Responsiveness and Reliability:

A History of the Philadelphia District and the Marine 

Design Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972–2008

by

Matthew C. Godfrey

Joshua Pollarine

Paul Sadin

Historical Research Associates, Inc.

Prepared for the 

Philadelphia District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

2012
Preceding page: The Dredge McFarland transiting the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal east of Reedy Point Bridge
iii

Contents

Contents � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � iii

Foreword from the District Commander� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � vi

Acknowledgments � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � viii

Introduction� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � xi

Historical Time Line � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � xviii

1 Reorganizations and Responses: The Evolution 

of the Philadelphia District, 1972–2008 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Effects of the Environmental Movement and NEPA� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3

Corps Reorganization in the 1970s and 1980s � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 10

Corps Reorganization in the 1990s� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 16

Regionalization and USACE 2012 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 24

Project Management Initiatives� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 27

Perceptions of the Philadelphia District � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 34

2 Dams, Basin Planning, and Flood Risk Management � 41

Tocks Island Dam � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 43

Trexler Lake Project � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 62

Beltzville Lake and Blue Marsh Lake � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 65

The Level B Study and the Delaware Estuary Salinity 

Intrusion Study � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 79

Modifications to Walter and Prompton Dams � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 83

National Dam Safety Inspection Program � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 91

Molly Ann’s Brook Project � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 95

Continuing Authorities Program � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 97
iv

Contents

3 Coastal Engineering and Storm Risk 

Management � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 107

Early Coastal Protection Projects� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 109

Coastal Protection Projects in New Jersey� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �116

Coastal Protection Projects in Delaware � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 124

Inlet Navigation Improvement Projects � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 131

4 Waterways, Navigation, and Dredging � � � � � � � � � � � � 141

Floating Plant: The District Fleet � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 143

The Delaware River Dredging Disposal Study � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 150

Delaware River Main Channel Deepening � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 160

The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 170

5 Environmental Programs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 185

Regulatory Branch Operations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 187

Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Remediation � � � � � � � � � � 205

Ecosystem Restoration � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 209

6 Emergency and Contingency Operations � � � � � � � � � � 229

Background � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 230

Responses to Natural Disasters� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 233

Other Emergency Responses � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 243

Support for Military Contingency Operations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 246

7 Military Construction and Installation Support � � � � 253

Installation Support: Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force Base � � � � � � � 254

Installation Support: Dover Air Force Base � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 262

The Effects of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

Program on MILCON � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 268
v

Contents

8 The Marine Design Center � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 279

9 Work for Others (Reimbursable Services)� � � � � � � � � � 297

Work for the U.S. Postal Service� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 299

Work for Qatar and Gabon � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 300

Support for the EPA Superfund Program � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 303

Work for the U.S. Coast Guard � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 314

Work for the Federal Aviation Administration � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 315

Work for the City of Philadelphia � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 316

10 Conclusion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 325

Appendices 

Philadelphia District Dams and Reservoirs� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 334

Philadelphia District Major Vessels � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 336

Active Philadelphia District O&M Navigation Projects � � � � � � � � � � � 338

High-Level Highway Bridges over the Chesapeake & 

Delaware Canal � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 340

Marine Design Center Projects, 1982–2008 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 342

Philadelphia District Gallery of Distinguished Employees � � � � � � � � � 346

Lifetime Customer Care Award� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 354

Selected Bibliography � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 356

Index � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363
vi

Essayons. Long the motto of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, this single French imperative is best 

translated as “Let Us Try.” At first glance, it’s an unlikely rallying cry. Just try? Doesn’t it matter if we 

succeed? We all know one answer: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” But more important—

if at first you don’t try, you won’t succeed at all.

That is how the men and women of the Corps’ Philadelphia District embody the true essayons spirit: They 

keep succeeding because they never stop trying. 

This volume picks up where The District: A History of the Philadelphia District, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 1866–1971 leaves off. Aside from the updated time period, the title of this book acknowledges the 

former Marine Design Division becoming a separate Corps organization in 1979, although both the location 

and the legacy of the Philadelphia District and the Marine Design Center have remained close together.

We also wanted the title to capture the essential qualities that best reflect the District’s reputation. We are 

known for trying and doing our best from the beginning (responsiveness to customer needs) through to the 

end (reliability in delivering solutions that meet those needs).

In these pages, we look at the changes and challenges that have affected the District as a whole, along 

with the programs, projects, and events that have defined its mission. A lot changed between the Philadelphia 

District of 1972, which had become largely a civil works district focused on navigation and flood control, 

and the Philadelphia District of 2008, which had evolved into a full-service district—with its historic military 

construction mission restored and a third mission officially dedicated to reimbursable work for non-Corps customers. We were always known as a “dredging district,” but now we dredge for shore protection as well as for 

navigation. We had long enjoyed a good reputation with our Army and Air Force customers; now that network 

of satisfied customers includes EPA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, and many others. What was always a top-notch 

engineering organization is now a top-notch engineering and environmental organization. We always responded 

Foreword from the District Commander
vii

to any emergency, any contingency. We still do, but more often, and often much farther from home. For 

decades, one of the District’s divisions handled naval architecture and marine engineering for the Corps’ varied 

and wide-ranging fleet; now, as the Marine Design Center, its customer base has steadily grown to include the 

Army and other federal agencies.

Like that first volume, this is not a comprehensive record of all programs, projects, and events spanning 

almost four decades. That would require many more volumes. Rather, it is a continuation of the narrative 

about a unique organization and some of the things that made it so. We did not intend this as a bound catalog 

of facts, but as a book worth reading. We hope we have succeeded, and that you find it both educational and 

enjoyable. Most important, I hope you come away with a deeper understanding of the pride I have in serving 

with such a fine group of people.

Philip M. Secrist III

Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers

Commander & District Engineer 

Philadelphia, 30 January 2012
viii

Acknowledgments

Writing the history of an organization always involves the work of more people than just those 

doing the research and writing. This history is no different. We are indebted to a number of 

people for their willingness to help us with research, document collection, and general guidance. 

The major theme of this history is the responsiveness of the Philadelphia District to the needs of the nation. 

That responsiveness was certainly exhibited by many people in the district as we prepared this history. 

However, any errors or omissions in the publication are strictly our own.

Many thanks to Ed Voigt, head of the Philadelphia District’s Public Affairs Office, for his help throughout 

this project. Ed tracked down photographs and information, put us in contact with the right people when we 

had questions, and served as a sounding board for ideas about the history. His aid has been invaluable.

Thanks as well to Linda Skale, technical information specialist and guardian of the district’s Technical 

Library. Linda cheerfully allowed us access to the numerous holdings in the library, enabling us to prepare 

a better product, and provided us with space in the library to conduct our research. Monica Strucko helped 

us find administrative records held in storage by the Philadelphia District, records that proved useful in the 

preparation of this history.

Several people provided us with documents and answered questions about their areas of expertise. Jeffrey 

Gebert (coastal planning), Paul Gaudini (military installation support), and Kathleen “Micky” Mulvenna and 

Bob Eckhardt (emergency management) were especially instrumental in this regard. Anthony DePasquale, chief 

of the Operations Division, answered questions about the district’s navigation mission, while Brian Heverin 

provided information about the district’s military construction work in the 1980s, and John Tunnell answered 

additional questions about the district’s coastal program. Bill Gretzmacher, director of the Marine Design 

Center, and Vint Bossert shared their insights about the center, while Dwight Pakan and Brian Mulvenna gave 

us a better understanding of the district’s ecosystem restoration projects. Mark Wheeler shared his knowledge 
ix

of Superfund projects and the district’s regulatory program, and George Bock helped us understand the 

district’s DuPont Chambers Works project better. We thank all of them for their time and knowledge.

We thank also those who participated in formal oral histories with us about the Philadelphia District. 

John Bartholomeo, John Burnes, Bob Callegari, Vince Calvarese, Frank Cianfrani, Harry Dutchyshyn, Jeffrey 

Gebert, Keith Lawrence, Ralph Locurcio, Richard Maraldo, Doug Moore, Al Schoenebeck, and Joe Vilord 

allowed us to interview them about their experiences. Their insights enabled us to focus on the important issues 

in the district’s history from 1972 to 2008, and we thoroughly enjoyed talking with them.

We wish to express our thanks to the Corps commanders who made this project possible. First and 

foremost, we thank Maj. Gen. Todd T. Semonite, Commander and Division Engineer of the North Atlantic 

Division, who was an ardent advocate for the importance of celebrating the Corps’ illustrious heritage and 

history and, through his initiative, made this work possible. We also thank the previous and current district 

engineers who have overseen the project along the way, including Lt. Col. Gwen E. Baker, Lt. Col. Thomas J. 

Tickner, and current Philadelphia District Commander Lt. Col. Philip M. Secrist.

In addition, we thank Daniel Lee from the Federal Records Center in Philadelphia for his help in accessing 

Philadelphia District records held by that facility.

Finally, we owe a particular debt of gratitude to Anthony Bley, Philadelphia District Photographer (from 

1971 to 2007), whose impressive body of work was the source for the vast majority of photographs included 

in this volume. His eye for both artistry and accuracy, both style and substance, was invaluable in providing so 

many pictures that truly helped tell the Philadelphia District story.

xi

This history covers the 

operations of both the 

Philadelphia District and 

the Marine Design Center (MDC), 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

from 1972 to 2008. These were 

years of transition and change for 

the Corps as a whole and for the 

district and MDC in particular. In 

1972, dams and other flood control 

structures were still seen as the 

most effective solutions to flooding, 

but by 2008—mainly because of 

environmental and economic considerations—dams were for the 

most part no longer viable. By 

2008, owing to the influence of a 

growing environmental movement 

in the United States, the Corps had 

added a separate ecosystem restoration component to its traditional 

civil works missions of navigation, flood control, and military 

construction. Also, the misleading 

term “flood control” had given way 

to a more realistic emphasis on 

risk reduction for both floods and 

coastal storms, the latter of which 

now account for the lion’s share of 

the district’s civil works construction program.

During this period, Congress 

directed the Corps to extend its 

expertise outside its own boundaries and to provide support to 

other federal, state, and local 

agencies. As the Corps adjusted to 

these new responsibilities, it undertook internal restructuring to make 

itself more efficient, more responsive, and more cost-effective in its 

work. This restructuring included 

the consolidation of some centers 

of technical expertise directly 

under Corps Headquarters; thus, 

the MDC moved in 1979 from its 

Introduction

Facing page: The Philadelphia District’s 

civil works boundaries, encompassing the 

Delaware River Basin and the adjacent 

Atlantic Coastal Plain in New Jersey 

and Delaware
xii

Introduction

position under the Philadelphia 

District to the Water Resources 

Support Center (although only 

organizationally; it has remained 

collocated with the district).1 

Concepts such as project management and regionalization 

were central to the restructuring, 

changing the way the Corps did 

its work; the restructuring caused 

some instability in individual 

districts, as some were resized or 

had certain components removed 

or added.

All these changes affected the 

Philadelphia District. Tracing its 

origins to 1866, the district was 

originally drawn to include the 

entire Delaware River Watershed 

and the adjacent Atlantic Coastal 

Plain. Although one of the smaller 

Corps districts in geographic 

area, it encompassed more than 

nine million people living in 

eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 

Delaware, the Catskills region of 

New York, and a small corner of 

Maryland. It had responsibility 

for 550 miles of federal channels 

in various waterways and for 

150 miles of coastline. It also 

had jurisdiction over 1.1 million 

The Towboat William James, delivered 

to the Vicksburg District by the Marine 

Design Center in 2007
xiii

Introduction

acres of wetlands. As of 2008, the 

Philadelphia District was charged 

with operating and maintaining 

five dams, four canals, and five 

highway bridges, and was the 

home base for the Hopper Dredge 

McFarland. It conducted military 

construction and contracting oversight at Dover Air Force Base, 

Del., and Joint Base McGuire-DixLakehurst, N.J., and aided the 

Baltimore District with its work 

at Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

Md. Finally, the district provided 

engineering and construction 

services to other federal agencies 

and state and local governments, 

including the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the 

United States Coast Guard, the 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, the Federal Aviation 

Administration, and the city of 

Philadelphia.2

 Changes in the district’s workload occurred 

gradually between 1972 and 2008. 

Environmental work evolved over 

time, originally encompassing 

regulatory permitting, then adding 

support to the EPA’s Superfund 

program, and then including an 

ecosystem restoration component 

in its civil works mission. Likewise, 

the district’s Support for Others 

program evolved over time to 

include support for federal and 

state agencies, as well as nations 

such as Gabon. The district also 

saw its emergency operations 

role expand between 1972 and 

2008, reaching the point that the 

district established a permanent 

Emergency Management Office to 

coordinate support for responses to 

both natural and manmade disasters and for military contingency 

operations.

Along with these new responsibilities, the district maintained its 

traditional duties of keeping waterways open for safe navigation, 

Beginning in the 1980s, remediation of 

EPA Superfund sites grew into one of the 

District’s largest programs
xiv

Introduction

protecting communities from 

floods and coastal storms, and 

building facilities for the Army 

and Air Force. Navigation work 

involved dredging, jetty construction, and other operations along 

the Atlantic coastline and both 

sides of the Delaware Bay, and in 

waterways such as the Delaware 

River and the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal. The district’s 

flood and storm damage reduction 

tasks ranged from operating five 

dams in eastern Pennsylvania to 

constructing multiple beach nourishment systems along the Atlantic 

Ocean in New Jersey and Delaware. 

Although the military construction mission had disappeared and 

reappeared among the district’s 

responsibilities at various times, 

this mission seemed destined for 

permanence when Philadelphia 

was redesignated as a military 

district in 2009. Finally, one of the 

bigger changes on paper was the 

Delaware River flooding at Trenton, N.J., 

in 2006
xv

Introduction

transition of the district’s Marine 

Design Division to the USACE 

Marine Design Center, although the 

change was less dramatic in reality: 

It is still in the same place, doing 

essentially the same things.

With its host of responsibilities, 

the district responded well to the 

changes occurring throughout the 

Corps, showing remarkable flexibility and ingenuity as its missions 

were redefined, its responsibilities altered, and its former drastic 

swings in workload smoothed out. 

A primary theme running through 

the district’s history between 1972 

and 2008 is responsiveness: to 

change, to the Army, to Congress, 

and to its customers’ needs. The 

district prides itself on this characteristic, which defines the district 

in the eyes of those with whom it 

works.

In tracing the theme of responsiveness, this history picks up 

where the original Philadelphia 

District history left off. That 

history—The District: A History of 

the Philadelphia District, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 1866–1971, 

by Frank E. Snyder and Brian H. 

Guss—noted that “the stories of 

the Corps and of the Delaware 

Valley itself have been freshets 

feeding the same swift-running 

stream of American History, sometimes flowing smoothly, sometimes 

through dangerous rapids.” Snyder 

and Guss’s work “attempt[ed] to 

trace that journey” as it applied 

to the Philadelphia District.3

 We 

have the same goal for this history. 

The Philadelphia District did not 

operate in a vacuum between 

1972 and 2008; rather, its actions 

occurred in the context of changes 

in the United States and in the 

Corps itself. Sometimes these 

changes led to difficulties for the 

district, but Philadelphia always 

soldiered on, adjusting as best it 

Dover Air Force Base, Del.

Fort Dix, N.J.
xvi

Introduction

could. The district may not have 

looked the same in 2008 as it did 

in 1972, but it still fully embraced 

the responsiveness, ingenuity, and 

“plain engineering know-how” 

that Snyder and Guss observed as 

they traced its earlier history.4

 The 

continuity of responsiveness and 

reliability is the overall theme of 

this work.

The first Philadelphia District history 

volume 
Introduction — Endnotes

xvii

1

 Keith Lawrence telephone interview by Paul Sadin, 9 March 2009, transcript, 8-9; 

see also 1972–1995 working draft administrative history of the Philadelphia District, 

compiled by Joe Morgan, 114 [hereafter referred to as Unpublished Morgan Draft 

District History], copy provided by Ed Voigt, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia 

District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [hereafter referred to as Philadelphia District].

2

 Linda M. Toth, “Philadelphia District, FY 10 Business Opportunities,” 

Powerpoint presentation available at <http://www.samephiladelphiapost.org/

MonthlyMeetings/2009/Oct2009/USACE.ppt#289,2,PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT> 

(1 June 2010).

3

 Frank H. Snyder and Brian H. Guss, The District: A History of the Philadelphia 

District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1866–1971 (Philadelphia: U.S. Army Engineer 

District Philadelphia, 1974), II.

4

 Snyder and Guss, The District, II.
xviii

Historical Time Line 1972–1986

1972 •	 Tropical Storm Agnes drenches the mid-Atlantic, becoming the

greatest flooding event known in the Susquehanna River basin.

•	 A year after completion of Beltzville Lake, site of the second

Corps dam within the Lehigh River sub-basin and the district’s

first “multipurpose” flood control project, the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania officially takes over management of recreation

with the dedication of Beltzville State Park.

•	 The Philadelphia District’s only federally constructed flood

control project in New York, a levee along the East Branch of

the Delaware River, is completed in Hancock, N.Y.

•	 Congress passes the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, later amended as the Clean Water Act of 1977

and further amended in 1987.

•	 The Environmental Resources Branch is established within the

Philadelphia District’s Planning Division to better manage the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970.

1973 •	 The Freighter Yorkmar strikes the lift span of the one railroad

bridge across the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, closing the

channel for 104 days.

1975

1976

1977

1978

•	 The Madigan-Praeger Study (analyzing the proposed Tocks

Island Dam) is released, with findings supportive of project

construction. But later that same year the Delaware River Basin

Commission withdraws its support for the project.

•	 The Philadelphia District completes construction of the U.S.

Postal Service Bulk Mail Center in Philadelphia.

•	 To save a historic structure that would otherwise have disappeared with the filling of Blue Marsh Lake, the Philadelphia

District begins the relocation and subsequent restoration of

the Gruber Wagon Works, which was turned over to Berks

County in 1978 and marked the first such project successfully

completed by the Corps.

•	 The Corps initiates the National Dam Safety Inspection

Program.

•	 The National Parks and Recreation Act designates the Middle

Delaware River as a wild and scenic river.

•	 The Philadelphia District provides dredging and road building

expertise to the nations of Qatar and Gabon.

Col. Carroll D. Strider

1971–1973

Col. Harry V. Dutchyshyn

1975–1978

Col. Clyde A. Selleck

1973–1975
xix

1979

1980

1981

1982

1984

1985

1986

•	 The Marine Design Division is redesignated the Marine Design

Center, a separate “field operating activity” of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers.

•	 Blue Marsh Lake, the Philadelphia District’s only multipurpose

flood control project with recreation managed by Corps Park

Rangers, is officially opened northwest of Reading, Pa., serving

the Schuylkill River sub-basin.

•	 The Philadelphia District officially transfers its Tocks Island funds

and property to the National Park Service.

•	 The Philadelphia District’s real estate function is transferred to

the Baltimore District, and the district’s engineering, design, and

construction missions for new projects are removed as well.

•	 The Chesapeake & Delaware Canal is deepened to 35 feet.

•	 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asks the Philadelphia District to manage cleanup of two sites (Bridgeport Rental

and Oil Services and Lipari Landfill) under its new Superfund

program.

•	 Rehabilitation of the jetties flanking New Jersey’s Manasquan

Inlet involve the first use on the East Coast of interlocking

concrete structures called “dolosse” to combat erosion.

•	 The Marine Design Center delivers a custom-built low-tech

dredge to the government of Sudan, assisting the Sudanese in

its operation and instructing them on its future use.

•	 After a twenty-five-year hiatus, the district resumes MILCON

operations by gaining jurisdiction over Fort Dix and McGuire

Air Force Base.

•	 The never-built Trexler Dam project is officially deauthorized

by Congress.

•	 The remediated Krysowaty Farm site in Somerset County, N.J.,

becomes the first site delisted from the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s National Priorities List, officially closing out

the district’s first of many Superfund projects for EPA Region 2.

•	 Congress passes the Water Resources Development Act of

1986, which establishes nonfederal cost-sharing for all new

Corps civil works projects.

Col. James G. Ton

1978–1981

Lt. Col. Ralph V. Locurcio

1984–1987

Lt. Col. Roger L. Baldwin

1981–1984
xx

Historical Time Line 1988–1996

•	 The Philadelphia District regains its engineering, construction, and design missions for new projects from the Baltimore

District.

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

•	 The Philadelphia District hires its first Deputy District Engineer

for Programs and Project Management.

•	 The Marine Design Center is established as an unaffiliated Field

Operating Activity of the Corps.

•	 The Philadelphia District awards a contract for remediation of

the Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services site, initiating one of the

largest Superfund cleanup efforts to date: removal of 5,000

tons of debris and drums, incineration of 172,000 tons of

contaminated sediments, and treatment of 200 million gallons

of contaminated water.

•	 Construction of the Wilmington Harbor South Disposal Area is

completed.

•	 Completion of the Indian River Inlet Sand Bypass Plant begins

the continuous pumping of sand from the south side of the

inlet to the north side, facilitating the natural northerly transport of sand interrupted by the stabilized inlet. The plant is

capable of pumping 100,000 cubic yards of sand annually.

•	 The Philadelphia District completes construction of a new south

jetty at Barnegat Inlet, N.J., to improve navigational safety in

one of the most treacherous inlets on the Atlantic Coast.

•	 Initial beachfill is completed for the district’s first long-term

shore protection project at Cape May, N.J. Placement of

1,365,000 cubic yards of sand, along with extension of seventeen storm water outfalls, reconstruction of seven groins and

construction of two more, is followed by monitoring and

renourishment at two-year intervals.

•	 A Corps reorganization plan proposes to close the Philadelphia

District.

•	 The Philadelphia District ends its longest tenure in one location by moving from the U.S. Customs House at 2nd &

Chestnut Streets to the Wanamaker Building on Penn Square,

Center City.

•	 Due to pressure from constituents within the Philadelphia District boundaries, a new Corps reorganization plan

proposes to keep the district, but with a significantly reduced

mission. Neither this plan nor the one proposed in 1991 ever

becomes reality.

Lt. Col. George W. Quinby

1987–1990

Lt. Col. Kenneth H. Clow

1990–1992
xxi

•	 Tocks Island Dam, which would have created the largest Corps

lake in the northeast if constructed, is formally deauthorized

by Congress.

•	 Congress authorizes deepening the existing Delaware

River Federal Navigation Channel from 40 to 45 feet from

Philadelphia, Pa., to the mouth of the Delaware Bay, with

appropriate bend widenings, partial deepening of the Marcus

Hook anchorage, and relocation and addition of aids to

navigation.

•	 A groundwater treatment plant begins operation at the

Lipari Landfill Superfund site, ranked number one on the

EPA’s National Priorities List. Construction of the plant, which

processes contaminated water via extraction and injection

wells, followed installation in 1984 of a slurry wall and cap to

contain the landfill.

1992

ctd.

1993 

1994

1995

1996

•	 Initial beachfill is completed for the district’s second long-term

shore protection project at Ocean City, N.J.

•	 MILCON at Dix and McGuire is transferred to the New York

District, while the same year the Philadelphia District is

assigned MILCON duties at Dover Air Force Base.

•	 Construction begins on a $40 million flood control project

at Molly Ann’s Brook, a tributary of the Passaic River running

through Paterson, Prospect Park, and Haledon, N.J.

•	 District personnel deploy to the Caribbean to assist with

recovery from the most active hurricane season to date. Efforts

include building rehabilitation, debris removal, and technical

inspection services.

•	 The combined Fort Dix/McGuire Air Force Base Tertiary Wastewater Treatment Facility is completed.

•	 January floods across much of Pennsylvania constitute the

worst natural disaster within the district’s boundaries since

Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972. The District’s Emergency

Management Office activates its operations center and keeps it

staffed 24/7 for fifteen days straight.

•	 Congress authorizes the Philadelphia District to construct the

beach nourishment project at Rehoboth Beach and Dewey

Beach, the first such project in the State of Delaware.

•	 The Philadelphia District recommends that the Chesapeake and

Delaware Canal be deepened to 40 feet.

Lt. Col. Richard F. Sliwoski

1992–1994

Lt. Col. Robert P. Magnifico

1994–1996
xxii

Historical Time Line 1997–2004

1999

2000

•	 The new Visiting Officers’ Quarters facility is completed at

Dover Air Force Base. The concept design was among twentyone receiving 1998 Design Excellence Award honors from the

Air Mobility Command.

•	 The Philadelphia District completes its geotechnical investigation of sinking homes in the Feltonville and Wissinoming

neighborhoods of Philadelphia. The study identified layers up

to 40 feet deep of ash and cinder, mixed with varying amounts

of building debris, covering the valley of the former Wingohocking Creek.

•	 One of the district’s largest design-build projects for another

federal agency, the National Airport Pavement Test Facility,

opens at the Federal Aviation Administration’s research center

next to the Atlantic City International Airport. The new machine,

designed for year-round 24/7 operation, simulates landing

impacts of future passenger aircraft on various runway surfaces.

•	 The City of Philadelphia contracts to remove 2.5 million

cubic yards of dredged material from the district’s Fort Mifflin

confined disposal area and reuse it as fill for a new runway

at the adjacent Philadelphia International Airport. Under this

agreement the city avoids $7 million in transportation costs and

the Corps recovers $8 million in channel maintenance costs.

•	 The Philadelphia District develops a single shore protection plan

that combines coastal storm damage reduction for Cape May

Point, N.J., with aquatic ecosystem restoration for the adjacent

Lower Cape May Meadows.

•	 Pier 34 on Penn’s Landing collapses into the Delaware River.

The Philadelphia District responds to a request from the City of

Philadelphia for assistance with channel clearing and engineering expertise.

•	 Fort Dix returns to the district’s military construction jurisdiction.

1997 •	 Improvements to the north and south jetties at Manasquan

Inlet, N.J., include the positioning of approximately forty “coreloc” structures and a refinement of the previously placed

dolosse, to better protect the cores of each jetty.

•	 The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP),

for radiological cleanup at old Manhattan Engineer District

and Atomic Energy Commission sites from the 1940s, is transferred to the Corps from the Department of Energy. The district

is assigned the FUSRAP site at the DuPont Chambers Works

complex in Deepwater, N.J.

•	 Dover Air Force Base’s new state-of-the-art passenger terminal,

designed by the district, opens for business.

Lt. Col. Robert B. Keyser

1996–1998

Lt. Col. Debra M. Lewis

1998–2000
xxiii

2001

2002

•	 The Corps suspends work on the Chesapeake & Delaware

Canal deepening.

•	 Starting the very day of September 11, with one of the Philadelphia District’s own survey boats helping shuttle people in

and out of Lower Manhattan, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

responds to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.

•	 Civilian volunteers from throughout the Corps of Engineers,

including the Philadelphia District, begin deploying for periods

from two months to a year to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other

locations in the Middle East in support of Operations Enduring

Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

•	 Remediation is completed at the Tranguch Gasoline site, the

district’s first Superfund cleanup in support of EPA Region III.

The project involved the installation of an underground soil

vapor and groundwater extraction and treatment system in a

mixed residential and commercial area.

2003

2004

•	 The Philadelphia District designs an expansion of Arlington

National Cemetery.

•	 Initial construction is completed on the $23 million Townsends

Inlet to Cape May Inlet Shore Protection Project, the district’s

first with an integrated berm-and-dune system in the original design. Approximately 4.2 million cubic yards of sand are

placed on the beaches of Avalon and Stone Harbor, N.J.

•	 The district evaluates and awards a $500 million dollar Indefinite Delivery Contract in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

•	 The district restores a vertical lift bridge for the Coast Guard at

the Philadelphia Naval Business Center.

•	 Initial beachfill and dune construction is completed on the

$29.1 million Absecon Island Shore Protection Project. Approximately 7.1 million cubic yards of sand are placed on the

beaches of Atlantic City and Ventnor to provide coastal storm

damage reduction and shoreline protection.

•	 A new mortuary facility, designated an emergency project

based on the 9/11 attacks and the continued threat of major

terrorist activity, is completed at Dover Air Force Base. The

district selected a design-build approach to complete the

$16.6 million project expediently.

•	 The Tanker Athos I spills approximately 265,000 gallons of

crude oil in the Delaware River. The district assists the Coast

Guard by conducting surveys of the channel in search of

obstructions that may have caused the spill.

•	 The district completes the Cuddebackville Dam removal project

and in 2005 receives a Coastal America Partnership Award for

its outstanding efforts.

Lt. Col. Timothy Brown

2000–2002

Lt. Col. Thomas C. Chapman

2002–2004
xxiv

•	 Over the next four years, the district’s Contracting Division

administers more than $2 billion in electrical power contracts

for the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) and more than

forty district civilians voluntarily deploy to Afghanistan, Iraq,

and other Persian Gulf nations in support of post-9/11 contingency operations.

•	 As part of a massive Corps response to the widespread devastation of Hurricane Katrina, the district deploys 146 volunteers

to Louisiana, Mississippi, and other support locations for

Federal Emergency Management Agency missions ranging from

electrical power and logistics to housing, roofing, and debris

removal.

•	 The district works with the Delaware River Basin Commission,

Pennsylvania state agencies, and recreational groups to develop

the first annual Francis E. Walter Dam Flow Management Plan

for recreational water releases.

•	 June marks the third straight year of widespread flood

damage within the Delaware River Basin, from the headwaters

in New York’s Catskills region to as far down as Trenton. The

combined impact of these events leads to increased support

for Corps watershed studies in New York, New Jersey, and

Delaware.

•	 July marks completion of a dual-purpose coastal project to

restore freshwater habitat at Lower Cape May Meadows and

reduce the risk of storm damage at neighboring Cape May

Point, N.J. Beachfill construction preceded enhancements to

local vegetation and hydrology at this key migratory bird stopover on the North Atlantic flyway.

•	 Tasked by the North Atlantic Division to support relocating the

Army’s C4ISR electronics research and development program to

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Act, in September the district awards the

first major design-build contract for what will total nearly a

billion dollars in facilities and infrastructure.

2007

2006

Historical Time Line 2005–2010

2005 •	 Construction of beachfill-and-dune systems at Rehoboth and

Dewey Beaches and at Fenwick Island (followed by Bethany

Beach and South Bethany in 2008) lowers the risk of storm

damages for Delaware’s Atlantic Coast communities.

•	 The district, in cooperation with the city of Philadelphia

and other entities, renovates a mile-long corridor of the

Schuylkill River’s east bank, creating a linear park for public

recreation.

Lt. Col. Gwen E. Baker

2006–2008

Lt. Col. Robert J. Ruch

2004–2006
xxv

•	 The Corps and the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority sign

a Project Partnership Agreement June 23 for the 45-foot,

102-mile Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project.

•	 While the Navy pays the district for dredging in the old Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, capacity at Fort Mifflin is restored with

the removal of 500,000 cubic yards via both truck and rail

(using a newly built transfer facility) to Hazleton, Pa., to fill an

abandoned 300-acre mine.

•	 The district is formally designated the North Atlantic Division

Regional Center of Expertise for Bridge Inspection and Evaluation

in September, with structural engineers and rope access technicians certified for short-span and high-level complex bridges.

•	 The district is formally designated the North Atlantic Division

Regional Center of Expertise for Groundwater Modeling in

March, teaming modelers, hydrogeologists, geologists, chemists,

risk assessors, and GIS experts with engineers from the Engineer

Research & Development Center and from two other districts.

•	 In May the district helps dedicate a renovated fish ladder

around historic Fairmount Dam, along one of the most photographed stretches of the Schuylkill River. The third fish passage

structure built by the district, it is also just the second Corps civil

works project built in partnership with the City of Philadelphia.

•	 After a more than forty-year hiatus, in April the Philadelphia

District is officially redesignated as a Military District, to include

installation support at Dover Air Force Base, Del., and Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pa., and sole contracting authority for the

Overseas Contingency Operations electrical power mission.

•	 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes

$70 million for district projects, including Prompton Dam safety

modifications, repairs to the St. Georges and Summit Bridges,

and deferred maintenance in four navigation channels, plus

another $60 million for three Superfund sites the district is

managing for EPA.

•	 In its first “Ready Reserve” mission, the Hopper Dredge

McFarland deploys from 28 December 2009 to 31 March

2010, for emergency dredging in the Southwest Pass of the

Mississippi River below New Orleans.

2008

2010 •	 Construction begins in March on the Delaware River Main

Channel Deepening Project, starting in “Reach C” (between the

Delaware Memorial Bridge and just south of Pea Patch Island).

•	 Two district structures specialists deploy with the Corps’ Urban

Search and Rescue Team to assist with recovery immediately

after the Haiti earthquake.

2009

Lt. Col. Thomas J. Tickner

2008–2010

Lt. Col. Philip M. Secrist III

2010–2012
1
1

Reorganizations and Responses: The Evolution of 

the Philadelphia District, 1972–2008

For much of its history, 

the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers has had the 

primary missions of preserving 

navigability of the waterways of 

the United States and constructing 

buildings and other structures 

for military installations and 

operations. In the early twentieth 

century, Congress added flood 

control and emergency response 

as Corps missions, leading the 

Corps to become involved in the 

construction of levees and dams 

to provide flood protection, and 

later to branch out into water 

resources development and coastal 

engineering. Although the Corps 

retained these missions going 

into the twenty-first century, the 

1970s, 1980s, and 1990s saw a 

drastic decline in the construction of water-related projects 

involving hard structures such 

as dams, levees, and seawalls, 

which were increasingly perceived 

as environmentally unfriendly. 

With the passage of the National 

Environmental Policy Act in 1969, 

the Corps received a mandate to 

take environmental and social 

considerations into account in its 

projects. Under the Clean Water 

Act of 1972, Corps projects and 

activities involving deposition of 

dredged material had to account 

for environmental impacts on 

wetlands and surface waters. The 

rise of environmentalism in the 

United States, along with concerns 

of the Carter and Reagan administrations about, respectively, impacts 

on local communities and costs to 

federal taxpayers, led to a decline 

in dam building and similar largescale structural solutions.

Facing page: Center City Philadelphia, 

with the District’s Wanamaker Building 

headquarters situated directly behind 

City Hall as seen from the steps of the 

Philadelphia Museum of Art
2

Chapter 1

To offset the loss of this work, 

the Corps turned to supporting 

other federal and state agencies 

in engineering and construction 

services, particularly environmental 

cleanup and ecosystem restoration. As these changes occurred, 

the Corps undertook several reorganizations from the late 1970s 

into the twenty-first century to 

enhance efficiencies. These reorganizations included implementing 

initiatives such as centralization, 

matrix project management, and 

regionalization.

The changes trickled down to 

the Philadelphia District. It, too, 

saw a decrease in large-scale construction jobs, especially with the 

demise of the Tocks Island Dam 

and Trexler Lake projects in the 

late 1970s. The loss of this work 

followed the reassignment of other 

projects and programs to sister 

districts, eventually leading to the 

removal of various responsibilities 

from the district. By the mid-1980s, 

the number of employees had 

declined by half and the district’s 

command had been downgraded 

from colonel to lieutenant colonel. 

By 1992, the Corps was proposing 

to eliminate the Philadelphia 

District entirely. Although the 

district survived, it had to reinvent 

itself. Accordingly, the district 

developed a robust support program 

for other agencies—particularly 

the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and its Superfund 

program—and became more 

involved in military construction. 

By the twenty-first century, the 

Philadelphia District’s workload 

looked quite different than it had 

in 1972, and the district itself had 

changed substantially. Some of 

these changes reflected two major 

trends that affected almost every 

aspect of American life over the 

past generation: computerization 

and workforce diversity. 

The Philadelphia District’s 

transition into the computer age 

included the first timekeeping 

program to interface with the 

Corps-wide management information system; one of the earliest GIS 

(geographic information system) 

implementations, for Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) flood plain mapping 

under a 10-district Corps project 

known as the National Pilot Study 
3

Reorganizations and Responses

program; and the inception of 

several major in-house automated 

information systems covering a 

wide range of applications, such 

as the Schedule of Expenditures 

and Obligations program (finance), 

the Time Schedule for Design 

and Construction program (engineering), and the C&D Canal Ship 

Traffic Monitoring program (operations). Gradually but steadily, 

drafting boards were supplanted by 

AutoCAD, office typing pools gave 

way to a PC in every cubicle, email 

surpassed letters, and the Internet 

made physical distance less and 

less of an issue.

With computerization came 

the need for more employees 

with expertise in computers and 

information technology. Although 

many persons with qualifications 

in those areas also held engineering degrees, the net effect was 

to add to the growing percentage 

of nonengineers in the district’s 

workforce. The biggest contributor 

to this change was the influx of 

biologists and other natural scientists that began in the 1970s 

(detailed in the next section); there 

was also an increased demand 

for contracting specialists as the 

district relied on the private sector 

for a variety of technical services. 

While civil engineers still constituted the largest single degree 

group heading into the twenty-first 

century, the district’s professional 

makeup had become much more 

diverse. The same was true of 

its gender makeup. By the early 

1970s, women had branched out 

beyond traditional clerical roles 

into other support functions, and 

by the first decade of the new 

century, they occupied a significant 

number of the district’s scientific, 

engineering, and managerial positions as well. 

Effects of the 

Environmental 

Movement and NEPA

In January 1974, Frank E. 

Snyder and Brian H. Guss completed a history of the Philadelphia 

District from its inception to 

1971. They noted that, in 1971, 

the district dealt mainly with 

“the water-related problems of 

the Philadelphia area.” Activities 

included conducting studies on 

“the Delaware River channel, 

The advent of Geographic Information Systems 

began revolutionizing flood plains mapping 

in the 1990s
4

Chapter 1

the development of new dredging 

systems, and the feasibility of 

deepwater unloading terminals.” 

The district also had responsibility 

for implementing a comprehensive water plan for the Delaware 

River Basin, including constructing 

reservoirs at Blue Marsh, Trexler, 

Beltzville, and Tocks Island, and 

it conducted beach nourishment 

programs for the Delaware and 

New Jersey shores.1

Looking to the future, Snyder 

and Guss noted that environmental issues—especially how to 

balance “the basic conflict between 

man, the consumer and land, the 

supplier”—would be “the pivotal 

mandate for a nation at the crossroads in its choice of lifestyles.” 

As the 1970s unfolded, Snyder 

and Guss were proved correct. 

Environmental issues became more 

important than ever in the United 

States as a whole, and legislative 

mandates to protect and restore 

the environment had significant 

effects on the Corps of Engineers 

in general and the Philadelphia 

District specifically.2

In 1969, Congress passed the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), which drastically changed 

how the Corps did business. This 

act was the result of the burgeoning environmental movement 

in the United States. In 1962, 

Rachel Carson, a marine biologist, 

published Silent Spring, a condemnation of environmental pollution 

and the use of pesticides. In the 

eyes of many, the publication of 

Silent Spring ushered in the environmental movement, and it grew 

exponentially thereafter. According 

to one historian, the movement 

had three guiding principles: the 

necessity of “harmonizing . . . 

nature’s world with man’s needs,” 

Testing at the District’s Soils Lab at 

Fort Mifflin, Pa.
5

Reorganizations and Responses

the belief that “progress is not 

necessarily good, especially if it 

leads to the dehumanization of 

life,” and the concern that the 

federal government had had a 

large hand in upending “the proper 

ecological balance” in its management of natural resources. As more 

people became convinced of these 

ideas, organizations that espoused 

the promotion of environmental 

quality, such as the Sierra Club and 

the National Audubon Society, saw 

large increases in membership. For 

example, in 1960 the Sierra Club 

had 15,000 members; ten years 

later it had 113,000 members. The 

National Audubon Society saw its 

membership go from 32,000 in 

1960 to 148,000 in 1970.3

Riding the wave of the environmental movement—and with many 

of its supporters clamoring for laws 

to promote environmental health—

President Richard Nixon signed 

NEPA into law on 1 January 1970. 

The law declared the government’s 

intent to ensure the coexistence 

Multipurpose flood control project at 

Blue Marsh Lake, Pa.
6

Chapter 1

of man and nature “in productive harmony” by mandating that 

federal agencies prepare environmental impact statements (EISs) 

whenever they conducted activities 

“significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment.” These 

EISs evaluated a project’s effects 

on the environment through both 

scientific and social-scientific 

analyses, and through hearings 

at which members of the general 

public could voice their concerns. 

NEPA essentially mandated more 

public participation in decisions 

about undertakings that affected 

the environment and required 

federal agencies to take environmental health into consideration 

when planning and funding 

projects.4

 On the heels of this law 

came a redefinition of the national 

interest as applied to economic 

analysis. Project justifications were 

being challenged as regionally or 

locally based rather than reflecting 

a national need or purpose.5

Not long after NEPA became 

law, the Philadelphia District felt 

its effects. At the dawn of the 

1970s, construction of the Tocks 

Island Dam was the largest project 

on the district’s horizon. It encompassed building a 3,200-foot-long, 

160-foot-high dam that would 

impound a thirty-seven-mile-long 

reservoir on the Delaware River 

close to Stroudsburg, Pa. Designed 

to provide flood control, water 

supply, hydropower, and recreation, 

this multipurpose project was the 

linchpin of a comprehensive water 

resources plan approved in 1962 

for the Delaware River Basin. But 

some people had concerns about 

its environmental effects, charging 

that it would inundate one of the 

most scenic parts of the Delaware 

River (known as the Delaware 

Water Gap) and create a reservoir 

with the potential for eutrophication (an overload of nutrients in a 

water body).6

The district prepared an EIS in 

1970 as required by NEPA, but the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(established within the Executive 

Branch by NEPA) deemed it inadequate and required the district to 

conduct additional studies. This 

set off a chain reaction of events 

that eventually led to a withdrawal of support for the project 

from the governors of New York, 
7

Reorganizations and Responses

New Jersey, and Delaware, and 

the halting of any further work on 

the dam (which had a final design 

but was not yet in the construction stages) in the early 1970s. In 

1978, Congress passed a measure 

requiring the Corps to transfer 

all project lands and money to 

the National Park Service for the 

establishment of the Delaware 

Water Gap National Recreation 

Area. Although the Tocks Island 

Project was not officially deauthorized until 1992, this transfer 

effectively killed it.7

The National Environmental 

Policy Act’s effects were not 

confined to the Tocks Island 

Project. Another impoundment 

proposed as part of the comprehensive Delaware River Basin 

planning was Trexler Lake, 

which the Philadelphia District 

would construct on Jordan Creek, 

approximately eight miles northwest of Allentown, Pa. The Corps 

would use an earth and rockfill 

embankment for the dam, and the 

lake would serve flood control, 

water supply, and recreational 

purposes. The district completed 

a general design memorandum 

in 1971, but construction was 

delayed for several years because 

of federal priorities in funding the 

construction of the Tocks Island 

and Blue Marsh dams. Congress 

finally made money available in 

its fiscal year 1977 appropriations 

bill, but questions arose over the 

dam’s environmental effects and 

the contention that only utility 

and industrial companies would 

benefit from its construction. As 

a result of widespread opposition 

in Lehigh County, the project lost 

political support from the Lehigh 

County Commission and from 

Congressman Fred Rooney (D-Pa.). 

The Corps placed Trexler Lake on 

its inactive list in January 1979; in 

1986, Congress officially deauthorized the project.8

Other Corps districts besides 

Philadelphia had trouble in the 

1970s with large-scale dam construction. The St. Paul District, 

for example, saw its construction 

of La Farge Dam on the Kickapoo 

River in Wisconsin halted because 

of environmental concerns. In this 

case, the Corps had completed 40 

percent of the actual construction, 

but worries about the dam’s effects 
8

Chapter 1

on the scenic Kickapoo led to a 

cessation of construction in 1975 

and deauthorization in the 1990s.9

Using tools such as NEPA, project 

opponents—not only environmentalists, but also a broad range of 

other interest groups that seized 

upon new environmental regulations as a means of achieving their 

own goals—had the ability to stop 

large-scale water projects, which 

happened on a regular basis in 

the 1970s.

The Corps was also being 

accused of using faulty economic 

arguments to justify dam construction and other projects. In making 

these charges, environmentalists focused on the benefit-cost 

analyses the Corps used to determine whether a project was 

economically justified. Under this 

system, the Corps went through a 

series of calculations to determine 

both benefits and costs in annualized terms, then divided the former 

by the latter to produce a ratio. 

If a project had a ratio of 1.0 or 

greater (meaning that for every 

dollar spent, benefits greater than 

a dollar resulted), it was economically justified. However, as Daniel 

Mazmanian and Jeanne Nienaber 

wrote in 1979, the process had 

significant issues. For one, the 

Corps’ benefit calculations dealt in 

financially quantifiable terms such 

as how a project encouraged development, increased water supply or 

flood protection, or produced recreational benefits. Environmentalists, 

on the other hand, saw benefits 

mainly as “maintaining freeflowing streams, allowing the 

natural cycle of the ebb and flow 

of rivers over their banks, and curtailing residential or commercial 

development in the floodplain.” 

Despite subsequent attempts by 

the Corps to factor in nonmonetary benefits and costs, disparate 

cultural values prevented the two 

sides from reaching consensus.10

Benefit-cost ratios were not 

the only economic feature of 

Corps projects subject to criticism. Another was the perception 

of Corps work as largely high-cost, 

inefficient pork barrel projects that 

were authorized only because of 

the Corps’ “symbiotic relationship” 

with Congress. For projects to go 

forward, the Corps needed congressional approval and funding. 

Public meetings on Corps projects such 

as this one in 1976 were a part of the 

Environmental Impact Statement process 

mandated by the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969
9

Reorganizations and Responses

Members of Congress tended to 

support Corps projects in their 

states and districts because they 

provided visible, tangible benefits 

to constituent communities. “A congressman will not speak out against 

a project proposed for a colleague’s 

district, regardless of the project’s 

merits,” one observer said, “in 

order to be rewarded in kind in the 

future.” Thus, Corps projects generally had strong support and little 

opposition in Congress.11

When Jimmy Carter ran for 

President of the United States 

in 1976, he pledged to “get the 

Army Corps of Engineers out of 

the dam-building business” and 

to take on Congress’s pork barrel 

politics.12 Although Carter had an 

engineering background, he had 

become distrustful of the Corps 

of Engineers during his term as 

governor of Georgia, believing that 

the Corps manipulated numbers 

to support projects, regardless of 

their benefit or the environmental 

harm they might cause. After 

becoming president, Carter made 

good on his pledge by insisting in 

1977 that Congress delete eighteen 

water projects from its public 

works appropriations bill that, in 

his words, “would cost billions of 

dollars and often do more harm 

than good.” His actions outraged 

Philadelphia’s Delaware River waterfront 

at Penn’s Landing
10

Chapter 1

Congress, and he eventually had to 

compromise on a bill that cut only 

nine projects. The next year, he 

vetoed the annual public works bill, 

which included some of the nine 

projects. Because “almost every 

Democratic leader lined up against 

me,” Carter remembered, this 

“battle left deep scars.”13 However, 

it indicated to Congress that some 

people, including presidents, were 

becoming less comfortable with 

the legislative branch’s close relationship with the Corps, and with 

projects that they viewed as not in 

the nation’s best interest.14

Corps Reorganization 

in the 1970s 

and 1980s

Facing opposition from both 

environmentalists and President 

Carter, the Corps found it increasingly difficult to get new water 

projects approved. Indeed, between 

1976 and 1986, Congress passed 

no water resources development 

acts, the legislation that authorized new Corps projects. Efforts 

on already authorized projects 

continued, but the Corps could 

generate no new work. As the 

authors of one publication saw it, 

“By the early 1980s, the era of 

large-scale water resources development projects had passed, the 

victim of environmental and budgetary concerns.”15 Accordingly, the 

Corps examined ways to restructure itself in line with changing 

national needs and interests, while 

striving to become more efficient in dealing with its declining 

workload.

In 1978, the Corps undertook 

its first reorganization since the 

Second World War. One of the 

goals of this restructuring was to 

realign districts to correspond with 

major river basins. As early as the 

1930s, some organizations had 

advocated the need for multipurpose river basin planning, and in 

the 1960s, both John F. Kennedy 

and Lyndon B. Johnson called 

for comprehensive plans for river 

basins. The Philadelphia District 

had led the way by completing 

such a plan for the Delaware River 

Basin in 1962 and by building a 

close working relationship with the 

Delaware River Basin Commission, 

the four-state agency formed “to 

oversee a unified approach to 
11

Reorganizations and Responses

managing a river system without 

regard to political boundaries.”16

With the idea that it made 

more sense for water resource 

planning to revolve around basins, 

the Corps expressed the intent to 

facilitate such planning through 

its 1978 realignment. Ironically, 

however, what was proposed for 

the Philadelphia District had 

nothing to do with aligning it more 

closely with the Delaware River 

watershed (whose boundaries it 

had shared since the district’s 

1866 founding) and everything to 

do with aligning the district more 

closely with its shrinking workload, 

now that the Tocks Island and 

Trexler projects had been placed 

indefinitely on hold.17

In 1979, the Marine Design 

Division, which had been part 

of the Philadelphia District 

since 1938, was renamed the 

Marine Design Center and 

placed under the jurisdiction 

of the Corps’ Water Resources 

Support Center at Fort Belvoir 

(although it remained housed in 

the Philadelphia District’s offices). 

In 1980, the Corps moved the 

district’s real estate function to 

the Baltimore District and eliminated Philadelphia’s engineering, 

design, and construction missions 

for new projects. Finally, in 1983, 

the Corps reduced the number 

of hopper dredges under the district’s command from three to 

one. Because of the loss of these 

functions, the number of district 

employees fell from nearly 800 in 

1978 to fewer than 600 in 1981, 

to only 400 in 1984. With its drastically reduced size, the district’s 

command was downgraded in 

1981 from colonel to lieutenant 

colonel, making it one of nine 

Corps districts (out of 40) that 

did not have full colonels at the 

helm. As one district publication 

declared, this period was “one of 

the more difficult chapters in the 

Philadelphia District’s history.”18

Facing the diminishment of the 

district’s responsibilities, its leadership set about rebuilding for the 

future, launching major planning 

initiatives and exploring alternative 

sources of work.19 In this sense, 

NEPA and other environmental 

legislation, which had created some 

problems for the Corps, actually 

proved to be an opportunity, 
12

Chapter 1

especially as Corps leadership tried 

to embrace the spirit of the laws 

and comply with their provisions. 

In 1970, the chief of engineers 

issued procedures for developing 

EISs in Corps projects. That same 

year, the Corps established the 

Environmental Advisory Board to 

provide guidance on improving 

relations with environmentalists and to “examine existing and 

proposed policies, programs, and 

activities from an environmental 

point of view to define problems 

and weaknesses and suggest 

remedies.” The board served this 

function until 1980.20

Each Corps district was 

responsible for implementing the 

new EIS procedures and making 

itself more responsive to environmental concerns. To achieve these 

goals, the Philadelphia District 

established the Environmental 

Resources Branch in the Planning 

Division in 1972. The branch 

provided environmental planning 

and EIS preparation to the other 

divisions and branches in the 

district, functioning, in effect, as 

in-house consultants while also 

working externally with states and 

other federal agencies to resolve 

any issues they had with the environmental effects of Philadelphia 

District projects.21

To staff the Environmental 

Resources Branch, the district 

recruited ecologists, biologists, 

and archeologists, in addition to 

engineers. This enabled the branch 

to effectively prepare EISs, which 

required input from a variety of 

disciplines. The hiring of personnel 

from disciplines other than engineering was a trend in the Corps as 

a whole in the 1970s and 1980s, 

especially “staff with expertise in 

fisheries biology, wildlife biology, 

archeology, history, economics and 

sociology.” It took some time for 

the agency to make the transition 

to a more interdisciplinary culture, 

but by the 1980s, the Corps could 

rightly say that it was a “Corps of 

multidisciplined people.”22

In addition to the 

Environmental Resources Branch, 

the Philadelphia District established a Regulatory Branch in its 

Operations Division in the 1970s. 

