REVIEW PLAN

Continuing Authorities Program

Section 14, Flood Control Act of 1946, as amended

Emergency Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Protection of Public Works

DECISION DOCUMENT REVIEW PLAN

Hookerton, NC - Section 14 Combined Feasibility Report and

Environmental Assessment, Greene County, NC

Wilmington District

MSC Approval Date: 5 February 2015

Last Revision Date: N/A

iii

DECISION DOCUMENT REVIEW PLAN

Hookerton, NC Emergency Stream bank & Shoreline Erosion Protection, Hookerton, NC

Section 14 Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................... 1

2. REVIEW MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (RMO) COORDINATION .................................................... 2

3. STUDY INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................... 2

4. DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL (DQC)..................................................................................................... 4

5. AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW (ATR) ..................................................................................................... 4

6. INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW (IEPR) ................................................................................... 6

7. POLICY AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 6

8. COST ENGINEERING Directory of Expertise (DX) REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION ................................ 6

9. MODEL CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL ............................................................................................. 6

10. REVIEW SCHEDULES AND COSTS ..................................................................................................... 7

11. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................................................... 7

12. REVIEW PLAN APPROVAL AND UPDATES ........................................................................................ 8

13. REVIEW PLAN POINTS OF CONTACT ................................................................................................ 8

ATTACHMENT 1: TEAM ROSTERS ................................................................................................................ 9

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE STATEMENT OF TECHNICAL REVIEW FOR DECSION DOCUMENTS ................ 10

ATTACHMENT 3: REVIEW PLAN REVISIONS .............................................................................................. 11

ATTACHMENT 4: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... 12

1. PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS

a. Purpose. This Review Plan defines the scope and level of peer review for the Hookerton, NC

Emergency Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Protection study in Hookerton, NC, Section 14 project

decision document.

Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, as amended, authorizes the US Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) to study, design and construct emergency streambank and shoreline works to protect

public services including (but not limited to) streets, bridges, schools, water and sewer lines,

National Register sites, and churches from damage or loss by natural erosion. It is a Continuing

Authorities Program (CAP) which focuses on water resource related projects of relatively smaller

scope, cost and complexity. Traditional USACE civil works projects are of wider scope and

complexity and are specifically authorized by Congress. The Continuing Authorities Program is a

delegated authority to plan, design, and construct certain types of water resource and

environmental restoration projects without specific Congressional authorization.

Additional Information on this program can be found in Engineering Regulation 1105-2-100,

Planning Guidance Notebook, Appendix F.

b. Applicability. This review plan is for a CAP Section 14 project decision document. In accordance

with Engineering Regulation (ER) 1165-2-214 Civil Works Policy Review, a project does not require

Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) if ALL

of the following specific criteria are met:

• The project does not involve a significant threat to human life/safety assurance;

• The total project cost is less than $45 million;

• There is no request by the Governor of an affected state for a peer review by independent

experts;

• The project does not require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),

• The project/study is not likely to involve significant public dispute as to the size, nature, or

effects of the project;

• The project/study is not likely to involve significant public dispute as to the economic or

environmental cost or benefit of the project;

• The information in the decision document or anticipated project design is not likely to be based

on novel methods, involve the use of innovative materials or techniques, present complex

challenges for interpretation, contain precedent-setting methods or models, or present

conclusions that are likely to change prevailing practices;

• The project design is not anticipated to require redundancy, resiliency, and/or robustness,

unique construction sequencing, or a reduced or overlapping design construction schedule; and

• There are no other circumstances where the Chief of Engineers or Director of Civil Works

determines Type I IEPR is warranted.

