    S. 2984 authorizes the project.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Smith Island, Maryland
    This section authorizes the project at a cost of $7,400,000 
with an estimated Federal cost of $4,800,000 and a non-Federal 
cost of $2,600,000.

                          Legislative History

    Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski introduced S. 2984 on 
September 19, 2002. The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works. The Committee considered the bill 
in a business meeting on September 26, 2002 and ordered the 
bill reported to the Senate.
    This type of project authorization bill would normally be 
included in a Comprehensive Water Resources Development Act 
(WRDA). However, the Administration did not submit a WRDA 
proposal to Congress this year for the first time since 1986. 
In the absence of a WRDA bill, the Committee passed S. 2984 to 
ensure that this project which has met requirements to be 
authorized can move forward.

                             Rollcall Votes

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to 
consider S. 2984 on September 26, 2002. The committee favorably 
reported the bill by voice vote. Senators Smith and Voinovich 
recorded a ``no'' vote.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    The bill does not create any additional regulatory burdens, 
nor will it cause 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. 2984 would 
impose no unfunded mandates on State, local, or tribal 
governments.

                          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, October 7, 2002.

Hon. James M. Jeffords, 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. 2984, a bill to 
authorize a project for environmental restoration at Smith 
Island, Maryland.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie 
Middleton, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                            Dan L. Crippen.
                              ----------                              

S. 2984, A bill to authorize a project for environmental restoration at 
        Smith Island, Maryland, as ordered reported by the Senate 
        Committee on Environment and Public Works on September 26, 2002
Summary
    S. 2984 would authorize the Secretary of the Army through 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an environmental 
restoration project on Smith Island in the Chesapeake Bay. This 
project would be designed to protect the shoreline, restore 
wetlands, and control erosion. The bill would authorize a total 
project cost of $7.4 million (in 2000 dollars) that could be 
adjusted for inflation. Under this bill, the Federal share of 
the cost would be $4.8 million and the non-Federal share of the 
cost would be $2.6 million.
    Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, including 
adjustments for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates that the 
Federal cost for implementing S. 2984 would total about $5 
million over the 2003-2007 period. Enacting S. 2984 would not 
affect direct spending or revenues.
    S. 2984 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. The Federal assistance authorized by this bill 
would benefit any State and local governments choosing to 
participate in this project. Any costs they would incur to 
comply with the conditions of this assistance, including 
matching requirements, would be voluntary.
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government
    The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2984 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

                 By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2003    2004    2005    2006    2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO
          APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level...       0       2       2       1       0
Estimated Outlays...............       0       1       2       2       0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis of Estimate
    For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 2984 will be enacted 
in fiscal year 2003 and that amounts will be appropriated to 
meet the Corps' anticipated construction schedule for the 
project. Based on information from the Army Corps of Engineers, 
CBO estimates that implementing S. 2984 would cost about $5 
million over the 2003-2007 period, including adjustments for 
anticipated inflation. (That amount reflects the Federal share 
of the project's cost.)
Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact
    S. 2984 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on State, 
local, or tribal governments. The Federal assistance authorized 
by this bill would benefit any State and local governments 
choosing to participate in this project. Any costs they would 
incur to comply with the conditions of this assistance, 
including matching requirements, would be voluntary.

Estimate Prepared By: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton; Impact on 
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller; Impact 
on the Private Sector: Lauren Marks.

Estimate Approved By: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

             Minority Views of Senators Smith and Voinovich

    While we understand that this project would have met 
committee criteria if it were under consideration for the 
biennial Water Resources Development Act, we oppose its passage 
as freestanding legislation. Given the lack of a Water 
Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2002, we think it is a bad 
precedent to set for the Committee to authorize projects 
piecemeal, regardless of the favorable status of the Chief of 
Engineer's report. It is our belief that proceeding in this 
manner undermines the WRDA process and could result in its 
ultimate collapse. Furthermore, authorizing this project 
outside the context of a WRDA bill reduces the possibility of 
pursuing key policy provisions.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
requires the committee to publish changes in existing law made 
by the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no 
changes to existing law.


```