This branch was responsible for 

another of the Corps’ new roles: 

wetlands permitting. Under the 
13

Reorganizations and Responses

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 

the Corps had received authority 

to issue permits for activities that 

affected navigable waters in the 

United States, ensuring that such 

activities did not affect navigability and anchorage. In 1972, 

Congress passed the Clean Water 

Act. Section 404 of that legislation 

gave the Corps the responsibility 

of regulating “the discharge of 

dredged or fill material into the 

navigable waters” of the United 

States. The law specifically charged 

the Corps with rejecting permit 

applications if “the discharge of 

such materials into such area will 

have an unacceptable adverse 

effect on municipal water supplies, 

shellfish beds and fishery areas 

(including spawning and breeding 

areas), wildlife, or recreational 

areas.” In the late 1970s, the 

definition of navigable waters was 

expanded to include virtually all 

wetlands and waters in the United 

States. Although the Corps resisted 

this permitting function at first, 

it had embraced the program by 

the 1980s.23

The Regulatory Branch was 

charged with both processing 

permit applications and ensuring 

that permittees’ work was in compliance with the terms of their 

permits and with the regulatory 

authorities. While the branch was 

composed mostly of engineers 

at the outset, by the twenty-first 

century the vast majority of its 

thirty-two employees were biologists or physical scientists.24

A significant new mission that 

the Corps explored in the 1980s 

was supporting Superfund projects 

conducted by the EPA. Superfund 

arose in the early 1980s from 

growing concern about hazardous 

waste deposits in the United States. 

Stemming directly from the nation’s 

Monitoring by the District’s Regulatory 

Branch at a wetlands mitigation site in 

Ocean City, N.J.
14

Chapter 1

experience with Love Canal, N.Y. 

(in which hundreds of homeowners 

were forced to evacuate when it 

was discovered that their homes 

were built on a toxic waste site), 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 created the 

Superfund to clean up hazardous 

waste sites in the United States. 

The EPA, created in December 

1970, was responsible for the 

Superfund program.25

The Philadelphia District 

already had a relationship with 

the EPA: In 1978, the Corps 

had concluded an interagency 

agreement under which the 

district received charge over all 

wastewater treatment construction projects in Pennsylvania 

and Delaware. In just a few short 

years, this program had come to 

constitute a significant piece of 

the district’s construction management workload. Building on 

that relationship, the EPA asked 

the district in 1981 to supervise 

hazardous waste cleanup of two 

Superfund sites in New Jersey: 

Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services 

and Lipari Landfill. These efforts 

began the Philadelphia District’s 

long association with Superfund 

and the EPA, an association that 

continued into the twenty-first 

century and became a significant 

part of the district’s responsibilities.26 The district undertook these 

duties as part of its Support for 

Others program (now known as 

International and Interagency 

Services), whereby it worked for 

other federal agencies, state and 

local governments, Indian tribes, 

foreign governments, and international organizations to “provide 

quality engineering, environmental, 

construction management, real 

estate, research and development, 

and related services.”27

The Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services 

Superfund site, Bridgeport, N.J., before 

remediation. It was once rated the most 

challenging cleanup on EPA’s National 

Priorities List
15

Reorganizations and Responses

Another area of operations 

that the environmental movement 

made possible was ecosystem restoration. Recognizing that many 

locations had experienced environmental damage as a result of 

development—and even because 

of some Corps projects—Congress 

authorized the Corps, in the Water 

Resources Development Act of 

1986, to participate in environmental restoration projects. Not 

long after that, President Bill 

Clinton’s administration placed a 

priority on ecosystem restoration, 

paving the way for the Corps to 

become more involved. Given its 

previous work to mitigate beach 

erosion and storm damage on 

the coastlines of New Jersey and 

Delaware, the Philadelphia District 

seemed a natural fit for ecosystem 

restoration. In fact, the restoration 

work that the district undertook in 

the 1990s stemmed from its coastal 

erosion experience, as it began 

studying ways to mitigate damage 

caused by storms and beach erosion 

in areas such as Lower Cape May 

Meadows in New Jersey.28

In addition to environmental 

work, the district attempted to 

restore its military construction 

mission, which Corps headquarters 

had transferred to the Baltimore 

and New York districts in 1960. Lt. 

Col. Ralph Locurcio, who assumed 

command of the Philadelphia 

District in 1984, made it a goal 

to regain this mission. Largely 

through his leadership and that of 

Nicholas Barbieri, then chief of the 

Engineering Division, the district 

saw its oversight responsibilities 

restored for military construction 

projects at Fort Dix and McGuire 

Air Force Base in New Jersey. 

However, although the district continued to do military construction 

at these and other installations, its 

military mission was not reinstated 

New Jersey’s “The Meadows” and the 

adjacent Borough of Cape May Point, 

jointly benefiting from the bermand-dune system constructed by the 

Philadelphia District
16

Chapter 1

until early in 2009, when it was 

officially designated one of the 

Corps’ military districts, with 

responsibility for installation 

support at Dover Air Force Base 

and Tobyhanna Army Depot; U.S. 

Army Reserve Command construction within the district’s geographic 

footprint; and all electrical power 

contracting for overseas contingency operations. Similarly, in 

1988, the district regained its 

engineering, design, and construction missions from the Baltimore 

District.29 With these missions 

reinstated, the district seemed well 

positioned for the future.

Corps Reorganization 

in the 1990s

In the late 1980s and early 

1990s, the Corps proposed another 

reorganization—a major overhaul 

of its structure. In response to 

the organization’s declining civil 

works workload, when Lt. Gen. 

Henry Hatch became chief of 

engineers in 1988 he undertook 

a thorough review of the Corps, 

which at the time had thirty-nine 

districts under the jurisdiction 

of thirteen divisions. According 

to one study, Hatch thought that 

reorganization was necessary for 

several reasons, including “imbalances between the locations of the 

Corps’ workforce and its work; 

the shift from a workload heavy 

with design and construction to 

one weighted toward operations, 

maintenance, regulatory, and 

environmental restoration activities; and the need to reduce Corps 

overhead.” Congress also recognized that the Corps needed to 

rethink its structure, mandating in 

the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act of 1990 that 

the Corps “initiate a broad-based 

conceptual study of potential field 

organizational structures.” Hatch 

established a team led by Fred H. 

Bayley, Chief of Engineering of 

the Vicksburg District, to provide 

recommendations for reorganization. In January 1991, the team 

submitted its report to Congress 

(known as the Bayley Report), outlining a conceptual restructuring 

framework.30

At the same time, the U.S. 

military was downsizing in response 

to the end of the Cold War. To deal 

with these changes, Secretary of 
17

Reorganizations and Responses

Defense Richard Cheney created the 

Commission on Base Realignment 

and Closure (BRAC) in 1988 “to 

review DoD installations and to 

recommend some facilities to be 

realigned, consolidated, or closed.” 

Hoping to keep these closures 

and realignments from becoming 

politicized (since the closure of 

bases would have economic effects 

on the communities that surrounded them), Congress mandated 

in the Defense Authorization 

Amendments and Base Realignment 

and Closure Act of 1988 that 

whatever recommendations the 

BRAC commission made had to be 

accepted by Congress as a whole, 

or all would be rejected. In 1990, 

Congress passed the Defense Base 

Realignment and Closure Act, 

mandating that an independent 

commission review any Department 

of Defense recommendations to 

assess their validity. Whatever 

recommendations the commission 

ratified, both Congress and the 

president had to accept as a whole 

and not in part. Soon after the 

passage of this act, General Hatch, 

in consultation with Les Edelman, 

chief counsel of the Corps, decided 

that it would be politically 

expedient to include Corps reorganization under BRAC, as it too had 

the potential of becoming politically charged and controversial.31

With the Corps now planning to 

use the BRAC Commission, Hatch 

appointed another team to develop 

a concrete reorganization plan. The 

eighteen-person Reorganization 

Study Team was led by Brig. Gen. 

Arthur E. Williams, commander 

of the Lower Mississippi Valley 

Division. In February 1991, the 

team completed its report, recommending that the Corps reduce 

the number of its divisions from 

ten to six and the number of its 

districts from thirty-five to twentytwo. Several districts were slated 

for closure under this plan on 

the basis of a “D-Pad” computer 

model developed by the BRAC 

Commission that measured and 

ranked districts according to 

several capabilities. Even though 

the Philadelphia District ranked 

sixth out of thirty-five districts in its D-Pad score, Corps 

Headquarters placed it on the 

closure list and planned to transfer 

its operations to New York.32
18

Chapter 1

For those who worked in the 

Philadelphia District, the news 

that it was slated for elimination came as a cruel blow. As 

Richard Maraldo, who was serving 

as deputy district engineer for 

programs and project management, 

later explained, “The district was 

very proud of its history and execution.” Even with the problems with 

Tocks Island and the decline in 

the amount of work, Philadelphia 

District personnel believed that the 

district had “an above average performance history” and that it did 

its job well.33

Others agreed, including 

members of Congress who did 

not want to see Philadelphia or 

other districts closed. Although 

Congress had not offered any 

resistance when the Corps first 

proposed that reorganization be 

included in the BRAC program, 

several members of Congress now 

vehemently disagreed with the 

proposal, stating that they would 

reject any BRAC recommendations that included the closure 

of Corps offices. Fearful that the 

whole BRAC process was in danger, 

Secretary of Defense Cheney 

refused to include the Corps’ 

plan in BRAC, although he did 

announce in May 1991 that Corps 

reorganization would go forward 

separately. However, the BRAC 

Commission itself recommended to 

Congress that the BRAC program 

include the Corps’ plan, unless 

Congress could develop another 

proposal by 1 July 1992.34

Congress, however, took swift 

action to ensure that Corps reorganization would not survive. First, 

it prohibited the Corps from using 

any funds appropriated in either 

the public works or armed services 

appropriations bills to close any 

district or division office. Second, 

it deleted the Corps’ plan from the 

BRAC Commission’s recommendations. In the words of Nancy P. 

Dorn, who became assistant secretary of the Army for civil works in 

fall 1991, these actions told Corps 

leaders that “while there may be 

a need to reorganize the Corps to 

meet the challenges of the 21st 

century, the proposed plan was 

unacceptable.” The actions also 

convinced Dorn that “there should 

be an opportunity for congressional 

involvement in any future plan.”35
19

Reorganizations and Responses

In March 1992, the House 

Subcommittee on Water Resources 

of the Committee on Public 

Works and Transportation held 

hearings on reorganization of the 

Corps. Those hearings gave supporters of the Philadelphia District 

the opportunity to express their 

opinions about the proposal to 

close the district. Congressman 

Wayne “Curt” Weldon (R-Pa.), 

for example, opposed the closure, 

stating that the district was a 

“perfect example of an operation 

that provides military services 

and vital civil works assistance.” 

If the Corps closed the district, he 

said the states of Pennsylvania, 

New Jersey, and Delaware “would 

lose the regular delivery of flood 

control and beach restoration 

services which support the fishing, 

boating and tourism industry.” 

Likewise, Congressman Thomas 

Carper (D-Del.) said that the 

Philadelphia District was “centrally 

located for the five states which 

it serves,” giving state and local 

officials ready access to the Corps. 

The district “also provides critical 

services, which I believe are vital 

to state and local economies within 

the Delaware River,” Carper said, 

including “shoreline protection, 

. . . safe and efficient navigation 

and . . . wetland regulation.” He 

concluded, “This is an example 

of a case in which government 

works best when it is closest to the 

A statement to Congress concerning 

impacts on the State of New Jersey if the 

Philadelphia District is closed
20

Chapter 1

people that it serves.” Congressman 

Thomas Foglietta (D-Pa.), a 

Philadelphia native, flatly declared 

that the Corps’ decision to close 

Philadelphia was “wrong” because 

of the district’s dredging activities, as well as the fact that “the 

loss of almost 500 jobs would 

have a serious negative impact” on 

the city of Philadelphia. He said 

that the Philadelphia District was 

“critical to the safe, efficient, and 

competitive operation of the ports 

in the Delaware Valley and to the 

regional economy.”36

Members of Congress were 

not the only ones voicing support 

for the Philadelphia District. John 

LaRue of the Philadelphia Regional 

Port Authority and Don Rainear of 

the Delaware River Port Authority 

lauded the district for its timely 

responses to emergencies at those 

ports, as well as the fact that “the 

Corps employees are local people 

who are intimately familiar with 

the area.”37 The hearings showed 

that many people in the states the 

Philadelphia District served considered its shoreline protection and 

navigation work essential to their 

economic well-being.

However, Assistant Secretary 

Dorn emphasized the need for 

some kind of reorganization, citing 

the fact that the Corps’ civil works 

workload—mainly in design and 

construction—had declined by 25 

percent since 1965 and that its 

military construction mission had 

experienced a “much more severe” 

decline. Dorn pointed out that 

workload was distributed unevenly 

throughout the districts, so that in 

some, “the planning, design, and 

construction workload changes by 

as much as 50 percent from one 

year to the next.” With such fluctuations, she said, “It is impossible 

to staff full service districts efficiently.” Small districts especially 

suffered, Dorn continued, because 

their overhead was an average 

of 20 percent higher than the 

overhead at a large district. “When 

a district starts to run out of 

work,” she said, “the costs go up” 

and a “project in a smaller district 

may end up costing more than the 

same project in a medium-sized 

or a large...district.” In essence, 

Dorn was arguing that the closure 

of some small districts might 

be unavoidable. However, she 
21

Reorganizations and Responses

acknowledged that the Corps had 

“no plan B” at that moment, even 

though she hoped to implement a 

plan in fiscal year 1993.38

In the midst of these closure 

discussions and hearings, the 

Philadelphia District, under the 

leadership of Lt. Col. Kenneth H. 

Clow, made plans to move its headquarters office for the first time in 

more than thirty years. Located in 

the Customs House since 1961, the 

district moved to the Wanamaker 

Building over the course of six 

weeks in March and April 1992. 

This was the twelfth move in its 

history for the district; district personnel hoped that the Wanamaker 

Building would provide it with a 

home for many years to come.39

However, whether the district 

would remain in the Wanamaker 

Building was contingent on 

whether it would remain a viable 

district. By November 1992, the 

Corps—under the leadership of 

new Chief of Engineers Lt. Gen. 

Arthur E. Williams, who had 

chaired the 1991 reorganization 

study—produced another reorganization plan. Bowing to the 

congressional firestorm produced 

by the proposal to close districts, 

the new plan recommended that all 

districts be retained (although it 

proposed a realignment of duties) 

and that the number of divisions 

be consolidated from eleven to six. 

The Corps would establish fifteen 

civil works technical centers, which 

could “provid[e] greater concentrations of planning, design, and 

review.” Under this new plan, the 

Philadelphia District would be 

retained, although it would undergo 

significant restructuring. The Corps 

proposed moving all military construction from Philadelphia to the 

Baltimore District and transferring 

the only recently regained engineering and planning missions to 

the proposed Baltimore District 

civil works technical center. The 

Philadelphia District would keep its 

project management, civil construction, operations, and regulatory 

missions, but the Marine Design 

Center would be transferred to 

the Norfolk District. Overall, the 

number of Philadelphia District 

employees would fall from 510 

to 348, and the district would be 

placed under the new North East 

Division, which would replace 
22

Chapter 1

the North Atlantic Division. This 

restructuring was to occur in fiscal 

year 1994.40

Before the Corps could proceed 

with its proposal, it had to clear it 

with the incoming Clinton administration. Clinton was elected in 

November 1992, just days before 

Williams unveiled the Corps’ new 

plan, and took office in January 

1993. The day after inauguration, 

Les Aspin, the new secretary of 

defense, tabled the reorganization plan; according to one history, 

Aspin refused to act on the plan 

in 1993, “effectively killing it.” 

Aspin’s objections to the plan are 

unclear; but, faced with this situation, Williams ended the Corps’ 

reorganization efforts. The Clinton 

administration, under the leadership of Vice President Albert Gore, 

conducted its own study in 1993 

of how to reinvent government, 

called the National Performance 

Review. On the basis of recommendations from that study, Clinton 

proposed legislation to make the 

federal government more efficient, which Congress passed in 

1994 as the Federal Workforce 

Restructuring Act. Under Section 

3201 of that act, the administration proposed “reorganizing the 

[Corps’] Headquarters offices, 

reducing the number of Division 

offices, and restructuring the 

district functions so as to increase 

the efficiency.” This meant that 

Customs House
23

Reorganizations and Responses

proposals to restructure the Corps 

would continue, and the Clinton 

administration began planning for 

reorganization in 1994.41

Unlike previous plans, the 

proposal developed by the Clinton 

administration did not adversely 

affect the Philadelphia District, as 

most of the restructuring occurred 

at the headquarters and division 

levels. For example, the administration reduced the number of 

divisions from eleven to eight, with 

two becoming “regional centers.” 

Few changes were made in the 

Philadelphia District. According 

to Lt. Col. Robert P. Magnifico, 

District Engineer at the time, the 

district’s size “will be driven by 

our workload,” which he characterized as “healthy.” Magnifico 

told district personnel that “the 

future looks pretty good as we 

move our planning studies into 

the engineering and design areas.” 

The district’s workload at the time 

consisted of a proposed deepening of the Delaware River Main 

Channel from 40 to 45 feet, its 

support of EPA Superfund projects, 

its regulatory program, its shoreline protection and maintenance 

dredging activities, and military 

construction at Fort Dix, McGuire 

Air Force Base, and Dover Air Force 

Base (where the district had begun 

working in 1994).42 Magnifico 

Wanamaker Building
24

Chapter 1

estimated that the district did $240 

million worth of work in 1994, 

and he noted that it had a “top 

10 district ranking in the Corps of 

Engineers, nationwide.”43 However, 

the uncertainty surrounding the 

status of the Philadelphia District 

for much of the 1990s was difficult 

for personnel. “It was very tense 

having that sword hanging over our 

heads,” Richard Maraldo said, but 

“we just continued to do our jobs to 

the best of our ability.”44

Regionalization and 

USACE 2012

The creation of regional centers 

under the Clinton administration’s restructuring highlighted a 

direction that the Corps increasingly traveled in the late 1990s 

and into the twenty-first century—

that of regionalization.45 For 

example, Chief of Engineers Lt. 

Gen. Joe Ballard explored the 

concept of using Corps personnel 

and resources across district 

boundaries in his Door to the 

Corps initiative in 1996. This 

concept envisioned the Corps as 

a place for one-stop shopping for 

a variety of federal, state, and 

local agencies. As part of this initiative, the Corps designated the 

district as the one “door” for EPA 

Region III’s Superfund program, 

which covered eight districts and 

three divisions. The Philadelphia 

District was chosen in large part 

because of its existing strong 

relationship with Region III and 

because the two offices are in 

close geographic proximity. This 

new arrangement quickly proved 

beneficial to the Corps. “Our 

own Superfund workload is up,” 

observed project manager John 

Bartholomeo in 1998, “but most 

of the projects we have brought in 

have gone to other districts, or in 

some cases even outside the North 

The Corps’ restructuring proposal, 

November 1992
25

Reorganizations and Responses

Atlantic Division.” He saw his 

work as an example of the Corps 

“function[ing] more as a seamless 

organization.”46

In 1998, expanding on the 

Door to the Corps idea, Corps 

Headquarters developed the 

concept of regional business 

centers, whereby “a division headquarters office manages itself 

and all of its subordinate districts 

as a single business center, balancing the types and quantities 

of workload against resources 

throughout the division’s areas 

of responsibility.” The business 

center goal was to more fully use 

the resources in a division and 

provide districts with “the flexibility necessary to meet customer 

needs, obtain efficiencies, adjust to 

resource constraints, and optimize 

good business practices.”47

Although the Corps made it 

policy to create regional business 

centers, the process was a slow one. 

It gained momentum in the first 

part of the twenty-first century 

after Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers 

became chief of engineers. Flowers 

emphasized changing the hierarchical, stovepipe nature of the 

Corps into a more team-based 

organization. He discussed his ideas 

with other Corps personnel, soliciting input and comments about 

what he wanted to implement. 

In October 2003, Flowers issued 

USACE 2012, a reorganization 

plan that aimed, according to one 

news release, “to increase efficiency 

and foster teamwork” among Corps 

personnel.48 Under USACE 2012, 

Corps personnel were to think 

beyond their own district boundaries and embrace the concept of 

the Corps as one big team. The 

plan reiterated the policy of establishing regional business centers 

that would allow districts to draw 

on the expertise of other districts 

within their division for specific 

work. As defined in a January 2008 

regulation, the business centers 

were “the division headquarters, its 

subordinate districts, and USACE 

centers, where needed, acting 

together as a regional business 

entity.”49 To accomplish specific 

missions, the centers—governed by 

a Regional Management Board—

would assign work to the districts 

according to their expertise. Under 

this new organizational structure, 
26

Chapter 1

the districts would “focus more 

directly on actual mission execution 

without the burden of managing 

support activities,” while “regional 

use of district technical expertise 

allows people to further hone their 

technical skills and knowledge.”50

Another Corps publication characterized USACE 2012 as “a new 

project-focused design.”51

For the Philadelphia District, 

USACE 2012 was not a great 

change, as the North Atlantic 

Division had already formed a 

regional business center in 1998 

“as a tool to balance workload, 

staffing and funding.”52 The 

Regional Management Board—

consisting of each district’s deputy 

district engineer for programs and 

project management—governed 

the business center, which North 

Atlantic Division Commander 

Brig. Gen. Merdith “Bo” Temple 

described as “one team of some 

3,500 Corps of Engineers professionals located in six districts 

under one regional office.” Temple 

explained that this model would 

allow districts to focus on their 

core expertise rather than trying 

to develop expertise in all of the 

Corps’ missions. As an example 

of how regionalization worked, 

Temple pointed to the Baltimore 

District’s demolition of Tacony 

Warehouse, an Army facility in 

Philadelphia. Although Baltimore 

was responsible for the demolition, it relied on the Philadelphia 

District “for construction management and quality assurance.” 

Likewise, the Philadelphia District, 

as part of the Global War on 

Terror, awarded a $500 million 

contract in Iraq to a private 

developer for construction and renovation of schools, health facilities, 

and other buildings. Administering 

such a large contract required 

much time and resources, so the 

district “drew upon New England 

and the North Atlantic Division 

Office for contracting support.”53

With projects already transcending district boundaries, Lt. 

Col. Robert Ruch, District Engineer 

of the Philadelphia District 

from 2004 to 2006, told district 

employees in 2004, “We’ve been 

operating regionally for years and 

should recognize how successful we 

have been.” He used the district’s 

Superfund work as an example of 

The USACE 2012 proposal
27

Reorganizations and Responses

“work that has been accomplished 

with the help of others” and 

echoed Temple’s sentiments about 

the Tacony Warehouse demolition.54 However, Ruch emphasized 

that “regionalization does not 

necessarily mean centralization.” 

Rather, Ruch said, it was “all about 

delivering the customer’s needs in 

a more efficient manner, . . . at 

whatever level that is best accomplished.” In short, USACE 2012 

forced the Corps to think outside 

district boundaries to provide 

better service and better products 

to its customers.55

Project Management 

Initiatives

In many ways, USACE 2012 

merely furthered initiatives that 

the Corps had undertaken as 

early as the 1980s in terms of 

how it managed projects, largely 

in response to direction from 

Congress in the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (WRDA1986), the first omnibus water 

resources act to pass in ten years. 

As noted earlier, President Carter 

had targeted Corps projects 

as economically wasteful and 

environmentally damaging. When 

Ronald Reagan took over the 

presidency in 1981, his goal of 

reducing the federal government’s 

footprint and trimming the federal 

budget meant that the Corps would 

remain under attack. Although 

both James Watt, Reagan’s secretary of the interior, and William 

Gianelli, the assistant secretary of 

the Army for civil works, favored 

water resource development, they, 

together with other administration officials, wanted to find ways 

to reduce government costs on 

those projects. They looked to costsharing arrangements, under which 

local communities would bear 

more financial responsibility for 

projects, thus relieving the federal 

government of part of the financial 

burden while also reducing the 

number of unnecessary projects 

(since local interests would theoretically be inclined to pay only for 

projects that would be of substantial benefit to them).56

Traditionally, the federal 

government had funded every 

aspect of the construction of flood 

control projects and river and 

harbor navigation projects, but 
28

Chapter 1

Gianelli proposed that the federal 

government only fully fund reconnaissance studies to determine 

whether a project was feasible. If 

it was, local interests would share 

50-50 with the federal government in the costs of feasibility 

studies and construction of flood 

control projects. Although the 

administration met with initial 

resistance in Congress, it was successful in getting cost-sharing 

measures included in WRDA1986. According to that law, local 

sponsors would contribute 25 to 

50 percent of the construction, 

operation, and maintenance costs 

of flood control projects, as well 

as 50 percent of the cost of feasibility studies. In addition, local 

sponsors would have to pay up to 

60 percent of coastal harbor deepening projects. According to one 

history, these measures had two 

effects: they “significantly reduced 

the number of feasibility studies 

that were undertaken” and they 

“encouraged the local sponsor 

Construction of a streambank erosion 

control project along Basket Creek in 

Sullivan County, N.Y.
29

Reorganizations and Responses

to take a much larger role in the 

project through its design and 

construction phases.” Essentially, 

cost-sharing provisions not only 

reduced federal government expenditures; they made local sponsors 

virtual partners with the Corps on 

many of its projects.57

Not everyone was enthusiastic 

about these changes. According to 

Locurcio, who was district engineer 

of the Philadelphia District when 

WRDA-1986 passed, the costsharing provisions were “very 

detrimental to the locals,” because 

“they couldn’t afford it.” Locurcio 

feared that legitimate projects 

that would benefit communities 

would fall by the wayside because 

local sponsors would be unable to 

fund them.58 This meant that not 

only would the Corps be unable 

to help local communities, but its 

workload would decrease. Since the 

Philadelphia District was already 

struggling with a declining civil 

works workload in the mid-1980s, 

this was problematic.

In another sense, cost-sharing 

forced the Corps to revisit the way 

it managed projects. As one account 

explained, before WRDA-1986, 

the Corps had generally looked 

at “project needs for the coming 

fiscal year or for a particular phase 

(e.g., planning, design, or construction) with less concern for 

the overall (life cycle) schedule or 

cost estimate for the full duration 

of a project.” Under WRDA, this 

approach was no longer possible, 

because local sponsors would have 

to “know their share of the cost 

with a high degree of precision.” 

In terms of military programs 

(which were not subject to costsharing arrangements), the Corps 

also needed new management 

techniques, because such projects 

were generally funded by “federal 

appropriations [to] other agencies 

and provided to the Corps.”59

When Lt. Gen. Henry Hatch 

became chief of engineers in 

the late 1980s, he focused on 

improving the Corps’ project management. He worked with Robert 

Page, the assistant secretary of 

the Army for civil works, who had 

experience in private industry and 

who believed the Corps had a long 

way to go in terms of project management. At that time, districts 

had no central way of managing 
30

Chapter 1

a project. Districts typically were 

organized around four functional 

divisions—planning, engineering, 

construction, and operations—

each with its own programs and 

projects. The larger civil works 

projects were often transferred 

from one functional area to 

another as they progressed but 

with no single long-term project 

manager to ensure that budgets 

and deadlines were met. This led 

to cost overruns, delays, and little 

accountability—and to projects 

that lasted decades.60

Page, with Hatch’s full 

support, made a concerted effort 

to promote a centralized form of 

matrix project management, and 

the two worked with Corps leaders 

in 1988 to develop the process, 

which became known as “life-cycle 

project management.” Under this 

process, a specific project management division in a district would 

take charge of a project from 

beginning to end. The project 

managers in this division would 

be responsible for ensuring that 

budgets and timelines were met 

and that effective communication 

was occurring with local sponsors 

and other interested parties. 

They would shepherd the project 

through the different stovepipes to 

ensure a successful outcome.61

The Corps had many goals for 

this centralized process, including 

a reduction in time spent on 

planning and design, better communication and collaboration with 

local sponsors, and more accurate 

estimates of project costs and deadlines.62 On 1 July 1988, the Corps 

directed that project management 

be implemented at each district 

through four main steps: creating 

the position of deputy district 

engineer for project management; 

assigning a project manager to 

every project; creating a Program 

Management Office for technical 

support; and establishing a project 

management board to review every 

project on a monthly basis.63

However, no clear deadline was 

given for filling the deputy district 

engineer for project management 

position, and the implementation of 

project management proceeded haphazardly for the next several years. 

Some Corps employees resisted the 

idea of having a manager outside 

their stovepipe supervising their 
31

Reorganizations and Responses

projects, while others saw it as just 

one more layer of bureaucracy.64

In light of the many previous 

initiatives that had never fully 

materialized, the Philadelphia 

District’s leadership decided to take 

a wait-and-see attitude—to determine how serious Corps leadership 

was about the project management 

program before filling the deputy 

district engineer position.65

In 1988, the district appointed 

the chief of planning to serve as 

acting deputy district engineer, but 

as Corps Headquarters continued 

to emphasize the importance of 

project management, the district 

finally created and filled the 

position of deputy district engineer 

for programs and project management (DPM) in 1989. Since then, 

this has been the senior civilian 

position in each Corps district.66

This deputy was dual-hatted 

as chief of the newly created 

Programs and Project Management 

Division (PPMD), which at first 

incorporated only civil works 

design and construction. Military 

construction, the Support for 

This “sand-throwing” ceremony marked 

the start of beach nourishment at 

Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, Del., 

under a Corps project cost-shared with 

the Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control
32

Chapter 1

Others program, planning, and 

operations and maintenance were 

not included, although they would 

be added later. By 1998, PPMD 

consisted of two branches—the 

Project Management Branch and 

the Programs Branch—the latter 

of which focused primarily on 

project budgeting. According to 

Richard Maraldo, the district’s first 

DPM, “The senior leadership of the 

district” was “very supportive [of] 

and cooperative” with the project 

management program, setting it 

on a path to full integration in the 

Philadelphia District.67

The Corps’ increased emphasis 

on project management was 

extended to the district’s military 

and interagency missions in the 

late 1980s under the leadership of 

Lieutenant Colonel Locurcio, who 

combined the Engineering and 

Construction divisions. According 

to Locurcio, the goal was to provide 

“continuous management from the 

cradle to the grave of a project.” 

Because these two types of projects 

(unlike those in civil works) came 

to the Corps already fully defined, 

the “cradle” starting point in 

the district was not planning but 

engineering. Despite a push in 

1993 to reestablish Construction 

as a separate division, the single 

Engineering and Construction 

Division remained intact.68

Similarly, the Philadelphia 

District reexamined its Operations 

Division in the 1990s as part of a 

Corps initiative to assess the operations and maintenance program in 

all its districts. This division, with 

265 personnel, was responsible for 

operations and maintenance of civil 

works projects, the dredging fleet, 

the management of flood control 

projects and the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal, the district’s 

regulatory mission, and emergency management. In 1995, the 

district reorganized the division, 

combining some branches and 

ensuring that each civil works 

operations and maintenance 

project had a designated project 

manager. For example, elements of 

the Navigation and Maintenance 

Branch were combined with part 

of the Plant Branch to form the 

Management Support Branch, while 

the Surveys Branch and Operation 

and Maintenance Contracts 

Branch became the Operations 
33

Reorganizations and Responses

Technical Support Branch. The 

reorganization eliminated eight 

full-time positions (which were 

unfilled vacancies) and streamlined 

supervisor-to-employee ratios.69

As the Corps moved into the 

twenty-first century, project management continued to evolve. 

Regionalization progressed, and the 

Corps formalized and expanded the 

practice (which had long existed 

to some extent) of working across 

district lines to deliver quality 

products. Corps Headquarters 

incorporated this practice into 

project management, calling it 

the project management business 

process. Under this process of 

“one project, one team, one project 

manager,” each project would have 

a project delivery team that was 

“responsible for project success.” 

(Previously, such teams were 

formed only for the larger civil 

works projects and included specialized consultants, usually from 

elsewhere in the Corps.) Members 

of the project delivery team could 

come from other districts and 

might include “specialists, consultants/contractors, stakeholders, or 

representatives from other federal 

and state agencies.” As a 2006 

Engineer Regulation stated, “Led 

by the Project Manager, [the project 

delivery team is] empowered to 

act in unison across organizational 

boundaries focusing on consistent 

service to customers.” To increase 

its level of partnering, the Corps 

mandated that the project manager 

and the project delivery team work 

with the customer to develop a 

project management plan and stay 

in close contact over the course of 

the project.70

Although the project management business process seemed like 

a natural evolution, given the focus 

on regionalization in the twentyfirst century, the concept met with 

some resistance in the Corps as 

a whole and in the Philadelphia 

District specifically. In 2000, 

Lt. Col. Timothy Brown, District 

Engineer for the Philadelphia 

District, commented that anyone 

who believed that the project 

management business process 

would “pass like past ideas” was 

“wrong.”71

And yet, when Lt. Col. 

Thomas C. Chapman took over 

as district engineer in 2002, one 
34

Chapter 1

interviewer informed him that 

“District personnel are looking 

for guidance from you about the 

project management business 

process.” Chapman responded that 

he understood “why there may 

have been negative feelings” but 

that implementing the principles 

of the process would “lead . . . to 

bigger and better things.”72 He said 

that although the concepts of the 

process were not new, “the total 

immersion of all our projects into 

the PMBP is a new way of doing 

business for many of us.” He characterized the process as “a very 

positive change” and encouraged 

district personnel to “learn the 

process and thoroughly understand 

it.”73 Eventually, district personnel 

became more comfortable with the 

process, especially with increased 

pressure from Corps Headquarters 

for full implementation.

Perceptions of the 

Philadelphia District

Between 1972 and 2008, 

the Philadelphia District faced 

changing missions, threatened reorganizations and eliminations, and 

new policies mandated by Corps 

Headquarters. In dealing with these 

issues, the District for the most part 

responded positively, even though 

it was handicapped by its status 

as a small district, which partially 

explained how it was treated in the 

reorganization proposals. Former 

District Engineer Locurcio said 

that in his interactions with district 

engineers from the Baltimore and 

New York Districts, he felt like 

a “second-class citizen,” in part 

because he was a lieutenant colonel 

and the other commanders were 

colonels. Also, the Philadelphia 

District was sandwiched between 

two other districts that had perceived advantages in terms of 

visibility and influence—the New 

York District was essentially 

collocated with the parent North 

Atlantic Division in Manhattan, 

and the Baltimore District was only 

an hour from Corps Headquarters 

in Washington, D.C. Locurcio found 

it “a little difficult” to work with 

other districts and believed that 

the Philadelphia District’s interests 

took a backseat to those of larger 

districts.74

Despite Locurcio’s experience, 

the Philadelphia District seemed to 
35

Reorganizations and Responses

have earned respect in the Corps 

for efficiency and effectiveness in 

the execution of its duties, even if 

(or because) it was smaller than 

other districts. At the working 

level, the district’s project teams 

collaborated well with their counterparts in neighboring districts, 

and their performance was exceptional. Lt. Col. Robert Keyser, 

District Engineer from 1996 to 

1998, said that the Philadelphia 

District ranked third among all 

Corps districts in its cost-effectiveness.75 Lt. Col. Robert Magnifico, 

who preceded Keyser, said that 

other districts recognized the 

Philadelphia District’s efficiency. 

He had previously worked for the 

Baltimore District, and he said that 

in Baltimore, “The Philadelphia 

District had an outstanding reputation.”76 To Lt. Col. Gwen Baker, 

District Engineer from 2006 to 

2008, proof of this sterling reputation came in the work that the 

Philadelphia District performed. 

“Ask anyone at the Engineer 

Research and Development Center 

in Vicksburg which districts 

they work with most closely on 

groundwater modeling,” she said. 

“Which district does EPA Region 

2 keep name-requesting time and 

time again for Superfund remediation? Who is co-lead for the 

North Atlantic Division as the 

USACE Coastal Planning Center of 

Expertise?” In all cases, it was the 

Philadelphia District.77

The positive attitude toward 

the district was apparent outside 

the Corps. As noted earlier, when 

the Philadelphia District was slated 

for closure, several members of 

the community testified about 

its strong work and good reputation. Congressional representatives 

from Pennsylvania were effusive. 

Congressman Foglietta, for 

example, said that in 1991, the 

Philadelphia District ranked sixth 

out of thirty-five in a reorganization study classifying districts 

“on the basis of five measures 

of merit.” He added that the 

Philadelphia District “possesses the 

unique mixture of expertise, proximity, and experience that allows 

it to successfully meet the varied 

challenges of the tri-state area it 

serves.”78 As Lieutenant Colonel 

Ruch, District Engineer from 2004 

to 2006, said, “Hundreds of folks 
36

Chapter 1

external to the District” believed 

that the district was “the friendliest 

and most proactive government 

agency they work with.” Ruch 

believed that the small size of the 

district worked in its favor in this 

area, as Corps personnel were able 

to get to know those they served 

and “personalize our service.”79

* * * * * * *

Between 1972 and 2008, the 

Philadelphia District faced some 

trying times amid changes to 

what defined the national interest 

guiding the Corps’ missions. The 

growing environmental movement, 

the passage of NEPA, and 

concerns of both the Carter and 

Reagan administrations about the 

costs of projects increased scrutiny 

of the Corps and decreased the 

number of large construction 

projects the Corps undertook. This 

situation led to the demise of the 

Tocks Island Dam and Trexler 

Lake projects, and the loss of these 

projects sent the district into a 

tailspin that did not improve until 

the mid-1980s. And just as the 

district was regaining missions 

and branching into new areas, the 

Corps issued plans for reorganization that included closing the 

Philadelphia District. The district 

survived this proposal and subsequent proposed reorganizations, 

and worked hard to embrace the 

regionalization concept promoted 

by the Corps in the late 1990s 

and early twenty-first century. In 

addition, the district established 

a project management program 

in accordance with Headquarters 

directives.

The district looked different 

in 2008 than it had in 1972. It 

continued to handle civil works 

projects, such as flood control, 

although on a much smaller scale, 

and it continued to execute its 

Placement of stone mat foundation for 

upgrading the Hereford Inlet Seawall, 

North Wildwood, N.J.
37

Reorganizations and Responses

dredging, navigation, and shore 

protection missions. However, 

environmental programs such as 

wetlands regulation and ecosystem 

restoration were more prominent 

in the district’s workload, as was 

its support of the EPA’s Superfund 

program—along with a number 

of other federal, state, and local 

agencies—and its work on military 

installations. Instead of consisting 

mainly of engineers, personnel 

now included significant numbers 

from the natural sciences, such 

as biologists and ecologists. There 

was a new Programs and Project 

Management Division, and the 

Engineering and Construction 

divisions had been combined. The 

district even had a new home—

the Wanamaker Building—after 

moving from the Customs House in 

1992. It worked more closely with 

other districts in the North Atlantic 

Division and focused its work on 

the areas in which it had the most 

expertise.

Throughout all these changes 

and challenges, the district continued to provide responsive and 

reliable service to its customers, 

and maintained its reputation as 

one of the most efficient and costeffective districts in the Corps. 

In that sense, little had changed 

since 1972.
Chapter 1 — Endnotes

38

1

 Snyder and Guss, The District, 207–219, 224–225.

2

 Snyder and Guss, The District, 224.

3

 Quotation in Martin Reuss, Shaping Environmental Awareness: The United States 

Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board, 1970-1980 (Washington, D.C.: 

Historical Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

1983) , 3; see also Adam Rome, “‘Give Earth a Chance’: The Environmental Movement 

and the Sixties,” Journal of American History 90 (September 2003): 527; J. Brooks 

Flippen, Nixon and the Environment (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 

2000), 5; Michael E. Kraft, “U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: From the 1960s to 

the 1990s,” Journal of Policy History 12, no. 1 (2000): 23; Kirkpatrick Sale, The Green 

Revolution: The American Environmental Movement, 1962-1992 (New York: Hill and 

Wang, 1993), 1–3, 20–22.

4

 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852).

5

 Edward Voigt, Chief, Public & Legislative Affairs, Philadelphia District, personal 

communication with Joshua Pollarine, 4 April 2011.

6

 For a summary of the Tocks Island Project, see Unpublished Morgan Draft District 

History, 29–48; Voigt personal communication. The Tocks Island Project is discussed in 

greater detail in Chapter Two.

7

 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 29–48.

8

 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 51–57. The Trexler Lake Project is 

discussed in more detail in Chapter Two.

9

 See Theodore Catton and Matthew C. Godfrey, Steward of Headwaters: U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, 1975-2000 (St. Paul, Minn.: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers St. Paul District, 2004), 70–77.

10 Quotations in Daniel A. Mazmanian and Jeanne Nienaber, Can Organizations 

Change? Environmental Protection, Citizen Participation, and the Corps of Engineers

(Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1979), 15–16; see also “Cost-Benefit 

Trips Up the Corps,” Business Week (19 February 1979): 96.

11 Mazmanian and Nienaber, Can Organizations Change?, 12.

12 As cited in Martin A. Reuss, Reshaping National Water Politics: The Emergence of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Fort Belvoir, Va.: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Institute of Water Resources, 1991), 49.

13 Quotations in Jimmy Carter, Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President (Toronto: 

Bantam Books, 1982), 79; see also Reuss, Reshaping National Water Politics, 48–52.

14 Mazmanian and Nienaber, Can Organizations Change?, 12.

15 Lisa Mighetto and William F. Willingham, Service-Tradition-Change: A History of 

the Fort Worth District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975-1999 (Fort Worth, Tex.: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District, 2000), 97.

16 Quotation in Delaware River Basin Commission, “DRBC Overview” <http://www.

state.nj.us/drbc/over.htm> (7 May 2009); see also Catton and Godfrey, Steward of 

Headwaters, 11; Martin Reuss, “Coping with Uncertainty: Social Scientists, Engineers, 

and Federal Water Resources Planning,” Natural Resources Journal 32 (Winter 1992): 

111–115.

17 Catton and Godfrey, Steward of Headwaters, 11; Martin Reuss, “Coping with 

Uncertainty”: 111–115.

18 Quotation in “Where Are They Now? 1978-1981: Col. James G. Ton,” The 

Observer 17 (November/December 1999): 13; see also Unpublished Morgan Draft 

District History, 66; “Where Are They Now? 1981-1984: Lt. Col. Roger L. Baldwin,” The 

Observer 18 (January/February 2000): 13. Other Corps districts with lieutenant colonels 

as district engineers are Charleston, Nashville, Albuquerque, Walla Walla, San Francisco, 

Honolulu, Buffalo, and Detroit. Matthew T. Pearcy email to Matthew Godfrey, 22 July 

2009, copy in possession of the authors.

19 The district’s planning program included many flood damage reduction, coastal 

protection, and navigation studies. During this period, the district was also successful 

in proffering its services to other federal, state, and local government organizations in 

need of the experience and expertise the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could provide. 

Voigt personal communication.

20 Reuss, Shaping Environmental Awareness, 1, 4–5, 7.

21 “Getting to Know Environmental Resources Branch,” The Observer 14 (October 

1996): 10–11.

22 “Exit Interview with Mr. Robert L. Lindner, Chief, Planning Division, Baltimore 

District, 6 April 2004,” 6, document provided by Scott Watson, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Baltimore District, Baltimore, Maryland.

23 Quotations in Clean Water Act, Section 404 <http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/

wetlands/regs/sec404.html> (11 May 2009); see also Jeffrey K. Stine, “Regulating 

Wetlands in the 1970s: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental 

Organizations,” Journal of Forest History 27 (April 1983): 60–64.

24 Frank Cianfrani interview by Paul Sadin and Joshua Pollarine, 12 January 2009, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, transcript, 1–4.

25 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, Superfund: 20 Years of Protecting Human Health and the 

Environment, EPA Report 540-R-00-007, digital copy available at <http://www.epa.gov/

superfund/20years/index.htm> (12 May 2009).

26 “Where Are They Now? 1978-1981: Col. James G. Ton,” 13; “Where Are They 

Now? 1981-1984: Lt. Col. Roger L. Baldwin,” 13.

27 Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Support for Others (SFO) Program, 

Annual Report for FY 96, 1, Box 2, SFO Files in temporary holdings, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Office of History, Alexandria, Virginia (hereafter referred to as Office of 

History).

28 Act of 17 November 1986 (100 Stat. 4082, 4251); “Lower Cape May-Cape 

May Point Ecosystem Restoration Project, Volume 1, Feasibility Report, Integrated 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Appendix A: Pertinent Correspondence, August 

1998,” ES-1, Programs and Project Management Division materials, Dwight Pakan’s 

Office, 6th Floor, Philadelphia District.

29 Ch, CEPhiladelphia District-EN-MC to Files, 25 August 1988, File 1110-2-1150a 

Planning & Development Correspondence, FE Walter, Internal Coord., Box 6 of 9, 

Accession No. 077-97-0001, Record Group (RG) 77, Records of the Office of Chief of 

Engineers, Federal Records Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (hereafter referred to as 

FRC); Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 67; “Where Are They Now? 1984-

1987: Lt. Col. Ralph V. Locurcio,” The Observer 18 (May/June 2000): 13; Brig. Gen. 

Todd T. Semonite, Commander, North Atlantic Division, Memorandum for Record, 17 

April 2009, document provided by Edward Voigt, Philadelphia District.

30 As cited in Donita M. Moorhus and Gregory Graves, “The Limits of Vision: A 

History of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988-1992,” January 1999, 28–30, 

unpublished manuscript, copy provided by Office of History; see also Mighetto and 

Willingham, Service-Tradition-Change, 97; Catton and Godfrey, Steward of Headwaters, 

13.

31 Moorhus and Graves, “The Limits of Vision,” 31–32; Catton and Godfrey, Steward 

of Headwaters, 13-14.

32 Moorhus and Graves, “The Limits of Vision,” 32–33; Catton and Godfrey, 

Steward of Headwaters, 14; Quotations in House Subcommittee on Water Resources 

of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 and the Reorganization of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Hearings 

Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation, House of Representatives, 102d Cong., 2d sess., 1992, 695 (hereafter 

referred to as WRDA 1992 and Reorganization Hearings).

33 Richard Maraldo, personal communication with Matthew Godfrey, 27 April 2009.

34 Catton and Godfrey, Steward of Headwaters, 15.

35 Quotations in WRDA 1992 and Reorganization Hearings, 173; see also Catton and 

Godfrey, Steward of Headwaters, 17.

36 WRDA 1992 and Reorganization Hearings, 609, 613, 691–692.

37 WRDA 1992 and Reorganization Hearings, 638–639.

38 WRDA 1992 and Reorganization Hearings, 173–175, 194.
39

Chapter 1 — Endnotes

39 “1992: The Year in Review,” The Observer 12 (April 1993): 6; Philadelphia District 

Timeline, document provided by Edward Voigt, Philadelphia District.

40 “Details of Corps Reorganization Announced,” The Observer 11 (December 

1992): 2; Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Reorganization of the 

Corps of Engineers: Hearing Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

United States Senate, 102d Cong., 2d sess., 1992, 13.

41 Quotation in House, Proposed Legislation, Government Reform and Savings Act of 

1993: Message from the President of the United States, 103d Cong., 1st sess., 1993, 

H. Doc. 103-155, 14; see also Catton and Godfrey, Steward of Headwaters, 19.

42 Quotations in Lt. Col. Robert P. Magnifico, “Your Involvement Needed for 

Restructuring,” The Observer 14 (September 1995): 2; see also “Getting to Know 

Construction Services Branch,” The Observer 18 (January/February 1999): 8-11; Catton 

and Godfrey, Steward of Headwaters, 19; Voigt personal communication.

43 Lt. Col. Robert P. Magnifico, “Success Last Year Paves the Way for the District’s 

Future,” The Observer 14 (August 1995): 2.

44 Maraldo personal communication.

45 Catton and Godfrey, Steward of Headwaters, 19.

46 “How ‘Door to the Corps’ Got Started,” The Observer 17 (March/April 1998): 9.

47 Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulation No. 10-1-

2, “Organization and Functions, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division and District 

Office,” 31 October 1999 <http://140.194.76.129/ publications/eng-regs/er10-1-2/

entire.pdf> (21 May 2009).

48 Amelia Gruber, “Army Corps to Release Final Reorganization Plan Next Week,” 

3 October 2003 <http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1003/100303a1.htm> 

(27 April 2009).

49 Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulation No. ER 

5-1-13, “Resource Management: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Policy on Regional 

Business Centers (RBCs)” <http://140.194.76.129/ publications/eng-regs/er5-1-13/

entire.pdf> (25 January 2008).

50 Quotations in “Background Information on USACE 2012” <http://corpslakes.

usace.army.mil/employees/ strategicplan/2012.html> (27 April 2009); see also U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, “USACE 2012: Aligning the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

for Success in the 21st Century,” October 2003, i-ii <www.aapa-ports-org/files/PDFs/

USACE_2012Final_ExSum.pdf> (27 April 2009); Gruber, “Army Corps to Release Final 

Reorganization Plan Next Week.”

51 David Lipsky, “USACE 2012 and the North Atlantic Division Regional Management 

Board,” The Observer (Autumn 2004): 3.

52 Lipsky, “USACE 2012 and the North Atlantic Division Regional Management 

Board,” 3.

53 “Regional News: Think as a Region . . . Act as a Region,” The Observer (Winter 

2004/2005): 3, 14–15.

54 “Q&A with the New D.E.,” The Observer (Autumn 2004): 22.

55 Lt. Col. Robert J. Ruch, “As I See It: What Does Regionalization Really Mean?” 

The Observer (Winter 2004/2005): 10 (emphasis in the original).

56 Reuss, Reshaping National Water Politics, 64–67, 81.

57 Quotations in Catton and Godfrey, Steward of Headwaters, 30–31; see also Reuss, 

Reshaping National Water Politics, 86–87; Bory Steinberg, “The Federal Perspective,” 

in Water Resources Administration in the United States: Policy, Practice, and Emerging 

Issues, Martin Reuss, ed. (East Lansing, Mich.: American Water Resources Association/

Michigan State University Press, 1993), 264–269.

58 Ralph Locurcio telephone interview by Paul Sadin, 16 and 20 March 2009, 

transcript, 4.

59 “Project Management System, Mission Execution-Implementation, Gains and 

Costs, Information Paper for District Commanders Conference, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO 

19–22 April 1994,” 1–2, General Files, Box 108-G-12, Research Collections, Office of 

History.