This review plan does not cover implementation products. A review plan for the design and

implementation phase of the project will be developed prior to approval of the final decision

document in accordance with EC 1165-2-214.

c. References

(1) Director of Policy Memorandum #1 dated January 19, 2011, subject: Continuing Authorities

Program Planning Process Improvements

(2) Engineering Circular (EC) 1165-2-214, Civil Works Review Policy, 15 Dec 2012

(3) EC 1105-2-407, Planning Models Improvement Program: Model Certification, 31 May 2005

(4) Engineering Regulation (ER) 1110-1-12, Quality Management, 30 Sep 2006

(5) ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook, Appendix F, Continuing Authorities Program,

Amendment #2, 31 Jan 2007

(6) ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook, Appendix H, Policy Compliance Review and

Approval of Decision Documents, Amendment #1, 20 Nov 2007

d. Requirements. This review plan was developed in accordance with EC 1165-2-214, which

establishes an accountable, comprehensive, life-cycle review strategy for Civil Works products by

providing a seamless process for review of all Civil Works projects from initial planning through

design, construction, and operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation

(OMRR&R). The EC outlines four general levels of review: District Quality Control/Quality Assurance

(DQC), Agency Technical Review (ATR), Independent External Peer Review (IEPR), and Policy and

Legal Compliance Review. In addition to these levels of review, decision documents are subject to

cost engineering review and certification (per EC 1165-2-214) and planning model

certification/approval (per EC 1105-2-412).

2. REVIEW MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (RMO) COORDINATION

The RMO is responsible for managing the overall peer review effort described in this review plan. The

RMO for Section 14 decision documents is the home MSC. The MSC will coordinate and approve the

review plan and manage the ATR. The home District will post the approved review plan on its public

website. A copy of the approved review plan (and any updates) will be provided to the FRM-PCX to keep

the PCX apprised of requirements and review schedules. The ATR lead will be from outside the home

MSC unless the CAP review plan justifies an exception and is explicitly approved by the MSC

Commander, per EC 1165-2-214, paragraph 9c. This review plan does not request the ATR lead to be

within the home MSC.

3. STUDY INFORMATION

a. Decision Document. The Hookerton, NC Emergency Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Protection

decision document will be prepared in accordance with ER 1105-2-100, Appendix F. The approval

level of the decision document (if policy compliant) is the home MSC – South Atlantic Division. An

Environmental Assessment (EA) will be prepared along with the decision document.

b. Study/Project Description. The Town of Hookerton is located in Greene County in eastern North

Carolina. The Town currently operates a 0.06 MGD wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) which

includes three wastewater settling lagoons located on the north side of Contentnea Creek. The

facility treats raw wastewater and discharges treated effluent to the north shore of the Creek in

accordance with the provisions of NPDES Discharge Permit No. NC0025712. The southernmost of

the three lagoon cells is located adjacent to an oxbow bend on Contentnea Creek, which feeds the

Neuse River. Severe erosion along the bend of the Creek poses an imminent threat to the adjacent

berm which stabilizes the large wastewater lagoon. A site inspection on 17 December 2014 showed

erosion within three (3) feet of the toe of the berm at its closest point. There is concern that a

slope failure of the berm may soon occur at this site. Slope failure appears very likely to occur due to

a combination of erosion and high head between the water in the pond and the creek.

Consequences of failure would include loss of wastewater services to the Town of Hookerton, and

potentially significant sewage spills into Contentnea Creek. The problem can be addressed by a

structural or non-structural solution. The study will investigate a no action alternative and various

protection alternatives for the wastewater settling lagoon cell nearest to the oxbow bend of

Contentnea Creek. Alternatives will likely include variations of shoreline armoring in addition to

relocation. Estimated costs for a recommended plan will likely be within the range of $500k -

$1,500k. The non-Federal sponsor for this study and project will be the Town of Hookerton, NC.

c. Factors Affecting the Scope and Level of Review. This section of the Review Plan discusses the

factors to determine the appropriate scope and level of review for the decision document as

specified in EC 1165-2-214. This information has been used to recommend the appropriate level of

review and select the types of expertise represented on the review teams.

• The purpose of this study is to identify alternatives to protect a wastewater treatment lagoon

from erosion along Contentnea Creek. The scope and size of the project is very limited, and

alternative designs are expected to be routine without considerable challenges.

