19–010

Calendar No. 745

107TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 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

REPORT

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

2

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.

3

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.

4

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

5

the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no changes to

existing law.

Æ