60 Moorhus and Graves, “The Limits of Vision,” 16–17.

61 “Project Management System, Mission Execution-Implementation, Gains 

and Costs,” 3–4. As Hatch’s initiatives were taking shape, the Philadelphia District 

was already headed toward life-cycle project management. Its combined Planning 

and Engineering Division included a Project Management Branch that was actively 

managing civil works projects from “concept to contract”—right up to the start of 

construction and all the way through to completion for the larger civil projects. Voigt 

personal communication.

62 “Project Management System, Mission Execution-Implementation, Gains and 

Costs,” 3–4.

63 Moorhus and Graves, “The Limits of Vision,” 18–19.

64 Moorhus and Graves, “The Limits of Vision,” 19–20.

65 “Veteran District Leader Retires, Ends 36-Year Career,” The Observer 26 (Winter 

2007/2008): 4; Maraldo personal communication.

66 “Veteran District Leader Retires, Ends 36-Year Career,” The Observer 26 (Winter 

2007/2008): 4; Maraldo personal communication.

67 Quotations in Maraldo personal communication; see also “Getting to Know The 

Customer’s Door to the Corps: Programs and Project Management Division,” The 

Observer 17 (March/April 1998): 8–9.

68 Quotation in Locurcio interview, 7; see also “Organization Day ’93,” The Observer 

12 (July 1993): 1; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Organization 

Charts,” September 2008, copy provided by Edward Voigt, Philadelphia District; Voigt 

personal communication.

69 “Operations Division Gets ‘New Look,’” The Observer 14 (January 1995): 6.

70 Colonel Yvonne J. Prettyman-Beck, Chief of Staff, Corps of Engineers, 

Memorandum for Commanders, Major Subordinate Commands, Districts, Centers and 

Labs, Subject: Revision of ER 5-1-11, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Business 

Process, 12 January 2007, 4–5 <http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-regs/er5-1-11/

entire.pdf> (21 May 2009).

71 Lt. Col. Timothy Brown, “CHANGE: One Thing We Can All Count On,” The 

Observer 19 (November/December 2000): 10.

72 Lt. Col. Thomas C. Chapman, “An Interview with the Commander,” The Observer

21 (September/October 2002): 3.

73 Lt. Col. Thomas C. Chapman, “First Impressions Are Strong and Lasting,” The 

Observer 21 (July/August 2002): 2.

74 Locurcio interview, 14.

75 “Keep Doing What You’re Doing and Do It Safely,” The Observer 15 (September 

1996): 4.

76 “Lt. Col. Magnifico: A Closeup Look,” The Observer 13 (November 1994): 5.

77 Lt. Col. Gwen E. Baker, “Highlighting the District’s Technical Expertise,” The 

Observer 25 (Spring 2007): 2.

78 WRDA 1992 and Reorganization Hearings, 695, 697.

79 “Q&A with the New D.E.,” The Observer 23 (Autumn 2004): 11, 22.
2
41

Beginning in the state of 

New York, the main stem 

of the Delaware River 

flows for more than three hundred 

miles before entering the Atlantic 

Ocean through the Delaware 

Bay. The river and its numerous 

tributaries constitute the Delaware 

River Basin, which encompasses 

13,600 square miles in the states 

of New York, Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey, and Delaware, as well as a 

small area in Maryland. The river 

contains several branches and tributaries, including the Lackawaxen, 

Mongaup, Neversink, Lehigh, 

Schuylkill, and Christina rivers. 

These serve many purposes, such 

as providing recreational opportunities and water supply to a large 

population. Yet the river, described 

in 1609 by Henry Hudson as “one 

of the finest, best and pleasantest 

rivers in the world,” can sometimes 

turn destructive, overflowing its 

banks and flooding communities and homes. More commonly, 

however, the problem has been 

too little water—droughts that 

diminish the amount of water the 

populations of Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey, New York, and Delaware 

can use. Drought has also periodically led to saltwater intrusion 

from the Atlantic Ocean. The 

Philadelphia District of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers has 

battled these issues for most of 

the twentieth century and into 

the twenty-first. In the years since 

1972, its work in these arenas 

has become increasingly complicated, as many groups—both 

environmental and political—have 

staked out an interest in water 

management.

Dams, Basin Planning, and Flood Risk Management

Facing page: Francis E. Walter Dam at 

maximum discharge in September 2004, 

returning to normal reservoir levels 

following Tropical Storm Ivan
42

Chapter 2

In 1955, Hurricanes Connie 

and Diane rocked the North 

Atlantic region, spreading destruction and devastation in their 

wake. One report said, “Bridges 

along the Delaware were washed 

out, homes and businesses were 

destroyed, 99 people died.”1

 The 

extent of the damage caused 

many to clamor for additional 

flood protection in the Delaware 

River Basin. A year earlier, the 

U.S. Supreme Court had issued an 

amended decree to govern water 

distribution on the Delaware River, 

which allowed approximately 900 

million gallons of water a day to be 

extracted from the river for water 

supply purposes. With such heavy 

demands, residents of the states of 

New York, New Jersey, Delaware, 

and Pennsylvania needed additional water supplies.2

By the mid-1950s, the 

Philadelphia District had already 

been working for several years on 

a comprehensive plan (initiated 

in 1950) for the Delaware River 

Basin, but the hurricanes and the 

Supreme Court decree caused 

the Corps to reevaluate its plans. 

After conducting numerous “water 

use studies based on present and 

project populations and economic 

activities in the basin and adjacent 

areas,” the district presented a 

plan to Congress in 1962.3

 This 

plan envisioned the “eventual construction of 58 reservoirs to meet 

projected demands over the next 50 

years for municipal and industrial 

water, recreation, flood control, 

hydroelectric power, and related 

purposes.” To begin, the Corps 

asked for authorization to construct “8 of the 19 major control 

structures at sites designated as 

Beltzville, Blue Marsh, Trexler, 

Tocks Island . . . , Aquashicola, 

Maiden Creek, Prompton and Bear 

Creek ” (the last two were modifications of existing projects). The 
43

Flood Risk Management

Corps estimated that the complete 

development of the plan would cost 

$591 million—$232 million from 

the federal government and $359 

million from a nonfederal sponsor.4

Throughout the 1960s, the 

Philadelphia District worked 

to implement the plan’s recommendations. All components of 

the district—including planning, 

design, engineering, and construction personnel—were involved 

in water resources projects. The 

district conducted reconnaissance and feasibility studies for 

dams such as Tocks Island, Blue 

Marsh, and Beltzville, while the 

Corps worked closely with the 

Delaware River Basin Commission 

(DRBC), created in 1961 as “a 

regional body with the force of law 

to oversee a unified approach to 

managing a river system without 

regard to political boundaries.” The 

DRBC consisted of the governors of 

New York, New Jersey, Delaware, 

and Pennsylvania, as well as a 

federal representative, originally 

from the U.S. Department of the 

Interior but later designated as 

the division engineer of the Corps’ 

North Atlantic Division.5

 For some 

of the projects proposed in the 

Comprehensive Delaware River 

Basin Plan, the DRBC served as 

the local sponsor and representative. Working with the DRBC, the 

Philadelphia District had either 

completed or placed under construction several elements of the 

plan by 1972, but politics, funding 

issues, and environmental concerns 

would soon halt efforts to construct 

Tocks Island Dam—the linchpin of 

the plan—and then Trexler Dam.

Tocks Island Dam

The Tocks Island Dam was one 

of the most important projects on 

the Philadelphia District’s horizon 

in the 1960s and 1970s. Several 

studies—including a book and 

several master’s theses and doctoral 

dissertations—have been produced 

on the project. Unlike those works, 

this history does not present an 

exhaustive study of Tocks Island. 

Instead, it focuses primarily on 

the district’s role in this project 

and on the effect on the district 

of the demise of the project, while 

also noting the changing national 

context in which the district was 

working in the 1970s and beyond. 

The Delaware River Basin Comprehensive 

Plan, as transmitted to Congress
44

Chapter 2

Geographer Gina Bloodworth noted 

in a dissertation on the Tocks 

Island Project that the 1970s saw a 

transition in the nation’s focus on 

water resources to “a more transparent decision-making process 

that included public input” and 

an “increased emphasis on preserving environmental quality and 

values.”6

 This shift in thinking 

affected the Corps’ ability to 

continue with the Tocks Island 

Project and ultimately affected the 

amount of work the Philadelphia 

District had on the horizon. Tocks 

Island is a good example of how 

the context of the times affected 

Corps projects.

Because of the massive scale 

of the project, especially in the 

eastern United States—a dam 

3,200 feet long and 160 feet high 

that would create a thirty-sevenmile-long reservoir, construction 

of which would directly affect six 

counties across New York (Orange), 

New Jersey (Sussex and Warren), 

and Pennsylvania (Pike, Monroe, 

and Northampton)—the implementation of the project required 

a large amount of the district’s 

time and resources. One source 

said that, if constructed, Tocks 

Island would be the eighth largest 

dam project ever attempted by the 

Corps. Accordingly, as one district 

publication related, “No enterprise 

enlisted more . . . talent during 

the late 1960s than the Tocks 

Island multipurpose flood control 

project.”7

 But Tocks Island came 

under fire in the 1970s from a host 

of opponents, who attacked it for 

the environmental degradation it 

would supposedly cause and for 

its elimination of a scenic portion 

of the Delaware River. Supporters 

of Tocks Island and representatives of both the Corps and the 

DRBC responded that the dam was 

the most efficient way to provide 

the flood control, water supply, 

and recreation the Delaware River 

Basin needed. The opposition was 

not swayed, however, and the 

project was eventually scuttled, 

which had a dramatic effect on the 

Philadelphia District’s workload.

The Corps had studied 

the potential construction of 

Tocks Island Dam for many 

years. In 1934, for example, the 

Philadelphia District presented a 

report to Congress on the Delaware 
45

Flood Risk Management

River Basin that, according to 

one source, “was the first comprehensive water-resources plan 

ever developed” for that basin. It 

proposed the construction of dams 

at thirty-four sites, including Tocks 

Island, located on the main stem 

of the Delaware River approximately five miles upstream from 

the Delaware Water Gap and seven 

miles northeast of Stroudsburg, 

Pa. The 1934 proposal called for 

a reservoir that could hold 214 

billion gallons of water at Tocks 

Island for water supply and power 

production. But funding was not 

forthcoming for the project, and in 

1939 Congress asked the Corps to 

reexamine the report. Subsequent 

onsite boring tests revealed that 

a large dam was impracticable 

because of foundation issues; by 

the mid-1940s, the proposal for a 

dam at Tocks Island seemed dead.8

After the devastating storms 

of 1955, however, and with the 

increasing need for water in the 

area, the chief of engineers directed 

the Philadelphia District to again 

examine the most effective ways 

of controlling floods and providing 

water. Later that year, the U.S. 

Senate Committee on Public Works 

passed a resolution requesting a 

review of Delaware River Basin 

reports. In 1956, the committee 

The reservoirs originally planned for 

construction under the Delaware River 

Basin Comprehensive Plan
46

Chapter 2

passed another resolution calling 

for the Corps to specifically study 

the construction of a dam on the 

main stem of the Delaware River, 

either at Wallpack Bend or at 

Tocks Island. In the course of completing these studies, the Corps 

determined that a dam was feasible 

at Tocks Island as long as it was an 

earthfill dam and was in a slightly 

different location than the one previously explored. Such a reservoir, 

the Corps said, could provide twice 

as much water storage as one at 

Wallpack Bend. The Philadelphia 

District made its preliminary 

findings public in January 1959; 

in 1962, it issued an official 

proposal for the construction of a 

dam at Tocks Island. Estimated to 

cost approximately $146 million, 

the dam would be a “multiplepurpose development” that would 

“provide supplies of water, flood 

control, production of hydroelectric power, and . . . recreation” 

Location of the proposed Tocks Island 

Reservoir
47

Flood Risk Management

opportunities. More than half the 

potential storage of the reservoir 

would be used for water supply, 

recreation, and power generation, 

with the balance set aside for flood 

control and as sediment reserve. 

According to the Corps’ plans, the 

Philadelphia District would begin 

constructing the dam in 1967 and 

would have it fully operational 

by 1975. Congress authorized the 

project in the Flood Control Act of 

1962, and the DRBC included it 

in its own comprehensive plan for 

the Delaware River Basin that year, 

becoming the nonfederal sponsor 

of the project in 1965.9

Throughout the 1960s, the 

Corps completed planning and 

preliminary design for the dam’s 

construction. In the meantime, 

Congress expanded the recreational 

aspects of the project in 1965 by 

establishing the Delaware Water 

Gap National Recreation Area, 

administered by the National Park 

Service (NPS), on 46,000 acres 

of land surrounding the proposed 

dam site. Congress appropriated 

funds to purchase the 46,000 acres 

from existing landowners, and the 

Philadelphia District’s Real Estate 

Division was placed in charge of 

negotiating such purchases.10

But, as the 1960s closed, 

trouble loomed for Tocks Island, in 

large part because of the Vietnam 

War and its drain on the federal 

government’s finances. Lack of 

funding became an issue for the 

dam, especially as its cost escalated 

throughout much of the 1960s, 

reaching $214 million by 1969. 

With the price tag rising and little 

money to spare, Congress asked 

the General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to investigate the dam’s 

economics. The GAO focused 

on the Corps’ benefit-cost ratio, 

projected at around 1:4.11 The 

GAO claimed that recreational 

benefits were overstated while 

water supply benefits were understated. Although the GAO did not 

sound an alarm about the overall 

benefit-cost ratio, concern over the 

allocation of benefits, coupled with 

an austere budget that provided 

the Philadelphia District with only 

about $2 million in fiscal year 

1969 for construction purposes, 

meant that by the dawn of the 

1970s, the Corps had not yet commenced construction.12
48

Chapter 2

Ironically, although this initial 

delay had to do simply with 

finances, it created a window of 

opportunity that others proceeded 

to exploit—starting with those who 

sought to highlight the Tocks Island 

Project as potentially damaging to 

its surrounding environment. In 

1970, the DRBC commissioned an 

environmental study of the project 

area by Roy F. Weston Inc. This 

study made various recommendations in terms of ensuring that the 

reservoir provided sufficient water 

supply, that a sewage plan be centrally administered by the DRBC, 

and that engineering studies on 

solid waste disposal be conducted, 

but it still considered Tocks Island 

a viable option.13

However, even with this 

study, and even though Tocks 

Island was originally authorized 

before the passage of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

in 1969, the Philadelphia District 

had to prepare an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) before 

any construction could begin. The 

Corps submitted a draft EIS to the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) (as required by NEPA) 

in February 1971, but the CEQ 

deemed it inadequate, in part for 

not exploring alternatives to the 

project more exhaustively and in 

part for not devoting more attention to potential eutrophication 

of the reservoir. Eutrophication—

the process by which a water 

body becomes contaminated by 

nutrients such as nitrogen and 

phosphorous—was deemed especially important because it could 

affect the use of the reservoir for 

recreation.14 The CEQ recommended that construction of the 

Tocks Island Dam be deferred 

until the Corps could satisfactorily 

address these issues and, in the 

spring of 1971, the undersecretary 

of the Army agreed.15

In October 1971, the Corps 

issued its final EIS on Tocks 

Island. This document stated that 

consultants hired by the Corps 

had determined that eutrophication in the reservoir was likely, 

in large part because of sewage 

and animal waste runoff from 

upstream dairy farms in New 

York. To combat that, the EIS said, 

the DRBC would develop a large 

wastewater treatment system in the 
49

Flood Risk Management

area. Environmentalists, however, 

were not satisfied by the EIS. In 

February 1972, the Environmental 

Defense Fund published its own 

evaluation of the Tocks Island 

Project. This document admitted 

that “legitimate needs for water 

supply, flood damage prevention, 

outdoor recreation, and peaking 

power exist in the Delaware River 

Basin,” but it did not agree that 

Tocks Island was the best way 

to meet these needs. The report 

criticized the Corps’ “calculations 

and studies of the Tocks Island 

Reservoir water supply function” 

as “inadequate and misleading” 

and claimed that the Corps overestimated the recreational benefits 

of the dam. In terms of flood 

control, the report stated that, 

instead of constructing a large dam, 

the DRBC should use floodplain 

management to reduce flooding 

risks. Finally, the report said that 

“accelerated cultural eutrophication would have serious detrimental 

effects on the use of Tocks Island 

An artist’s rendering of the proposed 

Tocks Island Dam showing the spillway 

with its tainter gates and stepped 

terraces, intake structure at left and 

powerhouse at right
50

Chapter 2

Reservoir for water supply and recreation” and insisted that the Corps 

require the DRBC “to implement 

an adequate wastewater treatment 

and control program for both point 

(municipal and industrial) and 

nonpoint (agricultural) wastewater 

sources” before beginning construction.16 Russell Train, chairman 

of the CEQ, agreed with many of 

these criticisms and approached the 

governors of New York and other 

states in the Delaware River Basin 

to receive assurances that New York 

would take measures to prevent 

nutrient runoff into the reservoir 

and that Delaware, Pennsylvania, 

and New Jersey would provide 

funding for the wastewater 

treatment system. When these 

assurances were not forthcoming, 

Congress “officially stopped the 

construction of Tocks Island Dam” 

in the summer of 1972.17

The situation worsened when 

Governor William T. Cahill of New 

Jersey (a DRBC member) declared 

in 1972 that the state wanted to 

reevaluate its support of the dam, 

in part because of the cost of the 

wastewater treatment plant and in 

part because he had concerns over 

the effects a large recreation area 

would have on his state’s roads 

and communities. This came as 

somewhat of a surprise; former 

Philadelphia District Engineer 

Col. James A. Johnson, who commanded the district from 1968 to 

1971, noted that Cahill was very 

enthusiastic about Tocks Island in 

the late 1960s and early 1970s. 

Despite this initial support, on 

13 September 1972, Cahill told 

the DRBC that New Jersey could 

support Tocks Island only if certain 

economic and social conditions 

were met.18 Philadelphia District 

officials responded that Cahill was 

exaggerating the impact on New 

A sign showing some of the opposition 

expressed over the Tocks Island Dam
51

Flood Risk Management

Jersey of recreational visitation to 

Tocks Island and that the project 

should continue, independent of 

measures implemented by the 

states. However, in an effort to 

placate Cahill, they downgraded 

the estimate of proposed visitors to 

the dam to four million.19

Meanwhile, certain environmental and conservation groups 

opposed to the dam’s construction became more vocal. One of 

these was the Delaware Valley 

Conservation Association, which 

in 1970 joined with the Leni 

Lenape League and local chapters 

of the Sierra Club to form the 

Save the Delaware Coalition, with 

a stated goal of halting the Tocks 

Island Project and creating “a 

park without a dam”—a natural 

recreation area in the vicinity of 

Tocks Island centered around the 

Delaware River. National organizations such as the Wilderness 

Society and Trout Unlimited also 

expressed their displeasure with 

the proposed project.20

At the same time, many local 

residents who did not want to sell 

their homes and farms for the 

dam’s construction added their 

voices to the chorus of disapproval. 

One journalist described the forces 

against Tocks Island Dam as 

follows: 

From a comparative handful 

of local people, many of them 

landowners who tried to sue the 

government to stop the dam and 

recreation area . . . the anti-dam 

faction has grown to a large consortium of fishermen, who fear the 

loss of one of the best shad runs 

in the East; canoeists, who stand 

to lose one of the last stretches of 

white water in the East; environmental groups, elected officials, 

members of the Save the Delaware 

Coalition, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Council on 

Environmental Quality, and most 

recently, the Medical Society of 

New Jersey.21

A model of the Tocks Island Dam
52

Chapter 2

Together, these organizations 

wielded considerable political 

power and even began commissioning their own studies of the 

Delaware River Basin, concluding 

that the Corps could pursue several 

alternatives besides dam construction to address flood control and 

water supply issues, including 

floodplain zoning and nonstructural flood control solutions.22 The 

Corps disagreed substantively with 

these conclusions, arguing that 

“the Tocks Island Project meets . . . 

urgent human requirements in 

a manner that is more environmentally acceptable, efficient and 

economic than any other series of 

known or feasible alternatives.”23

Likewise, the DRBC declared 

that “the Tocks Island Reservoir 

would be the keystone of the water 

supply management program in 

the Delaware Valley without an 

alternative, and the DR[B]C sees 

no alternative.”24 From the perspective of former DRBC employee 

Richard Albert, the real argument 

over Tocks Island was an ideological one: “Either you believed that 

Tocks Island Dam was the longawaited answer to the water needs 

of the Delaware River Basin, or you 

didn’t.”25

As environmental groups 

and local landowners increased 

their opposition, a storm hit the 

Delaware River Basin in 1972 that 

affected views on the dam. Between 

22 and 25 June 1972, Tropical 

Storm Agnes dumped water across 

Pennsylvania, bringing rainfall 

totals of between 5 and 18 inches 

to various locations. Schuylkill 

County, for example, received 

14.8 inches of rain, and the entire 

commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

was declared a disaster area. The 

Delaware River Basin was not as 

hard hit as the Susquehanna River 

Basin, but the storm heightened 

in the minds of many the need for 

more flood control in the region.26

In Agnes’s aftermath, 

Philadelphia District officials 

declared that the storm showed 

the importance of Tocks Island. 

Had the storm taken a different 

route, they said, it could have 

caused damages exceeding those 

of the 1955 flood. As Colonel 

Johnson, District Engineer of the 

Philadelphia District at the time, 

later explained, “Had Agnes in 
53

Flood Risk Management

’72 been 50 miles to the east, 

the water level in Trenton [New 

Jersey] would have been 29 feet 

over the flood stage.” Johnson said 

that Agnes still would have caused 

flooding, even if all of the Corps’ 

authorized projects had been constructed at that time, but dams 

such as the one proposed at Tocks 

Island could have mitigated the 

damage.27

Meanwhile, the Corps faced 

criticism over its land acquisition methods. The Philadelphia 

District was given the responsibility in 1967 of acquiring the land 

necessary to build the dam and 

reservoir; to relocate Route 209, 

a two-lane highway that would 

be flooded by the reservoir; and 

to create the Delaware Water Gap 

National Recreation Area. The 

duty of obtaining these approximately 72,000 acres, owned by 

approximately three thousand 

people, fell to the district’s Real 

Estate Division, which established 

an office in East Stroudsburg with 

Upstream view of Tocks Island Dam 

as proposed
54

Chapter 2

approximately 120 employees. 

Understandably, this was a thankless job, as landowners were 

not happy about giving up their 

property, especially tracts of land 

that had been in a family for 

several generations. Many people 

who had to sell their land became 

bitter, blaming the Corps for 

everything from property loss to 

shortened life spans. As Colonel 

Johnson said, “There was one 

whale of a lot of emotion about 

those kinds of things.”28

In addition, after construction 

of the dam was delayed in the 

late 1960s and early 1970s, the 

Corps began leasing out properties that it had acquired to that 

point, leading to an influx of 

“hippies” into the area in 1971. 

Some of these members of the 

counterculture had legitimate 

leases on properties, while others 

were merely squatters on the land. 

Regardless, locals who remained in 

the Minisink Valley resented this 

intrusion and, by extension, the 

Corps that allowed it to happen. 

The Corps took legal action 

against many of the squatters and, 

in September 1971, even began 

bulldozing houses, until the squatters placed themselves in the way 

of the machines. After numerous 

legal actions, federal marshals 

obtained authority to evict the 

squatters in 1974, but, as Richard 

Albert noted, “The squatter 

eviction generated a great deal 

of bad publicity for the Corps of 

Engineers.”29 According to Vince 

Calvarese of the Philadelphia 

District, the bad feelings resulted 

in people “damaging our vehicles, 

putting sand in our gas tanks, 

and flat[tening] tires. We weren’t 

welcome.”30 Looking back, John 

Burnes, Assistant Chief of the 

Engineering and Construction 

Division, said that the Tocks 

Some of the squatters who moved into 

the Minisink Valley
55

Flood Risk Management

Island land acquisition taught 

the Corps some lessons. Those 

dealing with land acquisition, 

he said, “weren’t integrated with 

the public affairs office,” nor 

were they “tutored in how to give 

a sound bite or anything else.” 

Burnes believed that Tocks Island 

taught the Corps the importance 

of public relations and of using a 

gentler approach when acquiring 

lands.31

Meanwhile, Congress still 

refused to appropriate more 

money for dam construction, 

even after the Corps requested 

the release of funds in fiscal year 

1974. Part of the problem was 

that the growing local opposition to the project led the 

congressional delegations of New 

Jersey, Delaware, New York, and 

Pennsylvania to become “skeptical 

about the merits of the proposed 

plan.” When Brendan Byrne 

replaced Cahill as governor of 

New Jersey, he exhibited the same 

reluctance to support Tocks Island, 

while Malcolm Wilson, governor 

of New York, informed the Public 

Works Subcommittee of the House 

of Representatives in 1974 that 

he was opposed to construction at 

that time. Because of these views, 

the DRBC could not come to a 

firm decision about whether or 

not to support dam construction. 

Although the DRBC was the local 

partner in the project, the fact 

that two of its governors opposed 

construction was problematic. 

These developments led Congress 

to request in the Fiscal Year 1975 

Public Works Appropriation Act 

that an impartial restudy of Tocks 

Island be conducted under the 

supervision of the North Atlantic 

Division, in cooperation with 

the DRBC, by August 1975. The 

goal, according to a contemporary observer, was the completion 

of “an impartial, comprehensive 

analysis, including alternatives 

and review.” The Corps received 

$1.5 million for the restudy in 

August 1974; in December, it 

selected engineering firm URS/

Madigan-Praeger Inc. and architectural firm Conklin and Rossant 

for the review.32

In June 1975, the Corps 

released the report, The Comprehensive Review Study of the 

Tocks Island Lake Project and 
56

Chapter 2

Alternatives (informally known 

as the Madigan-Praeger study). 

This six-volume report attempted 

to answer many of the lingering 

questions about the proposed 

Tocks Island Dam. It concluded 

that the project was the most 

cost-effective means to achieve 

the purposes of flood control, 

water supply, recreation, and 

hydroelectric development in the 

region. In terms of the reservoir’s 

potential for eutrophication, the 

study said that “a con[s]ensus 

of opinion among limnologists, 

making independent rational 

scientific judgments about the 

lake once it is constructed, 

would be that it is eutrophic.” 

However, the study team did not 

believe that eutrophication would 

adversely affect any of the project’s benefits besides recreation. In 

the case of recreation, eutrophication would “have a detrimental 

effect,” but some recreational 

purposes could still be served even 

with eutrophication.33 Ultimately, 

the Madigan-Praeger study supported the Corps’ view that the 

dam was both feasible and necessary but, as one scholar noted, it 

did nothing to change people’s 

positions. “The environmentalists 

were still solidly against the dam,” 
57

Flood Risk Management

while “the business, labor, engineering, and water interests were 

clearly for it.”34

With environmental and 

local opposition mounting, the 

DRBC met on 31 July 1975 to 

decide whether or not to support 

the dam. In the course of this 

meeting, New Jersey Governor 

Byrne reiterated his opposition, although he held out the 

possibility of constructing the 

project after the year 2000. This 

reflected his view that for the 

next twenty-five to thirty years, 

New Jersey had sufficient water 

supply without the Tocks Island 

Dam, but after that it might need 

the water. He supported the continuation of land acquisition in 

case the dam was ever needed. 

New York Governor Hugh Carey 

(represented by Ogden R. Reid) 

and Delaware Governor Sherman 

Tribbitt also voted to withdraw 

DRBC support for the dam, 

while Pennsylvania Governor 

Milton Shapp voted in favor of 

the project. As the 1975 annual 

report for the Water Resources 

Association of the Delaware River 

Basin stated, “The Delaware River 

Basin Commission on July 31, in 

a closed meeting, decided, in a 

split decision, against construction 

start at Tocks Island but for continuation of land acquisition for 

the Delaware Water Gap National 

Recreation Area.” Without DRBC 

support, North Atlantic Division 

Engineer Brig. Gen. James Kelly 

recommended to the chief of 

engineers that the dam be deauthorized, a recommendation that 

the chief transmitted to Congress 

in September 1975, stating that 

the Corps should transfer the land 

it had acquired for the project to 

the NPS for the Delaware Water 

Gap National Recreation Area.35

In accordance with the Corps’ 

request, Congress prepared bills 

deauthorizing the Tocks Island 

Project (the first of which had 

actually been introduced in 1974). 

In the summer of 1976, the Senate 

Subcommittee on Water Resources 

of the Committee on Public Works 

debated one of the bills, S. 3106. 

This bill would deauthorize the 

dam, transfer all the property 

acquired by the Corps to the NPS, 

give the NPS the authority to 

acquire any additional necessary 
58

Chapter 2

land for the Delaware Water Gap 

National Recreation Area, and 

authorize the Department of the 

Interior to relocate U.S. Highway 

209 “in the manner in which 

such highway was to be relocated 

by the Secretary of the Army as 

part of the Tocks Island Reservoir 

project.”36

In the course of these hearings, 

Maj. Gen. Ernest Graves, Director 

of Civil Works for the Corps, 

presented the Corps’ position on 

Tocks Island. According to Graves, 

the Corps requested that the 

project “be deauthorized and that 

all land acquired, including real 

estate and legal obligations, by the 

Department of the Army pursuant 

to the project authority be transferred to the Department of the 

Interior on the assumption that 

the Congress authorizes expansion of the Delaware Water Gap 

National Recreation Area.” Graves 

explained that Tocks Island was 

“the key feature” in the Delaware 

River Basin Comprehensive Plan 

and that the Corps would have to 

“go fairly far back toward first 

base in order to put together a 

plan that would be workable,” 

but if the DRBC did not support 

the project, it was better to deauthorize it than to let it linger. 

As the chief of engineers of the 

Corps had stated, according to 

one congressional delegate, “continued indecision will adversely 

affect needed present and future 

programs in such areas as nonstructural flood protection, water 

supply, pollution control, regional 

and local planning, and land use 

controls.” According to Graves, 

the Corps had expended approximately $63.5 million on Tocks 

Island up to that point, including 

553 years of manpower. But the 

project no longer had adequate 

support.37

The testimony of senators 

and representatives from New 

York, New Jersey, Delaware, and 

Pennsylvania underscored the 

lack of support. Senators Clifford 

Case (R-N.J.) and Jacob K. Javits 

(R-N.Y.), as well as Congressmen 

Robert W. Edgar (D-Pa.), 

Benjamin A. Gilman (R- N.Y.), 

and Pierre S. du Pont (R-Del.), 

and Congresswomen Millicent 

Fenwick (R-N.J.) and Helen 

Meyner (D- N.J.), all opposed the 
59

Flood Risk Management

Tocks Island Project, with only 

Congressmen Frank Thompson 

(D- N.J.) and Edward J. Patten 

(D- N.J.) coming out in favor of 

the dam. Senator Harrison A. 

Williams, Jr. (D- N.J.) said that 

he would like to see a New Jersey 

water supply study completed 

before deauthorization occurred to 

ensure that the state did not need 

the Tocks Island Project for that 

purpose.38

However, several people 

appeared before the subcommittee in support of the project. 

Maurice K. Goddard, secretary 

of the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Resources, 

represented Governor Shapp’s 

position on Tocks Island by 

stating that “the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania continues its 

support for immediate construction of the Tocks Island Dam and 

Reservoir project, as it has since 

the project was first conceived.” 

According to Goddard, deauthorizing Tocks Island would “put 

us right back to the point where 

we were 20 years ago, with no 

immediate means of meeting 

the present and future water 

Aerial views upstream (above) and 

downstream of the proposed dam site, 

taken in the 1960s—with inset photo 

showing same downstream area 

in the 1990s
60

Chapter 2

and water-related needs of the 

citizens and industry of the fourState basin and its service area.” 

Similarly, Joseph F. Radziul of the 

Philadelphia Water Department 

said that Tocks Island was the 

only way to ensure that the 

Delaware River Basin would not 

have “a serious water shortage” 

in future years. While not supporting immediate construction 

of Tocks Island, others advocated 

continued authorization of the 

project in the event the need 

for the dam and reservoir ever 

arose. For example, James W. 

Wright, executive director of the 

DRBC and a representative of 

Governor Tribbitt of Delaware, 

said that “too many issues remain 

unresolved as this time to risk 

the permanent foreclosure of 

the Tocks Island Lake project.” 

Wright was especially concerned 

about saltwater intrusion and 

whether nonstructural flood 

control measures could provide an 

adequate amount of protection. 

“Although the Delaware River 

Basin Commission member-States 

voted 3-to-1 against a motion 

recommending congressional 

appropriation of Tocks Island 

construction funds,” Wright concluded, “only New York among 

the four member States has 

expressed support for deauthorization.” To Wright, this showed 

“the region’s uncertainty that 

there are easy means of filling the 

void of benefits left by the Tocks 

Island decision of last year.”39

Clearly, even with the DRBC’s 

opposition in 1975, there were 

strong feelings about hanging on 

to the project. Because of this, and 

because Congressman Thompson, 

who was the chairman of the 

House Administration Committee, 

opposed deauthorization, Congress 

passed no deauthorization bill 

in 1976 or in the years immediately following.40 The Tocks Island 

Project continued to hang in limbo.

With the possibility of the 

dam still lingering, environmental groups and opponents 

aimed to ensure that no construction ever occurred by getting 

Congress to designate the Middle 

Delaware River as a wild and 

scenic river. The Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act, passed by Congress in 

1968, declared that rivers with 
61

Flood Risk Management

“outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and 

wildlife, historic, cultural, or other 

similar values” would be “preserved in free-flowing condition.”41

Under the National Parks and 

Recreation Act of 1978, Congress 

added “the segment from the 

point where the [Delaware] river 

crosses the northern boundary of 

the Delaware Water Gap National 

Recreation Area to the point where 

the river crosses the southern 

boundary of such recreation area” 

to the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System (the law also added 

the upper Delaware River to the 

system). In addition, the act authorized the secretary of the interior 

to include all of the Tocks Island 

Dam land in the Delaware Water 

Gap National Recreation Area and 

to acquire land that the Corps 

had not yet purchased. In essence, 

the passage of this legislation 

killed Tocks Island Dam, although 

Congress did not officially deauthorize the project until 19 July 

1992.42

In February 1979, the 

Philadelphia District ended its 

official involvement with the Tocks 

Island Project by concluding the 

transfer of funds and property to 

the NPS. No longer involved with 

Tocks Island, the Philadelphia 

District did not have a robust 

workload. In 1980, its real estate 

function was relocated to the 

Baltimore District, and engineering, 

design, and construction of new 

projects were also eliminated. By 

1981, the staffing of the district 

had decreased from nearly eight 

hundred to below six hundred, 

emphasizing the dramatic effect 

of the demise of the Tocks Island 

Project. In fact, some critics 

accused district officials of hanging 

The Delaware Water Gap National 

Recreation Area
62

Chapter 2

on to the project for just that 

reason, regardless of whether it was 

economically or environmentally 

justified. Corps officials responded 

that they saw the project as the 

best way to meet the region’s needs 

and that they were doing what 

Congress had directed them to do. 

“Tocks Island wasn’t authorized 

by a cadre of evil bureaucrats,” 

Burnes said. “It was authorized 

by the Congress.”43 Regardless, 

the demise of the project had a 

direct and severe impact on the 

Philadelphia District.

The project also had a direct 

impact on the Delaware River 

Basin itself. Supporters continued 

to believe that Tocks Island was 

the best solution and, at various 

times in the 1980s and even into 

the twenty-first century, some 

talked about trying to resurrect 

the project. Whenever drought or 

floods hit the area, some people 

would restate the case for Tocks 

Island (in terms of water supply 

or flood damage reduction, respectively) and why it should have 

been built.44 Despite the bandwagon effect of opposition from 

multiple interest groups that 

led to the project’s demise, two 

sides remained to this story, even 

decades after the fact. And while 

the debate may continue for years 

to come over whether Tocks Island 

was “the solution,” the problems 

it was intended to help solve have 

not gone away.

Trexler Lake Project

Tocks Island was not the only 

proposed project that experienced 

opposition in the 1970s. Another 

component of the Delaware River 

Basin Comprehensive Plan was 

the construction of Trexler Dam 

on Jordan Creek, a tributary 

of the Lehigh River. This dam, 

which was to be located approximately eight miles northwest of 

Allentown, Pa., would provide 

flood control, water supply, and 

recreational opportunities to the 

area. A smaller dam than Tocks 

Island, Trexler was proposed as an 

eight-hundred-foot-long concrete 

structure, although the Corps later 

decided to make it an earth- and 

rockfill embankment. Authorized 

as part of the Delaware River 

Basin Comprehensive Plan, Trexler 

would cost approximately $10 
63

Flood Risk Management

million and would store 55,000 

acre-feet of water, of which 40,000 

acre-feet would be used for water 

supply, with the balance set aside 

for flood control.45

By February 1971, the 

Philadelphia District had 

completed a general design 

memorandum for the dam, and 

in 1973, it published an environmental impact statement. 

This EIS included a discussion of 

eutrophication that could occur 

in the proposed lake. It noted 

that, although eutrophication 

would probably be an issue, it 

could be controlled by clearing 

“all vegetation, floatable structures and cesspool and septic tank 

contents” from the reservoir area 

before construction, as well as 

by controlling nutrients flowing 

into the reservoir after construction. In any case, after examining 

other options (including no 

construction, placing the dam 

elsewhere, building a series of 

small reservoirs, or regulating 

floodplain development), the 

Corps determined that the Trexler 

Lake Project was the best way 

to fulfill the flood control, water 

supply, and recreational needs of 

the area.46

The district initially proposed 

beginning construction of Trexler 

Lake in 1973. However, the DRBC 

considered Tocks Island and Blue 

Marsh dams higher priorities than 

Trexler, and Congress appropriated no funds for Trexler in fiscal 

years 1974 through 1977. After 

the DRBC voted not to continue 

with the construction of Tocks 

Island Dam in 1975, its members 

decided to push the building of 

Trexler Lake, and in a fiscal year 

1977 appropriations bill, Congress 

appropriated $300,000 to begin 

land acquisition for the project. 

President Jimmy Carter promised 

to include $1.5 million for the 

beginning of construction in an 

appropriations bill for fiscal year 

1978.47

Much like Tocks Island, 

however, Trexler faced opposition from local residents and 

environmental groups, such as 

the Northwest Lehigh Citizens 

Association, which feared that the 

dam would be an environmental 

disaster. In 1976 and 1977, the 

Philadelphia District, under the 

Site of the proposed Trexler Lake Dam
64

Chapter 2

direction of District Engineer 

Col. Harry V. Dutchyshyn, held a 

series of public meetings in Lehigh 

County to explain more about the 

Trexler Project. In addition, on 

14 April 1977, the district held 

a hearing to obtain input on the 

project, as required by Section 

404 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act of 1972. According to 

Dutchyshyn, approximately fifty 

supporters of the dam attended the 

hearing, along with five hundred 

opponents wearing green T-shirts 

with “Damn the Dam” printed in 

big yellow letters. Because of the 

number of people who wanted to 

speak, the meeting lasted until 

2:00 in the morning, showing 

Dutchyshyn that “there was a lot 

of consternation” regarding the 

Trexler Lake Project.48

Testimony at the public 

hearing showed the positions of 

those in favor of the dam and 

those against it. For example, 

Maurice Goddard, representing 

the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Resources, said 

that the commonwealth fully supported Trexler Lake “as an integral 

part of [the] comprehensive plan 

for the development and management of the water resources of 

the Delaware River.” Likewise, 

Harry Bisco, representing the 

city of Allentown, said that the 

city government supported the 

project because it would provide 

“a source of water supply” as well 

as “significant protection against 

flooding along the banks of the 

Jordan River within the City.” 

Others vehemently opposed the 

project. Some of the opposition 

stemmed from the concern that 

the proposed reservoir would lead 

to an increase in development 

in the area, which would further 

encroach on agricultural lands. 

Others—much like opponents of 

Tocks Island—charged that the 

reservoir would have eutrophication problems, diminishing its 

potential for recreation. Still others 

believed that the only true beneficiaries of the project would be 

downstream utility companies, as 

the DRBC proposed using Trexler 

as a standby water supply in times 

of drought. Finally, several opponents of the project said that the 

citizens had never had an opportunity to vote on building the 
65

Flood Risk Management

dam. The hearing became heated 

at times, as proponents of the 

dam were booed heavily, leading 

Dutchyshyn on a couple occasions 

to ask the crowd to show more 

respect to the speakers. Clearly, 

there were strong feelings about 

Trexler.49

Because of the heavy opposition to the dam, Congressman 

Frederick Rooney (D-Pa.), who 

had originally supported the 

project, attempted to kill it. In 

June 1977, he got Congress to 

delete the Carter administration’s 

promised $1.5 million infusion 

for construction of the dam from 

its fiscal year 1978 budget. In 

answer to the critics who said 

local residents had never had an 

opportunity to vote on the dam, 

Rooney supported holding a public 

referendum in Lehigh County 

in the November 1977 election 

to determine whether enough 

public support existed for Trexler 

Dam. A group that supported the 

project—the PRO-LAKE Group—

asked for a court injunction 

against the referendum, stating 

that it was illegal to hold “a local 

(non-binding) referendum on a 

regional project,” but the court 

dismissed that argument. The 

referendum was held, and voters 

rejected the project by a ratio of 

three to one. Subsequently, the 

North Atlantic Division of the 

Corps recommended that the 

Philadelphia District halt its work, 

and the district recommended in 

1978 that Trexler Lake be designated as an “inactive” project, 

which the chief of engineers supported. When Congress passed the 

Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986, it officially deauthorized 

construction of the Trexler Lake 

Dam.50

Beltzville Lake and 

Blue Marsh Lake

Even as environmental 

concerns and local opposition scuttled the Tocks Island 

and Trexler Lake projects, the 

Philadelphia District continued 

forward on other dams proposed 

under the Delaware River Basin 

Comprehensive Plan. The Beltzville 

Lake Project was completed 

in 1971 and Blue Marsh Lake 

was dedicated in January 1979. 

In addition to providing water 
66

Chapter 2

supply and flood control, these 

two multipurpose dams were recreational facilities for their areas 

and improved the Philadelphia 

District’s relations with the general 

public. Unlike Tocks Island and 

Trexler Lake, the construction of 

Beltzville and Blue Marsh dams 

proceeded without much controversy, although the Philadelphia 

District had to work through some 

issues at Blue Marsh.

Beltzville Lake, located on 

Pohopoco Creek just four miles 

east of Lehighton, Pa., was authorized as part of the Delaware 

River Basin Comprehensive Plan 

to provide flood protection to 

the communities of Allentown, 

Bethlehem, and Easton, and to 

provide water to Bethlehem and 

Palmerton. As one historian wrote, 

“The flood storage potential of 

Beltzville is significant in a region 

characterized by flash floods.” 

The project also was designed to 

improve water quality in both 

Pohopoco Creek and the Lehigh 

River (of which the Pohopoco is 

a tributary), to prevent salinity 

intrusion into the Delaware River 

Basin, and to serve as a recreational area. Constructed at a cost 

of $22.8 million, the earth- and 

rockfill dam had a storage capacity 

of 68,250 acre-feet; the majority 

was for water supply, water quality, 

and recreation, with the remaining 

capacity reserved for flood 

control.51

The provision for water 

quality at Beltzville was one of 

the innovative features of the 

dam. As one historian wrote, to 

provide for better water quality, 

the Philadelphia District included 

a multilevel intake system in 

the dam, which was “the first in 

any Corps of Engineers dam.” 

Beltzville Lake
67

Flood Risk Management

This system allowed the Corps to 

“permit the selective withdrawal 

and mixing of water from seven 

levels of the permanent storage 

pool,” which could “control 

the temperature and dissolved 

oxygen content of downstream 

releases.” In addition, Beltzville 

provided recreational opportunities such as fishing, swimming, and 

hiking, although the recreational 

features—known as Beltzville State 

Park—were actually operated by 

the Pennsylvania Bureau of State 

Parks under an agreement with 

the Corps (the Corps developed 

the master plan for recreation that 

the Pennsylvania Bureau of State 

Parks followed). Outside of recreation, all other project and dam 

operations were handled by the 

Corps.52

Blue Marsh Dam was another 

multipurpose facility constructed 

as part of the Delaware River 

Basin Comprehensive Plan. The 

Philadelphia District planned 

to construct the dam in the 

Tulpehocken Creek watershed, 

about 6.5 miles above the confluence of Tulpehocken Creek 

and the Schuylkill River, and 

about 6 miles northwest of the 

city of Reading in Berks County 

in southeastern Pennsylvania. 

The dam, proposed as a ninetyeight-foot-high earth- and rockfill 

embankment, would provide 

flood control from Reading to 

Philadelphia, as well as water 

for the Reading-Pottstown area. 

Recreational opportunities were 

an important component of the 

project; one report stated that 

the lake would “be subjected 

to intensive public use because 

of its proximity to the large, 

densely populated area of southeastern Pennsylvania and its 

Construction of the Blue Marsh Dam
68

Chapter 2

unusually good accessibility.” As 

with Beltzville Dam, the Corps 

proposed to include a multilevel 

intake system to improve water 

quality downstream.53

Although the Philadelphia 

District did not have as tough a 

road to traverse with Blue Marsh 

as it did with Tocks Island and 

Trexler, it faced some perplexing 

issues. These included arsenic 

content in the lake, protection 

of the borough of Bernville from 

flooding because of the dam, and 

the protection of a significant 

historic resource that would be 

flooded when the reservoir filled. 

Addressing these issues required 

ingenuity on the part of district 

personnel.

The Philadelphia District 

originally planned to begin construction on Blue Marsh Dam in 

1969, forecasting completion of 

the project by 1972. However, in 

1968 a company that produced 

a “commercial organic arsenical 

compound” had discharged a large 

amount of arsenic into groundwater at a site twenty-seven miles 

upstream from the location of the 

proposed dam. When that company 

was purchased by another firm, 

that firm began a process of 

removing arsenic from the groundwater, which required pumping 

the groundwater into Tulpehocken 

Creek. This resulted in “significant 

quantities of arsenic” in the “water 

and muds of the Tulpehocken 

Creek,” leading the Federal Water 

Quality Administration to state, 

according to Edward Conley of the 

EPA, “that the public water supply 

to be obtained from the proposed 

reservoir might contain in excess of 

0.05 mg/l of arsenic,” which posed 

a potential health hazard.54

To deal with the arsenic issue, 

the district relied on the DRBC 

and the Pennsylvania Department 

of Health, Education and Welfare 

(PDHEW). The DRBC agreed in 

1968 to implement a program 

“designed specifically to reduce 

the Tulpehocken drainage area 

of its arsenical compounds, prior 

to completion of the Blue Marsh 

Project.” On 21 May 1969, the 

DRBC met with state and federal 

representatives to discuss water 

quality. At this meeting, the group 

decided that “the impounded 

waters would be suitable for 
69

Flood Risk Management

fishing and for recreation” and 

that any water removed from Blue 

Marsh for domestic use would be 

treated to ensure that it met “the 

drinking water standards of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

and the U.S. Public Health 

Service.”55

However, the chief of engineers 

did not want to proceed with construction until the Corps, in the 

words of one historian, had conducted “a detailed investigation 

. . . to establish that the waters of 

the impoundment would be safe 

for public use.” Accordingly, the 

Philadelphia District hired the 

Department of Environmental 

Sciences at Rutgers University to 

study the situation. The department took several samples of mud 

and water in Tulpehocken Creek 

and issued its report in 1973. The 

report concluded that “arsenic will 

always be present in the waters 

and muds of this reservoir,” but if 

aerobic conditions were maintained 

in the reservoir (by controlling the 

temperature of the water so that it 

did not exceed twenty-five degrees 

Celsius), the arsenic would remain 

in the bottom muds and the 

reservoir water would not exceed 

arsenic levels of 0.050 mg/l. On 

the basis of this report, the chief of 

engineers and the leadership of the 

Philadelphia District decided that 

construction could continue, as 

long as the dam operators used the 

dam’s outlet system to maintain 

aerobic conditions.56

The Philadelphia District also 

had to implement measures to 

protect the borough of Bernville 

from flooding risks associated with 

the construction of the Blue Marsh 

Reservoir, as filling the reservoir 

had the potential of flooding the 

nearby community. The district 

held meetings with Bernville officials in 1968, 1969, and 1973 to 

discuss the measures the Corps 

would take. Essentially, these consisted of relocating and widening 

Route 183, one of the major roads 

in the area, and constructing a 

4,800-foot-long protective levee 

on the southwest side of Bernville, 

along the north bank of Northkill 

Creek. The Corps also realigned 

part of the Tulpehocken Creek 

channel and provided “a pumping 

station, detention dams, gravity 

drains and ponding area, to 
70

Chapter 2

prevent damage to the borough 

during high lake levels or flood 

stages on adjacent creeks.” 

However, the Philadelphia District 

encountered a problem when it 

became clear that construction 

of the levee would prevent the 

Bernville Fire Department from 

being able to access Tulpehocken 

Creek for its water supply. 

According to Vince Calvarese, 

who headed up the Blue Marsh 

design effort, the district solved 

this problem by constructing a 

concrete storage tank for the fire 

department. Such ingenuity served 

the Corps well in its work on Blue 

Marsh and enabled the Bernville 

Protective Works to be completed 

by the time of the dedication of 

the dam.57

Another issue arose with regard 

to a historic facility known as 

Gruber Wagon Works, located in 

the area that would be flooded 

when Blue Marsh Reservoir filled. 

In 1966, Congress had passed the 

National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA), which contained a 

section (Section 106) that required 

the heads of any federal or federally assisted project to “take into 

Construction of the intake tower (above) 

and visitors center (below) at Blue Marsh
71

Flood Risk Management

account” the effects of undertakings “on any District, site, building, 

structure, or object that is included 

in or eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register”—a list of all 

“districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in 

American history, architecture, 

archaeology, engineering, and 

culture.” This provision meant 

that whenever the Corps began 

an undertaking, it had to determine what prehistoric or historic 

resources would be affected and 

consult with state historic preservation offices and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation 

on how to avoid or mitigate the 

consequences on those resources.58

Before the passage of the 

NHPA, Temple University had 

completed an archeological survey 

of the Blue Marsh Dam site and 

had concluded in 1965 “that the 

area contained no sites of national 

significance,” perhaps because 

it focused only on archeological 

resources and not on above-ground 

structures. When the Philadelphia 

District began its real estate 

appraisal work in 1970, it discovered the Gruber Wagon Works, a 

three-level frame building on the 

east bank of Licking Creek that 

had existed “totally intact” from 

the “time where its physical development had virtually stopped some 

fifty years before.” Recognizing 

the potential significance of this 

structure, the district requested 

that the Pennsylvania Historical 

and Museum Commission and the 

Northeast Regional Office of the 

NPS examine the structure. This 

occurred in July 1970.59

The officials discovered that 

the works had been constructed in 

1884 by a German-Swiss immigrant. According to a Philadelphia 

District report,

Aerial view of the Blue Marsh Dam under 

construction
72

Chapter 2

The first floor of the building 

contains the complete shop for 

the manufacture of wagons 

and wagon bodies including a 

forge. . . . The wagon works is 

in excellent condition[;] all of its 

machinery, equipment, hand tools, 

forge and carpentry shop are well 

maintained. The entire plant is in 

operating condition. The second 

floor has small machine tools and 

also contains the various parts and 

slopes for the construction of the 

wagons. There are several small 

farm wagons complete with the 

Gruber name and design as well as 

hay wagons, and wagons of other 

types apparently held for exhibit 

purposes. An elevator, hand or 

horse operated[,] large enough for 

a long wagon is available to carry 

materials . . . from [the] 1st to 

2nd floors. The third floor or loft 

level is mainly used for storage of 

materials.60

The shop’s original machinery 

had been replaced in the early 

twentieth century; since then, it 

had essentially remained intact. 