• The proposed project does not appear to include risks that are greater than normally would be

expected for an Emergency Streambank & Shoreline protection study. The total project costs

are anticipated to be less than $2 million. Design of the protection for the wastewater lagoon

berm will need to adequately prevent erosion from threatening the facility to prevent eventual

berm failure.

• No significant threat to human life exists. The project involves constructing measures, likely a

revetment of some type, to project a wastewater treatment lagoon along Contentnea Creek.

• There is no request by the Governor of an affected state for a peer review by independent

experts.

• It is very unlikely that the proposed study will involve significant public dispute as to the size,

nature, or effects of the project due to the small nature and imminent threat to the public

facility.

• Due to the requirements for the project to cost less than the price of relocation of the facility,

and due to the lack of significant environmental resources in the immediate area, it is unlikely

that the study will involve significant public dispute over economic or environmental costs and

benefits.

• Streambank and shoreline erosion protection for structures is common practice and has been

routine.

• The project design is not anticipated to require redundancy, resiliency, and/or robustness,

unique construction sequencing, or a reduced or overlapping design construction schedule.

Standard shoreline erosion protection methods are anticipated.

d. In-Kind Contributions. Products and analyses provided by non-Federal sponsors as in-kind services

are subject to DQC and ATR, similar to any products developed by USACE. However, no in-kind

products are anticipated.

4. DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL (DQC)

All decision documents (including supporting data, analyses, environmental compliance documents,

etc.) shall undergo DQC. DQC is an internal review process of basic science and engineering work

products focused on fulfilling the project quality requirements defined in the Project Management Plan

(PMP). The home district shall manage DQC. Documentation of DQC activities is required and should be

in accordance with the Quality Manual of the District and the home MSC.

DQC comments will be documented in a Microsoft Word document and provided to the ATR team.

5. AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW (ATR)

ATR is mandatory for all decision documents (including supporting data, analyses, environmental

compliance documents, etc.). The objective of ATR is to ensure consistency with established criteria,

guidance, procedures, and policy. The ATR will assess whether the analyses presented are technically

correct and comply with published USACE guidance, and that the document explains the analyses and

results in a reasonably clear manner for the public and decision makers. ATR is managed within USACE

by the designated RMO and is conducted by a qualified team from outside the home district that is not

involved in the day-to-day production of the project/product. ATR teams will be comprised of senior

USACE personnel and may be supplemented by outside experts as appropriate. The ATR team lead will

be from outside the home MSC.

a. Products to Undergo ATR. The ATR shall be documented and discussed at the Alternative

Formulation Briefing (AFB) milestone. Certification of the ATR will be provided prior to the District

Commander signing the final report. Products to undergo ATR include the Draft Combined

Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment, including technical appendices. ATR will occur

after the identification of the NED/NER plan and prior to the Alternative Formulation Briefing (AFB).

b. Required ATR Team Expertise. The ATR team lead will reside outside the Wilmington District, but

may reside inside South Atlantic Division (SAD).

ATR Team Members/Disciplines

Expertise Required

ATR Lead

The ATR lead should be a senior professional preferably with

experience in preparing Section 14 documents and conducting

ATR. The lead should also have the necessary skills and

experience to lead a virtual team through the ATR process. The

ATR lead will also serve as a reviewer for a specific discipline

(such as planning, economics, environmental resources, etc). The

ATR Lead MUST be from outside South Atlantic Division.

Planning

The Planning reviewer should be a senior water resources planner

with experience in plan formulation of CAP projects, preferably

with Section 14 experience.

Environmental Resources

Team member will have experience with NEPA and EA.

Experience with streambank erosion protection projects is

preferable.

Civil Engineering

Civil Engineer should be familiar with the design of streambank

erosion protection structures. Team member also should have

experience with hydraulic design for determination of rip-rap

stone design.

Cost Engineering

Cost DX Staff or Cost DX Pre-Certified Professional with

experience preparing cost estimates for CAP projects, preferably

with Section 14 experience.

c. Documentation of ATR. DrChecks review software will be used to document all ATR comments,

responses and associated resolutions accomplished throughout the review process. Comments

should be limited to those that are required to ensure adequacy of the product. The four key parts

of a quality review comment will normally include:

(1) The review concern – identify the product’s information deficiency or incorrect application

of policy, guidance, or procedures;

(2) The basis for the concern – cite the appropriate law, policy, guidance, or procedure that has

not been properly followed;

(3) The significance of the concern – indicate the importance of the concern with regard to its

potential impact on the plan selection, recommended plan components, efficiency (cost),

effectiveness (function/outputs), implementation responsibilities, safety, Federal interest,

or public acceptability; and

(4) The probable specific action needed to resolve the concern – identify the action(s) that the

reporting officers must take to resolve the concern.

In some situations, especially addressing incomplete or unclear information, comments may seek

clarification in order to then assess whether further specific concerns may exist.

The ATR documentation in DrChecks will include the text of each ATR concern, the PDT response, a

brief summary of the pertinent points in any discussion, including any vertical team coordination

(the vertical team includes the district, RMO, MSC, and HQUSACE), and the agreed upon resolution.

If an ATR concern cannot be satisfactorily resolved between the ATR team and the PDT, it will be

elevated to the vertical team for further resolution in accordance with the policy issue resolution

process described in either ER 1110-2-12 or ER 1105-2-100, Appendix H, as appropriate. Unresolved

concerns can be closed in DrChecks with a notation that the concern has been elevated to the

vertical team for resolution.

At the conclusion of each ATR effort, the ATR team will prepare a Review Report summarizing the

review. Review Reports will be considered an integral part of the ATR documentation and shall:

 Identify the document(s) reviewed and the purpose of the review;

 Disclose the names of the reviewers, their organizational affiliations, and include a short

paragraph on both the credentials and relevant experiences of each reviewer;

 Include the charge to the reviewers;

 Describe the nature of their review and their findings and conclusions;

 Identify and summarize each unresolved issue (if any); and

 Include a verbatim copy of each reviewer's comments (either with or without specific

attributions), or represent the views of the group as a whole, including any disparate and

dissenting views.

ATR may be certified when all ATR concerns are either resolved or referred to the vertical team for

resolution and the ATR documentation is complete. The ATR Lead will prepare a Statement of

Technical Review certifying that the issues raised by the ATR team have been resolved (or elevated

to the vertical team). A Statement of Technical Review should be completed prior to the District

Commander signing the final report. A sample Statement of Technical Review is included in

Attachment 2.

6. INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW (IEPR)

IEPR may be required for decision documents under certain circumstances as described in EC 1165-2-

214. However, CECW-P memorandum, 19 Jan 2011, subject: Continuing Authorities Program Planning

Process Improvements provides that IEPR is not required for this type of project.

a. Decision on IEPR. Based on the information and analysis provided in the preceding paragraphs of

this review plan, the project covered under this plan is excluded from IEPR because it does not meet

the mandatory IEPR triggers and does not warrant IEPR based on a risk-informed analysis.

b. Products to Undergo Type I IEPR. Not applicable.

c. Required Type I IEPR Panel Expertise. Not Applicable.

d. Documentation of Type I IEPR. Not Applicable.

7. POLICY AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW

All decision documents will be reviewed throughout the study process for their compliance with law and

policy. Guidance for policy and legal compliance reviews is addressed in Appendix H, ER 1105-2-100.

These reviews culminate in determinations that the recommendations in the reports and the supporting

analyses and coordination comply with law and policy, and warrant approval or further

recommendation to higher authority by the home MSC Commander. DQC and ATR augment and

complement the policy review processes by addressing compliance with pertinent published Army

policies, particularly policies on analytical methods and the presentation of findings in decision

documents.

8. COST ENGINEERING DIRECTORY OF EXPERTISE (DX) REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION

All decision documents shall be coordinated with the Cost Engineering DX, located in the Walla Walla

District. According to the DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS’ POLICY MEMORANDUM #1, CAP Planning Process

Improvements memo dated January 19, 2011, regional cost personnel that are pre-certified by the DX

can conduct the cost engineering ATR. The DX will provide the Cost Engineering DX certification. The

RMO will coordinate with the Cost Engineering DX on the selection of the cost engineering ATR team

member.