Because of the historic significance 

of the wagon works, according 

to Murray H. Nelligan, NPS 

Landmark and National Register 

specialist, all parties agreed “that 

efforts should be made to salvage 

the building and its contents by 

The Gruber Wagon Works before 

(above) and during (below) relocation; 

its original site is now at the bottom 

of Blue Marsh Lake
73

Flood Risk Management

moving it to an appropriate spot 

in the projected state park, where 

it would be outside the reservoir 

area, and that each agency would 

explore possibilities for accomplishing this.”61 Accordingly, 

the Philadelphia District began 

working with the NPS Historic 

American Engineering Record to 

document the structure and its 

contents “so that it can be reconstructed in a protected area.”62

The problem was that neither 

the NPS nor the commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania had the funding 

to move the works. The Corps, 

meanwhile, could pay for the 

“costs associated with purchase 

of the real property, transportation of the new structure to a new 

location, and provision of a foundation at the new site” but did not 

have authority to expend funds for 

“dismantlement and reassembly 

of the structure . . . and purchase 

of historically significant personal 

property within the building.”63

The need to preserve the building 

became even more important after 

the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation placed the wagon 

works on the National Register of 

Historic Places on 2 June 1972. In 

November 1973, the Philadelphia 

District requested “the authority to 

expend funds necessary to relocate 

the building, complete with its 

contents, to a site on Government 

owned land,” and the district 

began working with Congress to 

get the legislation passed. It also 

consulted with Berks County and 

agreed to relocate the shop to a 

county park, where the county 

would assume operation and 

maintenance of the site.64 The 

Corps found the money in 1974 to 

purchase the wagon works, as well 

as its equipment and furnishings, 

although it still did not have the 

money to relocate the structure.65

In May 1974, Congress passed 

the Archeological and Historic 

Preservation Act (known as the 

Moss-Bennett Act), permitting 

federal agencies to spend up to 

1 percent of project funding to 

recover historic and archeological 

resources. This meant that the 

Philadelphia District could spend 

approximately $430,000 to relocate 

the Gruber Wagon Works (1 percent 

of the estimated $43 million price 

tag of Blue Marsh Dam); however, 
74

Chapter 2

officials estimated that it would 

cost $922,000 “to relocate and 

restore the original structure and its 

equipment.”66 With strong grassroots support, Congress debated 

two bills in April 1975 that would 

provide funding to the Corps for 

the Gruber Wagon Works. These 

bills authorized the Corps “to 

relocate and restore intact the 

historic structure and associated 

improvements known as the Gruber 

Wagon Works” and provided 

appropriations “as may be necessary” for that to occur.67 Congress 

eventually included the text of the 

bills in the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1976, which it 

passed on 1 October 1976 and 

which President Gerald Ford signed 

on 22 October 1976. The act 

authorized the Corps to relocate 

and restore the wagon works “at an 

estimated cost of $922,000.” After 

the Corps had effectuated the 

transfer, the legislation directed the 

Corps to transfer “title to the structure and associated improvements 

. . . to the County of Berks upon 

condition that such county agree to 

maintain such historic property in 

perpetuity as a public museum at 

no cost to the Federal 

Government.”68

With this funding and authorization, the Philadelphia District 

contracted with a team of historic 

preservation consultants, who 

worked on disassembling the 

wagon works, relocating it to its 

new home, and reassembling it. 

All of this work occurred in 1976 

and 1977, and in April 1977 the 

reassembly was complete. In 1978 

and 1979, the Corps also oversaw 

repair and renovation work to the 

structure to restore it to its original 

condition. As Calvarese later 

explained, “We cut it up into seven 

large pieces[.] . . . [I]t was very 

Tools inside the Gruber Wagon Works
75

Flood Risk Management

old and very weak and we had 

to structurally support it all over 

and move it and reassemble it and 

make it structurally safe for the 

public to visit.”69 With the restoration complete, the district turned 

the property over to Berks County 

in June 1980. However, because 

of the relocation, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation 

removed the Gruber Wagon Works 

from the National Register of 

Historic Places, because it had lost 

the integrity of its original location. 

The Corps’ plan was to renominate 

the structure, but on 22 December 

1977, the secretary of the interior 

designated the works as a National 

Historic Landmark, meaning that 

it “possess[ed] national significance and [was] considered to be 

of exceptional value in illustrating 

a specific theme in the history 

of the United States.” Because 

National Historic Landmarks enjoy 

the same protections as properties 

on the National Register, it was not 

necessary for the Corps to renominate the works.70

The relocation of the Gruber 

Wagon Works was a great accomplishment of the Philadelphia 

The Gruber Wagon Works in its 

new location
76

Chapter 2

District in the 1970s. At a time 

when critics of the Corps labeled 

the agency’s attention to cultural 

resources as “so rotten it had no 

way to go but up,”71 it showed 

that the district cared about 

cultural artifacts under its control. 

Many observers noticed this. For 

example, A. R. Mortensen, director 

of the NPS Office of Archeology 

and Historic Preservation, lauded 

the district for the Gruber Wagon 

Works relocation: “We view this 

effort as a textbook example of 

how this office can work with other 

Federal agencies to insure that our 

precious resources, both natural 

and cultural, can be preserved 

through sensitive planning and 

management.”72 Robert M. Vogel, 

chairman of the Smithsonian 

Institution’s Department of Science 

and Technology, agreed: “The 

Corps clearly has recognized the 

extraordinary historical worth of 

the Gruber factory.”73 As an editorial in the Reading Eagle put it, 

“We’re pleased that the [C]orps 

Blue Marsh Lake (above) provides flood 

risk reduction and water supply for 

Reading and Berks County, Pa., and its 

Corps ranger staff (below) hosts more 

than a million recreation visitors annually
77

Flood Risk Management

understands the historical value 

embodied in the Penn Township 

structure and is taking such care in 

seeing that it is preserved.”74

Upon their completion, both 

the Blue Marsh and Beltzville dams 

performed their multipurpose 

function well. For example, even 

before Blue Marsh was dedicated, 

it had already prevented flooding 

on the Schuylkill River. In January 

1978, the Corps operated the dam 

to impound four billion gallons of 

water resulting from a thaw after 

a heavy snowfall. The impoundment prevented “flooding of the 

Reading Sewage Treatment Plant” 

and “resulted in data for future 

use and a review of emergency 

procedures.”75 In the words of one 

newspaper article, “This is the first 

time the dam was used for flood 

control since its completion.”76

In June 2006, Blue Marsh again 

showed its flood control value when 

a series of storms over a weeklong 

period dumped rain on the Reading 

area. The dam prevented serious 

flooding in the city, although 

some did occur when the reservoir 

reached capacity and threatened 

to overtop the dam. However, the 

spillway on the dam worked in 

the proper fashion and prevented 

overtopping. As Al Schoenebeck, 

supervisory resource manager at 

Blue Marsh, explained, the episode 

showed that the dam worked the 

way it was designed to work. “The 

control tower worked perfectly,” he 

said. “The spillway did the job it 

was supposed to by skimming off 

that increasing elevation to prevent 

overtopping of the dam.”77

Both Blue Marsh and Beltzville 

also became hallmarks of recreation in their respective areas, 

bringing accolades to the Corps. 

Beltzville became noted for its 

fishing; as one district publication said, it was the site of 

“some of the best [bass fishing] 

in Pennsylvania.”78 Blue Marsh, 

meanwhile, had “many varied 

activities,” according to the district, 

“including swimming, fishing, 

boating (unlimited horsepower), 

sailing, cross-country and water 

skiing, hunting, hiking, birdwatching and picnicking.”79

The major difference between 

the two reservoirs was that the 

Philadelphia District still had 

charge of the recreational facilities 
78

Chapter 2

at Blue Marsh, while it transferred Beltzville’s recreational 

operations to the commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania. Thus, Beltzville’s 

ranger staff were state employees, 

although two Corps employees 

were in charge of operations and 

maintenance at the dam. Blue 

Marsh, meanwhile, had its own 

full-time ranger staff (augmented 

by seasonal student hires for the 

peak summer months), as well as 

two dam operators, a maintenance 

worker, and an administrative 

secretary. These employees had 

various responsibilities, including 

“public relations, water safety and 

environmental education, wildlife 

habitat management, trail management, enforcement of laws and 

regulations, traffic control and 

computer operation.”80 They performed these duties well—several 

rangers were recognized with local 

and national awards for everything from interpretive work to 

life-saving actions. Blue Marsh 

staff ran one of the district’s most 

successful outreach programs, the 

Junior Ranger program, “designed 

to promote environmental awareness among the nation’s youth, 

to educate them about the Corps’ 

role in managing natural and 

water resources, and to get them 

involved helping Corps rangers 

Summer visitors taking in the swimming 

and boating opportunities at Blue 

Marsh Lake
79

Flood Risk Management

serve the public and protect those 

resources.” This and other volunteer programs, such as the annual 

Take Pride in Blue Marsh cleanup 

activity, earned national awards for 

the Philadelphia District in 1982, 

1989, and 1993 for volunteer work 

programs.81

The Level B Study 

and the Delaware 

Estuary Salinity 

Intrusion Study

Even with the success of the 

Blue Marsh and Beltzville dams, 

the Delaware River Basin area 

still faced water supply problems 

because of the cancellation of the 

Tocks Island and Trexler projects. 

As Tocks Island supporter Carmen 

F. Guarino, water commissioner 

for the city of Philadelphia, said in 

1978, “I am at a loss for language 

to describe the potential danger, 

loss of economic base and other 

dire things that could be caused 

by not having an impoundment on 

the main stem of the Delaware.”82

To determine how to go forward, 

the DRBC decided to conduct a 

“complete review of water needs, 

projections and possible supplies 

for those needs for the 7 million 

in-Basin and 25 million out-ofBasin people who depend on the 

Delaware for water.”83 Funded by 

the U.S. Water Resources Council, 

this review, known as the Level B 

study, became caught up in “good 

faith negotiations” among representatives of Pennsylvania, New 

York, New Jersey, and Delaware 

about how to revise the amount of 

water dedicated to each state as 

part of the 1954 Supreme Court 

water distribution decree. Former 

DRBC employee Richard Albert 

said, “Each activity fed information 

to the other, and the Level B study 

served as the forum for public 

input. . . . Water conservation, 

Blue Marsh Lake’s extensive trail system 

attracts hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians, 

and includes one trail for people 

with disabilities
80

Chapter 2

water supply, and flow maintenance were three of the elements of 

the Level B study that tied it to the 

Good Faith talks.”84

Both the Level B study and 

the good faith negotiations were 

informed by salinity studies conducted by the Philadelphia District 

and the DRBC to provide information about the effects of salinity 

intrusion (whereby saltwater moves 

into fresh water) on the Delaware 

River Basin. In 1976, Congress had 

passed a resolution calling for the 

Corps to determine “the probability 

for advance or retreat of salinity 

in the Delaware Estuary and the 

quantity of fresh-water inflow 

needed to protect the various 

water users along the Estuary.”85

To achieve these goals, the Corps 

undertook a study of “the economic 

impact of increased salinity on the 

lower basin industries and users,” 

while the DRBC analyzed various 

scenarios on the Delaware River to 

provide data on “the historic and 

projected extent of movement.”86

Congress authorized this study 

in part because a severe drought 

that lasted from 1961 to 1966 

increased salinity in the river to 

levels that “forced industries to 

close and municipalities to prepare 

emergency plans for rationing 

and obtaining alternate sources 

[of water].” The water supply of 

Camden and Philadelphia was 

especially affected. This led the 

DRBC “to urge studies to define 

Volunteers helping with cleanup (top) 

and repair projects (bottom) during Take 

Pride in Blue Marsh Day, held every April 

in conjunction with Earth Day
81

Flood Risk Management

the relationship between river flow 

and salinity.”87

In completing the salinity 

study, the Corps focused on the 

Delaware estuary, which ran from 

the bay at Cape Henlopen to 

Trenton, N.J., and which was “the 

water gateway to the industrial 

and commercial complex located in 

the Delaware Valley.” In addition 

to being “an important spawning 

ground for finfish and shellfish,” 

the estuary (defined as an area 

“where fresh water draining from 

the land through rivers mixes with 

salt water carried by tidal action 

from the ocean”) provided water to 

both industry and municipalities.88

The district’s first efforts consisted 

of analyzing the economic effects of 

salinity intrusion in the Delaware 

River. It concluded in 1980 that, 

in a drought year such as 1965, 

salinity-related costs for withdrawal uses of river water would be 

about $32 million; in an average 

year, such as 1970, they would be 

about $17.3 million. These costs 

were highest for domestic users 

of water and showed that salinity 

intrusion had a direct economic 

effect on water users.89

The DRBC’s salinity work was 

integrated into its Level B study, 

published in October 1979. To 

provide necessary water supply to 

the Delaware River Basin and flows 

that could better control salinity 

intrusion, the report recommended 

that the Philadelphia District 

enlarge F. E. Walter Reservoir 

(formerly known as Bear Creek 

Reservoir) on the Lehigh River 

and Prompton Reservoir on the 

Lackawaxen River. The report also 

suggested that the Corps look at 

enlarging Cannonsville Reservoir 

in New York and constructing 

Hackettstown Reservoir in New 

Jersey (later determined by the 

Tidal wetlands along the Delaware Bay

Map of the area covered by the Delaware 

Estuary Salinity Intrusion Study
82

Chapter 2

state of New Jersey to be infeasible). This would allow for a flow 

of three thousand cubic feet per 

second at Trenton, the standard 

that the DRBC set as necessary 

for limiting salinity levels in the 

Delaware River.90

In 1983, the good faith 

negotiators produced their own 

recommendations; many of these 

recommendations paralleled those 

of the Level B study, but some 

were new because of a drought 

that hit the Delaware River Basin 

in 1980 and 1981, generating new 

water supply fears and worries 

about salinity intrusion. As the 

report noted, “Protection against 

salinity intrusion requires a volume 

of fresh water flow into the estuary 

and improved management on the 

part of those water users who are 

subject to the effects of salinity.” 

Therefore, the good faith recommendations advocated for the 

DRBC to revise the salinity objective in its plan and for the Corps 

to modify Walter and Prompton 

dams to add another 420 cubic 

feet of water per second (290 

from Walter, 130 from Prompton) 

in new flow augmentation. This 

would provide a flow augmentation of 750 cubic feet per second 

at Trenton, which would effectively 

guard against salinity intrusion. 

“As additional reservoir facilities and storage capacity become 

available in the Basin,” the report 

continued, “they should be used 

both to augment water supply, and 

to improve environmental conditions, water quality, and salinity 

protection.” The report also contained several recommendations 

pertaining to alleviating drought 

conditions in the basin, including 

more coordinated operation of New 

York City reservoirs with other 

Delaware River Basin reservoirs, 

A chart showing milestones in water 

resources development on the Delaware 

River, including the Level B Study and the 

Good Faith Report
83

Flood Risk Management

the development by states of 

drought contingency plans, and the 

adoption of criteria for reducing 

out-of-basin water diversions in 

times of drought.91

In 1983, the Philadelphia 

District produced its final report, 

the Delaware Estuary Salinity 

Intrusion Study. In essence, this 

was a compilation of the district’s 

own economic findings, as well as 

the flow objectives and recommendations in the Level B study and 

the good faith negotiations report. 

As a public notice explained, “The 

report presents technical information including salinity-related costs 

incurred to direct water users, the 

impact of the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal, [and] probabilities of various salinity levels and 

the impacts of salinity variation 

on the fish and wildlife resources.” 

According to the Corps, the report 

fulfilled the congressional requirements established in the 1976 

resolution and demonstrated the 

cooperative effort between the 

Corps and the DRBC.92

The report noted that the 

Philadelphia District’s work had 

enabled the DRBC to modify a 

previously developed model of 

the Delaware estuary “to reflect 

more accurately the interaction 

of the Delaware estuary and the 

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.” 

The Corps and the DRBC then 

used this model “to determine the 

probabilities of salinity levels in 

the estuary” and “to determine 

average annual salinity-related 

costs to estuarine water users.” 

According to the DRBC, the Corps’ 

work “provided much useful 

information on the ecologic and 

economic impacts of salinity in the 

Delaware estuary” and had been 

“an outstanding example of interagency cooperation from the very 

beginning.”93

Modifications to 

Walter and Prompton 

Dams

In the 1980s, as requested in 

both the Level B and good faith 

negotiation studies, the Corps 

began examining modifying both 

Walter Dam (originally Bear Creek 

Dam, renamed after Congressman 

Francis E. Walter [D-Pa.] in 1963) 

and Prompton Dam to provide 

low-flow augmentation to the 
84

Chapter 2

Delaware River and better water 

supplies. Walter Dam, completed in 

1961, was located on the Lehigh 

River, approximately seventy-five 

miles above where the Lehigh connected with the Delaware River 

and about five miles north of White 

Haven, Pa. Prompton Dam, which 

was completed in 1960, was on the 

Lackawaxen River, approximately 

four miles west of Honesdale, Pa., 

and a half mile up from where the 

Waymart Branch enters the river. 

Congress had authorized modifications to these dams in the Flood 

Control Act of 1962, as part of 

the Corps’ Delaware River Basin 

Comprehensive Plan. In that plan, 

the Philadelphia District had 

proposed to turn both dams (originally authorized as flood control 

dams) into multipurpose dams used 

for flood control, water supply, 

and recreation.94 The Philadelphia 

District had completed a general 

design memorandum for the 

Prompton improvements in 1968 

but had to halt its work because, 

as one historian explained, “the 

DRBC could not establish a current 

economic demand for additional 

water supply in the Prompton 

Lake service area.” Likewise, the 

DRBC requested that the Walter 

modification be postponed until it 

had more information of the water 

General Edgar Jadwin Dam (above), 

Prompton Lake (below)
85

Flood Risk Management

supply needs of the Delaware River 

Basin.95

By the mid-1970s, no modifications had occurred. Both dams had 

small recreational features run by 

the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

and the Corps scheduled periodic 

releases at Walter Dam to create 

whitewater conditions for rafting 

and canoeing, but no dam enlargements had been made. In 1974, 

the Philadelphia District issued 

a general design memorandum 

for the Walter modifications, as 

well as studies on the Prompton 

Project. However, when engineering 

and design work was moved from 

the Philadelphia District to the 

Baltimore District after the demise 

of the Tocks Island Project, the 

Baltimore District assumed design 

functions for the modifications, 

although the Philadelphia District 

continued to provide technical 

support and advice. When the 

Corps issued a revised general 

design memorandum for Walter 

Dam in 1985, it was listed as a 

joint publication of the Baltimore 

and Philadelphia districts.96 Francis E. Walter Dam
86

Chapter 2

Because of salinity and water 

supply concerns, the modifications of Walter and Prompton 

dams took on new urgency. In 

1985, Gerald Hansler, executive 

director of the DRBC, informed 

Philadelphia District Engineer Lt. 

Col. Ralph Locurcio that the DRBC 

was willing to be the nonfederal 

sponsor of the Walter Dam modification, which was supposed to 

begin construction in fiscal year 

1987, as Congress had appropriated funds for that purpose. 

Likewise, the DRBC “identified 

Prompton Reservoir as their first 

priority for make-up water during 

droughts in the basin,” making its 

modification vital as well.97

According to the modification plans, the Corps would raise 

Walter Dam thirty feet to provide 

an additional 70,000 acre-feet of 

water supply storage, increasing 

the storage capacity of the reservoir from 108,000 acre-feet to 

178,000 acre-feet. It would also 

replace the dam’s control tower 

with a multigated tower. The Corps 

said that the “primary purpose of 

the modification” was “to provide 

a regional supply [of] water for the 

Delaware River Basin” that could 

“be used to maintain flows in the 

Lehigh River, lower Delaware River 

and the Delaware Estuary during 

droughts.” For the Prompton 

Dam, the Corps would add 28,000 

acre-feet of storage capacity and 

improve the recreational facilities 

to accommodate up to 156,000 

visitors annually.98

However, the two projects soon 

ran into funding problems. As 

codified in the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986, 

Congress modified cost-sharing 

provisions on flood control 

projects, stating that local interests 

would now be responsible for up to 

50 percent of the cost of construction, operation, and maintenance. 

The legislation also stated that, in 

the words of one publication, “local 

interests [were] required to pay all 

costs allocated to water supply.” In 

the case of the Walter Dam modifications, this meant that the DRBC 

was responsible for approximately 

$98.6 million in construction costs 

and $84,000 a year for operation 

and maintenance. In addition, the 

DRBC had to pay half of the costs 

allocated for recreation, estimated 
87

Flood Risk Management

at $11.7 million, and an annual 

operation and maintenance charge 

of $111,000.99 Because of other 

obligations, such as the nonfederal 

share of both the Beltzville and 

Blue Marsh dams, the DRBC would 

have had difficulty coming up with 

this money.

To resolve the funding issue, 

the DRBC proposed recovering 

some of the costs for both the 

Prompton and Walter modifications by imposing fees on Delaware 

River Basin water users, but this 

proposal ran into political complications. For one thing, Congress 

had included a provision in the 

Delaware River Basin Compact of 

1961 that stated that the DRBC 

could not levy user fees on those 

water users existing at the time 

the compact was executed (which 

included most of the basin’s major 

water users). For the DRBC to 

levy such fees, Congress would 

have to pass additional legislation. Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) 

and Congressman Paul Kanjorski 

(D-Pa.) introduced various bills 

between 1985 and 1989 to allow 

the DRBC to charge user fees, but 

precompact water users vehemently 

opposed the bills. With no legislation forthcoming, the DRBC could 

not provide the funding required 

for both Prompton and Walter.100

In response to this situation, 

the Corps suspended preconstruction and engineering design for 

the Prompton Dam modifications 

in fiscal year 1988. That same 

year, the DRBC announced that it 

was withdrawing its support for 

the Prompton Project, believing, 

according to one historian, that 

salinity standards “could be met 

under drought conditions by 

the combined augmented yields 

of the modified Walter project 

(when completed) and the new 

Merrill Creek Reservoir then being 

Prompton Lake
88

Chapter 2

constructed near Phillipsburg, 

N.J., by a consortium of electric 

utility companies.” When the 

DRBC presented a new Delaware 

River Basin drought management 

plan in 1992, it “omitted all reference to a need for the Prompton 

project through the year 2020.”101

In 1993, Philadelphia District 

Engineer Lt. Col. R. F. Sliwoski 

noted that it was “uncertain” when 

studies for the Prompton modification would resume.102

In the case of Walter Dam, 

Congress removed the funds it 

had appropriated for the project 

in its fiscal year 1990 budget 

and provided no further funding 

in subsequent years. Lieutenant 

Colonel Sliwoski explained in 1993 

that the district was still “awaiting 

resolution of non-Federal financing 

issues” before it could proceed 

with Walter Dam construction. 

No resolution to the issues was 

forthcoming, and the Walter Dam 

modification never occurred.103

Because neither of these 

projects moved forward to construction, it would be easy to 

Construction of safety modifications to 

Prompton Dam in 2007
89

Flood Risk Management

lump them in with Tocks Island 

and Trexler, but this would be 

inaccurate. The Walter and 

Prompton modifications did not 

move forward almost entirely for 

financial reasons. Having experienced strong public opposition 

(on multiple fronts, in the case of 

Tocks Island) with the two former 

projects, the district made an 

earnest effort to incorporate public 

involvement and fully address environmental and cultural issues. As 

a result, the Walter and Prompton 

projects proceeded as far as they 

did mostly without controversy.104

And even though the projects 

were scuttled, the Philadelphia 

District did some work on both 

Prompton and Walter dams. In 

1993, for example, the district 

completed an evaluation of 

Prompton Dam to determine “the 

potential impacts that a range of 

floods would have on [its] hydrologic/hydraulic capability.” This 

study concluded that a probable 

maximum flood (PMF) in the area 

Rafters take on the rapids of the Lehigh 

River Gorge, enhanced by scheduled 

weekend releases from Francis E. 

Walter Dam
90

Chapter 2

would overtop the dam embankment by 5.5 feet. The Corps 

recommended that the spillway 

be widened and lowered to handle 

the PMF. The district received 

funding for Phase I of these modifications in fiscal year 2006 and 

completed modifications to the 

spillway and outlet works in July 

2007. Construction of a crest wall 

along the top of the dam followed 

in 2008.105

In November 1988, Congress 

passed a law that authorized using 

Walter Reservoir for recreational 

purposes. Because recreation was 

not a primary function of the reservoir, the Corps did not maintain 

a ranger staff at the location, 

although the recreational aspect 

at Walter Reservoir soon became 

quite popular. In fact, the district 

had been making releases for 

whitewater rafting in cooperation with the commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania since 1968, eventually settling in at five scheduled 

events each year: two 2-day events 

in June and three 1-day events 

September and October. Because 

of the multiple use of the water 

in the reservoir, the Philadelphia 

District entered into a partnership 

with the Pennsylvania Fish and 

Boat Commission, the Pennsylvania 

Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, the DRBC, and 

other stakeholders in 2005 “to 

manag[e] flows out of the Francis 

E. Walter Dam into the Lehigh 

River.” The district established 

a Francis E. Walter Dam Flow 

Management Working Group for 

this purpose, which had the goal 

of “strik[ing] an optimal balance 

among legitimate yet sometimes 

competing interests in terms of 

natural resource management and 

recreational opportunities.”106 This 

group developed a flow management plan each year that would 

allow for whitewater releases in 

the summer and fall while preserving the dam’s flood control 

capacity and providing sufficient 

water in the reservoir to ensure 

“cooler deep-water temperatures 

and better spawning opportunities for fish.”107 In 2005, the 

Corps completed construction 

of a new road over Walter Dam, 

replacing an old road that “flooded 

during heavy rainfall and was 

often rendered impassable.”108 By 
91

Flood Risk Management

allowing increased water storage, 

the new road enabled the Corps 

“to release water 22 times a year, 

up from seven,” thus providing 

better rafting opportunities while 

maintaining a stable pool in 

June to enhance in-lake fisheries 

and making fisheries releases 

throughout the summer for the 

downstream reach of the Lehigh 

River.109

National Dam Safety 

Inspection Program

In addition to constructing new 

dams, modifying old ones, and 

working in other ways to increase 

water supply, flood control, and 

recreational opportunities, the 

Philadelphia District became 

involved in the National Program 

of Inspection of Dams that the 

Corps led in the 1970s. After 

the heavy rainfall that accompanied Hurricane Agnes caused the 

overtopping of some dams, and 

after other disasters such as the 

breach of the Canyon Lake Dam 

in Rapid City, South Dakota, in 

1972, Congress enacted a law that 

directed the Corps to “carry out a 

national program of inspection of 

dams for the purpose of protecting 

human life and property.” The act 

covered all dams in the United 

States except those constructed 

by the Bureau of Reclamation, 

those built with a Federal Power 

Commission license, and those 

that had been inspected by a state 

agency in the twelve months before 

the enactment of the legislation. 

The Corps was directed to inform 

states of its findings and convey a 

report to Congress that included 

an inventory of all of the dams 

in the United States, the recommendations made to states, and 

“recommendations for a comprehensive national program for 

Construction of the new bypass road 

leading across the crest of F. E. Walter 

Dam, allowing seasonal inundation of 

the original service road behind the dam
92

Chapter 2

the inspection, and regulation 

for safety purposes of dams of 

the Nation.”110

In May 1975, the Corps issued 

its report. It stated that the dams 

included in the inventory were 

those “which are 25 feet or more 

in height or have a maximum 

impounding capacity of 50 acrefeet or more.” Of the 49,329 dams 

inventoried, approximately 20,000 

were “so located that failure or 

misoperation of the discharge 

facilities could result in loss of 

human life and appreciable or 

greater property damage.” The 

report recommended that Congress 

institute a National Dam Safety 

Program, executed either by states 

(over dams not under federal 

authority) or by federal agencies 

that had jurisdiction over the 

dams. The program would include 

“the inspection of all existing dams 

having a high or significant hazard 

potential.”111 President Carter 

authorized the National Dam 

Safety Program in fiscal year 1978. 

In accordance with the Corps’ 

plan, the Philadelphia District conducted investigations of a number 

of dams in the late 1970s and early 

1980s. The district was responsible 

for inspecting all dams in New 

Jersey and Delaware, even those 

within the civil works boundaries 

of the New York and Baltimore 

districts; it began its work with 

Spruce Run Dam in Clifton, N.J., 

on 12 December 1977.112

The report the district released 

in August 1979 to New Jersey 

Governor Brendan T. Byrne on its 

inspection of Longwood Lake Dam 

in Morris County, N.J., was fairly 

representative. According to Col. 

James G. Ton, District Engineer, 

this dam had been classified as 

“a high hazard potential structure,” but the Corps determined 

after the inspection that it was 

“in fair overall condition” and “a 

low hazard potential structure.” 

However, Ton did note that the 

dam’s spillway was “inadequate” 

and that analyses should be 

performed to determine how to 

improve the spillway. Ton also recommended that the dam’s owner 

“initiate a program of periodic 

inspection and maintenance, the 

complete records of which should 

be kept on file.” He asked that the 

state keep the district informed 

The Philadelphia District’s report on the 

West Milford Lake Dam in New Jersey, 

conducted as part of the Corps’ National 

Dam Safety Program
93

Flood Risk Management

regarding how it implemented 

these recommendations.113

Looking at a somewhat more 

critical example, in 1980 the 

district inspected Lake Como Dam 

in Kent County, Del., which was 

found to be in “poor overall condition” and “a significant hazard 

potential structure.” The district 

questioned whether the structure 

had adequate stability and recommended that the spillway be 

addressed, “since nine percent 

of the Spillway Design Flood 

(SDF) would cause the dam to 

be overtopped.” To address these 

inadequacies, the Corps recommended that the owner hire a 

professional engineer with dam 

construction and design experience to analyze “what measures 

are required to provide adequate 

spillway discharge capacity and/

or to protect the embankment from 

overtopping.” The engineer would 

also implement erosion protection measures and would remove 

trees and utility poles from the 

embankment. The report said that 

“continuous monitoring of reservoir levels during periods of heavy 

precipitation should be undertaken 

until permanent repairs are completed.” As with the Longwood 

Lake Dam, Colonel Ton requested 

that the state notify him “of 

proposed actions . . . to implement 

our recommendations.”114

When the district’s dam 

safety inspection work ended in 

September 1981, it had inspected 

404 dams classified as significant hazards, the vast majority 

of which were in New Jersey. Of 

these dams, the district declared 

fifteen Delaware dams and fiftythree New Jersey dams unsafe. In 

the years since 1981, the Corps 

has continued its dam inspection 

work, becoming involved with the 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s (FEMA’s) National Dam 

Safety Program through participation in the Interagency Committee 

on Dam Safety, a coalition of 

“federal agencies that build, own, 

operate, or regulate dams.”115 In 

addition, the Philadelphia District 

established its own Dam Safety 

Committee in 1983, which worked 

in cooperation with similar committees in both the North Atlantic 

Division and the Office of the 

Chief of Engineers. The committee 
94

Chapter 2

had various functions, including 

heightening public awareness of 

dam safety, preparing emergency 

action plans and local evacuation 

plans, and ensuring that the dams 

under the district’s jurisdiction 

were safe. As John Burnes, chair of 

the committee in 2009, explained, 

“Twice a year [the] committee . . . 

meets and looks at all of our dam 

projects to make sure they’re safe 

and operable and being maintained 

and provided for.” In this way, the 

district continues to ensure the 

safety of dams for residents in the 

Delaware River Basin area.116

And the district’s inspection 

program was not confined to dams. 

In 1955, Congress passed a law 

(Public Law 84-99) amending 

the Flood Control Act of 1941 

by establishing “an emergency 

fund” that the Corps could use 

for “flood emergency preparation” or “the repair or restoration 

of any flood-control work threatened or destroyed by flood.”117

Under this act, the Philadelphia 

District’s Operations Division 

(with technical support from the 

Engineering Division) conducted 

inspections on both federal and 

nonfederal flood control works 

(which included levees, channels, 

dams, and hurricane and shore 

protective structures) to determine 

whether a structure was active 

(rated as acceptable or minimally 

acceptable in its last inspection) or 

inactive (had previously been rated 

unacceptable). Active projects were 

eligible for rehabilitation funding 

under PL 84-99. The Corps also 

examined structures to make sure 

that proper maintenance was being 

performed. When work needed to 

be done on a structure, the Corps 

supervised it.118 For example, in 

1996 and 1997, the district conducted a PL 84-99–funded levee 

repair project in Stroudsburg, 

Pa. This project involved placing 

2,700 tons of rock on a two-hundred-foot section of a levee lining 

McMichaels Creek. The total cost 

of the project, which provided 

flood protection to “more than 40 

local businesses,” was $161,370.119

Thus, work performed under PL 

84-99 was another way for the 

Philadelphia District to help communities and agencies maintain 

the integrity of flood control 

structures.
95

Flood Risk Management

Molly Ann’s Brook 

Project

As the twentieth century wore 

on, dams became less and less 

acceptable as a means to provide 

flood control, water supply, and 

recreation, in part because of 

their environmental effects and 

in part because local sponsors 

could not come up with the large 

amounts of money required for 

dam construction under the Water 

Resources Development Act of 

1986. But although dams became 

less popular, the problems they had 

the potential to solve remained. 

As John Burnes explained, when 

projects were killed, it did not 

mean that the needs they intended 

to address went away. “Believe me,” 

he said in 2009, “there are [still] 

such needs, such as flood control 

and . . . water supply.”120 The Corps 

examined other ways of addressing 

these needs. For example, nonstructural solutions such as floodplain 

management became more prevalent in flood control, as well as 

structural projects that did not 

involve the construction of large 

dams. The largest flood control 

project the district undertook after 

constructing Blue Marsh Dam was 

the Molly Ann’s Brook Project 

(which, by virtue of geography, 

actually belonged to the New York 

District).121

Molly Ann’s Brook is a tributary of the Passaic River in 

northern New Jersey. The brook 

flows through the communities of Haledon, Prospect Park, 

and Paterson, and had a history 

of flooding often, especially in 

Paterson and Haledon. Significant 

floods occurred in 1945, 1968, 

1971, and 1977, causing damage 

to both residences and businesses (some $10 million from 

the November 1977 flood alone). 

In 1984, the New York District 

completed a feasibility study 

recommending stream channel 

modifications and construction 

of concrete flumes in a threemile section of Molly Ann’s Brook 

between Haledon and the confluence with the Passaic River 

in Paterson, to reduce potential 

damages related to a fifty-year 

flood event.122

The project was authorized for 

construction in 1986 with an estimated total cost of $22 million, 
96

Chapter 2

and the New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP) was identified as its 

nonfederal sponsor.123 At the time, 

the New York District had more 

work than it could handle so, in 

May 1989, Molly Ann’s Brook 

became a Philadelphia District 

project. First, the district “reaffirmed” the New York District’s 

flood control plans and began 

preparing a Phase II general 

design memorandum. Then, in 

October 1991, the district and 

NJDEP held a public meeting 

on the project in Paterson, N.J., 

attended by “congressional 

interests, local governmental 

representatives, and the public.” 

According to the district, all of 

those interests “continued to 

support the project and urged its 

expeditious construction.”124

In 1992, the district issued its 

Phase II general design memorandum, which called for channel 

modification, concrete flume 

construction, modifications to 

five bridges, and construction of 

retaining walls, all prefaced by 

the removal of an old warehouse 

that sat directly over the brook. 

As Richard Maraldo, the district’s 

former deputy for program management, related, the project had 

“channels, flood walls, levees, 

riprap sections, . . . almost every 

engineering feature for flood 

control you can think of, other 

than a dam.”125

In 1993, Congress appropriated funding to begin construction, 

and by September 1999, the 

project was 90 percent constructed. 

Then Tropical Storm Floyd hit 

the region, collapsing the Belmont 

Avenue Bridge in Haledon and 

setting back project completion. 

Congress provided additional 

funding in fiscal years 2006 and 

2007, and the project was completed in 2008. Approximately 

A section of the Molly Ann’s Brook Flood 

Control Project
97

Flood Risk Management

thirty years after the original 

study and twenty years after the 

Philadelphia District took over 

project management, the Corps 

had replaced five bridges, created 

“a modified walled 2.5-mile-long 

channel,” and removed several 

buildings to significantly reduce 

the potential for flood damage 

along the brook.126

Indeed, when the Corps 

announced the completion of 

the Molly Ann’s Brook Project, 

Philadelphia District Engineer 

Lt. Col. Gwen Baker noted that 

the project had already fulfilled 

many of its objectives. “From 

Tropical Storm Floyd to the heavy 

rains of last spring,” Baker said, 

“the Molly Ann’s Brook project 

has been carrying out its mission 

of flood damage reduction—

not trying in vain to prevent or 

control flooding, but reducing its 

impact on lives and livelihood.” 

Stephen Kempf, regional administrator for FEMA, agreed: “The 

Molly Ann’s Brook project has 

significantly mitigated the risk of 

flooding in this area.” Likewise, 

Congressman Bill Pascrell Jr. 

(D-N.J.) “applaud[ed] the Army 

Corps for working with me to see 

this project through to completion.” Pascrell said that the Corps’ 

work reduced the floodplain and 

“free[d] dozens of home and 

business owners from . . . having 

to pay [for] costly flood insurance 

policies.” According to Pascrell, 

the project was “overdue, but sure 

to benefit generations to come.”127

Continuing 

Authorities Program

Along with these larger 

flood control projects, the Corps 

provided flood damage reduction 

benefits under the Continuing 

Authorities Program (CAP), which 

allowed it to construct smaller 

scale projects (ranging from 

$500,000 to $5 million) without 

specific congressional authorization. As stated on the Philadelphia 

District’s website, “This decreases 

the amount of time required to 

budget, develop, and approve a 

potential project for construction.” 

Under various authorities, the 

Corps could work on small projects 

for flood control, navigation, beach 

erosion control, emergency streambank and shoreline protection, 
98

Chapter 2

snagging and clearing, and environmental improvement projects. 

For flood control, Section 205 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1948 (as 

amended) authorized the Corps 

to construct small projects up to 

a maximum federal share of $7 

million without congressional 

authorization, as long as the chief 

of engineers had signed off on the 

project and as long as “the work 

shall be complete in itself and not 

commit the United States to any 

additional improvement to insure 

its successful operation.”128

According to a Corps publication, these projects could occur 

“only after detailed investigation 

clearly shows [their] engineering 

feasibility, environmental 

acceptability, and economic justification.”129 The Philadelphia 

District outlined the way such 

projects would occur. The Corps 

would first receive a request from 

a city, county, or state to examine 

the water resource problem. The 

district would investigate the 

matter through a site visit to 

determine whether there was an 

“adequate federal interest.” If so, 

the Corps would proceed with a 

reconnaissance study (which could 

last anywhere from six to eighteen 

months), which would conclude 

“whether an economically justifiable solution to the problem exists” 

and which would recommend a 

local sponsor for the project. If the 

project was economically justified, 

the Corps would proceed with a 

feasibility study (lasting anywhere 

from one to two years), up to 50 

percent of which had to be funded 

by the local sponsor. The district 

would then prepare specifications 

and plans for the project, request 

approval from the assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, 

and issue a request for proposals 

for construction, which in some 

cases was completed within three 

to six months of contract award.”130

The Philadelphia District completed several projects under CAP, 

especially after the late 1970s, 

when large flood control projects 

became less desirable to the 

general public. One of its earliest 

CAP projects dealt with Little Mill 

Creek, a tributary of the Christina 

River in New Castle County, Del. 

In 1959, the Philadelphia District 

had conducted a reconnaissance 
99

Flood Risk Management

study of flooding problems in the 

Little Mill Creek watershed, but it 

ultimately determined that the plan 

of improvement would exceed the 

amount authorized under CAP (at 

that time $1 million). After a large 

flood hit the region in August 1967, 

causing $625,000 in damages, the 

county and state requested that the 

Corps implement the plan. With 

the local sponsors willing to take 

on a larger share of the cost, the 

Corps began developing a plan for 

the creek involving “constructing 

a retention basin, improving 

channels, and increasing streamflow capacity of bridges.”131

However, after the Corps completed a detailed project report on 

Little Mill Creek in July 1973, the 

state and county withdrew their 

support of the project, and nothing 

was ever done. Additional reports 

completed by the Philadelphia 

District in the 1980s on Little Mill 

Creek did not produce any action, 

but after a devastating flood in 

July 1989 caused more than $10 

million in damages, the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources 

and Environmental Control 

requested that the Corps conduct 

another flood control study under 

the Section 205 authorization. In 

1991, the Corps published a reconnaissance report, recommending 

that it conduct “detailed feasibility studies of the flood control 

problems along Little Mill Creek” 

and develop a definite project 

report for the area.132

Over the next several years, the 

Philadelphia District made plans 

for Little Mill Creek, dividing the 

project area into upper and lower 

reaches. According to one Corps 

report, the plans included deepening the channel of the stream 

by three feet and stabilizing, 

widening, and modifying the 

stream bank. In 2002, the Little 

Mill Flood Abatement Committee 

(established in 1991 by Delaware’s 

General Assembly “to oversee and 

Construction of the Little Mill Creek Flood 

Control Project in Delaware
100

Chapter 2

direct activities for flood control”), 

the state of Delaware, and the 

Corps signed a project cooperation 

agreement that allowed the project 

to begin. After construction of the 

upper reach work was completed 

in July 2007, the districtbegan 

reevaluation of the lower reach 

work (leading to a second construction project slated for 2012 

completion). The federal share of 

the cost of the entire project was 

$7 million, with the local sponsor 

(the state of Delaware) contributing $2.5 million.133

The district conducted a 

similar project at Aquashicola 

Creek in Palmerton, Pa. This creek 

had flooded often over the years, 

generating as much as $1 million 

in damages in a 1996 flood. Under 

CAP, the district partnered with the 

borough of Palmerton in the 1990s 

to remove sediment from the creek 

and conduct stream-bank improvements over a one-mile stretch of 

the waterway. The total cost of 

the project, which was dedicated 

in May 1999, was $2.5 million. 

Both the district and the community were pleased with the results. 

According to Philadelphia District 

Engineer Lt. Col. Debra Lewis, the 

project was “a perfect example of 

what can be accomplished when 

a community, the private sector 

and government partner with each 

other.” Julie Merkel, a resident 

of Palmerton whose property 

had been flooded three times by 

Aquashicola Creek, agreed. “It’s 

wonderful,” she said. “I didn’t 

think I’d see this in my lifetime.”134

* * * * * * *

The Philadelphia District’s 

flood control efforts encompassed 

a variety of activities in the period 

between 1972 and 2008, reflecting 

changes in the United States as a 

whole. In 2008, the district faced 

a much different world than in 

Assembling one of the gabion retaining 

wall sections for Little Mill Creek
101

Flood Risk Management

1972. In many areas, dams were 

no longer an option for flood 

control and water supply; instead, 

nonstructural measures were considered to be more comprehensive 

solutions, often with the significant 

added benefit of being seen as more 

environmentally friendly. Although 

Blue Marsh, Beltzville, and the 

proposed Walter modification were 

relatively noncontroversial projects 

that were favorably regarded even 

in the twenty-first century, other 

dam construction projects—most 

notably Tocks Island and Trexler—

were halted in the 1970s owing 

to a combination of environmental advocacy and local politics 

that trumped other regional and 

national interests.

By the 1990s, most of the 

Corps’ work to reduce flood risks 

involved either a combination of 

less ambitious structural measures, 

such as at Molly Ann’s Brook, or 

locally focused solutions under 

CAP. The Philadelphia District 

also continued to provide valuable 

inspection and rehabilitation 

services for flood control projects 

operated and maintained by others, 

especially in eastern Pennsylvania. 

With these responsibilities, the 

district helped protect communities 

and populations under its jurisdiction, providing a measure of 

security and safety for residents in 

the Delaware River Basin.

The Aquashicola Creek Flood 

Control Project in Palmerton, Pa., 

during construction (top) and after 

completion (bottom)
Chapter 2 — Endnotes

102

1

 Delaware River Basin Commission, 1993 Annual Report, 6, Technical Library, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (hereafter 

referred to as Philadelphia District-Library). 

2

 “Comprehensive Report on the Development of the Water Resources of the 

Delaware River Basin, Syllabus,” in House, Delaware River Basin, New York, New 

Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware: Letter from the Secretary of the Army Transmitting 

a Letter from the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Dated April 2, 1962, 

Submitting a Report . . . On a Review of the Delaware River and Tributaries . . . , in 

Eleven Volumes, 87th Cong., 2d sess., 1962, H. Doc. 522, 1:a (hereafter referred to 

as H. Doc. 522); see also Richard C. Albert, Damming the Delaware: The Rise and Fall 

of Tocks Island Dam, 2nd ed. (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 

1987), 44–46.

3

 “Comprehensive Report on the Development of the Water Resources of the 

Delaware River Basin, Syllabus,” 1:a.

4

 David Bell, Director, Bureau of the Budget, to Honorable Cyrus R. Vance, Secretary 

of the Army, 17 July 1962, in H. Doc. 522, 1:vii; see also Snyder and Guss, The District, 

194–198.

5

 Delaware River Basin Commission, “DRBC Overview” <http://www.state.nj.us/

drbc/over.htm> (2 March 2010); Edward Voigt, Chief, Public and Legislative Affairs, 

Philadelphia District, personal communication with Joshua Pollarine, 4 April 2011.

6

 Gina Bloodworth, “Tocks Island Dam, the Delaware River and the End of the 

Big-Dam Era,” Ph.D. dissertation (State College, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University 

Graduate School, Department of Geography, 2005), xviii–xiv.

7

 “Where Are They Now? 1968-1971: Col. James A. Johnson,” The Observer

(September/October 1998): 13.

8

 Quotations in Albert, Damming the Delaware, 27-28, 31; see also Unpublished 

Morgan Draft District History, 31.

9

 Quotation in H. Doc. 522, 1:99; see also “Tocks Island Lake, Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey and New York, Pertinent Data,” Loose Papers, Box 503, Administrative Records, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (hereafter referred to as Philadelphia District-AR); see also “Interstate Water Management: 

Recommendations of the Parties to the U.S. Supreme Court Decree of 1954 to the 

Delaware River Basin Commission Pursuant to Commission Resolution 78-20,” draft, 

July 1982, v, Loose Papers, Box 5276, Philadelphia District-AR; Albert, Damming the 

Delaware, 51–58, 62–64, 70, 74; Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 31; Flood 

Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173 at 1182).

10 Margaret S. Nichols, “Showdown at Tocks Island,” Field & Stream 80 (August 

1975): 14; Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 32–33.

11 Albert, Damming the Delaware, 75–80.

12 Albert, Damming the Delaware, 77–80.

13 Delaware River Basin Commission, “Summary of Report on the Tocks Island 

Region Environmental Study,” 16 November 1970, copy in New Jersey State Library, 

Trenton, New Jersey.

14 Luther J. Carter, The Florida Experience: Land and Water Policy in a Growth State

(Baltimore, Md.: Resources for the Future, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 26.

15 Keith S. Krause, Chief, Technical Services Branch, Division of Water Supply and 

Pollution Control, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, to Major General W. 

K. Wilson, Jr., Chief of Engineers, 29 December 1961, in H. Doc. 522, lxxxvi–lxxxvii.

16 Environmental Defense Fund, “Evaluation of the Proposed Tocks Island Reservoir 

Project,” February 1972, Summary, copy in Yale University Library, New Haven, 

Connecticut.

17 Quotations in Albert, Damming the Delaware, 103–109; see also Russell E. Train, 

Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality, to Mr. Belieu, February 3, 1972, Loose 

Papers, Box 503, Philadelphia District-AR.

18 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 39–40; Albert, Damming the Delaware, 

109–111; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Office of History, Engineer Profiles: Major 

General James A. Johnson, U.S. Army, Retired (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Office of History, n.d.), 227. Cahill was not alone in objecting to the 

impact of visitation on New Jersey’s road system. According to an article in Parks and 

Recreation, the National Park Service estimated providing 40,000 parking spaces in 

the recreational area. “The uniform emptying of those spaces within four hours on a 

summer Sunday evening would send 10,000 cars per hour into the area’s already inadequate road system.” Charles A. Stansfield, Jr., “The Tocks Island Controversy,” Parks 

and Recreation 7 (March 1972): 33.

19 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 40-41.

20 Albert, Damming the Delaware, 113–119; see also Unpublished Morgan Draft 

District History, 42–43.

21 Nichols, “Showdown at Tocks Island,” 14.

22 Albert, Damming the Delaware, 113–123; Unpublished Morgan Draft District 

History, 43–44. The Environmental Defense Fund, for example, released two reports 

in 1972 and 1973 that advocated nonstructural flood control solutions, while the 

Save the Delaware Coalition issued a study in 1973 that explored means to produce a 

greater water supply and flood control. 

23 Philadelphia DistrictEN-E, “Summary and Evaluation, Tocks Island Lake Project: 

Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” Loose Papers, Box 503, 

Philadelphia District-AR.

24 As cited in Stansfield, “The Tocks Island Controversy,” 31.

25 Albert, Damming the Delaware, 125.

26 Patricia Barnes-Svarney, “Awful Agnes,” Weatherwise (May/June 2002): 40. The 

Philadelphia District’s response to Agnes is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Six.

27 Quotations in Engineer Profiles: Major General James A. Johnson, 232; see also 

Albert, Damming the Delaware, 126.

28 Engineer Profiles: Major General James A. Johnson, 230; Dave Pierce, “Long Arm 

of Government Changed the Poconos Forever,” Pocono Record, 12 August 2001; 

Elizabeth Rosbach, “Why Do They Have to Leave?” New York Times, 27 September 

1981 (Sunday, Late City Final Edition).

29 Quotation in Albert, Damming the Delaware, 132–142; see also Dave Pierce, 

“Displaced Homeowners, ‘Hippie’ Land Squatters Discuss Painful Past,” Pocono Record, 

12 August 2001.

30 Vince Calvarese telephone interview by Joshua Pollarine, 19 January 2010, transcript, 15.

31 John Burnes interview by Paul Sadin and Joshua Pollarine, 15 January 2009, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, transcript, 11.

32 Quotation in Nichols, “Showdown at Tocks Island,” 14; Unpublished Morgan 

Draft District History, 44–45; Albert, Damming the Delaware, 128–131, 143.

33 URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc., and Conklin & Rossant, A Comprehensive Study of the 

Tocks Island Lake Project and Alternatives, Vol. B—Review of Tocks Island Lake Project

(New York: URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc., 1975), IX-87, IX-98–100.

34 Quotation in Albert, Damming the Delaware, 145–146; Unpublished Morgan 

Draft District History, 46–47.

35 Quotation in Water Resources Association of the Delaware River Basin, Annual 

Report, 1975, copy in File 1517-03 (Water Resources Assoc. of Delaware River Basin) 

Annual Reports, Box 239, Philadelphia District-AR; see also Albert, Damming the 

Delaware, 146; Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 47–48.

36 S. 3106, “A Bill to terminate the authorization for the Tocks Island Reservoir 

Project as part of the Delaware River Basin project, and for other purposes,” copy in 

Senate Subcommittee on Water Resources of the Committee on Public Works, Tocks 

Island Deauthorization: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the 

Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 1976, 23–26 

(hereafter referred to as Tocks Island Deauthorization Hearings).

37 Tocks Island Deauthorization Hearings, 56–58 (quotation from the chief of engineers is given by Rep. Millicent Fenwick [R-N.J.] on p. 30).
Chapter 2 — Endnotes

103

38 Statements or testimony from the senators and representatives mentioned in this 

paragraph begin on the following pages in Tocks Island Deauthorization Hearings: 3, 5, 

8, 11, 27, 30, 37, 38, 42, 45, 47, 50.

39 Tocks Island Deauthorization Hearings, 69, 90–92.

40 Albert, Damming the Delaware, 149.

41 Quotation in Act of 2 October 1968 (82 Stat. 906); see also Albert, Damming the 

Delaware, 150.

42 Quotation in National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 3467 at 3483–

3484, 3527); see also Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 50–51.

43 Burnes interview, 10. As an example of the type of criticism levied by some 

against the Philadelphia District, in 1981, Rep. Robert W. Edgar (D-Pa.) charged 

Philadelphia District Engineer Colonel James G. Ton with “talking lovingly about the 

Tocks Island Dam” as if he were “hoping that maybe through some congressional 

magic we would put the Tocks Island Dam back in place and begin to move in that 

direction.” Ton strongly objected to this, stating that “the [C]orps is not an advocate 

of any project. We are not going to build any project that is not supported by the 

Delaware River Basin Commission who represent the States of New York, New Jersey, 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Delaware.” House Subcommittee on Water 

Resources of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Water Resources 

Problems Affecting the Northeast: The Drought, and Present and Future Water Supply 

Problems: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the Committee 

on Public Works and Transportation, House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 1st sess., 

1981, 797.

44 See, for example, Leslie A. Pappas, “Troubled Water for River Towns: After 

Repeated Floods, N.J. and Pa. Look for Solutions,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 24 April 2005; 

Martin Gansberg, “New Jersey Journal,” New York Times, 11 August 1985.

45 H. Doc. 522, 1:109; see also Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 51–52.

46 Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers, Lehigh River 

Basin, Trexler Lake, Jordan Creek, Pennsylvania: Final Environmental Impact Statement

(Philadelphia: Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers, 1973), 

1-3, 3-10 – 3-11.

47 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 52–53.

48 Quotations in Harry Dutchyshyn telephone interview by Joshua Pollarine, 3 August 

2009, transcript, 13–14; see also Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 54.

49 Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers, “Lehigh River 

Basin, Trexler Lake, Jordan Creek, Pennsylvania: Public Hearing Transcript taken at 

Parkland Senior High School, Orefield, Pa., under Provisions of Section 404, Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,” Philadelphia District-Library. The 

transcript for this hearing is 186 pages long. Toward the end of the hearing, one 

speaker “noted that by my count 30 proponents of the dam have spoken but 60 opponents have spoken” (p. 147).

50 Quotations in Raymond H. Snyder, “Report of the Lehigh Basin Group – May 

16, 1978,” in “Nineteenth Annual Report of the Water Resources Association of the 

Delaware River Basin, WRA/DRB, for the Calendar Year 1977,” 12, File 1517-03 (Water 

Resources Assoc. of the Delaware River Basin) Annual Reports, Box 239, Philadelphia 

District-AR; see also Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 55–57.

51 Quotation in Snyder and Guss, The District, 216; see also H. Doc. 522, 1:105; 

Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 17-19.

52 Quotations in Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 18; see also U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Lehigh River Basin, Pohopoco Creek, 

Pennsylvania: Beltzville Lake, Design Memorandum No. 18A, Appendices to the Master 

Plan, Recreation-Resource Management,” April 1974, copy in Philadelphia DistrictLibrary; “Department of the Army, Lease for Public Park and Recreational Purposes, 

Beltzville Lake,” Lease No. DACW61-1-72-124, 19 August 1971, File 1110-2-1150a 

Planning & Development Correspondence, Box 6 of 9, Accession No. 077-97-0001, 

RG 77, FRC.

53 Quotation in Office of the District Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer District, 

Philadelphia, Corps of Engineers, “Design Memorandum No. 5, Schuylkill River Basin, 

Tulpehocken Creek, Pennsylvania, Blue Marsh Dam and Reservoir: Land Requirements 

Plan – Public Use,” 3, copy in Philadelphia District-Library; see also H. Doc. 522, 2:113; 

Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers, Blue Marsh Lake: 

Design Memorandum No. 14, Reservoir Clearing (Philadelphia: Department of the 

Army, Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers, 1974), 2-1; Unpublished Morgan Draft 

District History, 20–21.

54 Quotations in Edward J. Conley, Federal Activities Coordinator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, to Colonel James A. Johnson, District Engineer, Philadelphia 

District, 21 January 1971, in U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia, “Environmental 

Statement: Blue Marsh Lake Project, Tulpehocken Creek, Pennsylvania,” April 1971, 

copy in Philadelphia District-Library; see also Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 

21-22.

55 James F. Wright, Delaware River Basin Commission, to Colonel James A. Johnson, 

District Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia, 2 December 1970, in 

“Environmental Statement: Blue Marsh Lake Project.”

56 Quotations in Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers, The State 

University, “Final Report: ‘Investigation of the Arsenic Conditions at the Blue Marsh 

Lake Project Site, Pennsylvania’,” v–vi, Appendix A, U.S. Army Engineer District, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, “Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Blue Marsh Lake Project, Tulpehocken Creek, Pennsylvania,” June 1973, copy in 

Philadelphia District-Library; see also “Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement,” 21–23; Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 23–24.

57 Quotation in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Blue Marsh 

Lake” (pamphlet), File 1110-2-1150a Planning & Development Correspondence, Box 

6 of 8, Accession No. 077-03-0002, RG 77, FRC; see also Vince Calvarese telephone 

interview by Joshua Pollarine, 19 January 2010, transcript, 7; Unpublished Morgan 

Draft District History, 21; Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, Corps of 

Engineers, “Schuylkill River Basin, Tulpehocken Creek, Pennsylvania, Blue Marsh 

Lake: Design Memorandum No. 13, Bernville Protective Works,” 3–4, File 7 Bernville 

Protective Works D.M. No. 13, Vol. II, Box 5 of 9, Accession No. 077-89-0004, RG 

77, FRC; Robert Corrigan for Daniel E. Price, Chief, Project Management Branch, 

Memo for Record, 15 August 1975, File 1 Bernville Local Protection—P&S (Pertinent 

Correspondence), Box 5 of 9, Accession No. 077-89-0004, RG 77, FRC.

58 Quotations in “National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended through 

1992,” in U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Historic Preservation Laws

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1993), 7, 9–10, 22; see also Mike 

Wallace, Mickey Mouse History and Other Essays on American Memory (Philadelphia: 

Temple University Press, 1996), 190.

59 Quotations in John Milner Associates, “Historic Structures Report, Gruber 

Wagon Works, Blue Marsh Lake, Berks County, Pennsylvania,” 28 April 1978, 8–10, 

Philadelphia District-Library; see also John F. Wrocklage, Chief, Planning Division, 

North Atlantic Division, to District Engineer, Philadelphia, 12 June 1970, in Office of 

the District Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia, Corps of Engineers, 

“Schuylkill River Basin, Tulpehocken Creek, Pennsylvania, Blue Marsh Lake: Preliminary 

Case Report on Gruber Wagon Works, Pleasant Valley, Pennsylvania,” May 1975, E-66, 

Philadelphia District-Library.

60 H. Fein, Chief, Relocation & Recreation Section, to Ch, Design Br., 29 July 1970, in 

“Preliminary Case Report on Gruber Wagon Works,” E-60 – E-61.

61 Murray H. Nelligan, Landmark and National Register Specialist, to Director, 

Northeast Region, 10 July 1970, in “Preliminary Case Report on Gruber Wagon 

Works,” E-62 – E-63.

62 Lieutenant Colonel Samuel J. Newsom, Jr., Deputy District Engineer, to Mr. Eric 

DeLony, Historic American Engineering Record, n.d., in “Preliminary Case Report on 

Gruber Wagon Works,” E-49.

63 Worth D. Phillips, Chief, Engineering Division, to Mr. Harold E. Yoder, Jr., Historical 

Society of Berks County, 13 September 1973, in “Preliminary Case Report on Gruber 

Wagon Works,” E-48.
Chapter 2 — Endnotes

104

64 Quotation in Worth D. Phillips, Chief, Engineering Division, to Division Engineer, 

20 November 1973, in “Preliminary Case Report on Gruber Wagon Works,” E-44 – 

E-45; see also Board of County Commissioners to Colonel C. A. Selleck, Jr., District 

Engineer, 21 February 1974, ibid., E-37.

65 John Milner Associates, “Historic Structures Report,” 13–14.

66 Quotation in Colonel V. L. Rathburn, Assistant Director of Civil Works, Atlantic, 

Corps of Engineers, to Dr. A. R. Mortensen, Director, Office of Archeology and Historic 

Preservation, National Park Service, 27 February 1975, in “Preliminary Case Report 

on Gruber Wagon Works,” E-14 – E-15; see also James Kahn, “History Takes a Step 

Forward,” Water Spectrum 7 (Fall 1975): 40.

67 S. 1497, in Congressional Record, 94th Cong., 1st sess., 22 April 1975, 

121:11176.

68 Act of 22 October 1976 (90 Stat. 2917, at 2927–2928).

69 Calvarese interview, 4.

70 John Milner Associates, “Historic Structures Report,” 19–20; Unpublished Morgan 

Draft District History, 29.

71 Robert M. Vogel, quoted in Kahn, “History Takes a Step Forward,” 40.

72 A. R. Mortensen, Director, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, 

to Colonel V. L. Rathburn, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 18 March 1975, in 

“Preliminary Case Report on Gruber Wagon Works,” E-12 – E-13.

73 Robert M. Vogel, Chairman, Department of Science and Technology, 7 October 

1974, in “Preliminary Case Report on Gruber Wagon Works,” E-23.

74 “Army Engineers Help Preserve Old Wagon Works,” Reading Eagle (Reading, Pa.), 

16 September 1974.

75 Quotations in R. B. Jaggard, Resident Engineer, Blue Marsh Lake Project, to District 

Engineer, 27 February 1978, File 1519-10 DACW61-74-C-0229 Impoundment, Box 

299, Philadelphia District-AR; see also “Blue Marsh Dam Begins to Pay Off,” Reading 

Eagle, 28 January 1978.

76 Ellen R. Schwartz, “Blue Marsh Gates Closed,” Reading Eagle, 27 January 1978.

77 Al Schoenebeck interview by Joshua Pollarine, 14 January 2009, Leesport, 

Pennsylvania, transcript, 7–8.

78 “Hit Beltzville for Bass,” The Observer (Summer 2007): 17.

79 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Blue Marsh Lake” 

(pamphlet), copy in File 1110-2-1150a Planning & Development, Correspondence, Box 

6 of 8, Accession No. 077-03-0002, RG 77, FRC.

80 “Getting to Know Northern Area Office (Corps Dams),” The Observer (May/June 

2000): 10.

81 Quotations in “Junior Rangers Learn How They Can Take Care of Our Resources,” 

The Observer (May 1996): 5; see also “Blue Marsh Ranger Honored by Corps,” The 

Observer (September 1996): 3; “District Employee Wins National Education Award,” 

The Observer (Winter 2007/2008): 7; “‘Blue Marsh Day’ Draws Hundre[d]s for Clean 

Up Project,” The Observer (Spring 2008): 7.

82 Carmen F. Guarino, Water Commissioner, to Sen. Richard Schweiker, 14 August 

1978, File DRBC’s Material, Box 5061, Philadelphia District-AR.

83 Water Resources Association of Delaware River Basin, 1977-78 Annual Report, File 

1517-03 (Water Resources Assoc. of Delaware River Basin) Annual Reports, Box 239, 

Philadelphia District-AR.

84 Albert, Damming the Delaware, 157–158.

85 House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Resolution, 23 September 

1976, File Congressional Resolution, Box 347, Philadelphia District-AR.

86 First quotation in Water Resources Problems Affecting the Northeast, 792; second 

quotation in “Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States of America 

and the Delaware River Basin Commission,” File DRBC—Correspondence, Box 347, 

Philadelphia District-AR.

87 Quotations in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Delaware 

Estuary Salinity Intrusion Study: Reconnaissance Report, Stage 1 – Water Resources 

Survey Investigation,” December 1978, 2, Box 503, Philadelphia District-AR; see also 

William B. Strandberg, “Control of Salinity Intrusion in the Delaware River Estuary: 

A Report to the Delaware River Basin Commission,” January 1975, 1-2, File DRBC—

Health-Related Salinity, Box 5059, Philadelphia District-AR.

88 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Delaware Estuary Salinity 

Intrusion Study: Reconnaissance Report,” 7, 10.

89 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Delaware Estuary Salinity 

Intrusion Study: Executive Summary of the Report ‘Economic Study of Salinity Costs in 

the Delaware Estuary,’” February 1980, 8, 10, File Material for Col’s. Speech, Box 347, 

Philadelphia District-AR.

90 Albert, Damming the Delaware, 162–163.

91 Quotations in “Interstate Water Management: Recommendations of the Parties 

to the U.S. Supreme Court Decree of 1954 to the Delaware River Basin Commission 

Pursuant to Commission Resolution 28-20 (with appendices),” draft, July 1982, Loose 

Papers, Box 5276, Philadelphia District-AR; see also Albert, Damming the Delaware, 

166–169; see also “Additional Questions and Answers, Delaware Estuary Salinity 

Intrusion Study,” File Delaware River Estuary Salinity Intrusion, FY 82 Budget, Box 347, 

Philadelphia District-AR. The 1980–81 drought also resulted in a contract between the 

Corps and the DRBC to use 27,880 acre-feet of storage space in Beltzville Reservoir “to 

impound water for anticipated future demand or need for water supply.” “Contract 

Between the United States of America and the Delaware River Basin Commission for 

Water Storage Space in Beltzville Lake,” 16 September 1980, File Beltzville and F. E. 

Walter Contracts, Box 3 of 5, Accession No. 077-96-0013, RG 77, FRC.

92 “Division’s Public Notice: Notice of Report, Delaware Estuary Salinity Intrusion 

Study,” File Coordination with NAD, Box 5277, Philadelphia District-AR.

93 First quotation in Delaware River Basin Commission to Colonel Baldwin, 12 

November 1982, File DRBC—Correspondence, Box 347, Philadelphia District-AR; 

second quotation in Gerald M. Hansler, Executive Director, Delaware River Basin 

Commission, 27 August 1980, ibid.

94 See H. Doc. 522, 96, 102.

95 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 63–65.

96 See Philadelphia District, Office of the District Engineer, “Lehigh River, 

Pennsylvania: Francis E. Walter Dam and Reservoir, Design Memorandum No. 10, 

Revised Master Plan,” August 1974, 1-1, Box 503, Philadelphia District-AR; “Lehigh 

River Basin, Lehigh River-Bear Creek, Pennsylvania, Francis E. Walter Dam (Modified), 

Cost and Benefit Methodology,” January 1978, 6, Box 5276, Philadelphia District-AR; 

Philadelphia District, “Lackawaxen River Basin, Wayne County, Pennsylvania: 

Reconnaissance Report, Proposed Rehabilitation of Prompton Dam Upstream Slope,” 

August 1977, Philadelphia District-Library; “1989 Lehigh River Whitewater Events,” 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, News Release, File 1105-2-40a F. 

E. Walter Newspaper Articles, Box 3 of 5, Accession No. 077-96-0013, RG 77, FRC; 

Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 66.

97 Quotation in Charles J. Kulp, Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Lt. 

Colonel G. William Quinby, District Engineer, Philadelphia District, 9 March 1988, File 

1110-2-1150a Planning & Development Corresp., Box 3 of 9, Accession No. 077-97-

0001, RG 77, FRC; see also Gerald M. Hansler to Lt. Colonel Ralph V. Locurcio, District 

Engineer, 24 October 1985, File F. E. Walter (Modified), Water Storage Contract, Box 6 

of 9, ibid.

98 Quotations in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District and Baltimore 

District, “Modification of the Francis E. Walter Dam and Reservoir, Lehigh River Basin, 

Pa., General Design Memorandum: Main Report and Environmental Impact Statement,” 

August 1985, Syllabus, copy in Regional Center for Environmental Information, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; see also 

“Draft, F.E. Walter Dam Project,” 3, File 1110-2-1150a Planning & Development 

Correspondence, FE Walter, Internal Coordination, Box 6 of 9, Accession No. 077-97-

0001, RG 77, FRC; Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 64.
Chapter 2 — Endnotes

105

99 “Francis E. Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, Modification, Flood Control Reservoir 

Project,” File 1110-2-1150a Planning & Development Correspondence, Box 6 of 9, 

Accession No. 077-97-0001, RG 77, FRC.

100 “Draft, F.E. Walter Dam Project,” 4; Bruce E. Stewart, Executive Director, to 

Honorable Robert P. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, 19 February 1990, File 1110-2-

1150a Planning & Development Correspondence, FE Walter, Internal Coordination, Box 

6 of 9, Accession No. 077-97-0001, RG 77, FRC; Unpublished Morgan Draft District 

History, 68-69; Albert, Damming the Delaware, 179–180.

101 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 70–71.

102 Lieutenant Colonel R. F. Sliwoski, District Engineer, to Honorable Joseph M. 

McDade, 27 April 1993, File 1110-2-1150a Planning & Development Correspondence, 

Walter General Corresp., Box 6 of 9, Accession No. 077-97-0001, RG 77, FRC.

103 Quotation in Sliwoski to Honorable Joseph M. McDade, 27 April 1993; see also 

“Draft, F.E. Walter Dam Project,” 4; Stewart to Casey, 19 February 1990; Unpublished 

Morgan Draft District History, 68-69; Albert, Damming the Delaware, 179-180.

104 Voigt personal communication.

105 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Project Factsheet: Prompton 

Lake, Prompton, PA, January 2010,” <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/

cePhiladelphia District-dp/projects/factsheets/PA/5OM_Prompton%20Lake.pdf> (13 

April 2011).

106 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Francis E. Walter Dam 

Flow Management Working Group” <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/

Projects/FEWalter/index.htm> (1 April 2010); Voigt personal communication.

107 Sarah Fulton, “Walter Dam Presents Aggressive Water Release Plan,” The 

Morning Call (Allentown, Pa.), 17 February 2006. 

108 “Kanjorski Officially Opens New Road at Francis E. Walter Dam, Increasing Dam’s 

Capacity,” News Release, 6 July 2005, The Kanjorski News Room <http://kanjorski.

house.gov/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=103> (1 April 2010).

109 Tom Long, “New Road at Walter Dam Will be Boon to Tourism, Officials Say,” 

Citizensvoice.com, 7 July 2005; Voigt personal communication.

110 Quotations in Act of 8 August 1972 (86 Stat. 506); see also Department of 

the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, National Program of Inspection of Dams

(Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, 1975), 1:2.

111 Lieutenant General W. C. Gribble, Jr., Chief of Engineers, Memorandum for 

Secretary of the Army, 16 May 1975, in Department of the Army, National Program of 

Inspection of Dams, 1: vi–viii.

112 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 111.

113 Colonel James G. Ton, District Engineer, to Honorable Brendan T. Byrne, Governor 

of New Jersey, 25 September 1979, in Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, 

Corps of Engineers, “Passaic River Basin, Rockaway River, Morris County, New Jersey, 

Longwood Lake Dam, NH 00333: Phase I Inspection Report, National Dam Safety 

Program,” copy in Philadelphia District-Library.

114 Colonel James G. Ton, District Engineer, to Honorable Pierre S. DuPont, Governor 

of Delaware, 17 February 1981, in Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, Corps 

of Engineers, “Delaware River Basin, Mill Creek, Kent County, Delaware, Lake Como 

Dam, DE 00028: Phase I Inspection Report, National Dam Safety Program,” copy in 

Philadelphia District-Library.

115 Quotations in FEMA, “The National Dam Safety Program: 25 Years of Excellence” 

<http://www.fema.gov/library/file;jsessionid=990ABE86437E65977608FE9C65955AB3.

WorkerLibrary?type=publishedFile&file=ndsp_25_years.pdf&fileid=2995cdf0-3d90-

11db-8620-000bdba87d5b> (2 April 2010); see also FEMA, “About the National Dam 

Safety Program” <http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/damfailure/ndsp.shtm> (2 April 

2010). The Water Resources and Development Act of 1996 formally established the 

National Dam Safety Program under FEMA’s direction.

116 Quotation in Burnes interview, 27; see also “Dam Safety Committees Meet,” The 

Observer (May 1993): 7.

117 Act of 28 June 1955 (69 Stat. 186).

118 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Corps Rehabilitation & 

Inspection Program” <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/emo/fcw-list.

htm> (12 April 2010).

119 Quotations in “District Finishes Up 84-99 Levee Repairs at Stroudsburg,” The 

Observer (September/October 1997): 6; see also “Allentown & Stroudsburg: Bringing 

the Levees Back to Life,” The Observer (October 1996): 13.

120 Burnes interview, 8.

121 Voigt personal communication.

122 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, “Passaic River Basin, New 

Jersey and New York, Phase I – General Design Memorandum: Interim Report on 

Flood Protection Feasibility, Molly Ann’s Brook, Haledon, Prospect Park, Paterson, N.J.,” 

November 1984, 1–3, 18–19, 45, File 1105-2-40a Molly Ann’s Brook Interim Report on 

Flood Protection Feasibility FY 90, Box 7168, Philadelphia District-AR.

123 Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat 4082, 4119).

124 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Molly Ann’s Brook Flood 

Control Project, Haledon, Prospect Park and Paterson, N.J.: Draft, Phase II General 

Design Memorandum, Main Report,” March 1992 (hereafter referred to as Phase II 

GDM), Box 7168, Philadelphia District-AR.

125 Quotation in Richard Maraldo interview by Joshua Pollarine, 19 August 2009, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, transcript, 34; see also Phase II GDM, Syllabus.

126 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Project Factsheet: Molly 

Ann’s Brook, Haledon, Prospect Park & Paterson, N.J.,” October 2009 <http://www.

Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/cePhiladelphia District-dp/projects/factsheets/NJ/

Molly%20Anns%20Brook.pdf> (6 April 2010); “Pascrell Joins Army Corps to Announce 

Completion of Molly Ann’s Brook Flood Damage Reduction Project,” Press Release, 21 

April 2008 <http://pascrell.house.gov/list/press/nj08_pascrell/Pascrell_Joins_Army_Corps_

To_Announce_Completion_Of_Molly_Anns_Brook_Flood_Damage_Reduction_Project.

shtml> (6 April 2010).

127 All quotations in “Pascrell Joins Army Corps to Announce Completion of Molly 

Ann’s Brook Flood Damage Reduction Project.”

128 Quotation in Act of 30 June 1948 (62 Stat. 1171); see also U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Continuing Authorities Program” <http://www.

Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/cePhiladelphia District-pl/ca.htm> (2 April 2010).

129 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, “Section 205: Authority for: 

Flood Damage Reduction Projects” <http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/html/pub/ap/facts/

sec205.pdf> (5 April 2010).

130 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Continuing Authorities 

Program.”

131 Quotation in Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers, 

“Announcement of Public Meeting on Small Flood Control Project for Little Mill Creek, 

New Castle County, Delaware,” in “Corps of Engineers, Small Flood Control Project 

for Little Mill Creek, New Castle County, Delaware, Transcript of proceedings held on 

Tuesday, September 12, 1972,” (see also pp. 9–10 of this transcript), File 1110-2-1150a 

Planning & Development, Correspondence, Box 4, Accession No. 077-97-0001, RG 77, 

FRC.

132 Quotations in “Little Mill Creek, New Castle County, Delaware, Flood Control 

Study (Section 205), Reconnaissance Report, July 1981,” 83–84, File 1110-2-1150a 

Planning & Development, Correspondence, Little Mill Creek July 1991 Recon., Box 4, 

Accession No. 77-97-0001, RG 77, FRC; see also “Little Mill Creek PCA Signed,” The 

Observer (September/October 2002): 4.

133 Quotations in “Little Mill Creek PCA Signed,” The Observer (September/October 

2002): 4–5; see also U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Project 

Factsheet: Little Mill Creek, New Castle County, DE, October 2009” <http://www.

Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/cePhiladelphia District-dp/projects/factsheets/DE/

Little%20Mill%20Creek%20NCC.pdf> (5 April 2010).

134 All quotations and information in “Flood Protection Comes to Palmerton: 

Residents Applaud Work Completed at Aquashicola Creek,” The Observer (May/June 

1999): 4.
3
107

I

n addition to protecting communities from river flooding, 

the Philadelphia District 

managed a variety of projects 

along the New Jersey and Delaware 

coastlines. This type of work 

mainly involved beach erosion 

control, shoreline protection, navigation improvements, and beach 

replenishment. The district had 

constructed coastal projects as 

early as the 1910s, when it built 

jetties at Cape May Inlet along 

the New Jersey shore. However, 

the district’s coastal work became 

more prevalent in the 1990s and 

2000s, after a series of storms convinced New Jersey and Delaware 

to undertake a more concerted 

program of coastal protection. By 

2008, the Philadelphia District’s 

efforts on the Delaware and New 

Jersey shores had become one of 

the largest coastal programs in the 

Corps, while making the district 

one of the leading experts in the 

United States on coastal engineering and planning.

According to the Corps of 

Engineers, shore protection projects 

were any “projects which reduce 

the damaging effects of coastal 

flooding, wave impacts, or erosion 

due to tides, surges, waves, or 

shore material deficits resulting 

from natural or human causes.” 

They could involve the construction of several different features, 

including groins (structures built 

out from the seashore to reduce 

longshore sediment transport) and 

revetments, seawalls, bulkheads, 

levees, and surge barriers. Shore 

protection projects included beach 

nourishment, either through sand 

bypassing (transporting sand across 

Coastal Engineering and Storm Risk Management

Facing page: Conducting shoreline 

surveys concurrent with dredging 

operations for beach nourishment at 

Dewey Beach, Del.
108

Chapter 3

an inlet, from a wider updrift 

beach to the narrower downdrift 

beach) or through the direct placement of fill on eroding beaches.1

As Jeff Gebert, chief of the district’s 

Coastal Planning Section explained, 

“We’re keeping sand on the 

beach . . . as well as high enough 

dunes to keep storm water . . . 

from flooding and damaging the 

coastal community.” These kinds 

of projects were funded through 

the Construction General fund, 

both for initial construction and for 

periodic renourishment.2

As in the Corps in general, 

the Philadelphia District’s initial 

shoreline work was not for protection but was part of the agency’s 

navigation mission. At various 

inlets, the Corps provided maintenance dredging to ensure good 

navigability and constructed jetties 

to improve navigation. However, 

jetties sometimes impeded the 

transport of sand, thereby accelerating beach erosion. Therefore, 

solving navigation problems in 

the early part of the twentieth 

century led to different problems 

The seawall at Avalon, N.J., upgraded by 

the district as part of the Townsends Inlet 

to Cape May Inlet Coastal Storm Damage 

Reduction Project
109

Storm Risk Management

later on—problems that required 

coastal planning and engineering 

expertise.3

 The district’s coastal 

engineering work in the 1970s and 

beyond continued to involve navigation improvements.

Early Coastal 

Protection Projects

The Corps’ involvement in 

coastal protection and beach 

erosion prevention was a relatively 

new responsibility. Beach erosion 

control along the Atlantic Coast was 

limited to isolated local initiatives 

until the early 1900s. Municipalities 

and private interests in New Jersey 

began looking at the problem 

in earnest after a series of hurricanes and other tropical storms 

battered the shore, all during a 

period of unprecedented and rapid 

growth in coastline development. 

According to one source, various 

parties implemented erosion control 

in an uncoordinated way, “often 

produc[ing] results that were 

minimally effective and in some 

cases, counterproductive.” As one 

Corps report on coastal protection 

noted, “It was soon realized that 

the efforts of individual property 

owners were incapable of coping 

with the problem of coastal erosion 

and that a broader-based approach 

was necessary.” In 1930, Congress 

passed an act authorizing the Corps 

to work with state governments to 

provide shore protection to communities. Subsequent amendments 

The Townsends Inlet to Cape May 

Inlet Shore Protection Project included 

seawall upgrades for two Jersey Shore 

communities: Avalon, along Townsends 

Inlet (top) and North Wildwood, along 

Hereford Inlet (bottom)
110

Chapter 3

established the cost sharing of 

such projects as one-third federal 

and two-thirds nonfederal, but 

the River and Harbor Act of 1968 

stated that beach restoration and 

nourishment projects would be 

funded 100 percent by the federal 

government. Additional legislation 

expanded the Corps’ jurisdiction to work on private beaches 

“where substantial public benefits 

would result” and stated that 

periodic nourishment would be 

classified as construction projects. 

As more hurricanes and tropical 

storms affected the increasingly 

developed eastern seaboard in the 

1950s and 1960s, Congress passed 

acts authorizing the Corps to construct several coastal protection 

projects.4

 In addition, the Corps 

received authority under Section 

103 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1962 “to construct small shore 

and beach restoration or protection 

projects including periodic beach 

nourishment” without specific 

congressional approval, as long as 

the total cost of a project did not 

exceed $1 million.5

One of the first areas to which 

the Philadelphia District turned 

its newly expanded coastal protection attention was Delaware Bay. 

This work resulted from a Corpswide study done in the late 1960s 

and early 1970s at the direction 

of Congress to develop “general 

conceptual plans for needed shore 

protection.” The Corps produced 

this study in 1971; it said that, of 

the nine regions investigated, “the 

North Atlantic has the greatest 

percentage of critical erosion,”6

and New Jersey was fifth out of the 

ten states in that region for “miles 

of critical erosion.” Accordingly, 

in 1972, the House Committee on 

Public Works issued a resolution 

requesting that the Philadelphia 

District review an earlier report on 

Delaware Bay to “determin[e] the 

advisability of providing improvements for beach erosion control, 

hurricane protection and related 

purposes along the Delaware Bay 

shore of New Jersey and the lower 

portion of the Delaware River in 

Salem, Cumberland, and Cape May 

counties.”7

The Corps conducted the 

review and additional examinations 

of the issue in the 1970s, holding 

public meetings in 1973 on where 
111

Storm Risk Management

The Atlantic coastline of Cape May, N.J., before 

(above) and after (below) beach nourishment
112

Chapter 3

erosion control was necessary and 

what measures would best alleviate 

the problem. At these hearings, and 

in correspondence to the Corps and 

to New Jersey’s congressional delegation, it was clear that residents 

and businesses on the New Jersey 

shoreline believed that protection was necessary. For example, 

one citizen from Elsinboro, N.J., 

wrote, “We are losing shoreline at 

an alarming rate and are in danger 

of losing homes.”8

 Yet when the 

Corps issued its feasibility report 

on beach erosion control and hurricane protection along the Delaware 

Bay shore in 1979, it stated that, 

although there was “erosion 

damage . . . at damage centers 

along the river and bay in the 

study area,” there were no “economically feasible alternative plans 

of improvement,” meaning that the 

Corps could find no project with 

a benefit-cost ratio that exceeded 

1.0. The Corps thus recommended 

that no new federal work be authorized at that time, although it did 

suggest that a study of erosion 

problems at Pennsville, N.J., be 

undertaken under the Continuing 

Authorities Program.9

This study highlighted the 

conundrum that some coastal 

communities faced. Residents 

might feel that coastal protection 

was necessary, but if projects did 

not meet or exceed the required 

benefit-cost ratio, the Corps could 

not implement them, regardless 

of the needs of communities and 

individuals. In addition, in the 

eyes of many, using federal money 

on coastal protection projects 

was not an acceptable option, 

because it benefited only a few 

(those residing on the shore). “The 

problem is we built too close to 

the ocean,” one critic said. “Is the 

solution putting all this sand endlessly in front of these structures 

at taxpayers’ expense?” Those who 

supported using federal dollars 

for coastal projects countered that 

coastal communities were tourist 

havens for a variety of people and 

that it was in the nation’s interest 

to protect them.10 However, 

because of the criticisms against 

the Corps’ involvement, President 

Bill Clinton’s administration considered removing the Corps from 

beach erosion projects across the 

United States and even proposed 
113

Storm Risk Management

in its fiscal year 1996 budget that 

no other coastal erosion projects 

be funded. Some members of 

Congress, including Senator Bill 

Bradley (D-N.J.), fought against 

this proposal, and the administration finally relented, allowing 

projects to go forward.11

Certain guidelines determined 

when the federal government 

could become involved in beach 

erosion control and coastal protection projects. According to the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, these included 

whether the beach was publicly 

owned, whether the area had a 

public access recreational component, and whether the economic 

return was sufficient, “measured 

by the increase in national 

economic development benefits.” 

The federal government did 

not participate in any projects 

involving privately owned beaches 

with no public recreational component or projects that would protect 

undeveloped private lands.12

Only a thin ribbon of beach separated 

the Atlantic Ocean from the Boardwalk 

prior to initial beachfill placement at 

Atlantic City, N.J.
114

Chapter 3

In addition, the Water 

Resources Development Act of 

1986 (WRDA-1986) contained 

certain cost-sharing stipulations 

for coastal protection projects. 

According to that act, any beach 

erosion control projects would be 

designated as a flood control, nonstructural flood control, or other 

purpose project, and costs would 

be shared according to the designation. Flood control projects 

required nonfederal interests to 

contribute up to 50 percent of 

the project costs, while nonfederal partners had to provide 35 

percent of nonstructural flood 

control project costs. If a project 

was designated as a hurricane and 

storm damage reduction project 

or as an environmental protection and restoration project, it 

required 35 percent from nonfederal interests, while recreation 

projects required 50 percent of 

costs. The law also stated that the 

cost of using dredged material 

from federal navigation projects for 

beach nourishment would be costshared on a 50-50 basis.13 Because 

of these cost-sharing requirements, 

local interests became much more 

involved in the development of 

coastal protection projects. As 

Jeff Gebert explained, requiring 

nonfederal sponsors to provide 

cash for projects created “a higher 

level of involvement on the nonfederal side . . . to make sure that 

the solution you come up with in 

the project . . . fits better” and is 

“more likely to be implemented.”14

However, one of the unresolved 

questions in WRDA-86 was what to 

do about periodic nourishment of 

beaches. Generally, in most beach 

erosion control projects, the Corps 

needed to replace sand on beaches 

at regular intervals, such as every 

three or four years. Under most 

Sand being pumped ashore for beach 

nourishment at Cape May, N.J.
115

Storm Risk Management

coastal projects, the nonfederal 

sponsor was responsible for the 

operation, maintenance, repair, 

and rehabilitation of the completed 

project. Did periodic nourishment fall into this category as 

well? In 1992, Brig. Gen. Stanley 

G. Genega, Director of the Corps’ 

Civil Works Program, issued a 

memorandum stating that the 

placement of additional sand on 

beaches could be classified as continuing project construction and 

should be cost-shared along the 

same lines as general construction 

(65 percent federal, 35 percent 

nonfederal). As Acting Assistant 

Secretary of the Army (Civil 

Works) John H. Zirschky put it, 

“Projects that are in this long-term 

construction phase will continue as 

Federal projects through the term 

of the current agreements with 

non-Federal sponsors.”15

As these new guidelines 

were being established, Congress 

directed the Philadelphia District 

to initiate a new study addressing 

both shores of Delaware Bay (as 

opposed to the New Jersey-only 

studies and previous separate 

studies of the Delaware side). 

On 1 October 1986, the House 

Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation passed a resolution requesting that the district 

review “existing reports on communities within the tidal portion 

of the Delaware Bay” to develop 

plans for coastal protection and “to 

provide up-to-date information for 

state and local management of this 

coastal area.” The committee also 

asked the district to decide whether 

any previous recommendations for 

the area should be modified.”16

Accordingly, the district produced a 

reconnaissance report in 1991 that 

“identified a number of problem 

areas where erosion was negatively 

impacting the adjacent shorelines.” 

It recommended that feasibility 

studies be conducted for projects 

in some of these areas (but not all, 

as some local communities were 

not interested in sharing the cost 

of additional studies), especially at 

Broadkill Beach, Roosevelt Inlet/

Lewes Beach, and Mispillion Light 

in Delaware, and at Cape May 

Peninsula and Oakwood Beach 

in New Jersey.17 The district constructed several projects at these 

locations in the 1990s and 2000s.
116

Chapter 3

Coastal Protection 

Projects in New 

Jersey

Meanwhile, Congress authorized the Philadelphia District to 

conduct a study of New Jersey’s 

entire ocean shoreline to collect 

data that would serve “as the 

basis for actions and programs 

to prevent the harmful effects 

of shoreline erosion and storm 

damage.” It also called specifically for “studies for beach erosion 

control, hurricane protection and 

related purposes . . . in areas identified as having potential for a 

project, action or response which 

is engineeringly, economically, 

and environmentally feasible.”18

Because of the studies initiated by 

the Philadelphia District at the 

request of Congress in the 1986 

and 1987 resolutions, the number 

of coastal projects conducted by 

the district increased greatly in 

the 1990s. This followed a trend 

in the Corps of Engineers as a 

whole. According to one report, few 

beach restoration projects occurred 

in the 1980s “due to a lack of 

water resource authorization.” The 

1990s, however, saw “as many 

projects completed in the 1990-93 

period as there were during the 

entire decade of the 80’s.”19

Another reason the 

Philadelphia District saw its 

coastal protection work grow 

was that the state of New Jersey 

became greatly interested in these 

projects, largely because of two 

storms that impacted the region. 

Around Halloween in 1991, a 

huge “nor’easter” hit the Atlantic 

coast, causing high winds and 

large waves along the coastline and 

flooding several areas. In December 

1992, another nor’easter pounded 

the coast, causing “an astronomical 

Construction of the Roosevelt Inlet/Lewes 

Beach Project (Del.) near the mouth of 

the Delaware Bay
117

Storm Risk Management

high tide and rainfall, . . . flooding 

of coastal marshes and some additional coastal washover.”20 Because 

of the damages caused by these two 

storms—both in monetary costs 

and beach destruction—the state 

of New Jersey passed legislation in 

1992 establishing a shore protection fund using realty transfer fees. 

According to the law, these moneys 

could be used for “shore protection 

projects associated with the protection, stabilization, restoration or 

maintenance of the shore, including 

monitoring studies and land acquisition.” The state could also use 

the funds to provide “the nonfederal share of any State-federal 

project.”21 This allowed New 

Jersey to partner with the Corps 

on several beach erosion control 

projects that the state wanted done. 

As Gebert explained, “Before those 

storms, the State of New Jersey 

didn’t have a program where they 

regularly set aside money every 

year . . . for shore protection.” With 

that funding, the state worked with 

the Corps on several coastal protection projects.22

In the 1990s, the district began 

a number of projects along the New 

Jersey shoreline, some of which 

were a part of the Delaware Bay 

studies the Corps had performed 

and some of which were in response 

to additional needs identified by 

the state. The first project to come 

to fruition was at Cape May on 

the southern tip of New Jersey, a 

community “dominated by a resort 

economy” and by “miles of oceanfront beaches.”23 The Philadelphia 

District had long-standing involvement in beach erosion control in 

this area. In 1907, Congress authorized the Corps to construct two 

4,400-foot-long jetties 850 feet 

from each other to provide “a stable 

inlet between Cape May Harbor 

and the Atlantic Ocean.” Although 

these jetties improved navigation, 

they facilitated erosion down the 

shore from the inlet, while creating 

accumulation up the shore. In the 

1990s, the Corps “determined that 

76 percent of the shoreline erosion 

in the Cape May Meadows area is 

caused by the existing Federal navigation works and the remaining 

24 percent shoreline erosion is 

caused by natural forces.” Local 

and state interests had attempted 

to stabilize the shoreline through 
118

Chapter 3

groin construction, but additional 

measures were necessary.24

In the 1970s, the Philadelphia 

District investigated implementing 

a beach erosion control and storm 

protection project from Cape May 

Inlet to Lower Township, N.J. The 

Water Resources Development Act 

of 1976 authorized the Corps to 

prepare a general design memorandum for the project, which 

consisted of constructing new 

groins along the coastline and 

placing beachfill from Cape May 

Inlet to Lower Township. The U.S. 

Coast Guard had considerable 

interest in the project because it 

was losing land to beach erosion, 

which threatened some of its 

training operations.25

In the early 1980s, the Corps 

completed the Phase I general 

design memorandum for this 

project, based largely on mitigating 

the damage caused by the 1911 

jetties; it called for new groins and 

beachfill up to the existing 3rd 

Street groin in the city of Cape 

May, plus a deferred deposition 

basin. The Corps began work in 

1990 to add five hundred thousand 

cubic yards of sand at Cape May, 

completing initial beach construction in 1991. 26

Just a year after Cape May, 

construction started on a second 

major beach nourishment effort 

along the Jersey shore. The Corps 

had initially become involved in 

the Great Egg Harbor Inlet and 

Peck Beach Project in 1970, when 

the House of Representatives 

authorized the district to begin 

a navigation and beach erosion 

control project around Ocean 

City. The state of New Jersey had 

problems funding its share of the 

project cost in the 1970s, but in 

1983, it expressed interest in a 

“scaled-down project.”27 Having 

received authorization for this 

under WRDA-86, the Philadelphia 

District completed a general design 

memorandum in 1989. The project 

planned by the district called for 

placing four million cubic yards of 

beachfill along a point extending 

from the Surf Road groin to 

34th Street in Ocean City, using 

835,000 cubic yards of sand to 

repair erosion along the shore, 

extending thirty-eight storm drain 

outfall pipes, and providing beach 

nourishment every three years. 
119

Storm Risk Management

The Corps characterized it as a 

“$600 million, 50-year beachfill 

project.”28

In September 1991, the state 

of New Jersey and the Corps 

concluded a local cooperation 

agreement for the project, and 

work began soon thereafter. When 

Hurricane Felix hit the Atlantic 

coast in August 1995, Philadelphia 

District Engineer Lt. Col. Robert 

Magnifico deemed the Ocean 

City project a success, as it “performed as designed. The event 

didn’t destroy the integrity of the 

project at all,” Magnifico said. 

He characterized the project as 

“epitomiz[ing] what ‘partnering’ is 

all about.”29

In the 2000s, the district supplemented this project with beach 

erosion control work from Great 

Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends 

Inlet, N.J. This project involved 

placing beachfill from 34th Street 

to 59th Street in Ocean City, as 

well as nourishment of 403,000 

cubic yards of sand every three 

years “synchronized with the 

existing Federal beachfill project 

at Ocean City (Great Egg Harbor 

Inlet to 34th Street).” The project’s 

The Cape May Inlet to Lower Township 

Beach Nourishment Project
120

Chapter 3

estimated cost was $33.6 million in 

federal funding and $18.5 million 

in nonfederal contributions.30

Aside from Cape May and 

Ocean City, all the district’s subsequent coastal storm damage 

reduction projects along the Jersey 

shore emerged from one comprehensive plan: the New Jersey 

Shore Protection Study, the bulk 

of which was conducted in the 

1990s. Addressing the full length 

of that state’s Atlantic coastline, it spun off a succession of 

interim feasibility studies within 

The Atlantic coastline of Ocean City, N.J., before 

(above) and after (below) beach nourishment
121

Storm Risk Management

Philadelphia District boundaries: 

Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, 

Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet 

(Long Beach Island), Brigantine 

Island, Absecon Island, Great Egg 

Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, 

Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, 

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, 

and Lower Cape May Meadows 

and Cape May Point. By 2008, all 

but Hereford-Cape May had been 

authorized for construction, and 

the district had completed initial 

beach nourishment for the central 

portion of Long Beach Island (Surf 

City and Ship Bottom), Brigantine 

Beach, Atlantic City and Ventnor, 

Avalon and Stone Harbor, and 

Lower Cape May Meadows and 

Cape May Point, as well as seawall 

improvements at Avalon and North 

Wildwood. (Harvey Cedars would 

follow in 2010 as the second phase 

on Long Beach Island.)31

The most visible among these 

would be the Absecon Island 

Project, as it included Atlantic 

City—one of the preeminent 

entertainment and resort centers 

east of the Mississippi. Absecon 

Island—which extends 8.1 miles 

from Absecon Inlet to Great Egg 

The Absecon Island Coastal Storm Risk 

Reduction Project

Initial beach nourishment at 

Brigantine, N.J.
122

Chapter 3

Harbor Inlet and includes the communities of Ventnor, Margate, and 

Longport—had received much 

attention from the Corps in the 

twentieth century. In the 1920s, 

Congress authorized a navigation 

project for Absecon Inlet to establish an entrance channel twenty 

feet deep by four hundred feet 

wide. Congress also directed the 

Corps to conduct beach erosion 

control projects on Absecon Island 

in 1954. This work involved 

replacing damaged sheetwalls, 

building the Brigantine Jetty, groin 

construction, and widening of the 

Absecon Inlet. In addition, the 

Corps conducted periodic nourishment on the island. However, 

problems continued with beach 

erosion and in 1976 Congress 

authorized the district to proceed 

with Phase I Design Memorandum 

Stage of Advanced Engineering 

and Design for Absecon Island 

beach erosion. Congress reauthorized this project under WRDA-86. 

After the Corps completed a costsharing agreement for a feasibility 

study with the state of New Jersey 

in March 1993, it proceeded with 

the preparation of that study.32

When the feasibility study was 

concluded, it proposed constructing 

a 200-foot-wide berm to an elevation of 8.5 feet NGVD (National 

Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, 

a geodetic vertical datum that 

can establish a vertical reference 

plane—elevation—relative to sea 

level) and a dune with an elevation 

of 16 feet NGVD at Atlantic City. 

The Corps would also place beachfill and a 100-foot berm and dune 

with an elevation of 14 feet NGVD 

at Ventnor, Margate, and Longport. 

Initial beachfill would consist of 

7.1 million cubic yards of sand 

deposited over 42,825 linear feet; 

the Corps would also provide nourishments of 1.7 million cubic yards 

every three years. In addition, 

the district would construct two 

new bulkheads along the Absecon 

Inlet where it fronted Atlantic 

City to provide storm protection.33

Congress authorized this project in 

the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1996 (WRDA-1996), 

estimating its total cost at $52 

million.34

In July 2003, the Corps concluded a project cooperation 

agreement with the state of New 
123

Storm Risk Management

Jersey for construction, and the 

initial beachfill construction began 

in Atlantic City in December 2003 

when 4.5 million cubic yards of 

sand was pumped from Absecon 

Inlet to the beach. Beachfill 

construction at Ventnor was completed in June 2004. In 2008, the 

Corps was still awaiting funding 

to complete the second nourishment cycle. However, the project 

promised to provide a measure 

of protection to Atlantic City and 

Ventnor that was not there before. 

Because of this, as one report 

stated, the work “brought unprecedented local publicity—most 

all positive—to the Corps’ shore 

protection efforts along the Jersey 

Shore.”35

In 1999, the Philadelphia 

District developed another plan for 

the Cape May peninsula, whereby 

it would provide not only shore 

protection but ecosystem restoration as well. The Lower Cape May 

Meadows Ecosystem Restoration 

Project is discussed more fully in 

Chapter Five, but the protective 

features of the project included 

the building of a protective berm 

and dune system between the 3rd 

Avenue terminal groin in Cape May 

City and the Central Avenue groin 

in Cape May Point. The Corps also 

scheduled placing 650,000 cubic 

yards of sand on the beach every 

four years for the next fifty years, 

using an offshore borrow site for 

the sand. According to Gebert, this 

was a significant project—before 

Summer beachgoers at Cape May, in 

view of the Cape May Point Lighthouse

Initial beach nourishment at Surf City 

along New Jersey’s Long Beach Island
124

Chapter 3

the district’s work in the 1990s, 

there was no beach at Cape May. 

“The City of Cape May had no 

beach over most of the ocean 

shoreline at Cape May City for 40 

or 50 years before 1990,” Gebert 

said. “They just had no sand.” 

The district had to be conservative in its periodic nourishment 

schedule to ensure that the beach 

remained.36

Coastal Protection 

Projects in Delaware

New Jersey was not the only 

location of beach erosion protection 

projects; the Corps also performed 

this work along the Delaware 

coastline. Like New Jersey, the 

state of Delaware had a history of 

providing funding for this purpose; 

as of 2001, newspapers estimated 

that the state had spent $19 

million to rebuild eroded beaches. 

However, some communities were 

still in need of shore protection, 

and the state partnered with the 

district to provide it. For example, 

under Section 860 of WRDA-86, 

Congress directed the Corps to 

construct sand bypass facilities and 

stone revetments at Indian River 

Inlet in Delaware. Between 1938 

and 1940, the Corps had constructed parallel jetties in the inlet 

“to create a stable 500-ft-wide 

inlet that provided a navigation pass for recreational boats.” 

However, the construction of these 

jetties led to “erosion of the unprotected interior inlet shoreline.”37

In 1984, the Corps determined 

that an environmentally and economically feasible solution to the 

erosion was to conduct “beach 

nourishment utilizing a fixed 

sand bypass plant” that would be 

constructed on the south side of 

the inlet. At the state’s request, 

the fixed plant was replaced by 

a semimobile jet pump system in 

the plans. With this system, as a 

district report explained, “Sand 

would be removed from this 

zone of accretion, transported by 

pipeline north across the bridge 

over the inlet, and deposited along 

the 3500 foot section of beach 

immediately north of the Inlet.”38

After gaining approval for this 

project in WRDA-86, the district 

completed installation in 1990. 

Since then, the plants has been 

operated and maintained by the 
125

Storm Risk Management

state of Delaware with federal 

cost-sharing; it pumps an average 

of a hundred thousand cubic 

yards of material a year from the 

south shore across the inlet to the 

depleted north shore. According 

to Gebert, this was the first time 

the Philadelphia District had conducted sand bypassing operations, 

making it a landmark coastal 

protection project.39 The district 

and the state of Delaware received 

an Outstanding Coastal Project 

Award from the American Shore 

and Beach Preservation Association 

in 2001 for the sand bypassing 

operation, because it “successfully 

demonstrat[ed] ‘effective, longterm, fixed-sand bypassing using 

jet pump technology.’”40

One of the biggest shore protection efforts in Delaware began 

in June 1988, when the Senate 

Committee on Environment and 

Public Works issued a resolution 

requesting that the Corps review 

an existing report on the Delaware 

Coast to see if any shore and hurricane protection projects were 

feasible from Cape Henlopen to 

The sand bypassing plant at Indian River 

Inlet, Del., soon after construction 

in 1989
126

Chapter 3

Fenwick Island, Del. The Corps 

had developed the existing report 

in 1957, outlining shore protection plans for locations along both 

Delaware Bay and the Atlantic 

Ocean, including Kitts Hummock, 

Slaughter Beach, Broadkill Beach, 

Lewes Beach, Bethany Beach, 

and a stretch of coastline from 

Rehoboth Beach to the Indian 

River Inlet. However, the Corps 

had determined that the only economically feasible projects were 

those in the area from Rehoboth 

Beach to Indian River Inlet. 