9. MODEL CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

Approval for planning models under EC 1105-2-412 is not required for CAP projects. However, ATR of

planning models and their use or application for this specific study is required and will ensure soundness

of models. Planning models, for the purposes of the EC, are defined as any models and analytical tools

that planners use to define water resources management problems and opportunities, to formulate

potential alternatives to address the problems and take advantage of the opportunities, to evaluate

potential effects of alternatives and to support decision making. The use of a certified/approved

planning model does not constitute technical review of the planning product. The selection and

application of the model and the input and output data is still the responsibility of the users and is

subject to DQC, ATR, and IEPR (if required). EC 1105-2-412 does not cover engineering models used in

planning. The responsible use of well-known and proven USACE developed and commercial engineering

software will continue and the professional practice of documenting the application of the software and

modeling results will be followed. The use of engineering models is also subject to DQC, ATR, and IEPR

(if required).

The ATR team will ensure the model is theoretically and computationally sound, consistent with USACE

policies, and adequately documented.

a. Planning Models. No planning models are anticipated to be used in the development of the

decision document:

b. Engineering Models. No engineering models are anticipated to be used in the development of the

decision document.

10. REVIEW SCHEDULES AND COSTS

a. ATR Schedule and Cost. The next milestone review utilizing ATR is estimated to be completed in

May 2015. This is after identification of the NED Plan and prior to the Alternative Formulation

Briefing (AFB). Based upon a previous Section 14 ATR, and in coordination with potential ATRT

members, the ATR is estimated to cost approximately $10k, and take 2 to 3 weeks. The estimates

may change as the study progresses.

b. Type I IEPR Schedule and Cost. Not applicable.

c. Model Certification/Approval Schedule and Cost. Use of existing certified or approved planning

models is encouraged. However, approval of planning models under EC 1105-2-412 is not required

for CAP projects. The ATR team will apply the principles of EC 1105-2-412 during the ATR to ensure

the model is theoretically and computationally sound, consistent with USACE policies, and

adequately documented.

11. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

State and Federal resource agencies may be invited to participate in the study covered by this review

plan as partner agencies or as technical members of the PDT, as appropriate. Agencies with regulatory

review responsibilities will be contacted for coordination as required by applicable laws and procedures.

The ATR team will be provided copies of public and agency comments. A Public Scoping letter soliciting

comments will be submitted to the local news paper as well as the local municipality and various

agencies. The final decision document and associated review reports will be made available to the

public via posting on the District website.

12. REVIEW PLAN APPROVAL AND UPDATES

The review plan will be approved by the MSC Commander. The review plan is a living document and

may change as the study progresses. The home district is responsible for keeping the review plan up to

date. Minor changes to the review plan since the last MSC Commander approval are documented in

Attachment 3. Significant changes to the review plan (such as changes to the scope and/or level of

review) should be re-approved by the MSC Commander following the process used for initially

approving the plan. The latest version of the review plan, along with the Commanders’ approval

memorandum, will be posted on the home district’s webpage.

13. REVIEW PLAN POINTS OF CONTACT

Public questions and/or comments on this review plan can be directed to the following points of

contact:

District:

 Chris Moore, Project Manager – (910) 251-4483

 Jason Glazener, Planning Technical Lead – (910) 251-4910

MSC/RMO:

 Kenitra Stewart, SAD Planning CAP Manager – (404) 562-5229

ATTACHMENT 1: TEAM ROSTERS

Project Delivery Team

Name Role

Office

Symbol

Telephone Email

Chris Moore

Project

Manager

SAW-PM

910-251-4483

Daniel.C.Moore@usace.army.mil

Jason Glazener

Planning Lead

SAW-ECP-

910-251-4910

Jason.s.glazener@usace.army.mil

Justin Bashaw

Biologist &

Cultural

Resources

SAW-ECP-

910-251-4581

Justin.P.Bashaw@usace.army.mil

Larry Creech

Engineering

Design

SAW-ECP-

910-251-4718

Larry.T.Creech@usace.army.mil

John Caldwell

Cost

Engineering

SAW-ECP-

910-251-4586

John.C.Caldwell@usace.army.mil

Zach Nichols

Geotechnical

Engineering

SAW-ECP-

910-251-4696

Zachry.L.Nichols@usace.army.mil

Lisa Bordeaux

CAP Program

Manager

SAW-PM-P

910-251-4638

[email protected]