Accordingly, Congress directed the 

Corps in the River and Harbor Act 

of 1958 to restore beaches along 

that stretch of coastline and to 

provide periodic nourishment.41

Two of the communities the 

Corps envisioned protecting 

under this project were Rehoboth 

Beach and Dewey Beach. Located 

in Sussex County in southern 

Delaware, these adjacent towns 

are popular recreation destinations for residents of the 

mid-Atlantic, especially from the 

Washington-Baltimore area. The 

Corps conducted hurricane protection and beach erosion prevention 

studies in the 1960s, 1970s, and 

1980s, but none of these projects 

were implemented. The need 

for such projects became more 

pressing in the late 1980s when 

Bethany Beach, South Bethany 

Beach, and Fenwick Island (farther 

Bethany Beach (top) and South Bethany 

(bottom) show the effects of the 1992 

nor’easter on Delaware’s Atlantic Coast
127

Storm Risk Management

south than Rehoboth and Dewey, 

but also in Sussex County) “experienced a loss of shoreline protection 

due to chronic erosion problems.” 

These issues led Congress to pass 

a resolution in 1988 asking the 

Corps to revisit its studies on 

this coastline. The Philadelphia 

District, working with the 

Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental 

Control (DNREC), instituted feasibility studies to determine which 

coastal protection projects were 

financially desirable. The first 

study, which lasted from 1992 to 

1995, dealt with Rehoboth Beach 

and Dewey Beach; the second 

(from 1995 to 1998) examined 

Bethany Beach and South Bethany; 

and the third (1997 to 2000) dealt 

with Fenwick Island.42

In 1996, the Philadelphia 

District issued its feasibility study 

for Rehoboth Beach and Dewey 

Beach, recommending, according to 

one account, “the construction of 

a 125-foot-wide berm and a dune 

at Rehoboth Beach, a 150-footwide berm and a dune at Dewey 

Beach, and grass, dune fencing 

and periodic beach nourishment at 

both locations.”43 Congress authorized this project in WRDA-1996. 

According to this act, the project 

involved “storm damage reduction and shoreline protection” at 

Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach; 

it would cost $9,423,000, with the 

nonfederal sponsor contributing 

$3,298,000. The project also would 

provide periodic beach nourishment 

for fifty years at an annual cost of 

$282,000.44 The economic need 

for the project seemed obvious; the 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) issued a report 

in June 2000 stating that the two 

towns might lose an average of 

three to four feet of beach each 

year for the next sixty years. “If 

the state were forced to buy and 

Dredging and pumping operations for 

beach nourishment contracts typically 

continued round the clock
128

Chapter 3

relocate oceanfront homes,” one 

report stated, “costs could rise as 

high as $300 million.”45

In December 2003, the Corps 

entered into a project cooperation agreement with DNREC to 

construct the project at Rehoboth 

Beach and Dewey Beach. This 

agreement established the department as the non-federal sponsor 

of the project’s construction and 

enabled the Corps to begin work 

on the necessary measures. By 

July 2005, the beachfill part of 

the project had been completed, 

and the placement of dune grass, 

dune fencing, and crossovers had 

occurred by January 2006. The 

district estimated that periodic 

nourishment would be needed on 

the beaches “every three years 

to ensure the integrity of the 

design.”46

Meanwhile, between 1995 and 

1998, the Corps examined shore 

and hurricane protection measures 

for Bethany Beach/South Bethany. 

The district determined that the 

project was feasible and developed 

a plan to construct a 150-footwide berm to an elevation of 7 feet 

NAVD (North American Vertical 

Datum of 1988, an updated 

geodetic vertical datum that can be 

referenced to the aforementioned 

NGVD 29) and a dune to 16 feet 

NAVD over a 2.8-mile distance.47

The district also proposed depositing an initial beachfill of 3.5 

million cubic yards and nourishments of 480,000 cubic yards 

every three years. Congress authorized this project in the Water 

Resources Development Act of 

1999, estimating that it would cost 

$22,205,000, of which the nonfederal sponsor would pay $7,772,000. 

Periodic nourishment would cost 

$1,584,000 a year for fifty years. 

On 26 July 2006, the Corps signed 

Beachfill operations at Rehoboth 

Beach, Del.
129

Storm Risk Management

a project cooperation agreement 

with DNREC, committing the latter 

to serve as the project’s nonfederal 

sponsor, and construction began. 

Initial construction was completed 

in June 2008.48

The final part of the Corps’ 

three-pronged approach to 

southern Delaware coastline protection was work at Fenwick 

Island. As mentioned earlier, the 

Corps conducted a feasibility 

study of that area from 1997 to 

2000, recommending a project 

involving the construction of a 

200-foot-wide berm to an elevation of 7.7 feet NAVD and a dune 

to 17.7 feet NAVD covering a 

6,500-foot-long area extending 

from the Maryland border to 

Fenwick Island State Park. The 

Corps recommended placement of 

595,400 cubic yards of beachfill at 

Fenwick Island, as well as nourishment every four years. Congress 

approved this project in the Water 

Resources Development Act of 

2000, estimating the total cost at 

$5,633,000, with a nonfederal 

share of $1,972,000. In 2004, the 

Corps completed a project cooperation agreement with DNREC; 

Construction of the Bethany Beach/

South Bethany Project
130

Chapter 3

initial construction was completed 

in November 2005.49

In view of the three major 

shore protection projects the Corps 

did for the state of Delaware in 

the 2000s, Gebert considers that 

decade as a “watershed” for the 

state. From Delaware’s perspective, 

protecting the shoreline—especially the resort areas of Rehoboth 

Beach, Dewey Beach, Bethany 

Beach/South Bethany, and Fenwick 

Island—was of paramount importance, as it was to New Jersey. As 

Gebert explained, coastal projects 

were generally done for “coastal 

communities with a significant 

density of residential and business 

and public infrastructure [that 

was], for the most part, open to 

the public.” The increase in the 

district’s work in this area in the 

1990s and 2000s expanded the 

number of employees working 

on coastal projects and gave the 

district the reputation as one of the 

Corps’ experts in coastal planning. 

In fact, beginning in the 2000s, 

the Corps had the Philadelphia 

District conduct an annual course 

for Corps planners on coastal engineering and planning.50

Initial nourishment at Fenwick Island, 

southernmost of three storm risk 

reduction projects covering Delaware’s

 Atlantic Coast
131

Storm Risk Management

Inlet Navigation 

Improvement Projects

In addition to its beach erosion 

control and shore protection 

projects, the Philadelphia District 

improved inlet navigation through 

its coastal program, funded largely 

from its operations and maintenance account. Barnegat Inlet in 

Ocean County, New Jersey, was one 

area where the Corps performed 

this type of work. The main link 

connecting the Atlantic Ocean 

and Barnegat Bay, Barnegat Inlet 

separates Island Beach State Park 

and Long Beach Island.51 According 

to one source, the inlet had “a long 

history of shifting. . . . Before it was 

first stabilized in 1940, the inlet 

was known to move as much as 40 

feet a year.”52 As a Corps engineer 

explained, “Fishermen could go out 

one week, come back a week later 

and the channel wasn’t in the same 

place as when they left.”53

To deal with this problem, 

Congress authorized the Corps to 

take several measures as part of the 

Barnegat Inlet, N.J., widely considered 

one of the most treacherous inlets on the 

Atlantic Coast before rehabilitation of the 

south jetty was completed in 1991
132

Chapter 3

federal navigation project authorized in 1935. The Corps built a 

groin by Barnegat Lighthouse on 

the south side of the inlet, constructed a north jetty and a south 

jetty and dredged a flood shoal 

in 1939, and built a sand dike in 

1943 “in an attempt to ‘train’ the 

tidal flow to follow a straighter 

path through the remaining 

channel.” Sediment deposition in 

the channel meant that the district 

had to dredge the channel “on 

an annual or semi-annual basis 

between 1972 and 1981.”54 The 

goal of the dredging and the rest of 

the Corps’ work was to maintain

a channel 8 feet deep through 

the inlet and 10 feet deep through 

the outer bar, a channel of suitable 

hydraulic characteristics extending 

in a northwesterly direction from the 

gorge in the inlet to Oyster Creek 

channel and through the latter 

channel to deep water in the bay, 

and the maintenance of a channel 

8 feet deep and 200 feet wide to 

connect Barnegat Light Harbor with 

the main inlet channel.55

In the 1960s and 1970s, the 

Corps’ Waterways Experiment 

Station conducted studies that 

“concluded that the construction 

of a new south jetty parallel to 

the existing north jetty and a 

90-[meter] wide, 3-[meter] deep 

channel would provide inlet 

and channel stability.”56 The 

Philadelphia District conducted its 

own study of whether any modifications to the 1935 navigation 

plan were warranted, determining 

in 1974 that modifications should 

occur along the lines outlined by 

the Waterways Experiment Station. 

Congress authorized preconstruction planning in 1976; in 1981, 

the Corps issued a general design 

memorandum that determined 

that, in the words of District 

Engineer Lt. Col. Roger Baldwin, 

“the most significant problem . . . 

was the instability and shoaling 

of the Barnegat Inlet navigation 

channel,” in large part because 

the south jetty’s alignment did not 

“properly confine the flow to any 

specific channel” and because sand 

brought in by ocean currents generally accumulated at the entrance 

to the channel.57

In 1985, Congress authorized the Corps to begin the 

new construction, based on the 

Corps’ determination of a design 
133

Storm Risk Management

deficiency associated with the 

earlier project. Accordingly, when 

the Corps signed a local cooperation agreement with the state 

of New Jersey for the work in 

May 1986, the federal share of 

the cost was set proportionately 

higher. This agreement stated that 

the district would improve the 

navigation channel in the inlet by 

building a new south jetty and by 

dredging “a 10 foot deep, 300 feet 

wide navigation channel,” as well 

as removing a shoal between the 

proposed channel and the north 

jetty and constructing “jetty sport 

fishing facilities.”58 As the nonfederal sponsor, the state would 

contribute 35.4 percent of the cost 

of construction. After the passage 

of WRDA-1986, the agreement was 

amended so that the state would 

provide “a cash contribution equal 

to 10 percent of the total costs of 

construction of general navigation 

facilities” and up to 50 percent of 

the cost of the recreation facilities.59 With these agreements in 

place, the Philadelphia District 

oversaw the construction of the 

new south jetty between 1987 and 

1991. According to one report, part 

of the work involved “angl[ing] the 

rocks more to the south of the due 

east direction that the old South 

Jetty had pointed, to better funnel 

the water flow.”60

In the years that followed, the 

Philadelphia District continued to 

dredge the inlet periodically and 

to monitor project conditions. In 

addition, it conducted a variety 

of other work at Barnegat Inlet, 

including protecting the Barnegat 

Lighthouse when it discovered in 

2000 that “underwater erosion 

was threatening the base of the 

lighthouse.” This $1.38 million 

project involved “placing 160 

stone-filled ‘mattresses’—each 

four inches thick, six feet wide 

The plan for Barnegat Inlet involved 

construction of an entirely new south 

jetty backfilled with sand dredged 

from the inlet
134

Chapter 3

and twenty feet long—in the 

deepest part of the slope to shore 

up the eroded rock.”61 In 2002, 

the district completed the installation of an anti-erosional geotextile 

fabric across the south jetty that 

would act as a filter to prevent 

sand loss. The Corps had discovered that “water was working its 

way through the jetty unimpeded,” 

causing erosion behind and underneath the structure. With the fabric 

in place, water would be able to 

travel through without taking sand 

with it.62

The innovative technology the 

district used at Barnegat Inlet illustrated the importance of staying 

abreast of new features in coastal 

planning. Because of its work 

on the New Jersey and Delaware 

shorelines, the Philadelphia District 

was often on the cutting edge of 

these technologies. This was especially evident in the Corps’ work 

at Manasquan Inlet, which divides 

Improving erosion protection around 

Barnegat Light
135

Storm Risk Management

Monmouth and Ocean counties in 

New Jersey and is “the northernmost connection between the ocean 

and the New Jersey Intracoastal 

Waterway.” Between 1881 and 

1883, and again in 1922, local 

interests attempted to stabilize 

the inlet, which tended to migrate 

as much as a mile north of its 

present location, by constructing 

timber jetties. When these failed 

to work, Congress authorized the 

Corps in 1930 to construct two 

parallel stone jetties four hundred 

feet apart. Although these jetties 

provided the necessary stabilization, they experienced frequent 

storm damage between 1935 and 

1975, especially on the outer 

ends, where stone would be dislodged and displaced. In 1978, 

the Philadelphia District came 

up with an innovative solution to 

protect the jetties and, by extension, the inlet.63 The district 

proposed rehabilitating the jetties 

using a slightly modified version 

of dolosse, structures designed by 

a South African coastline engineer 

to combat erosion. Described by 

one source as eleven-foot-high 

“concrete jacks” weighing sixteen 

tons and reinforced with steel, the 

dolosse interlocked to form an 

improved protective armor layer 

around the jetties. Between 1980 

and 1982, the district placed 1,343 

dolosse around the north and south 

jetties; this was the first time the 

structures had been used on the 

east coast of the United States. 

The dolosse provided much-needed 

protection, but between 1982 and 

1997, about five of them were 

damaged and others moved from 

their original location. To provide 

further protection, the Philadelphia 

District placed forty CORE-LOC®

structures (developed by the U.S. 

Army Engineer Research and 

Manasquan Inlet, N.J., where “dolosse” 

were first used on the Atlantic Coast
136

Chapter 3

Development Center) at the heads 

of the north and south jetties in 

1997. Though similar to dolosse, 

the CORE-LOCs had “three 

‘flukes’ (opposing sets of legs) 

instead of just two” and weighed 

three more tons. “The extra fluke 

helps strengthen the structure 

against breakage,” a district article 

noted, while “the extra weight 

makes the coreloc less susceptible 

to movement due to wave action.” 

In the words of Philadelphia 

District project manager Jerry 

Jones, the CORE-LOCs interlocked 

with the dolosse “in much the same 

way that armor mail once worked 

to protect a medieval knight.” Use 

of the CORE-LOCs was another 

example of the district’s ability to 

innovate; this was the first time 

they had been used in the United 

States.64

* * * * * * *

Putting the dolosse into place at 

Manasquan Inlet
137

Storm Risk Management

Coastal projects were a large 

part of the workload of the 

Philadelphia District, whether they 

involved beach erosion control 

or navigation improvement. The 

district conducted a number of 

projects for the states of New Jersey 

and Delaware between 1972 and 

2008, projects that together constituted one of the largest coastal 

programs in the nation. The district 

emerged from these projects as one 

of the leading authorities in the 

United States on coastal protection 

and planning. Perhaps more 

important, the projects provided 

a previously unknown measure of 

protection to coastal communities, 

enhanced recreational opportunities 

along the coastline, and improved 

navigation of coastal inlets. Not 

everyone agreed that the federal 

government should foot the bill 

to protect these communities, but 

the district gained satisfaction 

from what it accomplished technically in meeting a challenge from 

Congress.

CORE-LOCs and dolosse working in 

combination along Manasquan Inlet
Chapter 3 — Endnotes

138

1

 Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Hydraulic Design for 

Coastal Shore Protection Projects,” Engineering Regulation (ER) No. 1110-2-1407, 1, 

B-1 <http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-regs> (16 April 2010) (hereafter referred 

to as ER 1110-2-1407).

2

 Jeff Gebert interview by Joshua Pollarine, 19 October 2009, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, transcript, 16–17, 29. 

3

 Gebert interview, 6–7. The Philadelphia District’s coastal planning work (whether 

for beach erosion control, hurricane protection, or navigation improvement) initially 

was done out of the Coastal and Special Studies Section of the Planning Branch in the 

Engineering Division. When the Planning Division was created in 1987, the Coastal 

Planning Section shifted to the Project Development Branch of the Planning Division. 

John Tunnell email to Jeff Gebert and Joshua Pollarine, 10 May 2010; copy in possession of the authors.

4

 Quotations in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Support Center, 

Institute for Water Resources, Shoreline Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study: 

Final Report: An Analysis of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection 

Program, IWR Report 96-PS-1 (Alexandria, Va.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water 

Resources Support Center, Institute for Water Resources, 1996), II-2 – II-6; see also 

Snyder and Guss, The District, 208–209.

5

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Small Projects Program

(pamphlet) (Philadelphia: Philadelphia District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, n.d.), n.p. 

6

 Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers, “Survey Study, 

Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection, Delaware Bay Shore, New Jersey, Plan 

of Survey,” June 1974, 3, File Del. Bay Shore, N.J. Work Sheets, Box 223, Philadelphia 

District-AR.

7

 As cited in Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers, 

“Survey Study, Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection, Delaware Bay Shore, 

New Jersey: Feasibility Report,” August 1979, 1 (hereafter referred to as Delaware Bay 

Shore Feasibility Report, 1979), File Delaware Bay Shore, New Jersey, “Final Feasibility 

Report,” Report and Inclosures [sic], Box 223, Philadelphia District-AR.

8

 T. R. Hudson to Corps of Army Engineers, U.S. Department of the Army, 28 

October 1976, File 1518-01 Delaware Bay Shore of N.J., Correspondence 1975-76-77, 

Box 223, Philadelphia District-AR.

9

 Delaware Bay Shore Feasibility Report, 1979, 33.

10 Quotation in Anthony R. Wood, “New Jersey Expected to Get $20.7 Million for 

Beaches,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 14 October 2009; see also “In Defense of Jersey’s 

Shores,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 8 March 2000, online edition <http://marine.rutgers.edu/

cool/education/coast09.html> (14 April 2010).

11 See “Navigation, Beachfill Projects Under New Scrutiny,” The Observer (July 1995): 

3; John H. Zirschky, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), to Mr. Stan 

Tait, President, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, n.d., Harry Shoudy’s 

Files, Office of History.

12 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Services Center, 

“Beach Nourishment: A Guide for Local Government Officials” <http://www.csc.noaa.

gov/beachnourishment/html/human/law/history.htm> (16 April 2010).

13 Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4082); NOAA, “Beach 

Nourishment: A Guide for Local Government Officials.”

14 Gebert interview, 5–6.

15 Quotation in Zirschky to Tait, n.d.; see also Brigadier General Stanley G. Genega, 

Director of Civil Works, Memorandum for Major Subordinate Commands and District 

Commands, 17 November 1992, Harry Shoudy’s Files, Office of History.

16 As cited in Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers, 

“Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey: Reconnaissance Report, August 

1991,” 1, Box 246, Philadelphia District-AR.

17 Philadelphia District, “Delaware Bay Coastline,” 133–135. The Corps had 

previously completed beach erosion control projects at Broadkill Beach and Lewes 

Beach, but by the early 1990s, “the 10 year period for federal involvement in period 

nourishment [had] lapsed.” “Delaware Bay Coastline, New Jersey and Delaware, 

Reconnaissance Review Conference, 13 August 1992,” 1, File Del. Bay RRC, Slides w/ 

Green Slide Book, Box 247, Philadelphia District-AR.

18 Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives, 

“Resolution: Coast of New Jersey, Erosion and Storm Effects Study, Docket No. 2294,” 

10 December 1987, document provided by Jeff Gebert, Chief, Coastal Planning, 

Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

19 ER 1110-2-1407, 1.

20 Quotation in Kelvin W. Ramsey, John H. Talley, and Darlene V. Wells, “Summary 

Report: The Coastal Storm of December 10-14, 1992, Delaware and Maryland,” State 

of Delaware Geological Survey Open File Report No. 37, February 1993, 22, document 

provided by Jeff Gebert; see also NOAA Satellite and Information Service, “The Perfect 

Storm: October 1991” <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/satelliteseye/cyclones/

pfctstorm91/pfctstorm.html> (16 April 2010); Gebert interview, 8.

21 Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, Statement to Assembly No. 1676, 

State of New Jersey, 10 December 1998, document provided by Jeff Gebert.

22 Gebert interview, 8.

23 “Cape May County,” 195–196, File Delaware Bay Shore, Erosion Rater (George 

Hicks), Box 223, Philadelphia District-AR.

24 Quotations in Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard, Chief of Engineers, to The 

Secretary of the Army, 5 April 1999, document provided by Jeff Gebert; see also 

“Appendix D, Study of Sand Bypassing Options at Cape May Inlet, New Jersey,” 31 

January 1991, document provided by Jeff Gebert.

25 See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Cape May Inlet to Lower 

Township, New Jersey: Phase I General Design Memorandum,” Draft, March 1980, 

document provided by Jeff Gebert; John E. Tunnell email to Jeffrey Gebert and Joshua 

Pollarine, 3 May 2010, copy in possession of the authors.

26 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Cape May Inlet to Lower 

Township, New Jersey: Phase I General Design Memorandum,” Draft, March 1980, 

document provided by Jeff Gebert; John E. Tunnell email to Jeffrey Gebert and Joshua 

Pollarine, 3 May 2010, copy in possession of the authors; see also Ballard to The 

Secretary of the Army, 5 April 1999; “Nourishment Continues at Cape May,” The 

Observer (December 1992): 5; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, 

“Project Factsheet: Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, N.J., January 2010” <http://

www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/ cePhiladelphia District-dp/projects/factsheets/

NJ/4CG_CapeMayInlet_to_LowerTwp.pdf> (20 April 2010).

27 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 88–89.

28 Quotations in “Felix is No Match for Jersey Shore Partnership,” The Observer

(September 1995): 10; see also “Ocean City Beach Replenishment Begins: City’s Ocean 

Front Gets a Facelift,” The Observer (November 1994): 3; Unpublished Morgan Draft 

District History, 88–89; “Local Cooperation Agreement Between the Department of 

the Army and the State of New Jersey for Construction of the Great Egg Harbor Inlet 

and Peck Beach, New Jersey Project,” 18 September 1991, document provided by Jeff 

Gebert; Gebert interview, 10.

29 Quotations in “Felix is No Match for Jersey Shore Partnership,” The Observer

(September 1995): 10; see also “Ocean City Beach Replenishment Begins: City’s Ocean 

Front Gets a Facelift,” The Observer (November 1994): 3; Unpublished Morgan Draft 

District History, 88–89; “Local Cooperation Agreement Between the Department of 

the Army and the State of New Jersey for Construction of the Great Egg Harbor Inlet 

and Peck Beach, New Jersey Project,” 18 September 1991, document provided by Jeff 

Gebert; Gebert interview, 10.

30 Lieutenant General Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers, to The Secretary of the 

Army, 24 October 2006, document provided by Jeff Gebert.

31 Edward Voigt, Chief, Public & Legislative Affairs, Philadelphia District, personal 

communication with Joshua Pollarine, 4 April 2011.

32 House, New Jersey Shore Protection Study: Communication from the Acting 

Assistant Secretary (Civil Works), the Department of the Army, Transmitting a Report 

on a Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline Protection Project for Brigantine Inlet to 

Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey, Pursuant to Pub. L. 104-303, Sec. 

101(b)(13), 105th Cong., 1st sess., 1997, H. Doc. 105-153, serial 14432, 15–16.

33 House, New Jersey Shore Protection, 187; “Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor 

Inlet, Shore Protection Project,” The Observer (October/November 2003): 9; Lieutenant 
Chapter 3 — Endnotes

139

General Joe N. Ballard, Chief of Engineers, to The Secretary of the Army, 23 December 

1996, document provided by Jeff Gebert.

34 Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3658).

35 Quotations in “Coastal Construction Moves Forward in N.J., Del.,” The Observer

(Autumn 2004): 7; see also “Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Shore 

Protection Project,” 9; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Project 

Factsheet: New Jersey Shore Protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, 

Absecon Island, N.J.,” March 2010 <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.

mil/cePhiladelphia District-dp/projects/factsheets/NJ/4CG_NJShore%20Protection_

Absecon%20Island.pdf> (30 April 2010); “Project Cooperation Agreement Between 

the Department of the Army and the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, NJ, Shore 

Protection Project,” 31 July 2003, document provided by Jeff Gebert.

36 Quotation in Gebert interview, 11; see also Ballard to The Secretary of the Army, 5 

April 1999; “Nourishment Continues at Cape May,” The Observer (December 1992): 5; 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Project Factsheet: Cape May Inlet 

to Lower Township, N.J., January 2010” <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.

mil/cePhiladelphia District-dp/projects/factsheets/NJ/4CG_CapeMayInlet_to_LowerTwp.

pdf> (20 April 2010). In addition to these projects, the Philadelphia District completed a 

variety of other coastal protection projects for the state of New Jersey in the 1990s and 

2000s, including projects involving seawall construction at Avalon and Stone Harbor.

37 Quotations in The Committee on Tidal Hydraulics, “Indian River Inlet: An 

Evaluation by the Committee on Tidal Hydraulics,” July 1994, 6, document provided by 

Jeff Gebert; see also Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4082).

38 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Atlantic Coast of Delaware: 

General Design Memorandum and Environmental Assessment,” July 1984, Syllabus, 

copy in Philadelphia District-Library.

39 Gebert interview, 6–7.

40 “Two District Projects Receive National Recognition,” The Observer (Summer 

2001): 10. The article noted that the bypass operation was “now operated and maintained by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control”; 

Voigt personal communication.

41 House, Beach Nourishment Project: Communication from the Acting Assistant 

Secretary (Civil Works), the Department of the Army, Transmitting a Report on the 

Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline Protection Project for Rehoboth Beach 

and Dewey Beach, Delaware, Pursuant to Section 101(b)(6) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996, 105th Cong., 1st sess., 1997, H. Doc. 105-144, serial 

14429, 9, 16-18 (hereafter referred to as Beach Nourishment Project); “Delaware 

Shore Plans Unveiled at Public Hearing,” The Observer (March 1996): 5; Lieutenant 

General Joe N. Ballard, Chief of Engineers, to The Secretary of the Army, 23 December 

1996, document provided by Jeff Gebert; “Public Perspective,” The Observer (January/

February 2001): 16; Voigt personal communication.

42 House, Beach Nourishment Project, 9; Voigt personal communication.

43 “Delaware Shore Plans Unveiled at Public Hearing,” 5.

44 Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667).

45 “Public Perspective,” The Observer (January/February 2001): 16. This was a reprint 

of an article published in the Baltimore Sun on 18 February 2001.

46 Quotations in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Project 

Factsheet: Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Rehoboth Beach/

Dewey Beach, DE,” January 2010 <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.

mil/cePhiladelphia District-dp/projects/factsheets/DE/4CG_DelCoast_Rehoboth%20

Dewey.pdf> (27 April 2010); see also “Project Cooperation Agreement Between the 

Department of the Army and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control for Construction of the Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to 

Fenwick Island, Delaware, Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware Project,” 19 

December 2003, document provided by Jeff Gebert.

47 In 1988, the NGVD was renamed North American Vertical Datum.

48 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Project Factsheet: Delaware 

Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany, DE,” 

January 2010 < http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/cePhiladelphia 

District-dp/projects/factsheets/DE/4CG_DelCoast_Bethany%20S%20Bethany.pdf> (28 

April 2010); Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 269); Lieutenant 

General Joe N. Ballard, Chief of Engineers, to The Secretary of the Army, 21 April 

1999, document provided by Jeff Gebert; “Project Cooperation Agreement between 

the Department of the Army and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control for Construction of the Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen 

to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach to South Bethany, Delaware, Hurricane and Storm 

Damage Reduction Project,” 26 July 2006, document provided by Jeff Gebert.

49 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Project Factsheet: Delaware 

Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Fenwick Island, DE,” January 2010 

<http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/cePhiladelphia District-dp/projects/

factsheets/DE/4CG_DelCoast_Fenwick%20Island.pdf> (28 April 2010); Lieutenant 

General Robert B. Flowers to The Secretary of the Army, 29 December 2000, document provided by Jeff Gebert; Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 

2572); “Project Cooperation Agreement between the Department of the Army and the 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control for Construction 

of the Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Delaware Project,” 13 

September 2004, document provided by Jeff Gebert.

50 Quotations in Gebert interview, 9, 29, 32-33; see also “Planning Associates 

Coastal Course,” 27 April-1 May 2009, Powerpoint presentation provided by Jeff 

Gebert.

51 William C. Seabergh, Mary A. Cialone, and John W. McCormick, “Inlet 

Modifications and the Dynamics of Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey,” Journal of Coastal 

Research 19 (2003): n.p., document provided by Jeff Gebert.

52 “‘Old Barney’ Gets New Lease on Life,” The Observer (January/February 2001): 4.

53 As cited in Maria Scandale, “Rock Steady: Jetty Stones Shored Up To Stem 

Erosion,” The Observer (September/October 2002): 15.

54 Seabergh, Cialone, and McCormick, “Inlet Modifications and the Dynamics of 

Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey,” n.p.

55 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Project Factsheet: Barnegat 

Inlet, Ocean County, NJ,” January 2010 <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/

cePhiladelphia District-dp/projects/factsheets/NJ/5OM_BarnegatInlet.pdf> (30 April 2010).

56 Seabergh, Cialone, and McCormick, “Inlet Modifications and the Dynamics of 

Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey,” n.p.

57 Quotations in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Barnegat Inlet, 

Ocean County, New Jersey, Transcript, 26 August 1981 Public Meeting,” 3–5, copy in 

Philadelphia District-Library; see also U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, 

“Barnegat Inlet, Ocean County, New Jersey: Phase II, General Design Memorandum,” 

August 1984, Syllabus, copy in Philadelphia District-Library.

58 Quotations in “Agreement Between the Department of the Army and the State 

of New Jersey for Local Cooperation at Barnegat Inlet, Ocean County, New Jersey,” 

19 May 1986, document provided by Jeff Gebert; see also Act of 15 August 1985 (99 

Stat. 293); Voigt personal communication.

59 “Modification No. 1 to the Agreement Between the Department of the Army and 

the State of New Jersey for Local Cooperation at Barnegat Inlet, Ocean County, New 

Jersey,” 20 March 1987, document provided by Jeff Gebert.

60 Scandale, “Rock Steady,” 15.

61 “‘Old Barney’ Gets New Lease on Life,” 4.

62 “Jetty Work Almost Done, Summerlong Repairs Will Leave Sinkholes Fixed,” The 

Observer (July/August 2002): 17.

63 Quotation in Jeffrey A. Gebert and J. Michael Hemsley, “Monitoring of Jetty 

Rehabilitation at Manasquan Inlet, New Jersey,” Monitoring Completed Coastal Projects 

Program Miscellaneous Paper CERC-91-8, September 1991, 1-2, document provided by 

Jeff Gebert; see also Gebert interview, 13–14; “Manasquan Inlet History,” document 

provided by Jeff Gebert.

64 Quotations in “Another ‘First’ Set in Place at Manasquan Inlet,” The Observer

(September/October 1997): 3; see also “Manasquan Inlet History”; Gebert interview, 

13–14; Voigt personal communication.
4
141

One of the long-standing 

civil works missions of 

the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers is maintaining navigable waterways. The Philadelphia 

District has had this responsibility 

for the Delaware River, its tidal 

reaches, its tributaries, and inlets 

along the Atlantic coast since its 

official founding in 1866, and 

it continued to be an important, 

albeit complicated, mission into the 

twenty-first century. By the end of 

the twentieth century, much of the 

Philadelphia District’s navigation 

mission focused on stretches of the 

Delaware River from Philadelphia 

to the ocean and from Philadelphia 

to Trenton, N.J., as well as ports 

and inlets in New Jersey and 

Delaware. The district also had 

responsibility for the Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal, which 

connected Chesapeake Bay and 

Delaware Bay and shortened the 

shipping of goods along the eastern 

seaboard by 150 miles. Much of 

the district’s navigation mission 

involved channel deepening and 

maintenance dredging, and the 

district frequently dealt with issues 

of where to place dredged material 

and the effects of their disposal 

on the environment, a topic that 

became increasingly controversial as environmental awareness 

increased in the United States. 

Because of the economic importance of the waterways within the 

Philadelphia District’s boundaries, 

the navigation mission was not 

only one of the district’s oldest 

functions, but also one of its most 

important.

The Corps’ efforts in navigation could take several forms. 

Waterways, Navigation, and Dredging

Facing page: Dredging from the Delaware 

River, Philadelphia to Sea federal channel 

for pumpout to the Killcohook confined 

disposal facility
142

Chapter 4

According to one source, it consisted of “river deepening, channel 

widening, lock expansion, dam 

operations, and dredged material 

disposal.”1

 It could also involve 

construction of jetties and other 

structures in inlets to develop 

shipping channels. Most of the 

Philadelphia District’s navigation work involved maintaining 

waterways through dredging. 

This was the process by which 

shoal material was taken from 

the bottom of a waterway and 

disposed of elsewhere, thereby 

keeping a channel at its authorized depth.2

 It involved not 

only the physical removal of 

the built-up sediments, but also 

significant planning as to where 

they could be safely and productively deposited.

The planning, development 

and construction of navigation 

projects involved personnel from a 

number of the district’s branches 

and sections, but operation and 

maintenance activities (including 

hydrographic surveying, dredging, 

and dredged material management) fell entirely within the 

Operations Division.3

 Work on 

existing projects was typically 

funded out of operation and 

maintenance funds appropriated by Congress, while any new 

navigation project was covered 

under the Construction General 

account. Under the stipulations of 

the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986, for commercial 

navigation projects involving 

coastal ports, the federal government paid between 40 and 80 

percent of construction costs and 

50 percent of the cost of feasibility studies (with the nonfederal 

sponsor accountable for the 

balance), while the government 

footed 100 percent of the bill for 

reconnaissance studies.4

Kilcohook Confined Disposal Facility, one 

of eight Corps-owned and operated sites 

for dredged material from the Delaware 

River, Philadelphia to Sea federal 

navigation channel
143

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

Floating Plant: 

The District Fleet

In dredging a waterway, the 

Philadelphia District could use 

its own hopper dredges or could 

delegate the work to a private 

contractor. Between 1972 and 

1980, the district used three 

Hopper Dredges: the Comber, the 

Goethals, and the Essayons. Each 

was outfitted to provide “direct 

pump-out of dredged material, 

a method of disposal developed 

by the Philadelphia District in 

the early 1960s” to “transfer . . . 

material from dredge hoppers to 

onshore sites without intermediate 

rehandling.”5

 In 1978, however, 

Congress passed an act that 

required the secretary of the army 

to contract out dredging operations 

“if he determines private industry 

has the capability to do such work 

and it can be done at reasonable 

prices and in a timely manner.”6

Accordingly, the Corps engaged 

private contractors for dredging 

work, gradually reducing its own 

fleet of hopper dredges. By the end 

of 1983, the Comber, Goethals, 

The Survey Boat Shuman approaching 

the Chesapeake City Bridge, en route to 

its next assignment in the Chesapeake & 

Delaware Canal 
144

Chapter 4

and Essayons were gone, while the 

McFarland had been reassigned 

from the Jacksonville District to 

the Philadelphia District to take 

their place as the Corps’ sole 

hopper dredge for the east coast.7

The fate of the three old 

dredges decisive if not dignified. 

They were retired in consecutive 

years—Essayons in 1981, Goethals

in 1982, and Comber in 1983—and 

remained for some time at the U.S. 

Maritime Administration’s National 

Defense Reserve Fleet in James 

River, Va. Eventually the latter 

two were acquired by the United 

States Navy for target practice and 

sunk off the coast of Puerto Rico, 

where they serve in perpetuity as 

artificial reefs (fish habitat). As for 

the Essayons, it was sold to a U.S. 

buyer, sent to India and cut up for 

scrap; and in a particularly cruel 

twist of irony for a vessel that had 

served the nation through the heart 

of the Cold War, its 1991 final 

voyage from Virginia to India was 

powered by a Soviet tugboat.8

By 2007 it appeared that the 

McFarland, by then one of only 

four Corps-owned seagoing hopper 

dredges, was bound for the same 

From top: Hopper Dredges Comber, 

Goethals, and Essayons
145

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

fate as its three Philadelphia 

District predecessors. The prevailing argument in Congress 

was that, as the oldest of the four 

remaining vessels, it was no longer 

cost-effective to maintain. But after 

some people expressed concern over 

the diminishment of the nation’s 

quick-response capabilities, the 

Water Resources Development 

Act of 2007 included a provision 

assigning the McFarland to ready 

reserve status, which meant continued operation—albeit for fewer 

days annually—and readiness for 

deployment.9

The McFarland was a propelled 

floating plant, meaning that it was 

“capable of dredging material, 

storing it onboard, transporting it 

to the disposal area, and dumping 

it.” It was also the only dredge in 

the world with the triple capability 

for direct pumpout, bottom discharge, and “sidecasting,” or boom 

discharge, of dredged sediments. 

First constructed in 1967 under 

the jurisdiction of the Galveston 

District, the McFarland, which had 

about a sixty-person crew, had 

a twofold mission for the Corps: 

dredging of the Delaware River and 

other waterways along the Atlantic 

coast, and emergency dredging 

anywhere in the world. According 

to Joe Vilord, former captain of 

the McFarland, the dredge went 

wherever the work was.10

An integral part of dredging 

was surveying the waterway before, 

during, and after dredging activities. The Philadelphia District used 

the Survey Boat Shuman, as well as 

other vessels operating out of Fort 

Mifflin and the Atlantic City Field 

Survey Section, to perform these 

activities. According to one district 

publication, the Survey Section had 

two missions. Its first responsibility 

The twin-hull Survey Boat Shuman, 

with full-service onboard capabilities to 

provide channel depth reports to the 

maritime community
146

Chapter 4

was “collect[ing] and record[ing] 

depth measurements for use in 

both navigation and dredging”; its 

second duty was “locat[ing] and 

identify[ing] underwater objects 

that pose a potential hazard to 

either of those activities.” The 

Shuman could provide data to the 

Corps on the size of a shoal that 

needed dredging, as well as the 

type of soil in the shoal.11

After survey work was done on 

a waterway, the actual dredging 

began. As mentioned earlier, the 

Philadelphia District devised a 

dredging method known as a 

“direct pumpout.” According to 

Vilord, this meant that the dredge 

would make one pass along a 

waterway and fill up the ship with 

dredged material. It would then 

hook on to a barge, connect to 

the pipes on the barge, and pump 

the material onto a disposal site 

onshore before making another 

pass. This would continue for 

several days. The survey boat 

would then do another survey to 

gauge progress, more dredging 

would occur if necessary, and the 

process would repeat until the 

waterway had reached the desired 

The Hopper Dredge McFarland, with 

unique triple capability for hopper, 

pipeline, and sidecast dredging
147

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

depth. Over time, the implementation of the Global Positioning 

System (GPS) enabled the Corps to 

be more precise in its dredging and 

surveying activities, which made 

the entire process more efficient 

from all perspectives.12

Serving on a dredge was not 

an easy experience. The crew of 

the McFarland, for example, generally worked two-week shifts at a 

time. Because the vessel operated 

twenty-four hours every day, posts 

were constantly manned. One never 

knew what to expect. For instance, 

at one point the McFarland had so 

much trouble with sea turtles being 

caught in the ship’s filter, which 

prevented objects from reaching 

the vessel’s hull, that the Marine 

Design Center had to develop a 

dredging draghead deflector to 

prevent them from entering the 

pumping system in the first place. 

But most of the McFarland’s crew 

enjoyed their work. “It’s a great 

lifestyle,” said Captain Thom 

Evans. “There’s always a pot of 

coffee on and someone to talk to.”13

The McFarland (and the 

Essayons before it) did not just 

dredge in waterways under the 

Philadelphia District’s jurisdiction. 

The vessel also frequented other 

ports and waterways along the 

east coast. In 1996, for example, 

after Hurricane Fran had passed 

over the east coast, the Corps sent 

the McFarland to the Cape Fear 

River in North Carolina to remove 

material clogging its mouth. In 

this case, the McFarland worked 

with the Wilmington District with 

good results. According to Eric 

Stromberg, director of the North 

Carolina State Ports, “We were 

very pleased with how quickly 

the McFarland was able to restore 

our channel to its proper dimensions.”14 Such emergency dredging 

responsibilities took the McFarland

all over the eastern United States. 

The Survey Boat Cherneski
148

Chapter 4

In 1995, Assistant Master Karl 

Van Florcke (who became captain 

of the McFarland in 1999, after 

Vilord’s retirement) noted that the 

McFarland had visited “the ports 

of Philadelphia, Norfolk (Va.), 

Wilmington (N.C.), Charleston 

(S.C.), Savannah (Ga.), and 

Fernadina and Canaveral harbors 

in Florida” for emergency dredging 

purposes, eventually ending up 

in Galveston Harbor in Texas to 

clear shoals from the inner bar 

channel.15 Other emergencies also 

required the McFarland to travel 

out of the Philadelphia District 

boundaries. In 2001, for example, 

the McFarland answered a distress 

call from the CIC Vision in the 

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet 

stating that the ship was on fire. 

The crew of the McFarland, many 

of whom were trained firefighters, 

extinguished the blaze over an 

eight-hour period.16

Fire was not the only hazard 

that those working on dredges 

sometimes faced. In 1993, the 

Philadelphia District discovered 

that dredged material being depos-

ited at the Fort Mifflin disposal 

area contained “unfired, live 

The bridge of the 

McFarland

Routine dragarm 

inspection

Tying up at dockside at 

the end of a mission
149

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

ammunition” from “old rifle[s] and 

anti-aircraft” devices. The district 

was forced to halt dredging operations, which were being conducted 

by a private company at the 

berthing piers of the Philadelphia 

Navy Base.17 In 2007, the Corps 

was constructing a beachfill project 

at Surf City and Ship Bottom, 

N.J., when it discovered World War 

I-era discarded munitions in the 

dredged material the contractor 

was depositing on the beach. 

Even though neither incident 

resulted in any personal injuries or 

property damage, the Corps instituted requirements for additional 

screening and filtering of dredged 

material in areas considered at risk 

for submerged munitions.18

By the 1970s, the largest 

dredging projects the Philadelphia 

District undertook within its own 

boundaries were the Delaware 

River, Philadelphia to the Sea 

Project, the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal (and Chesapeake 

Bay approach channels to 

Baltimore Harbor), the Wilmington 

Harbor Project, the Delaware River, 

Philadelphia to Trenton Project, 

and the Schuylkill River Project. 

The McFarland hooks up to Mooring 

Barge #2 for direct pumpout to 

the disposal site
150

Chapter 4

In addition, the district performed 

maintenance dredging on smaller 

projects under the Continuing 

Authorities Program. According 

to Section 107 of the River and 

Harbor Act of 1960, as amended, 

the district could construct new 

channels or extend existing 

projects, as long as the Corps’ 

expenditures on those projects did 

not exceed $2 million.19

The Delaware River 

Dredging Disposal 

Study

One of the Philadelphia 

District’s main navigation functions 

was the dredging of waterways to 

maintain their authorized depth. 

According to one Corps publication, maintenance dredging was 

“the repetitive removal of naturally recurring deposited bottom 

sediment such as sand, silt, and 

clays in an existing navigation 

channel.” Together with “occasional enlarging and deepening of 

navigation channels,” the practice 

was “essential to accommodate 

commercial and recreational 

vessels.”20 As mentioned previously, the district was responsible 

for maintaining numerous waterways through dredging. However, 

gaining approval for maintenance 

dredging was not always easy, 

in part because of the perceived 

environmental impact of the 

process. Environmentalists questioned whether material dredged 

from the bottom of rivers and 

waterways contained toxins that 

would harm the environment and 

expressed concern about the everincreasing amount of dredged 

spoils that had to be deposited 

somewhere. The Corps did not 

pretend that dredging produced 

no adverse environmental effects, 

but it sought ways to minimize 

those effects. For example, as 

early as 1975, the Corps admitted 

that maintenance dredging on the 

Delaware River could “produce 

temporary local turbidity” which 

could “release pollutants into the 

water.” Especially in the 1990s 

and 2000s, the agency explored 

ways to minimize these environmental effects and to reuse dredged 

material in beneficial ways, such 

as for beach nourishment, ecosystem restoration, or building and 

road construction. In addition, the 
151

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

Corps began publishing newsletters such as Environmental Effects 

of Dredging to provide a forum for 

scientists, engineers, and others to 

discuss how to minimize impacts 

on the environment.21

As dredging continued in the 

twentieth century, it became more 

difficult to find areas to dispose 

of the material. As Lt. Col. Ralph 

Locurcio, former District Engineer 

of the Philadelphia District, 

explained, “Because the Delaware 

runs through such an urbanized 

area, trying to find places to put 

the muck that you dredge up out 

of the river becomes an issue” 

because “there just aren’t too many 

open lands where you can put this 

stuff.”22 The district estimated in 

the 1970s that its existing sites 

would be “filled to capacity by the 

1990s.”23

Some people were concerned 

about the cost of maintenance 

dredging and dredging disposal. 

Between 1956 and 1978, the 

federal government bore all the 

costs of disposal area preparation, 

requiring local sponsors to provide 

only “lands, easements, rightsof-way, and spoil disposal areas 

necessary for construction of the 

project and for subsequent maintenance when and as required.” 

As Col. James G. Ton, District 

Engineer of the Philadelphia 

District from 1978 to 1981, 

noted, this meant “that the States 

only furnish the land for disposal 

areas, as well as any necessary 

clearing.” In 1978, the chief of 

engineers began requiring local 

sponsors to bear site preparation 

costs, much to the displeasure 

of local and state governments. 

This led to the deferral of several 

maintenance dredging projects 

under the Philadelphia District’s 

purview.24

Dredging in the Delaware River, 

Philadelphia-to-Sea federal 

navigation channel
152

Chapter 4

Other problems arose because 

existing dredged disposal sites 

were quickly reaching maximum 

capacity. In the 1970s and 1980s, 

the district turned its attention to 

developing a long-term strategy 

for disposing of dredged materials. In 1974, the Delaware River 

Basin Commission (DRBC) had 

requested that the Philadelphia 

District prepare, in the words 

of one historian, “a long-range 

regional disposal plan which would 

minimize environmental degradation.”25 This plan would focus on 

how to dispose of dredged material 

in the tidal Delaware River, the 

tidal tributaries of the river, and 

Delaware Bay. It would identify 

specific sites that both the Corps 

and its private contractors could 

use to dispose of dredged material 

“with minimum degradation of 

the natural environment.” After 

the passage of this resolution, the 

Senate Committee on Public Works 

authorized the development of “a 

regional dredging spoil disposal 

plan for the tidal Delaware River, 

its tidal tributaries and Delaware 

Bay.” The Philadelphia District 

received funding for this study in 

fiscal year 1978 and commenced 

its investigations. Congress directed 

the Corps to include Indian River 

Inlet and Bay in the study.26

In June 1979, the Philadelphia 

District released a reconnaissance 

report outlining both long-term 

and short-term disposal plans. In 

preparing the report, the Corps 

had coordinated with the DRBC, 

the Delaware Valley Regional 

Planning Commission, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

and the U.S. Geological Survey, as 

well as with Delaware and New 

Jersey environmental departments. 

Depositing of dredged material via 

pipeline at the Fort Mifflin CDF
153

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

Work included evaluating bottom 

sediments in the Delaware River 

navigation channel and compiling 

an inventory of fish and wildlife 

that might be affected by dredging 

and disposal. In addition, the 

Corps’ Waterways Experiment 

Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi, 

conducted a Dredged Material 

Research Program to provide 

“answers to questions of why and 

under what circumstances does 

the disposal of dredged material 

produce adverse environmental 

impacts.” This work “produced 

tested, viable, cost-effective 

methods and guidelines for 

reducing the impacts of conventional disposal alternatives.”27

In preparing the reconnaissance 

study, the district considered ten 

alternatives for dredging disposal. 

These included dewatering disposal 

sites, increasing the height of containment dikes, reusing dredged 

material, reducing the amount of 

dredging, acquiring new upland 

sites for dredging, and disposing of 

material in open water. Ultimately, 

the district concluded that all of 

these alternatives should be studied 

further so the Corps could “more 

formally document attempts at 

extending the useful life of disposal 

areas and to more formatively 

analyze potential new sites.”28

The district proceeded with 

Phase II studies of the alternatives, 

continuing to work with interested parties to develop dredging 

disposal plans that were environmentally sound. As part of the 

Phase II program, the district held 

Maintenance dredging, Salem River, N.J.
154

Chapter 4

public meetings to give “citizens a 

chance to sound off about where 

to put the material after its 18 

active disposal areas are exhausted 

in the 1990s.”29 The Corps also 

used the meetings as a way to 

inform the general public about its 

plans. In a March 1980 gathering 

in Delaware, for example, Deputy 

District Engineer Lt. Col. Joel 

Callahan provided an overview of 

the Corps’ dredging responsibilities 

on the Delaware River, explaining 

that the river had “more than 15 

port areas and two open-bay areas 

which handle significant amounts 

of waterborne commerce along 

the Delaware River and Bay from 

Trenton to the sea.” Callahan said, 

“Dredging is vital to the effective 

operations of these port areas.” He 

listed the major commodities that 

were shipped along the Delaware, 

which include petroleum, metal 

products, sugar, nonmetallic 

minerals, scrap metals, coal, 

chemicals and allied products, and 

farm products. Because “one out 

of every ten jobs in the Delaware 

Valley is related to the ports 

along the Delaware,” Callahan 

said maintaining the navigation 

channel through dredging was 

“vital to the economy and wellbeing of the entire region.”30

Several disposal sites existed 

in the area, including seven for 

the Delaware River, Philadelphia 

to the Sea and the Schuylkill 

River, two for Wilmington Harbor, 

and nine for the Delaware River, 

Philadelphia to Trenton. But by 

1999, all these sites would reach 

their capacity (the Wilmington 

Harbor sites would reach theirs 

by 1983). If solutions were not 

found to this dilemma, the district 

argued, dredging would cease 

along the Delaware River, adversely 

affecting the area’s economy. To 

Loading of dried-out dredged material to 

be transported offsite by third parties for 

beneficial re-use
155

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

address concerns about possible 

toxicity of dredged material, 

Callahan said the district conducted “a total chemical analysis 

of the composition of the material” 

before each mission and shared the 

results with various agencies (such 

as the EPA, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and state environmental agencies) to receive their 

concurrence before proceeding. He 

mentioned the possibility of the 

Corps using some of the dredged 

material to create wetlands, 

thereby enhancing the environment.31 However, some people 

continued to believe that dredging 

was harmful to the environment.

After obtaining input from the 

public, the Philadelphia District 

continued with its review of the 

alternatives presented in the 

reconnaissance plan, including 

“real estate studies, economic 

and environmental studies, 

public involvement and agency 

coordination and aerial survey 

data.”32 The district had removed 

nearly eight million cubic feet of 

material a year as part of three 

Delaware River navigation projects, 

combined with the Christina River, 

Wilmington Harbor, and Schuylkill 

River projects (defined as the 

“deep draft” dredging projects). 

The Corps investigated whether 

the huge amount of material could 

be reduced through “changes 

in certain dredging operation 

practices” and through channel 

realignments and other methods, 

“without significantly increasing 

the safety hazard to navigation.”33

In June 1984, the Corps 

released its recommendations for a 

disposal plan along the Delaware 

River and its tributaries. This 

report explained that federal and 

nonfederal dredging produced 

over eleven million cubic yards 

The Wilmington Harbor South confined 

disposal facility
156

Chapter 4

of material each year, an amount 

that would increase as projects 

were added. The district determined that, in the worst-case 

scenario (in which every proposed 

project was authorized), it would 

have a shortfall in disposal of 335 

million cubic yards. In a more 

probable scenario, the shortfall 

would be just over 78 million 

cubic yards. The district recommended both a short-term and a 

long-term strategy to deal with 

the deficit. In the short term, the 

Corps recommended “extend[ing] 

leases at existing sites, acquir[ing] 

and us[ing] advanced dewatering 

equipment, continu[ing] to make 

dredge material available for 

re-use and consider[ing] acquiring 

one additional site.” For the longterm, the district recommended 

“continu[ing] past management 

practices and incorporat[ing] new 

development, as appropriate, . . . 

acquir[ing] long term leases or 

land in fee where appropriate and 

consider[ing] acquiring five new 

disposal sites.”34

The report suggested that the 

long-range recommendations be 

implemented “at least 5 years 

prior to the exhaustion of disposal 

capacity to allow sufficient time 

to carry out the site acquisition and preparation phase.” In 

addition to helping guide its own 

future decisions about acquiring 

disposal sites, the Corps believed 

the information it had gathered 

from the study could provide states 

with a starting point for their own 

dredging disposal plans.35 With 

these recommendations in place, 

the Corps hoped to have adequate 

dredged material storage capacity 

for years to come.

By the time the report was 

published, the advanced dewatering equipment had already been 

Another view of the Wilmington Harbor 

South disposal site
157

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

acquired and was “operating successfully” on Cherry Island, where 

dredged material from Wilmington 

Harbor was disposed. The report 

noted that the Corps could obtain 

“more efficient use of existing and 

potential new disposal sites.”36

However, even with these 

general recommendations, the 

district still had to deal with 

specific dredging sites. Before the 

dredging disposal study was finalized, the Philadelphia District 

acquired a new site for Wilmington 

Harbor. The Corps first received 

authorization to dredge Wilmington 

Harbor, located at the confluence 

of the Christina and Delaware 

Rivers, in 1896. Throughout the 

twentieth century, the district 

performed this function, maintaining the harbor to a depth 

of thirty-five feet. Most of the 

dredged material was placed on 

Cherry Island, but by 1983 it was 

apparent that this site would soon 

be filled. The Corps undertook a 

study of alternatives, resulting in a 

1985 recommendation to develop 

“an approximately 326-acre area 

between the mouth of the Christina 

River and Pigeon Point as a 

disposal area.”37 Later that year, 

the Corps filled “a subtidal mudflat 

in the upper Delaware Estuary. . . 

to create a dredged-material 

disposal area” known as the 

Wilmington Harbor South site.38

The creation of this site apparently 

fulfilled the needs of disposal, as 

dredging continued at Wilmington 

Harbor.39 The Wilmington Harbor 

South Disposal Area won a 1992 

Federal Design Achievement Award 

from the National Endowment for 

the Arts, recognizing the district’s 

“. . . Contribution to Excellence in 

Design for the Government of the 

United States of America.”40

Meanwhile, environmental 

concerns about dredging and its 

effects continued to be expressed 

in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. 

In the 1980s, for example, the 

Delaware Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Management Cooperative (an 

amalgamation of representatives 

from the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey, and Delaware) recommended that bucket dredging in the 

Delaware River and Bay be halted 

from March through May and from 
158

Chapter 4

September through November 

because of concerns that “increased 

turbidity and related effects in the 

water” would “adversely affect 

shad migration.” These recommendations had no force of law, but the 

Philadelphia District made a policy 

decision to follow any suggestions 

the group offered; accordingly, the 

district did no dredging during 

those periods, even though this 

action resulted in shorter periods 

when the Corps could dredge. 

In 1990, the cooperative recommended that hydraulic dredging be 

halted on reaches of the Delaware 

River each spring to ensure that 

striped bass eggs were not displaced by dredging. However, 

in making this recommendation, the cooperative did not have 

hard evidence that the dredging 

actually harmed striped bass. The 

Philadelphia District conducted its 

own study of the issue and determined not only that the dredging 

would not adversely affect striped 

bass but that bucket dredging 

did not have harmful effects on 

Dredging in Wilmington Harbor the shad. The district presented 
159

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

these findings to the cooperative in 

1993, and the cooperative agreed 

to let the district lift the ban on 

fall bucket dredging and spring 

hydraulic dredging. According 

to one account, the Philadelphia 

District’s coordination with and 

willingness to listen to the cooperative “enhanced its relations with the 

group, exemplifying what the Corps 

means when advancing the benefits 

of partnering with other agencies 

and commissions.”41

The district exhibited this 

same spirit of cooperation during 

other projects. In 2007, the district 

unveiled its plans to use 20 acres 

of the 330-acre Palmyra Cove 

Nature Park to deposit 55,000 

cubic yards of sediment from the 

Delaware River. The Nature Park 

had actually been constructed on 

an old dredging disposal site in the 

late 1990s, under an agreement 

among the Corps, the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, and the Burlington 

County Bridge Commission, with 

the understanding that seventy 

acres of the site could still be used 

for dredging disposal. However, 

because of funding issues, the 

Corps had not been able to do 

much maintenance dredging of the 

Philadelphia to Trenton channel 

in the intervening years and, as 

explained in one article, “the 

site’s original purpose faded from 

local memory.” When the district 

proposed to use part of the site for 

dredging disposal, some environmental groups saw it as an attempt 

to destroy the Nature Park, and 

they quickly objected.42

The district’s project team 

directly engaged these critics, 

assuring them “that the Corps 

would take great pains to disturb 

the center as little as possible.” 

When the disposal occurred, 

the district was true to its word, 

leaving opponents surprised but 

Dredge pumpout at Palmyra Cove, where 

part of the original disposal area was 

converted into a nature center
160

Chapter 4

also satisfied. As Clara Ruvolo, 

director of the Nature Park, said, 

“The Army Corps lived up to its 

promise to preserve the Dragonfly 

Pond, accomplishing a difficult 

job with minimal disruption.” In 

Ruvolo’s eyes, Corps personnel 

treated their critics with respect, 

“engag[ing] them in dialogue and 

express[ing] an interest in their 

opinions.” Such willingness to 

communicate allowed the district 

to defuse a potentially volatile 

situation.43

Delaware River Main 

Channel Deepening

Though most of the district’s 

year-to-year navigation activities (and the Corps’) fell under 

the heading of operations and 

maintenance, the end of the twentieth century saw the emergence 

of two large-scale improvement 

projects—both to deepen existing 

navigation channels. But just as 

not all the proposed dams from 

the 1962 comprehensive study 

were built, only one of these two 

projects—the Delaware River Main 

Channel Deepening—would move 

forward to eventual construction, 

and that only after multiple challenges and delays. (The other was 

the proposed Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal deepening, discussed later in this chapter.)44

In the late 1800s, the 

Philadelphia District assumed 

responsibility for maintaining 

the federal shipping channel in 

the Delaware River, which ran 

106 miles from Trenton, N.J., to 

Delaware City, Del., at a depth 

of eighteen feet. As ships traversing the river became larger, 

it was necessary to deepen the 

channel. By the Second World 

War, the authorized depth was 

forty feet, and the district had 

three separate navigation projects 

covering the river: Delaware River, 

Philadelphia, Pa., to Trenton, N.J. 

(first adopted in 1930); Delaware 

River, Philadelphia to the Sea 

(adopted in 1910); and Camden, 

N.J. (adopted in 1919).

To maintain the Delaware 

River main channel at forty feet, 

the Corps had to conduct periodic 

dredging. In 1975, it estimated 

that it had removed approximately one billion cubic yards of 

material from the river, including 
161

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g
162

Chapter 4

six million cubic yards annually 

from the Philadelphia to the Sea 

stretch alone. These operations 

ensured safe passage for the “over 

100 million tons of waterborne 

commerce”45 that traversed the 

river each year, making it “the 

second largest port-complex in the 

United States.”46

In 1970, the House Committee 

on Public Works passed a 

resolution requesting that the 

Philadelphia District conduct a 

Delaware River Comprehensive 

Navigation Study “to address 

the problems at waterways of 

Federal interest,” including the 

main Delaware River channel, 

the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal, waterways tributary to the 

Delaware River, and the area’s 

port system. Four years later, 

the Senate Committee on Public 

Works charged the district with 

producing a regional dredging plan 

for the Delaware River. Finally, to 

supplement these studies, Congress 

authorized the Philadelphia District 

in 1983 to examine whether the 

main channel of the Delaware 

River needed to be deepened to 

accommodate larger ships. In 1992, 

the district completed a feasibility 

study that addressed these issues.47

Recognizing that many large 

vessels, including oil tankers, could 

not traverse the forty-foot channel 

fully loaded, the Corps recommended in the feasibility study 

that it deepen the channel—which 

it defined as stretching “from 

deep water in the Delaware Bay 

to the Beckett Street Terminal in 

Philadelphia Harbor, a distance 

of about 102.5 miles”—to fortyfive feet. This recommendation 

was based on a calculation of the 

highest ratio of benefits to costs 

among alternatives that were 

both technically and environmentally sound. While channel 

widths would not change, twelve 

bends would have to be widened 

for improved navigational safety. 

To maintain the channel depth at 

forty-five feet, the Corps estimated 

it would need to dredge a total of 

52,523,300 cubic yards initially 

and then annually remove 756,000 

cubic yards through maintenance 

dredging. The district recommended various locations for the 

disposal of this material, mostly 

former sites in southern New 
163

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

Jersey, and suggested that some of 

the material be used for “wetland/

island creation.” Total cost for the 

project, according to the district, 

would be $278,293,000, of which 

$93,937,000 would be the responsibility of the nonfederal sponsor.48

Congress accepted the Corps’ 

plans for the Delaware River main 

channel, authorizing the project 

for construction under the Water 

Resources Development Act of 

1992.49

The Philadelphia District 

moved into the design phase 

of the project, completing its 

general design memorandum 

in 1996. Although it was based 

largely on the 1992 feasibility 

study report, the design plan 

included an updated total dredging 

estimate of 33 million cubic yards, 

down a third from the original 

forecast of 50 million. It was also 

more specific about placement 

of dredged material from the 

Delaware Bay “for wetland restoration at Egg Island Point, New 

Jersey and Kelly Island, Delaware, 

and for stockpiling of sand for 

later beach nourishment work at 

Slaughter and Broadkill beaches 

in Delaware.”50 The updated price 

tag was more than $300 million, 

of which the nonfederal sponsor, 

the Delaware River Port Authority 

(DRPA), would contribute approximately 35 percent, as well as lands 

and rights-of-way.51

Although many individuals 

and organizations supported the 

project—including the Delaware 

River Port Authority, which saw 

the deepening as meeting its 

“requirement for a more efficient 

channel to keep the nation’s fourth 

busiest port complex competitive 

with others on the east coast”52 —

others expressed misgivings about 

the environmental impact. Led by 

an organization called Delaware 

Riverkeeper, environmental interests questioned the effects that 

deepening the Delaware River main 

channel would have on landscapes, 

aquatic populations, and the river 

itself, including whether the project 

“would resuspend toxic substances 

in the water, degrade water quality, 

permit salt water intrusion into 

groundwater supplies used for 

drinking and other purposes, 

or significantly harm fish and 

wildlife.” The district worked with 
164

Chapter 4

various local and state agencies to 

address these concerns, producing 

a supplemental environmental 

impact statement in 1997 and 

holding public meetings in 1998 

to respond to criticisms of the 

project.53

The outcome of these meetings 

led to one substantive change in 

the dredged material disposal 

plan. The original recommendation involved using underwater 

sand “stockpiles” in the lower 

part of the bay, but in response to 

concerns about the effect on local 

oyster beds, the district came up 

with an alternative of pumping 

sand directly onto the beach at 

no significant additional cost. The 

Corps issued a Record of Decision 

for the project in December 1998, 

signifying its compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy 

Act.54

In addition to the final design 

and supplemental EIS, the Corps 

updated its economic analysis of 

the project. An increase in depth 

from forty to a forty-five feet 

would allow for “more efficient 

One of the district’s federally owned and 

operated confined disposal facilities for 

dredged material at Fort Mifflin, Pa.
165

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

vessel loading, reduced lightering 

(double-handling of crude oil in 

transfer from tankers to barges) 

in the lower Delaware Bay, and 

attraction of more efficient container and dry bulk vessels.” The 

Corps calculated the project’s 

benefit-cost ratio at 1.4, with 

estimated annual benefits of $40 

million as a result of transportation efficiencies. Recognizing these 

benefits—along with the prospects 

for “an improved business climate” 

for the Delaware River ports and 

the potential for job creation—the 

DRPA authorized the expenditure 

of $50 million for the project in 

November 1999. In the words of 

one publication, this “clear[ed] the 

last major financial hurdle for the 

$311-million dredging project.”55

But opponents who had focused 

primarily on environmental 

issues soon challenged the project’s economic merits as well. The 

original financial estimates (done 

in 1992) were more than five 

years old; to receive construction 

funds, the Corps had to conduct an 

economic reevaluation. After the 

Container ships docked at Packer Avenue 

Marine Terminal, Port of Philadelphia, on 

the Delaware River
166

Chapter 4

Philadelphia District published its 

1998 limited reevaluation report 

(the economic update mentioned 

earlier) confirming a favorable 

benefit-cost ratio, critics charged 

the Corps with overstating project 

benefits, thereby skewing the project’s economic justification. As 

these concerns became more pronounced, Senator Robert Torricelli 

(D-N.J.) and Congressman Robert 

Andrews (D-N.J.) requested that 

the GAO review the 1998 limited 

reevaluation report to see whether 

“the Corps of Engineers’ economic 

analysis accurately and appropriately considered the benefits and 

costs of the project.”56

The GAO commenced what 

amounted to an audit, issuing its 

findings in 2002. According to the 

GAO, the Corps’ study “contained 

or was based on miscalculations, 

invalid assumptions, and outdated 

information.” These included misapplications of growth rates for 

shipping traffic in the Delaware 

River channel, an inconsistent 

discounting of the project’s future 

benefits, and the use of different 

years when presenting dollar 

values for benefit categories. The 

GAO said it could only verify $13 

million of the project’s estimated 

$40 million a year in benefits and 

that the Corps’ limited reevaluation 

report did “not provide a reliable 

basis for deciding whether to 

proceed with the project.”57 Despite 

differences of opinion on some of 

the details, the district accepted 

the GAO’s findings and recommendations, emphasizing that any 

mistakes by the project team were 

unintentional—they were primarily 

a byproduct of constantly changing 

shipping traffic and highly complex 

mathematical models.58

By way of formal response to 

the GAO’s unfavorable report, Maj. 

Gen. Robert Griffin, Director of 

the Corps’ Civil Works Division, 

suspended work on the channel 

deepening and called for a “comprehensive economic reanalysis” of 

the project, declaring that “GAO 

criticism of our 1998 report was 

well founded.” The Philadelphia 

District contracted with David 

Miller & Associates to conduct the 

examination, giving them access 

to “all documents, assumptions, 

economic models, and actions 

leading to the preparation” of 

Report by the Government Accountability 

Office on its first audit of the Delaware 

River Main Channel Deepening Project
167

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

the 1998 limited reevaluation 

report. In December 2002, after 

examining these documents and 

considering the “many changes 

in the dynamics of the Port of 

Philadelphia that have occurred 

since the original 1992 project 

feasibility study,” David Miller & 

Associates reported that the project 

was still economically sound, 

although its benefit-cost ratio was 

now 1.18, rather than 1.4. The 

Corps also had an external review 

panel evaluate the project’s economics; the panel agreed that the 

project was economically justified.59 However, an oil lightering 

company raised questions about 

the figures used to delineate the 

costs of oil lightering. The Corps 

released a supplement to its report 

in February 2004 that gave an 

updated project cost of $264.6 

million but only minor changes to 

the benefit-cost ratio, which now 

stood at a still-favorable 1.15.60

Some people continued to 

express environmental concerns, 

especially about the potential of 

stirring up toxic substances from 

the bottom of the channel that 

could harm humans, fish, and 

wildlife. The district’s response was 

summarized in a presentation made 

by Philadelphia District Engineer 

Lt. Col. Tim Brown in Dover, Del., 

in 2001. Directly countering the 

charge that “deepening the ship 

channel, including bend widening, 

and deepening berthing areas 

will stir up long-buried toxins,” 

Brown explained that the district, 

in concert with the EPA, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

and state environmental agencies 

of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and 

New Jersey, had conducted studies 

“to determine actual contaminant 

concentrations.” These studies 

found that concentrations in 

bottom sediments were at a “low to 

medium” level, “meaning they are 

in a range that will not adversely 

affect drinking water supplies, 

water quality, or wildlife.” Some 

people had charged the Corps with 

trying to “mask ‘hot spots’” of contamination by using an averaging 

method, but Brown disputed this 

claim. “The point I want to emphasize is that the sediment analysis 

entailed review of all of the 12,000 

data points to determine the overall 
168

Chapter 4

environmental impact of deepening 

the river,” he said.61

In addition to the question of 

toxic sediments, Brown addressed 

a perception that the deepening 

would adversely affect oyster 

populations and other aquatic 

populations in the Delaware Bay. 

He said the district had “set up 

pre-construction monitoring to 

establish baseline information” 

that would help it gauge “the 

ongoing effects of the project” 

on “oysters, horseshoe crabs, 

shorebirds, blue crabs and sand 

builder worms.” In addition, the 

district would schedule annual 

maintenance dredging “around 

appropriate seasonal environmental 

windows to minimize impact on 

marine habitat.” Finally, Brown 

showed that, although some 

adverse effects might occur, the 

district was prepared to keep those 

effects negligible.62

Economic and environmental 

concerns about the main channel 

deepening continued to linger in 

the 2000s, resulting in delays to 

the project. The situation worsened 

when the Delaware River Port 

Authority pulled out of its agreement to be the nonfederal sponsor 

on the project, in part because of 

conflicting interests that fell largely 

along state lines and rendered 

long-term regional support for 

the project uncertain. Fortunately, 

the Philadelphia Regional Port 

Authority agreed to become the 

sponsor and, after significant negotiations, the Philadelphia District 

and the port authority signed a 

Project Partnership Agreement 

on 23 June 2008. According to 

the Philadelphia District newsletter, this represented “a major 

step forward in a 15-year effort 

to deepen the Delaware River.”63

Construction would get under way 

at last in March 2010.64

June 2008 signing ceremony for the 

Project Partnership Agreement with 

the Philadelphia River Port Authority to 

deepen the Delaware River Main Channel 

from 40 to 45 feet
169

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

Although this project did go 

to construction, comparisons with 

the never-built Tocks Island Dam 

are tempting: two major projects 

by the Philadelphia District, both 

encountering opposition that was 

expressed at first in environmental 

terms. But while the demise of 

Tocks Island was heavily influenced by the nascent but rapidly 

growing environmental movement 

in the United States, the delay 

of the Delaware River deepening 

had far more to do with the aftereffects of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986, which 

instituted nonfederal cost sharing 

for civil works projects. This 

meant that where competing state 

and local interests were at stake, 

resolution of their differences was 

essential to determine whether—or 

at least when—a Corps project 

would come to fruition.65

The Delaware River at Marcus Hook
170

Chapter 4

The Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal

The Philadelphia District 

encountered difficulties of a 

somewhat similar nature when it 

proposed deepening the Chesapeake 

and Delaware (C&D) Canal. Again, 

both environmental and economic 

objections were voiced; in this case, 

the latter proved substantive and 

were decisive in halting the project 

short of construction.

A nineteen-mile-long waterway 

linking the Chesapeake Bay with 

the Delaware Bay, the C&D Canal 

first began transporting vessels in 

1829 as a private venture. In 1919, 

the federal government purchased 

the waterway and authorized 

the Corps to convert it into a 

sea-level canal and enlarge it to 

a depth of twelve feet. In 1933, 

the Philadelphia District received 

jurisdiction over the canal, and 

Congress authorized additional 

modifications in 1935, 1939, and 

1954, eventually directing the 

Corps to deepen it to 35 feet and 

widen it to 450 feet. The district 

completed these modifications in 

1975.66

In September 1988, the House 

Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation passed a resolution asking the district to review 

reports relative to the C&D 

Canal “to determine the feasibility of measures to promote and 

encourage the efficient, economic 

and logical development of the 

channel system serving the Port 

of Baltimore and Delaware River 

Ports.” Specifically, the committee 

wanted the Philadelphia District 

to examine the canal and determine “current and future shipping 

needs, adequacy of channel 

depth and dimensions, [and] 

clearances and other physical 

aspects affecting water-borne 

commerce.”67

Map of the Chesapeake & Delaware 

Canal Deepening Project
171

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

In 1990, the Philadelphia 

District issued a reconnaissance 

report addressing these issues. 

It noted that its objectives for 

the C&D Canal were to “provide 

adequate and safe navigation 

channels,” to ensure the most 

“efficient, economic use of the 

canal,” to “minimize degradation of the natural environment,” 

and to “protect fish and wildlife 

resources during initial construction and project maintenance.” The 

district suggested deepening the 

canal to 37 feet and widening the 

channel to 438 feet. It concluded 

that such deepening would “not 

cause an incremental increase in 

the average annual maintenance 

dredging requirements since no 

new dredging areas are involved.” 

The report said that implementing this plan would provide 

economic benefits in terms of 

more efficient vessel movement 

through the canal, resulting in a 

benefit-cost ratio of 1.2 for the 

project. Declaring “that there is a 

Federal interest in further study of 

improvements to the canal and the 

connecting channels,” the district 

recommended that it conduct 

“further studies for navigational 

improvements.”68

Accordingly, the district began 

a feasibility study in partnership 

with the Maryland Department 

of Transportation for the channel 

A car carrier ship on the C&D Canal
172

Chapter 4

deepening. The work involved 

coordinating with the Maryland 

Port Authority (MPA), the 

Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental 

Control (DNREC), and other interested groups on the effects of the 

deepening on fish, wildlife, and 

the environment. In 1992, the 

district held a meeting with the 

MPA and the DNREC to review the 

process the Corps would undertake to complete its studies on the 

deepening. The Corps informed 

the other agencies that it was 

conducting chemical analyses of 

sediments in the canal, a study on 

striped bass in both Chesapeake 

and Delaware bays, and evaluations of proposed upland and 

aquatic disposal areas. The 

Corps believed that “all of these 

studies plus input on canal flows, 

salinity impacts, and groundwater 

resources will provide the basis for 

the development of an environmental impact statement for any 

proposed modifications.”69

By the time the district released 

its draft feasibility study and 

environmental impact statement 

in January 1996, its plans for the 

C&D Canal had changed. Further 

analysis had shown that the most 

cost-effective approach was to 

deepen the canal to 40 feet, with 

an allowable overdepth of 1 foot 

and a “constant width” of 450 feet. 

Additionally, the district recommended “the enlargement of the 

Reedy Point flare, bend widening 

at Sandy Point and construction of 

an emergency anchorage at Howell 

Point.” It estimated that these 

features would require the dredging 

of an additional eighteen million 

cubic yards of material, which it 

would deposit in several different 

“upland disposal areas” along 

the canal and in an “overboard 

proposed site” near Pooles Island in 

Chesapeake Bay. Finally, the Corps 

would use some of the material for 

an ecosystem restoration project 

the Baltimore District was doing 

at Hart-Miller Island. According to 

the district, this work would cost 

approximately $84 million, but it 

“would not result in any significant 

long-term adverse impacts on the 

environment,” because the Corps 

would take great pains to ensure 

that dredging operations would not 

harm fish and wildlife.70
173

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

Despite the district’s assurances, its plans for the C&D 

Canal drew opposition from 

environmental groups and local 

residents. According to former 

Deputy for Program Management 

Richard Maraldo, four persons—

who referred to themselves as 

The Concerned Citizens—led the 

charge, attacking the proposed 

plan for both its economics 

and its environmental impacts. 

“They said it wasn’t necessary,” 

Maraldo explained, and that “it 

would change the flow between 

The District’s project office in Chesapeake 

City, Md., where dispatchers monitor and 

control C&D Canal traffic 24/7
174

Chapter 4

the Delaware and Chesapeake 

and ruin the ecology of the 

Chesapeake Bay.”71

Amid this opposition, in July 

1996 the district conducted a 

public meeting at Bohemia Manor 

High School in Chesapeake City 

to explain the proposed deepening. 

Project representatives pointed 

out that the district had prepared 

its recommendations in coordination with a variety of stakeholders, 

including the C&D Canal 

Citizens’ and Technical Advisory 

Committees, the U.S. Coast Guard, 

the Association of Maryland 

Pilots, the Pilots’ Association for 

the Bay, and River Delaware. The 

district had also held workshops 

in Chesapeake City “to address 

the concerns the community had 

regarding potential impacts on 

their community from structural 

improvements to the Canal.” As 

for the selected plan, it not only 

provided economic benefits, but 

also allowed for “adequate and 

safe navigation channels . . . and 

techniques and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources,” whereas 

the channel currently “present[ed] 

constraints to efficient vessel 

movements.”72

According to one newspaper 

account, many of those attending 

the public meeting came away 

still skeptical, believing “that the 

analysis done by the Corps may 

be inadequate.” Some expressed 

concern that increased dredging 

would lead to groundwater 

The C&D Canal looking east toward the 

Chesapeake City Bridge and the District’s 

project office (on the peninsula at the 

top center of the photo)

Summit Bridge
175

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

contamination or that it would 

worsen erosion along the banks 

of the canal. District representatives did their best to address 

these concerns, acting, according 

to the reporter, “in a professional 

manner,” but some of their answers 

were not enough to satisfy all those 

in attendance.73

Noting these concerns, the 

Corps finalized its environmental 

impact statement and feasibility 

report (lowering its estimate of 

project costs to $82.8 million), 

and Congress authorized the 

project in the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996.74

In December 1996, Chief of 

Engineers Lt. Gen. Joe N. Ballard 

completed his final report to 

Congress, indicating that the plan 

was “engineeringly sound” and 

“economically justified.” However, 

Ballard noted that several questions remained regarding “the 

appropriate channel depth, 

whether or not recent improvements at other east coast ports 

would affect traffic projections,” 

and how much time vessels would 

save using the canal. According 

to Ballard, such concerns would 

have to be “resolved and a channel 

depth selected before the design 

of a project can be initiated.” 

Ballard also recognized that the 

public meetings had raised questions about “possible impacts on 

groundwater quality from the 

disposal of dredged material, loss 

The first page of Lieutenant General Joe 

Ballard’s report to Congress on the 

Delaware River Main Channel 

Deepening Project
176

Chapter 4

of groundwater into the canal, 

bank erosion, and water quality 

impacts in the Chesapeake Bay.” 

He said these issues needed to be 

addressed in the preconstruction 

and engineering and design phases. 

“I am confident that improvements 

to the canal can be designed and 

implemented in an environmentally 

sound manner,” he concluded.75

With the approval of Ballard 

and Congress, the district began 

the preconstruction and engineering design phase of the 

project in April 1997, with the 

Maryland Port Administration 

serving as the local sponsor. The 

district focused first on Ballard’s 

question regarding how deep the 

channel should be, given changes 

in recent years to “port call 

patterns, railroad mergers, trends 

in transportation alliances, and 

the deepening of New York Harbor 

to 40 feet.” The district also conducted studies on stream bank 

erosion and groundwater effects in 

response to the specific concerns 

of the public.76 After conducting 

these studies, the district released a 

draft economic reevaluation of the 

deepening in June 1999 that called 

for the canal to have a depth of 39 

feet, with channel widths of 434 to 

600 feet.77

Before the district finalized 

these recommendations, however, 

Corps Headquarters and the 

North Atlantic Division called for 

a review of the plan, stating that 

“multiple reviews, correspondence 

and coordination have raised 

issues needing address.”78 One of 

these “issues” may have been the 

fact that, in July 1999, seven of 

Maryland’s congressional representatives asked Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Civil Works Joseph 

Westphal why the Corps did not 

stay with its original recommendation of deepening the canal to 40 

feet, since “all major competing 

ports on the East Coast have at 

least 40 feet of water and many 

have approved plans to deepen to 

45 feet.”79 However, by the early 

2000s, traffic to and from the Port 

of Baltimore had fallen off “to the 

point where the project’s economics 

no longer supported the recommendation” to deepen the canal.80

Corps leaders decided to suspend 

all canal deepening action in 2001, 

because, according to one district 
177

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

report, “recent downturns in Port 

of Baltimore container ship traffic” 

made the project no longer economically justifiable. Work on the 

preconstruction and engineering 

design was halted, and as of 2008 

it showed no sign of resuming.81

Despite the cessation of the 

canal deepening project, the 

Philadelphia District continued 

to provide maintenance dredging 

to maintain the C&D Canal’s 

thirty-five foot depth. It was also 

responsible for operating the canal 

out of its Chesapeake City Project 

Office, located next to the historic 

1837 pumphouse that housed the 

district-run C&D Canal Museum.82

Operational duties involved 

directing traffic on the canal 

through an electronic system and 

establishing “rules governing the 

dimensions of vessels and other 

specific conditions and requirements to govern the movement of 

vessels through the waterway.”83

This was no small feat—in 2007, 

more than fifteen million tons of 

cargo passed through the canal, 

constituting “approximately 40 

percent of the ship traffic in and 

out of Baltimore.”84 To accomplish 

these operations, the district had 

several controllers working on 

eight-hour rotations to keep the 

canal open 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week, 365 days a year. The controllers monitored canal traffic 

“through state-of-the-art fiber 

optic and microwave links ...[and] 

closed-circuit television and radio 

systems,” thereby maintaining a 

safe system.85 The district also had 

to deal with accidents and other 

issues on the canal; for example, 

in 1973 a freighter hit the railroad 

bridge, rendering the bridge inoperable, and in 2001 a tugboat sank 

in the canal. In both cases, the 

district worked quickly to restore 

The C&D Canal Museum, featuring the 

waterwheel and pumping engines from 

the Old Pump House
178

Chapter 4

operations and minimize effects 

on the shipping industry.86 In such 

ways, the district helped maintain 

navigability of the C&D Canal.

The district’s ownership, 

operation, and maintenance 

responsibilities for the canal also 

applied to the highway bridges that 

spanned it; in some years, repairs 

or upgrades to just one of these 

bridges accounted for well over 

half the total project budget. Since 

the late 1960s four bridges had 

been upgraded: the Chesapeake 

City Bridge in Maryland, and the 

Summit, St. Georges, and Reedy 

Point Bridges in Delaware.87 Under 

the Water Resources Development 

Act of 2007, the district also 

became responsible for the U.S. 

Senator William V. Roth Jr. Bridge, 

which since its 1995 opening had 

belonged to the state of Delaware 

as part of its north-south limited 

access toll road, Delaware Route 1. 

The Roth Bridge and the adjacent 

St. Georges Bridge were at the 

center of a controversy that arose 

In 1995, a new state-owned bridge 

(foreground), later named after Senator 

William V. Roth, Jr., came alongside the 

Corps’ St. Georges Bridge (background) 

as the primary span across the C&D 

Canal. Congress transferred it to the 

Corps in 2007
179

Wa t e r wa y s , N av i g a t i o n , a n d D r e d g i n g

in the late 1990s over whether 

the newer span was intended as a 

“replacement bridge” (the position 

of the Department of the Army, 

which had sought to demolish the 

St. Georges Bridge) or a “relief 

bridge” (the term used by the state 

of Delaware in insisting that both 

structures were critical on the basis 

of traffic projections). WRDA 2007 

resolved the issue in favor of the 

state.88

* * * * * * *

In some ways, the Philadelphia 

District’s navigation mission from 

1972 to 2008 could be characterized as an era of unfulfilled 

plans. Two of the largest navigation projects on which the district 

worked during this period—the 

Delaware River Main Channel 

and C&D Canal deepenings—had 

not reached fruition by the end of 

2008 (although the former did get 

under way very soon after). Both 

projects highlighted the changing 

Reedy Point Bridge, easternmost of five 

Corps-owned high-level highway bridges 

spanning the C&D
180

Chapter 4

political environment in which 

the Corps had to operate. As with 

dam building in the 1970s, the 

district had to balance a variety 

of interests, including those of 

state and local governments, in its 

channel deepening activities. The 

district showed a willingness to 

work with its critics to reach solutions that were acceptable to all 

parties, and it showed a continued 

commitment to environmental 

quality and sustainability as it 

conducted the necessary dredging 

and other operations essential 

to the navigation mission. By 

upholding its reputation for being 

both responsive and reliable, the 

Philadelphia District developed 

partnerships with other agencies 

and groups that would enhance its 

navigation work in the twenty-first 

century.

The Chesapeake City Project Office 

has specially designed truck-mounted 

equipment for below-deck bridge 

inspections and maintenance
Chapter 4 — Endnotes

181

1

 Nicole T. Carter and Betsy A. Cody, “The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps 

of Engineers: A Primer,” CRS Report for Congress, 20 September 2006, CRS-2 <http://

www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS20866.pdf> (14 May 2010).

2

 Anthony DePasquale, Chief of Operations Division, conversation with Joshua 

Pollarine, 19 May 2010 [informal conversations held with district personnel hereafter 

referred to as conversation]. For more information on the dredging process, see U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Dredging the Delaware,” July 1967, 

File Dredging Techniques, Box 1115, Philadelphia District-AR.

3

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Organization Charts,” 

September 2008, document provided by Edward Voigt, Philadelphia District.

4

 Carter and Cody, “The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers: A 

Primer,” CRS-3 – CRS-4.

5

 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 76-77.

6

 Act of 26 April 1978 (92 Stat. 218).

7

 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 77; “Hopper Dredges” <http://

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dredge-hopper.htm> (20 May 2010); 

“McFarland Stays in Corps Dredge Fleet,” The Observer (November 1994): 8; Joe 

Vilord interview by Paul Sadin, 13 January 2009, Blackwood, New Jersey, transcript, 13. 

Vilord was the captain of the McFarland until his retirement in the 1990s. According 

to one source, the main private dredger in the Delaware River was the American 

Dredging Company. Lewis Caccese, Chief, Construction-Operations Division, to Actg. 

Ch, Engineering Div., 13 September 1978, File General Dredging & Disposal Input Data, 

Box 1115, Philadelphia District-AR; Edward Voigt, Chief, Public & Legislative Affairs, 

Philadelphia District, personal communication with Joshua Pollarine, 4 April 2011.

8

 Voigt personal communication.

9

 Voigt personal communication.

10 Vilord interview, 4; Voigt personal communication.

11 Quotations in “Shuman Delivers More and More for Its Customers,” The Observer

(January/February 2001): 8; see also “Aboard the Surveyboat Shuman; An ‘Inside’ Look 

at Survey Branch,” The Observer 12 (April 1993): 1, 4-5, 8.

12 Vilord interview, 7-8.

13 Quotations in “A Virtual Tour Aboard the McFarland,” The Observer (Summer 

2005): 10-11; see also “McFARLAND and Marine Design Center Assist with Study to 

Save Sea Turtles,” The Observer (July 1993): 9. 

14 “McFARLAND Answers the Call Again, Keeps Key N.C. Port Open for Business 

After Hurricane Fran,” The Observer (October 1996): 3.

15 Quotation in “Technical Innovations to Protect Turtles . . .” The Observer

(September 1995): 6.

16 “McFarland Crew Members on the Front Lines Battling Blaze in Gulf,” The 

Observer (Summer 2001): 8.

17 “Ammunition Found in Dredge Material from Navy Base,” The Observer (April 

1993): 2.

18 Gebert interview, 26; “Group: Surf City Alerted to Ordnance; Surfriders Say They 

Warned of Danger in Beach Project,” pressofAtlanticCity.com, 27 March 2007 <http://

www.surfriderjsc.org/press.asp?pid=2> (20 May 2010).

19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Delaware River Dredging 

Disposal Study, Transcript, Initial Public Meeting, 6 March 1980,” 7, Loose Papers, Box 

1115, Philadelphia District-AR; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, 

Small Projects Program (pamphlet) (Philadelphia: Philadelphia District, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, n.d.), n.p.; Voigt personal communication.

20 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Dredging” <http://www.

Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/dredge/ d2.htm> (26 May 2010).

21 U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia, “Delaware River, Trenton to the Sea and 

Schuylkill River and Wilmington Harbor Tributaries, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement,” Box 503, Philadelphia District-AR. For an example of Environmental Effects of Dredging, see Vol. D-92-1 (March 1992), in File Del. 

Bay—Thin Layering Dredge Material, Box 247, Philadelphia District-AR.

22 Locurcio interview, 24.

23 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 78.

24 Quotations in Colonel James G. Ton, District Engineer, to MG James J. Johnson, 

Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Atlantic Division, ca. November 1978 

[date is unclear on letter], File Federal Diking Policy Info., Box 1115, Philadelphia 

District-AR; see also Ton to Mr. Austin P. Olney, Secretary, Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental Control, September 27, 1978, File General 

Dredging & Disposal Input Data, Box 1115, Philadelphia District-AR.

25 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 78.

26 Quotations in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Delaware River 

Dredging Disposal Study: Phase I, Reconnaissance Report,” June 1979, 1-2, Box 503, 

Philadelphia District-AR [hereafter referred to as Dredging Disposal Reconnaissance 

Report]; see also Lieutenant Colonel Joel T. Callahan, Acting District Engineer, to 

Honorable Bill Bradley, United States Senate, 20 March 1980, Loose Papers, Box 1115, 

Philadelphia District-AR.

27 Dredging Disposal Reconnaissance Report, 4, 10.

28 Dredging Disposal Reconnaissance Report, 56-57, 65-66.

29 Elliot Goldberg, “Sites Sought for Dumping River Spoils,” The Gloucester 

County Times (Woodbury, N.J.), 22 February 1980, copy in Loose Papers, Box 1115, 

Philadelphia District-AR.

30 U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, 

“Delaware River Dredging Disposal Study: Transcript, Initial Public Meeting, 6 March 

1980,” 4-5, Loose Papers, Box 1115, Philadelphia District-AR [hereafter referred to as 

Dredging Disposal Study Public Meeting Transcript].

31 Dredging Disposal Study Public Meeting Transcript, 8-11, 39, 41-43.

32 “General Investigations,” 24 February 1981, File Dredge Disposal Sites, Box 1115, 

Philadelphia District-AR.

33 Leonard J. Lipski, Chief, Hydrology & Hydraulics Branch, to Chief, Policy Planning 

Section, 13 July 1981, File Federal & Non-Federal Historical Dredging Quantities, Box 

1115, Philadelphia District-AR.

34 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Delaware River Dredging 

Disposal Study,” June 1984, Syllabus, copy in Philadelphia District-Library.

35 Philadelphia District, “Delaware River Dredging Disposal Study,” Syllabus, 179. 

In 1991, for example, the Maryland Port Administration drafted a “Dredged Material 

Management Master Plan.” Many of its recommendations were similar to those that 

the district suggested in its plan. See “C&D Canal Deepening, Initial Disposal Screening, 

August 1991,” 1, File 1110-2-1150a Planning & Development Correspondence—

Drafts, Box 4, Accession No. 077-03-0001, RG 77, FRC; Port of Baltimore to Ms. 

Barbara Stratton, Planning Division, Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers, 22 

February 1991, File 1110-2-1150a Planning & Development Correspondence—Disposal 

Measures, Box 4, Accession No. 077-03-0001, RG 77, FRC.

36 Philadelphia District, “Delaware River Dredging Disposal Study,” Syllabus, 179; 

see also “C&D Canal Deepening, Initial Disposal Screening, August 1991,” 1, File 

1110-2-1150a Planning & Development Correspondence—Drafts, Box 4, Accession No. 

077-03-0001, RG 77, FRC; Port of Baltimore to Ms. Barbara Stratton, Planning Division, 

Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers, 22 February 1991, File 1110-2-1150a Planning 

& Development Correspondence—Disposal Measures, Box 4, Accession No. 077-03-

0001, RG 77, FRC.

37 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement: Wilmington Harbor Federal Navigation Project, Dredged Material Disposal 

Area,” April 1985, I, copy in Philadelphia District-Library.

38 W. H. Burton, J. S. Farrar, F. Steimle, and B. Conlin, “Assessment of Out-of-Kind 

Mitigation Success of An Artificial Reef Deployed in Delaware Bay, USA,” ICES Journal 

of Marine Science 59 (2002): S106.
Chapter 4 — Endnotes

182

39 See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Project Factsheet: 

Wilmington Harbor, New Castle County, DE, January 2010” <http://www.Philadelphia 

District.usace.army.mil/cePhiladelphia District-dp/projects/factsheets/DE/5OM_

Wilmington Harbor.pdf> (27 May 2010). This document explains that the Corps had 

contracted out dredging of Wilmington Harbor to the Norfolk Dredging Company.

40 Voigt personal communication.

41 “Partnering Effort Results in Extended Dredging Season,” The Observer (August 

1993): 1, 3.

42 “Palmyra Cove Effort Wins Over Skeptics,” The Observer (Winter 2007/2008): 

10–11.

43 “Palmyra Cove Effort Wins Over Skeptics,” The Observer (Winter 2007/2008): 

10–11.

44 Voigt personal communication.

45 Quotations in U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia, “Delaware River, Trenton 

to the Sea and Schuylkill River and Wilmington Harbor Tributaries, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, Delaware, Final Environmental Impact Statement,” Box 503, Philadelphia 

District-AR; see also U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Delaware 

River Main Channel Deepening Project” <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.

mil/cePhiladelphia District-pl/drmcdp/drmc.htm> (14 May 2010).

46 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 74–75. One source noted that 

Philadelphia was “the world’s largest freshwater port.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Philadelphia District, “Serving You,” File 1110-2-1150a Planning & Development 

Correspondence, Box 6 of 8, Accession No. 077-03-0002, RG 77, FRC.

47 Quotation in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Delaware 

River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Wilmington, Delaware: Interim Feasibility Study 

and Environmental Assessment,” June 1985, Syllabus, copy in Philadelphia DistrictLibrary; see also U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Delaware River 

Comprehensive Navigation Study, Main Channel Deepening: Final Interim Feasibility 

Report,” February 1992, Syllabus (hereafter referred to as “Final Interim Feasibility 

Report”), copy at Morgan Library, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

48 “Final Interim Feasibility Report,” Syllabus, 261–263.

49 Voigt personal communication; Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 

Stat. 4797).

50 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Delaware River Main Channel 

Deepening Project: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement,” July 1997, 

Syllabus, copy at Morgan Library, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

51 U.S. General Accounting Office, Delaware River Deepening Project: 

Comprehensive Reanalysis Needed (Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 

2002), 4; “Philadelphia District Project Update,” The Observer (August 1995): 10.

52 “Main Channel Deepening Draws Closer to Reality,” The Observer (November/

December 1999): 6.

53 Quotations in U.S. General Accounting Office, Delaware River Deepening Project, 

1–2; see also “Delaware Meetings Give Public a Closer Look at Main Channel, Bethany/

South Bethany Projects,” The Observer (May/June 1998): 4; Maraldo interview, 36.

54 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Delaware River Main Stem & 

Channel Deepening Project” <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/cePhiladelphia District-pl/drmcdp/drmc.htm> (14 May 2010); Voigt personal communication.

55 Quotations in “Main Channel Deepening Draws Closer to Reality,” The Observer

(November/December 1999): 6; see also Maraldo interview, 36–37. According to this 

report, the rest of the funding from nonfederal sponsors would come from the states 

of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.

56 U.S. General Accounting Office, Delaware River Deepening Project, 1–2.

57 U.S. General Accounting Office, Delaware River Deepening Project, 1–5.

58 See Maraldo interview, 37.

59 Quotations in “Comprehensive Economic Reanalysis of Delaware River Main 

Channel Deepening Project Finds Project to be Justified for Construction,” The 

Observer (November/December 2002): 4; see also U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Philadelphia District, North Atlantic Division, “Delaware River Main Channel Deepening 

Project (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware): Comprehensive Economic Reanalysis 

Report,” copy at <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/cePhiladelphia 

District-pl/drmcdp/reports/Final%20Main%20Report%20December%2016 %202002.

PDF> (18 May 2010).

60 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, North Atlantic Division, 

“Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and 

Delaware): Supplement to Comprehensive Economic Reanalysis Report, December 

2002,” February 2004, copy at <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/

cePhiladelphia District-pl/drmcdp/reports/February%202004%20Del%20Riv%20

Final%20Supplemental%20Report.pdf> (18 May 2010); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Headquarters, “Supplemental Report Confirms Economic Justification of Delaware 

River Deepening after Independent Review,” Release No. PA-04-03-19 <http://www.

Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/cePhiladelphia District-pl/drmcdp/nr.htm> (18 May 

2010).

61 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Delaware River Main Channel 

Deepening Project: LTC Brown’s Testimony, Delaware River Main Channel Deepening 

Project, State of Delaware Public Hearing, Dec. 4 and 5, 2001, Dover, Del.” <http://

www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/cePhiladelphia District-pl/drmcdp/brown.html> 

(5 May 2010).

62 “LTC Brown’s Testimony, Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project, State of 

Delaware Public Hearing, Dec. 4 and 5, 2001, Dover, Del.”

63 Quotation in “Corps and PRPA Sign Deepening Agreement,” The Observer

(Summer 2008): 4; see also “Philadelphia District’s Project Progress Report,” The 

Observer (Autumn 2007): 3. As some personnel in the district noted, New Jersey officials began to take issue with the fact that four additional disposal sites proposed for 

the project were all on their side of the river, even though that had been in the plan 

throughout most of the 1990s. This ultimately became a nonissue, since a significant 

decrease in dredged material estimates made additional sites unnecessary. Nevertheless, 

a rift in consensus was exposed. Subsequently New Jersey, and later Delaware, withdrew support for the project, leading to the Delaware River Port Authority’s rescission 

from the agreement. Voigt personal communication.

64 In September 2010, deepening was completed in “Reach C” of the channel (a 

13-mile stretch south of Wilmington, Delaware.). “Delaware River Deepening Gets in its 

First Digs at Last,” The Observer (Fall 2010): 6–8; Voigt personal communication.

65 Voigt personal communication.

66 See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “The Chesapeake & 

Delaware Canal” <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/sb/c&d.htm> (27 

May 2010); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, The Chesapeake 

& Delaware Canal (Philadelphia, Penn.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia 

District, 1974); Snyder and Guss, The District, 94–104.

67 As quoted in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “The 

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal—Baltimore Harbor Connecting Channels (Deepening) 

Delaware and Maryland, Reconnaissance Report,” February 1990, 1, File 1110-2-1150a 

Planning & Development Correspondence, Box 4, Accession No. 077-03-0001, RG 77, 

FRC [hereafter referred to as C&D Canal Deepening Reconnaissance Report].

68 C&D Canal Deepening Reconnaissance Report, 1, 106, 117–119, 156.

69 “Memorandum for Files,” 15 April 1992, revised 4 June 1992, attachment to 

Robert L. Callegari, Chief, Planning Division, to Mr. David B. Carter, Delaware Co[a]stal 

Management Program, Department of Environmental Resources and Environmental 

Control, n.d., File 1110-2-1150a Planning & Development Correspondence Folder 2, 

Box 4, Accession No. 077-03-0001, RG 77, FRC.

70 Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers, “Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal-Baltimore Harbor, Connecting Channels (Deepening) Delaware and 

Maryland: Draft Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement,” January 1996, 

1-1 – 1-2, File 1110-2-1150a Planning & Development Correspondence, Accruals FY00, 

Box 4 of 8, Accession No. 077-03-0002, RG 77, FRC.

71 Maraldo interview, 35.
Chapter 4 — Endnotes

183

72 “Chesapeake and Delaware Canal-Baltimore Harbor, Connecting Channels Draft 

Feasibility Report, Public Meeting, 9 July 1996,” 4, 11-13, File 1110-2-1150a Planning 

& Development Correspondence—D Canal Feas., Box 5 of 8, Accession No. 077-03-

0002, RG 77, FRC.

73 Jack Shagena, “Proposed Canal Changes Draw Fire,” The Cecil County Times, 15 

July 1996, copy in File Newspaper Articles Related to Public Meeting, C&D Canal Feas., 

Box 3 of 8, Accession No. 077-03-0002, RG 77, FRC.

74 Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3658); “Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal-Baltimore Harbor, Connecting Channels (Deepening), Delaware and 

Maryland: Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement,” File: 1110-2-1150a 

Planning & Development Correspondence, C&D Canal PED, Box 6 of 8, Accession No. 

077-03-0002, RG 77, FRC.

75 Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard, Chief of Engineers, to The Secretary of the 

Army, 23 December 1996, File C&D Canal Feas. Letters, Box 3 of 8, Accession No. 

077-03-0002, RG 77, FRC.

76 Quotation in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Design Phase 

Underway on Deepening Project,” C&D Update 1 (April 1998): 1–2; see also “C&D 

Canal Deepening Analysis: Shoreline Erosion Analysis,” draft, attachment to Richard J. 

Maraldo, Deputy District Engineer, Programs and Project Management, Memorandum 

Thru Commander, North Atlantic Division, 13 July 1999, File 1110-2-1150a Planning 

& Development Correspondence, C&D Canal PED, Box 6 of 8, Accession No. 077-03-

0002, RG 77, FRC; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Chesapeake 

& Delaware Canal-Baltimore Harbor Connecting Channels (Deepening), Delaware & 

Maryland: Hydrogeologic Report,” 1 November 1999, File 1110-2-1150a Planning & 

Development Correspondence, Hydrogeological Report Origins, 1 November 1999, Box 

5 of 8, Accession No. 077-03-0002, RG 77, FRC.

77 “Chesapeake and Delaware Canal-Baltimore Harbor Connecting Channels 

(Deepening), Delaware and Maryland, Preconstruction Engineering and Design Study 

Economic Reevaluation, Executive Summary,” June 1999, File 1110-2-1150a Planning & 

Development Correspondence, Debriefing to General Rhoads, 27 January 2000, Box 6 

of 8, Accession No. 077-03-0002, RG 77, FRC.

78 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Information Paper, Subject: 

Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D) Canal-Baltimore Harbor Connecting Channels 

(Deepening), Delaware and Maryland Preconstruction Engineering and Design Phase,” 

June 2000, File 1110-2-1150a Planning & Development Correspondence, Rhoads & 

NAD, 13 June 2000, Box 6 of 8, Accession No. 077-03-0002, RG 77, FRC. 

79 Ben Cardin and Steny H. Hoyer, et al. to The Honorable Joseph W. Westphal, 

Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 6 July 1999, File 1110-2-1150a 

Planning & Development Correspondence, C&D Canal PED, Box 6 of 8, Accession No. 

077-03-0002, RG 77, FRC.

80 Maraldo interview, 36.

81 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “The Chesapeake & Delaware 

Canal” <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/sb/c&d.htm> (27 May 2010).