Angie Tooley

Sponsor/

Town Planner

Town of

Hookerton

252-747-3816

Atooley777@yahoo.com

Agency Technical Review (ATR) Team

ATR members have not been selected at this time, although there has been coordination with Monica

Dodd from SAS as an ATR Lead/Planner role.

Major Subordinate Command (MSC)

Pat O’Donnell (404) 562-5226

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE STATEMENT OF TECHNICAL REVIEW FOR DECSION DOCUMENTS

COMPLETION OF AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW

The Agency Technical Review (ATR) has been completed for the <type of product> for <project name and

location>. The ATR was conducted as defined in the project’s Review Plan to comply with the requirements of EC

1165-2-209. During the ATR, compliance with established policy principles and procedures, utilizing justified and

valid assumptions, was verified. This included review of: assumptions, methods, procedures, and material used in

analyses, alternatives evaluated, the appropriateness of data used and level obtained, and reasonableness of the

results, including whether the product meets the customer’s needs consistent with law and existing US Army Corps

of Engineers policy. The ATR also assessed the District Quality Control (DQC) documentation and made the

determination that the DQC activities employed appear to be appropriate and effective. All comments resulting

from the ATR have been resolved and the comments have been closed in DrChecks

SIGNATURE

Name

Date

ATR Team Leader

Office Symbol/Company

SIGNATURE

Name

Date

Project Manager (home district)

Office Symbol

SIGNATURE

Name

Date

Review Management Office Representative

Office Symbol

CERTIFICATION OF AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW

Significant concerns and the explanation of the resolution are as follows: Describe the major technical concerns and

their resolution.

As noted above, all concerns resulting from the ATR of the project have been fully resolved.

SIGNATURE

Name

Date

Chief, Engineering Division (home district)

Office Symbol

SIGNATURE

Name

Date

Chief, Planning Division (home district)

Office Symbol

ATTACHMENT 3: REVIEW PLAN REVISIONS

Revision Date Description of Change

Page / Paragraph

Number

ATTACHMENT 4: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Term Definition Term Definition

AFB

Alternative Formulation Briefing

NED

National Economic Development

ASA(CW)

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil

Works

NER

National Ecosystem Restoration

ATR

Agency Technical Review

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

CAP

Continuing Authorities Program

O&M

Operation and maintenance

CSDR

Coastal Storm Damage Reduction

OMB

Office and Management and Budget

Design and Implementation Phase

OMRR&R

Operation, Maintenance, Repair,

Replacement and Rehabilitation

DPR

Detailed Project Report

OEO

Outside Eligible Organization

DQC

District Quality Control/Quality Assurance

OSE

Other Social Effects

Directory of Expertise

PCX

Planning Center of Expertise

Environmental Assessment

PDT

Project Delivery Team

Engineer Circular

PAC

Post Authorization Change

EIS

Environmental Impact Statement

PMP

Project Management Plan

Executive Order

Public Law

Ecosystem Restoration

QMP

Quality Management Plan

FDR

Flood Damage Reduction

PPA

Project Partnership Agreement

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Quality Assurance

FID

Federal Interest Determination

Quality Control

FRM

Flood Risk Management

RED

Regional Economic Development

FSM

Feasibility Scoping Meeting

RMC

Risk Management Center

GRR

General Reevaluation Report

RMO

Review Management Organization

HQUSACE

Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers

RTS

Regional Technical Specialist

IEPR

Independent External Peer Review

SAR

Safety Assurance Review

LRR

Limited Reevaluation Report

USACE

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

MSC

Major Subordinate Command

WRDA

Water Resources Development Act