82 “On the Front Page,” The Observer (August 1995): 2; “Renovations Completed at 

C&D Canal Museum,” The Observer (March 1996): 3. The museum was listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places in 1965.

83 Nathan Associates Inc., “C&D Canal Feasibility: Without-Project Condition 

Analysis,” November 1992, 5, File 1110-2-1150a Planning & Development 

Correspondence Folder 3, Box 4, Accession No. 077-03-0001, RG 77, FRC.

84 “The C&D: Where Progress Meets Preservation,” The Observer (December 1996): 

6; “The C&D Canal: A Waterway Landmark,” The Observer (Spring 2007): 13.

85 “Getting to Know C&D Canal Project Office,” The Observer (September/October 

2000): 10–11.

86 See Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 81–82; Calvarese interview, 8; 

“C&D Canal Reopens after 7-Day Closing,” The Observer (Summer 2001): 6–7. In the 

case of the bridge accident, the district was able to reopen the bridge in 50 days and 

the canal in 104 days. According to the Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 

“The total cost of repairs was $1.4 million, well below the government’s original estimate of $3.4 million, a savings accomplished through ingenuity of design and to a 

sense of urgency to complete the job quickly that was shared by both contractor and 

the District.” Because of this service, the Corps gave the district an Award of Merit “for 

distinguished design supervision of the repair project.”

87 Quotation in “On the Front Page,” The Observer (August 1995): 2; see also 

“New Highway Bridge Opens Over the C&D Canal,” The Observer (February 1996): 4; 

“Maintenance Keeps Summit Bridge in Top Form,” The Observer (September 1996): 

9; “Getting to Know C&D Canal Project Office,” The Observer (September/October 

2000): 11.

88 Voigt personal communication.
5
185

Concern about the 

environment grew to 

unprecedented heights 

in the United States during the 

1960s and 1970s. The growing 

influence of the environmental 

movement had a direct impact on 

the Philadelphia District, as the 

district assumed new responsibilities in response to these concerns. 

Since 1972, the district’s environmental work has been expanded 

to include regulatory and permitting operations; remediation of 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Superfund sites; other hazardous, toxic, and radiological 

waste cleanup operations, including 

EPA Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act projects and the 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action Program; and ecosystem restoration. Among these 

responsibilities, regulatory and 

Superfund work were the largest 

in terms of budget and number 

of personnel employed, while 

ecosystem restoration projects 

represent the district’s newest 

endeavor in the environmental 

arena. Most of these programs 

emerged in response to the flurry 

of environmental protection laws 

Congress enacted in the early to 

mid-1970s.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, 

Congress passed legislation aimed 

at protecting the environment 

that had an enormous impact on 

Corps of Engineers work around 

the country. One of the most 

important new laws, which altered 

Corps project planning and operations in general, was the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

of 1969, which President Richard 

Environmental Programs

Facing page: The Cooper River Fish 

Ladder in Camden County, N.J., winner of 

the Coastal America Award in 2001
186

Chapter 5

Nixon signed on January 1, 1970. 

One of the key features of the 

law was its requirement that 

federal agencies prepare environmental impact statements (EISs) 

whenever they conducted activities 

“significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment.” 

The EIS process required public 

input on proposed projects before 

officials made final decisions to 

implement them.

The advent of NEPA prompted 

the Philadelphia District to develop 

a new organizational framework 

to coordinate the district’s various 

realms of environmental work. In 

late 1971, the district created the 

Environmental Resources Branch 

in the Engineering Division to 

address environmental aspects 

of the Corps’ missions, including 

support to the Regulatory Branch. 

This branch was responsible 

for the environmental planning 

aspects of civil works studies and 

projects, in particular the NEPA 

environmental assessment process. 

When the branch was formed, 

there was already a sizable EIS 

backlog for both ongoing and 

new district projects; in time, 

the branch was staffed to meet 

this challenge. In “the high water 

days,” according to former branch 

chief John Burnes, there were as 

many fourteen employees.1

Although not as all-encompassing as NEPA, other new 

environmental laws of that era 

reshaped the district’s approach to 

project planning and implementation. Among the most notable 

were the National Estuarine 

Protection Act of 1968; the 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

of 1972; the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act 

of 1972; the Clean Water Act of 

1972; the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973; the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1974; and the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). 

Although not an environmental 

law, the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 also 

affected project planning to 

incorporate standards set by the 

secretary of the interior for the 

preservation of historic sites. Many 

of these laws led to the creation of 

new program areas and prompted 
187

Environmental Programs

the expansion of existing programs 

in the Philadelphia District.

Regulatory Branch 

Operations

Throughout the twentieth 

century, the Corps of Engineers 

was responsible for regulating 

the construction of water-control 

structures and for collecting and 

dumping dredged materials from 

the country’s navigable rivers and 

waterways, pursuant to Section 

10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act 

of 1899. Before 1972, the Corps 

worked within a narrow definition of navigable waters, which 

meant only those water bodies used 

to transport interstate or foreign 

commerce. Within the Philadelphia 

District, the staff of the Permits 

Section (forerunner of the 

Regulatory Branch) was responsible for evaluating applications 

for dumping or fill operations and 

issuing dredging permits for those 

activities. The Permits Section 

was part of the Engineering 

Branch until a 1968 reorganization moved it into the Navigation 

Wetlands under the jurisdiction of the 

Philadelphia District
188

Chapter 5

and Engineering Branch. At that 

time, five employees worked in 

the Permits Section, handling two 

to three hundred dredge and fill 

applications a year. Forty years 

later, the Regulatory Branch had 

approximately thirty staff members 

who reviewed and processed 

approximately 2,500 permit applications annually.2

By the late 1960s, environmental activism and legislative 

responses to environmental threats 

had begun to transform the 

operational stance of federal land 

management agencies, including 

the Corps. The first major shift 

occurred with a 1967 memorandum of agreement among the 

Army, the secretary of the interior, 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) that authorized the 

FWS to review Corps dredge and 

fill permits. In accordance with 

this agreement, the Corps’ central 

office regulatory staff established 

a new review policy that would 

assess each permit’s potential 

effects on the project environment.3

 Second, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals decided in Zabel v. 

Tabb that the Corps, because of 

its long-established authority to 

review waterway dredging and fill 

operations, could refuse to grant 

permits for dumping material if 

permitting staff determined that 

the projects would be harmful to 

water quality.4

 In response to these 

new responsibilities, the staff of 

the Philadelphia District’s Permits 

Section had grown from five to 

fifteen by 1972.5

But the expansion of the district’s regulatory and permitting 

functions was just beginning. 

In 1972, Congress enacted the 

Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act (subsequently called the Clean 

Water Act), which handed most 

of the responsibility for studying, 

restoring, and protecting the 

nation’s water quality to the newly 

created Environmental Protection 

Agency. However, Section 404 of 

the act mandated that the Corps 

would retain responsibility for permitting and monitoring dredging 

and dumping activities in state and 

federal waterways.6

For several years after the 

passage of the Clean Water Act, 

there was uncertainty about how 

the Corps would implement its 
189

Environmental Programs

responsibilities under the legislation. Internal debates in the Corps 

and lobbying by the dredging 

industry on one side and environmental groups on the other 

focused on what the term “waters 

of the United States” meant in 

the legislation.7

 For a time, the 

Corps continued to adhere to the 

strict definition of “navigable 

waters” that typically meant 

navigable rivers and shipping 

lanes only. But eventually the 

National Wildlife Federation and 

the National Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC) filed suit against 

the Department of the Army for 

failure to comply with the “intention of the Clean Water Act.”8

In 1975, the Federal District 

Court for Washington, D.C., heard 

the case National Resources 

Defense Council v. Callaway

and ruled that the Corps should 

employ a broader interpretation 

of “waters.” District Court Judge 

Aubrey Robinson ordered the 

Corps to “expand the coverage 

of the 404 program to include 

all waters that the Federal 

Government could constitutionally regulate under the commerce 

clause.”9

 Accordingly, Corps officials rewrote the permitting policy 

regarding dredge and fill materials, setting the Corps on a new 

jurisdictional course of protecting 

federal coastal waters, streams, 

lakes, ponds, and wetlands, in 

addition to its traditional role 

of regulating material deposits 

in navigable rivers and waterways. The Corps thus became 

the lead federal agency in the 

protection of wetlands, defined 

as “any area that (a) is periodically or permanently inundated 

by surface or ground water and 

(b) support[s] vegetation adapted 

for life in saturated soil.”10 This 

Wetlands areas such as this fell under 

the Corps’ jurisdiction after the decision 

in National Resources Defense 

Council v. Callaway
190

Chapter 5

broad definition included “not 

only swamps and marshes, but 

also many forests and meadows 

that are wet only during part of 

the year.”11

In 1977, amendments to the 

Clean Water Act clarified and 

strengthened the Corps’ role in 

the permitting and regulatory 

process. The amendments put 

more teeth in the Corps’ regulatory actions, providing the agency 

with “explicit authority to seek 

judicial sanctions against violators 

of 404 permits.” The Corps also 

worked with the EPA to identify 

and sanction contractors or individuals who discharged materials 

without a permit.12

Even before the district 

court handed down its decision 

in National Resources Defense 

Council v. Callaway, the 

Philadelphia District had begun 

preparing for the expected influx 

of new permit applications by 

making the Permitting Section into 

a full-fledged branch, renamed 

the Regulatory Branch in the mid1970s.13 Not only did the staff 

handle a greater number and 

broader range of permit applications, they had to conduct reviews 

in light of new environmental 

guidelines that the Corps and EPA 

had crafted in response to the 

Section 404 authorities. Among 

other things, the new guidelines 

gave the EPA the authority to veto 

Corps permit decisions.14 Frank 

Cianfrani, chief of the Regulatory 

Branch as of this writing, recalled 

how the district permitting 

program “grew geographically.” 

According to Cianfrani, “Our 

jurisdictional responsibilities grew 

immensely, from a rather small 

geographic area” encompassing 

navigable waterways to “essentially 

every aquatic area.”15 At the same 

time, the educational background 

Tidal wetlands along the Atlantic Coast 

of New Jersey
191

Environmental Programs

of personnel in the Regulatory 

Branch changed. Before the Clean 

Water Act, most of the Permitting 

Section staff were engineers; after 

implementation, according to 

Cianfrani, the “type of expertise 

that was required” to evaluate 

permit applications led to the 

hiring of more physical scientists 

and biologists. By 2009, Cianfrani 

and one of his section chiefs were 

the only engineers left among 

the thirty-two employees of the 

branch.16

The Corps’ permitting responsibilities continued to evolve 

throughout the 1970s, making 

the administration of the program 

“much more complex” than it had 

been in the past. Section 404, for 

example, required coordination 

with the FWS and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service in the 

permitting process, emphasizing 

that the Corps “must consider the 

effect of its permit decisions on 

fish and wildlife.”17 Meanwhile, 

another piece of environmental 

legislation—the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 

1972—gave the Corps responsibility for issuing and enforcing 

permits for the dredging industry 

and government agencies to 

dump dredged material into the 

ocean. Section 103 of the Marine 

Protection Act authorized the 

Corps to assume regulatory tasks 

similar to its tasks under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act, 

except that Section 103 jurisdiction encompassed the open ocean 

beyond the “low water line,” while 

Section 404 pertained to the salt 

and fresh waters above that line.18

The Regulatory Branch demonstrated flexibility as it adhered to 

other federal statutes, most notably 

the Endangered Species Act 

and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Cianfrani 

explained that “those particular 

acts require us . . . to ensure that 

what we’re allowing is consistent 

with those laws” and in keeping 

with the “public interest.”19

Because of the complexity of 

the permit review process, the 

Regulatory Branch, although 

a “small part of the District’s 

overall mission, . . . consumed a 

very big portion of our time just 

because permitting issues were so 

public, and we had a lot of public 
192

Chapter 5

hearings and a lot of debates, and 

a lot of alternatives” to consider.20

According to Cianfrani, the public 

interest review was the “keystone” 

of the district’s permitting process, 

as it forced the Corps to consider 

an ever-increasing range of potential effects, whether in terms of air 

quality, noise issues, or “the impact 

on [the] aquatic environment.”21

The district’s permit application and review process typically 

unfolded in three steps. First, the 

project manager would hold one 

or more preapplication consultation meetings with the applicant, 

other federal and state resource 

management officials (such as the 

EPA, FWS, or state departments 

overseeing environmental quality), 

and local citizens who might have 

a stake in the project. The meetings 

were designed to expedite the 

permitting process by allowing 

applicants to adjust their requests 

to avoid potential conflicts that 

could hold up the process once the 

formal review was under way.22

In the next step, a contractor or 

individual would submit a permit 

application to the Regulatory 

Branch for review. A Corps project 

manager would guide the permit 

through additional steps: posting 

a public notice of the proposed 

action, assessing the project’s 

potential effects on the environment and the local economy, and 

preparing a decision document 

approving or denying the permit. 

To make the final decision (the 

third step of the permitting 

process), the project manager, with 

the assistance of other federal and 

state agencies, evaluated how the 

project would affect “conservation, 

economics, commerce, cultural 

values and any other factors considered in the public interest.”23

When the evaluation was completed, the district engineer made 

the formal decision of acceptance 

or denial.

In 1972, the Philadelphia 

District denied a permit application to fill wetlands in a project 

known as Loveladies Harbor. This 

rejection became a test case for the 

Corps’ new Section 404 authorities under the Clean Water Act. 

In 1958, a development group 

called Loveladies Harbor Inc. 

purchased 250 acres of land for 

residential and commercial real 
193

Environmental Programs

estate development that included 

some sections of wetlands on Long 

Beach Island. During the 1960s, 

the company developed 199 of 

the 250 acres, filling some of the 

wetlands in the process. Because 

the Clean Water Act did not exist 

at the time, the company did not 

have to obtain a permit for the 

filled parcels. But in 1972, when 

Loveladies Harbor applied for 

a permit to fill and develop the 

remaining fifty-one acres of its 

property, it encountered the new 

requirements to file for a permit 

with the Corps of Engineers.

Loveladies first applied to the 

state of New Jersey for the requisite dredge and fill permits, but 

the state refused to grant them. 

After Loveladies sued the state, the 

two sides compromised, allowing 

Loveladies to develop 12.5 acres 

of the property in exchange for 

an agreement to preserve the 

remaining 38.5 acres under a conservation easement. Loveladies 

then applied to the Corps for the 

necessary federal dredge and fill 

permits. At that point, New Jersey 

officials reversed their decision on 

the compromise and decided to 

oppose the permits. Accordingly, 

the Philadelphia District denied the 

permit applications in May 1982.24

Loveladies sued the Corps in 

Federal District Court to reverse 

the decision, but the judge upheld 

it in 1984. In the meantime, the 

company filed a suit in the Court 

of Federal Claims, seeking damage 

payments from the federal government for the projected loss 

of income from the undeveloped 

property. In 1990, the Court of 

Claims awarded $2,658,000 plus 

interest to Loveladies as compensation for the potential income lost 

as a result of the permit denial. 

In essence, the court ordered the 

Aerial view of Loveladies Harbor
194

Chapter 5

government to purchase the 12.5 

acres from Loveladies, because the 

permit denial had amounted to 

a federal “taking” of the private 

land. The government appealed 

the decision in the Federal Circuit 

Court of Appeals, embroiling the 

Corps legal staff in hearings, trials, 

and findings. Finally, in 1994, the 

Circuit Court ruled in favor of 

Loveladies. It ordered the government to purchase the property and 

denied a Corps request for additional hearings.25

In these court cases, the 

question of property rights and 

“takings doctrine” had overshadowed the original issue of permit 

denial because of the adverse effect 

it would have on the wetlands. 

However, the Federal Court of 

Appeals ruling did not overturn 

the district’s decision to deny 

the permit. The court explicitly 

stated that its ruling in favor of 

Loveladies did not preempt the 

Corps’ Section 404 authorities. 

“What is not at issue,” the court 

stated, “is whether the Government 

can lawfully prevent a property 

owner from filling or otherwise injuring or destroying vital 

wetlands.” According to the court, 

“The importance of preserving the 

environment, the authority of state 

and federal governments to protect 

and preserve ecologically significant areas, whether privately or 

publicly held, through appropriate 

regulatory mechanisms is not here 

being questioned.” The court said 

it upheld the takings decision 

because “the cost of obtaining that 

public benefit” (meaning the protection of wetlands), should not 

“fall solely on the affected property 

owner.”26

Although legal proceedings 

affirmed the Corps’ Section 404 

authorities, the appeals court 

decision in Loveladies Harbor v. 

U.S. nonetheless altered the Corps’ 

Section 404 permitting procedures. 

As Cianfrani reported, “When that 

case was decided, it had a ripple 

effect across the country with [the] 

regulatory program.” Because of 

the Loveladies decision, he said, 

“Any time we deny a permit we 

have to do what is known as a 

taking analysis.” That analysis 

“doesn’t alter the decision,” he 

explained, but it had to be done 

to see “whether there’s a potential 
195

Environmental Programs

for that to occur.”27 In essence, the 

decision meant that the permitting 

process would require more time, 

labor, and analysis to complete.

In the 1980s, a permit 

decision regarding the extension of 

Interstate 476, known as the “Blue 

Route,” became another highprofile project for the Regulatory 

Branch. Permitting for road construction projects was almost 

always time-consuming. Because of 

their linear nature, roads affected 

large areas that could contain 

multiple ecosystems that required 

evaluation. These difficulties were 

compounded by additional factors 

in the Blue Route permit, including 

the fact that the road had already 

been “a very contentious project 

for many, many years before it 

even came to the Corps.”28 The 

original planning for an interstate highway to connect I-95, 

the primary north-south highway 

along the eastern seaboard, with 

the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the 

state’s main east-west thoroughfare, began in the late 1950s. The 

three proposed corridors were color 

coded; in 1963, the U.S. Bureau 

of Public Roads selected the Blue 

Route as the best alternative, primarily because it “provided the 

most traffic relief and least community disruption among the three 

alternatives.”29 As with Loveladies 

Harbor, the project began before 

passage of the Clean Water Act; 

and although the Pennsylvania 

Department of Transportation 

(PennDOT) completed construction 

The “Blue Route,” Interstate 476, at its 

southern terminus with Interstate 95
196

Chapter 5

of a portion of the interstate in the 

1960s, a section of the corridor 

in Delaware and Montgomery 

counties remained unfinished 

into the 1970s. That portion had 

to meet NEPA environmental 

guidelines before it could be completed. Among other things, NEPA 

required PennDOT to complete an 

EIS detailing the potential effects 

of the project on the natural and 

human habitats within or adjacent 

to the right-of-way.30

Just as PennDOT completed 

the final EIS in 1978 and prepared 

to resume construction on the 

unfinished portion of the highway, 

a collection of local residents, 

community organizations, and 

representatives of a private college 

along the planned route sued 

the state to block construction. 

Opponents of the road argued that 

the EIS failed to take into account 

noise and other effects of the interstate highway. Although the noise 

issue and the overall thoroughness 

of the environmental assessment 

remained central aspects of what 

became a decades-long conflict, the 

real issue, according to Cianfrani, 

was that the groups “just didn’t 

want this highway running through 

[their] very exclusive areas,” 

increasing the potential for development in those locations.31 In 

August 1982, the Federal District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania ruled in favor of the 

plaintiffs and ordered a halt to all 

construction work on one section 

of the route until PennDOT submitted “a supplemental EIS and 

a more thorough analysis” of the 

project’s environmental impacts. 

When the two sides resolved 

the lawsuit, PennDOT applied 

for a permit from the Corps of 

Engineers to complete the project. 

This set off another lengthy and 

litigious process, this time with 

the Philadelphia District, which 

was at the center of the maelstrom. When District Engineer 

Lt. Col. G. William Quinby finally 

issued a permit for construction in 

November 1987, many of the same 

parties involved in the earlier legal 

proceedings sued the Corps and 

PennDOT. In this lawsuit, the court 

did not “question whether or not 

the decision” to deny the permit 

was “right or wrong.” Instead, it 

“questioned whether or not the 
197

Environmental Programs

process was followed,” ultimately 

determining that the district was 

correct in issuing the permit.32

With that decision, the remainder 

of the Blue Route was finally built.

In addition to issuing permits 

for construction by outside 

agencies, the Regulatory Branch 

periodically had to issue permits 

to the Philadelphia District itself, 

most often for dredging operations. 

For example, when the district 

needed to dredge Wilmington 

(Delaware) Harbor, it had to apply 

for a Section 404 permit to build a 

new disposal area for the dredged 

material. In that situation, as one 

district employee noted, “We had 

to permit ourselves.”33

By the early 1990s, the 

Regulatory Branch had expanded 

to three sections and added two 

field offices. In 1989, the district 

opened the Pocono Field Office 

in Tobyhanna, Pa., to monitor 

permits for the northeastern corner 

of Pennsylvania and three counties 

in northwestern New Jersey. The 

second field office, in Dover, Del., 

opened in May 1992, to serve the 

area south of the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal and the Delaware 

counties of New Castle and Kent. 

Dover Field Office staff performed 

“wetland delineations, surveillance 

and enforcement of permitted 

and non-permitted activities in 

federally-regulated waterways 

and wetlands.”34 Both field offices 

operated with small staffs (two or 

three employees) and functioned 

as “extensions of [the] Surveillance 

and Enforcement Section, although 

they also engage in some wetland 

jurisdictional determinations and 

other Regulatory matters.”35

At times, the district’s permitting process, as with the Corps 

in general, came under criticism 

from environmental groups that 

Motorists travel the completed 

“Blue Route” around the west side of 

Philadelphia—Its construction involved 

one of the district’s largest permit 

actions to date
198

Chapter 5

contended that the Corps did not 

take adequate steps to protect 

wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems in the United States. 

Environmental organizations 

protested that the Philadelphia 

District’s Regulatory Branch had, 

on occasion, “rubber stamped” 

permit approvals for construction projects. In the late 1990s, for 

instance, opponents of PennDOT’s 

plans to reroute Route 220/

Highway 99 over Bald Eagle 

Mountain and make it a fourlane highway contended that the 

district had “blown off” FWS’s 

appeal of the permit decision. 

Conservation groups argued 

that an alternative route closer 

to the old highway would create 

less environmental damage to 

wetlands and would require less 

mitigation.36 The decision put 

the district in the political spotlight, because Congressman E. G. 

“Bud” Shuster (R-Pa.), influential 

chair of the House Transportation 

Committee, had pushed PennDOT 

to situate the route over Bald 

Eagle Mountain when he obtained 

federal funding for the project via 

a legislative rider to an enormous 

transportation appropriations 

bill.37 Eventually, an alliance of 

environmental and sports-enthusiast groups sued the Corps, the 

Federal Highway Administration, 

and PennDOT to have the permit 

revoked.

According to the local branch 

of the Sierra Club, the plaintiffs 

argued that the Corps’ decision 

to issue the permit for Route 

220 expansion over Bald Eagle 

Mountain violated the Clean Water 

Act by issuing a permit “approving 

this ridge route despite the existence of a feasible alternative 

route through Bald Eagle Valley 

. . . that would cause less damage 

to wetlands and streams.”38 The 

court eventually dismissed the suit 

against PennDOT and the Corps, 

allowing the permit decision to 

stand and the road project to go 

forward. The contentious Route 

220 permit decision revealed the 

complex issues the Regulatory 

Branch often faced in reviewing 

permit applications and the criticism that could follow. In many 

ways, the branch faced a “damned 

if you do, damned if you don’t” 

situation in issuing permits. If it 
199

Environmental Programs

granted permits for construction, 

environmental and local interest 

groups often expressed opposition; 

if it denied permits, land developers and the business community 

were likely to object.

In the early 1980s, Regulatory 

Branch staff had faced a similarly 

contentious permitting process 

regarding the Point Pleasant 

Water Diversion Project in Bucks 

County, Pa. The Neshaminy Water 

Resources Authority, representing 

residential and commercial water 

users in Bucks and Montgomery 

counties, applied for a permit to 

build a water intake structure 

and pumping station that would 

divert water from the Delaware 

River at a location called Point 

Pleasant. The Point Pleasant 

system would provide ninety-five 

million gallons of water a day to 

residential and business customers 

in Bucks County, including the 

Philadelphia Electric Company’s 

Limerick nuclear power plant. 

Cianfrani noted that it became “an 

example of how a project that on 

the surface didn’t look like a big 

deal to us . . . was like dynamite to 

the local residents.” Local homeowners protested that increasing 

the available water supply 

would spur development of what 

Cianfrani called “a very pristine 

The Delaware River at Point Pleasant, 

Pa., where homeowners staunchly 

opposed the proposed water 

diversion project
200

Chapter 5

area” and that the resulting commercial and housing developments 

would “change their whole way of 

life.” Environmental activists from 

around the region, claiming that 

the project would cause irreparable ecological damage, joined 

local residents in resisting project 

construction for the better part of 

a decade. As a result, a permit for 

what the district initially viewed 

as “just a little pipe [with] . . . no 

impact in terms of the Delaware 

River, . . . turned out to be a very, 

very controversial, very contentious 

permit application.”39

As the permitting process went 

forward, a number of other issues 

surfaced, including the potential 

detrimental effect the pumping 

station would have on the river’s 

short-nose sturgeon population, 

the possibility that noise from the 

pumping station would degrade 

the recreation experience of river 

users, and claims that tubers might 

get “sucked into” the water intake 

pipe. The proposed project became 

a high-profile target for local 

legislators, political activists, and 

the news media. Regulatory staff 

became aware of just how highprofile the project had become 

when the district held a public 

hearing on the project. According 

to Cianfrani, “We were anticipating 

a couple hundred people,” but 

“over a thousand people showed 

up.” Although the meeting “came 

off pretty well,” it was a harbinger 

of the volatile protests that would 

follow.40

After reviewing the extensive 

public comments and investigating the potential effects on 

area resources, including historic 

resources along the Delaware 

Canal, the Regulatory Branch 

issued a permit for construction 

of the water intake and pumping 

The short-nose sturgeon 

(SOURCE: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
201

Environmental Programs

plant in October 1982. Project 

opponents then turned to other 

means to halt the water diversion. Following a countywide 

referendum on the water supply 

plant in May 1983, the Bucks 

County Commissioners announced 

that they were terminating the 

water sales agreement with the 

Neshaminy Water Supply System 

and withdrawing their approval 

of the Point Pleasant construction 

contract.41 In June 1983, attorneys representing a coalition of 

environmentalists opposed to the 

water project wrote to Philadelphia 

District Engineer Lt. Col. Roger 

Baldwin to request that the district 

revoke the Point Pleasant permit, 

citing the court-ordered work 

stoppage at one of the nuclear 

power plants targeted to receive 

water from the Point Pleasant 

supply and a recent mudflow 

caused by slope erosion near the 

construction site.42 Regulatory 

Branch staff reviewed the letter but 

saw no reason rescind the permit 

or halt construction.43

After that, project opponents 

moved the battle to the state 

courts and to demonstrations at 

the pumping station site, where 

hundreds of protesters were 

arrested between 1983 and 1987.44

In early 1987, the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Resources reissued Point Pleasant 

construction permits, and the 

state Supreme Court ordered 

construction of the water intake 

system to resume. After some additional delays owing to delinquent 

payments and protests at the site, 

construction recommenced and the 

Point Pleasant water supply system 

became operational in the summer 

of 1988.45

In addition to issuing permits, 

the Regulatory Branch’s mission 

under the Section 404 authorities included enforcing permit 

rules and responding to regulatory violations. The Surveillance 

and Enforcement Section of the 

Regulatory Branch monitored 

permits, assessed possible violations, and issued penalties. This 

establishment of a separate section 

that focused on compliance was 

unusual in the Corps, but the 

district did not want enforcement 

to play “second fiddle” to permitting. As Cianfrani explained, “If 
202

Chapter 5

you don’t have a separate enforcement section . . . your enforcement 

and your surveillance would 

suffer.”46

Consequences for disregarding permit regulations—or 

for engaging in dredging and 

dumping without a permit—took 

a variety of forms, including fines 

up to $25,000, larger compensatory donations to conservation 

organizations or communities, 

and mitigation to offset damages 

incurred at the original project site. 

In 2007, for example, the Cutler 

Group, a residential developer in 

Montgomery County, Pa., failed to 

follow the terms of its permit when 

it began work on a housing project 

before it had obtained approvals 

of deed restrictions that would 

prevent disruption of wetlands near 

the construction site. To resolve 

the regulatory violation, the Cutler 

Group negotiated with the district 

and agreed to donate $70,000 to 

the nonprofit Montgomery County 

Lands Trust to support wetlands 

protection work in that area.47

In another case, a more serious 

violation resulted in a much 

larger negotiated settlement. In 

The historic Delaware Canal, Bucks 

County, Pa.
203

Environmental Programs

2000, the Columbia Transmission 

Communications Corporation 

agreed to donate $1.2 million to 

the local branch of the Nature 

Conservancy as recompense for 

federal regulatory violations during 

the company’s construction of a 

right-of-way for new communications lines in Pennsylvania’s 

Chester, Bucks, and Montgomery 

counties. Faulty construction 

management resulted in the 

unauthorized deposition of mud 

and debris into forty separate 

wetland sites that were designated as potential habitat for an 

endangered species, the bog turtle. 

Barry Gale, an attorney for the 

district, called it “one of the most 

serious violations we’ve ever had 

in the Philadelphia District from 

the standpoint of the number 

of violations and the potential for environmental harm.”48

Accordingly, the settlement amount 

was also “significantly greater” 

than the usual regulatory penalties; 

the corporation agreed to pay it to 

avoid prosecution. As part of the 

settlement, Columbia agreed to hire 

“endangered-species specialists” to 

identify sensitive and/or protected 

habitats and to include an environmental manager at its construction 

sites to ensure that no other violations occurred.49 The Nature 

Conservancy used the sizable 

donation to purchase and preserve 

additional bog turtle habitat in 

southeastern Pennsylvania.

Not all violators were 

private developers. In 1992, the 

Regulatory Branch issued a citation 

to the city of Philadelphia for 

dumping dredged material from 

the Delaware River at Fort Mifflin, 

a violation of Section 301 of the 

Clean Water Act, which pertained 

to the dumping of fill material 

on federally owned wetlands. The 

The bog turtle 

(SOURCE: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
204

Chapter 5

district issued a cease and desist 

order in March 1992 and negotiated a settlement to mitigate the 

damages. Instead of a monetary 

settlement, the city hired an environmental engineering firm to 

design methods to remove the fill 

and restore the site. The city completed the removal phase, at an 

estimated cost of $40,000, in the 

fall of 1992, and finished the restoration work in 1993.50

As the Regulatory Branch 

evolved, it settled into a unique 

place in the district organization. 

According to Cianfrani, the branch 

“probably ha[d] the most public 

interface on a day-to-day basis 

of any organization within the 

Corps of Engineers and certainly 

at the district level.” Because of 

the high-profile, public nature 

of the permitting process, the 

branch and three section chiefs 

had to maintain communication 

with the Public Affairs Office 

and the District Engineer. The 

Regulatory Branch also worked 

closely with a number of other 

district divisions and branches. For 

example, regulatory staff consulted 

with the Engineering Division 

when a permit review required 

“special engineering expertise, 

such as groundwater information or hydrology.”51 And when 

a permit application involved 

federal property, they dealt with 

the Baltimore District’s Real Estate 

Division, which was responsible 

for real estate matters in the 

Philadelphia District.

Delineating wetlands for a Jurisdiction 

Determination (JD)
205

Environmental Programs

Despite the heavy and complicated regulatory workload, 

the district proved itself to be 

highly efficient in handling permitting responsibilities. A 1999 

statistical survey revealed that the 

Philadelphia District completed 99 

percent of all permit actions within 

the mandated sixty-day period, 

compared with a Corps-wide 

completion rate of 94 percent. The 

Philadelphia District’s Regulatory 

Branch processed individual 

permits in an average of fifty-three 

days, compared with seventy-four 

days across all Corps districts.52

Because branch personnel worked 

closely with applicants and other 

agencies throughout the permitting 

process, the district typically denied 

only a small percentage (roughly 3 

percent) of applications.53

Hazardous, Toxic, and 

Radioactive Waste 

Remediation

After the regulatory arena, 

the Philadelphia District’s second 

largest area of environmental 

responsibilities encompassed 

work with the EPA in cleaning up 

industrial sites contaminated by 

hazardous and toxic waste. The 

district’s environmental remediation activities were in three 

categories: (1) Superfund cleanup 

project support for EPA Region 2; 

(2) all other hazardous and toxic 

waste cleanup work in support of 

EPA and other federal agencies; 

and (3) work under the auspices of 

the Corps’ Formerly Utilized Sites 

Remedial Action Program. 

Superfund work was by far 

the largest area in terms of the 

number of personnel and the size 

of budgets involved. According 

to retired program chief John 

Bartholomeo, when the district’s 

Superfund program was “in full 

swing” during the late 1980s and 

Remediation at the Bridgeport 

Rental & Oil Services Superfund Site, 

Bridgeport, N.J.
206

Chapter 5

1990s, the district received roughly 

one-third of all the funding EPA 

had earmarked for the entire Corps 

of Engineers.54 (The district’s role 

in the Superfund program and 

other remediation projects for 

EPA is discussed at length in conjunction with its work for other 

agencies in Chapter Nine.)

Another element of the 

Philadelphia District’s environmental cleanup program was the 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action Program (FUSRAP). 

Created in 1974 by the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE), the 

program was aimed at studying 

and cleaning up former atomic 

energy program sites contaminated 

by radiological elements, primarily 

uranium, thorium, and radium. 

Although the majority of FUSRAP 

locations were cleaned up and 

decontaminated when they closed, 

subsequent research revealed 

that even low-level radiological 

contamination posed hazards to 

the public. In addition, Congress 

created much stricter environmental guidelines for removal 

and disposal of radiologic contaminants. With the passage of the 

Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act for fiscal 

year 1998, Congress transferred 

FUSRAP cleanup work from DOE 

to the Corps.55 The Philadelphia 

District became one of seven Corps 

districts to participate in these 

cleanup activities.56 Unique among 

the district’s environmental remediation efforts, its FUSRAP project 

was funded not through reimbursement from another agency but 

directly under the auspices of the 

Corps’ Civil Works program.

As with the district’s Superfund 

program, Corps staff members 

who planned and oversaw cleanup 

work at FUSRAP sites had to 

follow the guidelines established 

in CERCLA, in coordination with 

the EPA. DOE also had a role in 

the process—it maintained administrative responsibility for the 

property and determined which 

sites were eligible for federal 

cleanup. A memorandum of understanding with DOE allowed the 

Corps to take on the study and 

cleanup work at FUSRAP sites. 

The Philadelphia District’s primary 

FUSRAP project was located 

entirely within the 1,455-acre 
207

Environmental Programs

DuPont Chambers Works complex 

in Deepwater, N.J., home to 

an active chemical manufacturing facility of E. I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Company.57

According to Philadelphia 

District personnel, “Operations 

involving uranium processing 

began at DuPont Chambers Works 

in 1942.” The plant was responsible for “convert[ing] uranium 

oxide to uranium tetrafluoride 

and small quantities of uranium 

metal.” In 1948 and 1949, the 

Atomic Energy Commission “conducted radiological surveys and 

decontamination of the building 

surfaces,” then transferred the 

buildings back to DuPont.58

However, a 1977 radiological 

survey revealed that concentrations of uranium were present 

at the DuPont site, leading to 

its inclusion in the FUSRAP 

program in 1980. Testing by DOE 

in 1983 identified six locations 

within the DuPont property that 

showed evidence of elevated soil 

or structural contamination.59 In 

addition to uranium and uranium 

byproduct, studies revealed 

chemical contamination, the most 

hazardous of which was tetraethyl 

lead in “soil vapor.”60

In October 1998, the 

Philadelphia District signed a 

general release agreement with 

DuPont Corporation, clearing the 

way to begin work at the Chambers 

Works site.61 Later that year, the 

district team performed its first 

work, supervising the removal of 

nine drums of waste and forty 

bags of protective gear stored in 

one of the contaminated buildings. 

DuPont demolished the building 

in 1999, and the Corps’ contractor 

removed and transported all the 

structural steel to a Texas disposal 

facility.62 The DuPont FUSRAP 

project team members completed 

The DuPont Chambers Works complex, 

site of the District’s FUSRAP project
208

Chapter 5

the first elements of the remedial 

investigation—a geophysical survey, 

walkover surveys, and aerial 

photography—during the summer 

of 2002.63 Remedial investigation 

reports for two of the three areas of 

concern were completed in 2003, 

and the first round of investigations 

at the third area began in 2004.64

Following completion of 

remedial investigation and risk 

assessment reports in 2008, work 

began on a site feasibility study 

and cleanup plan.65 The investigation and risk assessment at the 

DuPont site consisted of “a combination of on-site direct radiation 

measurements using handheld 

radiation detectors, on-site laboratory sample analyses, and off-site 

laboratory sample analyses.” 

Remedial investigation and risk 

assessment activities also included 

removing the uranium-contaminated soil and disposing of it at 

a designated repository on the 

site. During that process, DuPont 

researchers collected samples of 

contaminated soil and provided 

the material to representatives of 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory “to 

evaluate radiological concerns.”66

At the end of the project, 

Philadelphia District staff would 

identify the most appropriate 

offsite storage facility for disposal 

of all solid contaminated material, 

which included soil samples, disposable sampling equipment, and 

personal protective gear worn 

during the investigations.

At this point, the district 

engaged the technical assistance 

of the Baltimore District, which 

housed the Hazardous, Toxic, 

and Radioactive Waste Center of 

Expertise for the Corps’ North 

Atlantic Division. The Philadelphia 

and Baltimore districts were joint 

participants in preparing the 

remedial investigation report, with 

Philadelphia maintaining project 

management responsibilities. Joint 

operations involving two or more 

Corps districts were somewhat 

unusual, but not unheard of for 

EPA cleanup work. Philadelphia 

District staff served as members of 

the project technical/design team, 

as groundwater modeling specialists, and also provided Geographic 

Information System (GIS) support. 

Other key project partners were 

EPA Region 2, the New Jersey 
209

Environmental Programs

Department of Environmental 

Protection, DuPont, and the prime 

contractor.67

Representatives of the participating agencies, companies, and 

members of the local communities 

established a Restoration Advisory 

Board for the DuPont FUSRAP 

project. Board meetings to discuss 

cleanup/restoration progress took 

place at regular intervals and were 

always open to the public “as a 

forum for community input on 

restoration issues” and a venue to 

“provide accurate information” 

regarding the cleanup.68 Richard 

Maraldo, former deputy district 

engineer for programs and project 

management, explained that the 

public meetings and frequent 

progress updates were particularly 

important for the work at DuPont 

because people in the local communities were, not surprisingly, 

quite concerned about the risks 

involved in removing and transporting radioactive materials.69

In part to address this concern, 

the Philadelphia District would 

continue to monitor the site for 

possible groundwater contamination after the project was complete.

Ecosystem 

Restoration

Much of the district’s environmental program involved either 

permit regulation or environmental 

cleanup, but another aspect was 

restoring damaged ecosystems to 

states of health. This ecosystem 

restoration work, which began in 

the 1990s, was a new endeavor 

in the environmental arena. But 

although it was a relatively new 

realm for the Corps, it quickly 

became a prominent aspect of 

the Corps’ Civil Works program. 

By 2005, according to a Corps 

policy statement, ecosystem restoration—defined as a “return of 

natural areas or ecosystems to a 

close approximation of their conditions prior to disturbance”—had 

become “a primary mission of the 

Corps’ Civil Works program.”70

Philadelphia District staff quickly 

adapted their knowledge and 

expertise to overseeing successful 

species and ecosystem restoration projects, including four that 

won presidential Coastal America 

awards given to ventures that 

demonstrated “extraordinary partnerships that enhance the coastal 
210

Chapter 5

environment.”71 Between 2001 and 

2008, the White House bestowed 

Coastal America awards for the 

district’s Delaware Bay Oyster 

Restoration, Cuddebackville Dam 

Removal, Batsto Fish Ladder, and 

Cooper River Fish Ladder projects.

Nationwide, Corps of Engineers 

involvement in restoration projects 

dated to the National Estuarine 

Protection Act of 1968, which gave 

FWS the authority to survey and 

develop plans for the Corps to 

implement to protect and restore 

coastal estuaries. The Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972 and the 

Water Resources Development 

Act of 1974 provided additional 

authorities for the Corps to engage 

in environmental projects aimed 

at restoring particular populations 

or entire ecosystems. However, the 

Corps engaged in little ecosystem 

restoration work until the late 

1980s and early 1990s, when the 

idea began to gain larger credence 

nationally.

In response to the nation’s 

concerns about the necessity for 

ecosystem restoration in certain 

locations, such as the Everglades 

in Florida, Congress passed laws 

The District joined with its partners 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection in October 

2005 to receive the Coastal America 

Award for the Batsto River Fish 

Ladder Project
211

Environmental Programs

giving the Corps the authority 

to conduct such projects. These 

laws included a series of Water 

Resources Development Acts from 

1996 to 2000 that made environmental protection, the beneficial 

use of dredged material, creation 

of wildlife habitats, and ecosystem 

restoration significant components of Corps work. Under the 

Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992, Congress also gave the 

Corps, as part of its Continuing 

Authorities Program (CAP), 

authority to protect, restore, and 

create aquatic and ecological 

habitats in connection with 

federal navigation projects. If 

these projects did not exceed $15 

million, the Corps could complete 

them without specific congressional 

authorization.72 In 2000, Congress 

passed the Estuaries and Clean 

Waters Act, which provided direction for the Corps in undertaking 

and performing estuarine restoration projects.73 To provide guidance 

on how these authorities were 

to be used, Corps Headquarters 

published Engineer Regulation 

1165-2-501 in September 1999. 

According to this regulation, there 

were two different types of environmental restoration projects: 

environmental restoration studies 

and actual “study, design, and 

implementation of environmental 

projects.”74

With these authorities and regulations, the Philadelphia District 

conducted several ecosystem restoration projects in the 1990s 

and 2000s. One project—Lower 

Cape May Meadows and Cape 

May Point—became the showpiece 

of the district’s restoration work 

and illustrated the success of the 

Corps’ new emphasis on ecosystem 

restoration throughout the United 

States. The project embraced about 

350 acres of shoreline, dunes, and 

marshland at the far southern tip 

of New Jersey. The western half of 

the Meadows was part of Cape May 

Point State Park, while the eastern 

half encompassed the Nature 

Conservancy’s Cape May Meadows 

Migratory Bird Refuge.

The project had its genesis in 

the New Jersey Shore Protection 

Study of the 1990s, emerging 

via interim feasibility study 

as the southernmost of seven 

coastal projects recommended for 
212

Chapter 5

construction. But unlike the others 

(and unique among Corps beach 

nourishment projects around the 

nation), it had a dual purpose: 

aquatic ecosystem restoration in 

the Meadows and coastal storm 

damage reduction for the adjacent 

borough of Cape May Point. 

To complete this project, the 

Philadelphia District partnered 

with the New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection (the 

nonfederal sponsor) and the city 

of Cape May, Cape May County, 

the Nature Conservancy, and the 

towns of Cape May Point and West 

Cape May.75

Cape May and the surrounding 

vicinity was a popular recreational 

destination for the millions of 

Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New 

Jersey residents who lived within 

thirty miles of the cape. Lower 

Cape May Meadows was considered a natural area of national 

and global significance, because it 

contained a sizable wetland astride 

the Atlantic flyway that migratory birds traveled between North 

and South America. The wetland 

also served as breeding grounds 

for several endangered species, 

including the piping plover. 

Lower Cape May Meadows had 

received recognition for the environmental values found there; the 

area was included in the Western 

Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network and on the Ramsar 

List of Wetlands of International 

Importance.76

The piping plover 

(SOURCE: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

The erosion-threatened Lower Cape 

May Meadows, N.J., before beach 

nourishment
213

Environmental Programs

The problems at Cape May 

Meadows were both of natural 

origin and caused by humans. 

Cape May had always been vulnerable to erosion because of its 

extension into the Delaware Bay 

on one side and the Atlantic Ocean 

on the other, with no island barrier 

or peninsula to block the paths 

of Atlantic storms and hurricanes 

moving up the eastern seaboard. 

However, erosion was also facilitated by the construction of the 

Cape May Inlet Federal Navigation 

Project in 1911. Over time, both 

of these factors reduced the width 

of the beach and the size of the 

dunes, leaving Cape May Meadows 

even more vulnerable to storm 

damage.77 Between 1936 and 1998, 

more than 1,000 feet of Cape May 

Meadows shoreline had eroded. A 

Corps project feasibility study estimated that if no action was taken, 

half of the entire Meadows area 

would disappear by 2050 and the 

remainder would be inundated by 

saltwater.78

The work at Lower Cape May 

Meadows and Cape May Point 

would involve constructing a 

continuous beachfill-and-dune 

system (in front of both the town 

and the wildlife area) to provide 

a measure of protection against 

coastal erosion, and then restoring 

the freshwater wetlands so important to wildlife by removing 

undesirable aquatic vegetation 

The seriously eroded shoreline at 

Cape May Point before beach 

nourishment (top) and after (bottom)
214

Chapter 5

in the wetland, replanting native 

wetland vegetation, constructing 

water control structures in the 

area (including “deep water fish 

reservoirs within existing ponds” 

and “a self-regulating tide gate to 

allow for a 25-acre tidal marsh”), 

and restoring “hydrologic linkages 

within the wetlands.”79 One of the 

biggest challenges of the restoration was that waves from a 1991 

storm had breached the intertidal 

and dune areas and inundated the 

freshwater wetlands with seawater. 

Thus, the district had to erect a 

new sea barrier (Phase I of the 

project) before it could perform the 

ecological restoration (Phase II).

To restore freshwater wetland 

habitat, the district had to 

recreate the original water flow 

patterns disrupted by the 1991 

storm breach that carried sand 

and seawater into the marshland. Construction crews scoured 

out sand and other debris from 

the clogged ditches and dug a 

deeper main canal, which was 

the key conduit for moving water 

into Cape Island Creek and then 

out to sea. Project work also 

involved raising paths that acted 

as dikes and building “weir flow 

control structures” to improve the 

hydrology of the Meadows. The 

weir structures allowed the Nature 

Conservancy to control the water 

level on its portion of the meadow 

to improve habitat for threatened 

species when necessary.80 Project 

planners added viewing platforms along the dikes to enhance 

opportunities for bird watching 

and photography. Bob Allen, 

director of conservation science 

for the Conservancy’s New Jersey 

chapters, explained that the additional waterways and enhanced 

supply of fresh water “should have 

a phenomenal effect on providing 

Self-regulating tide gate within 

the Meadows
215

Environmental Programs

good stopover habitat for migratory birds.”81

Reestablishing healthy water 

flows through the Meadows 

ensured the success of a number 

of other key project elements, 

many aimed at restoring habitat 

for specific species. To provide 

better feeding habitat for the 

endangered piping plover, project 

crews dug three small ponds in the 

meadow area immediately behind 

the dunes, along with “plover 

crossover paths” to facilitate the 

birds’ movement between the 

beach and the ponds. The fencedoff ponds gave piping plover 

chicks a sheltered area for protection from people, dogs, and other 

animals. In the first two years following construction of the ponds, 

research observers recorded that 

plovers were using the ponds for 

almost all their foraging and that 

chick survival had significantly 

increased compared with prerestoration survival rates.82 Project 

crews also dug deeper pools in 

preexisting ponds to act as reservoirs for fish; built five small, 

shallow ponds especially suited 

for frog spawning; and created 

a snake hibernaculum (winter 

habitat).83

In addition, the project team 

focused on restoration of native 

plant species and removal of 

invasive exotics, which produced 

one of the most visible changes to 

the Cape May Meadows landscape. 

Over the course of the previous 

several decades, a non-native 

marsh reed, Phragmites australis, 

had taken over approximately 

two-thirds of Lower Cape May 

Meadows wetlands. Phragmites

flourished after saltwater intrusion in the 1990s killed the native 

marsh vegetation. Removing 

the plant was a prerequisite for 

Birding enthusiasts take in the sights 

at the Meadows, one of the chief 

migratory stopovers along the entire 

North Atlantic Flyway
216

Chapter 5

restoring the native ecosystem, 

but the task became one of the 

few controversial components of 

the project. Prescribed burning 

and application of herbicides 

were necessary to eliminate the 

aggressive vegetation, because it 

reproduced and spread so quickly, 

but these actions posed risks for 

certain native species. Furthermore, 

removal of the reed was disconcerting for some local residents 

who had fond memories of walking 

through the tunnel-like paths, 

which easily grew to ten feet tall or 

more.84 In September 2004, project 

staff began their eradication activities by applying a special herbicide, 

then mowing the stalks throughout 

the Meadows. Staff and volunteers 

then planted approximately 70,000 

seedlings of native marsh species.85

The district completed the 

restoration in 2007, although site 

monitoring and revegetation by 

local organizations may continue 

for many years. Because the 

work helped restore an important 

habitat, the district received accolades and appreciative comments 

from the Cape May community. Richard Maraldo recalled 

Work at Lower Cape May Meadows included 

reditching to restore natural stream flows (above) 

and replanting of native vegetation (below)
217

Environmental Programs

his experience at the dedication 

ceremony:

When we finished the Cape May 

Beach job, we got invited for a 

dedication ceremony and they had 

closed off a whole section of the 

town by the beach. They had banner 

planes flying saying, “Come to Cape 

May. We’ve got our beaches back.” 

They had a festival in the streets, 

free hotdogs, and we were treated 

like kings when we were down 

there. . . . It’s always good when . . . 

you can see that they appreciate 

what you do for them.86

Upon completing the project, 

the district turned its management over to New Jersey State 

Parks, the local branch of the 

Nature Conservancy, and the 

towns abutting the area. The 

Corps retained responsibility for 

conducting periodic beach nourishment for the next fifty years.

The structural elements of 

ecosystem restoration work at 

Cape May Meadows involved 

reconstructing and building 

up the protective beach and 

dunes. Another district restoration project—involving two 

dams on the Neversink River in 

Orange County, N.Y.—did just the 

opposite, albeit on a smaller scale. 

The Cuddebackville Dam Removal 

Project removed crumbling dam 

structures as a means of restoring 

the river ecosystem. The foundations of the dams dated to earlier 

structures erected in 1902 and 

1908, respectively. In 1915, power 

Cape May Meadows State Park, 

with historic Cape May Point Light 

in background

The project at Lower Cape May 

Meadows became a showcase 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration 

both within and outside the 

Corps of Engineers
218

Chapter 5

companies rebuilt both structures 

in order to convert them to hydropower production. Construction 

crews reinforced the southwest 

pier stop log dam and rebuilt the 

northeast one to make it a concrete 

gravity dam. In 1948, following 

damage to one of the dams, the 

companies halted hydropower production and transferred ownership 

of the dams to Orange County. 

In the 1970s, concerns about the 

structural integrity of the northeast 

dam prompted the state of New 

York to cut a notch in it, lowering 

the level of the reservoir behind it 

by four feet.87

In the 2000s, environmental 

proponents clamored for the 

removal of the Cuddebackville 

dams. Doing so, proponents said, 

would achieve two goals. First, 

it would restore a free-flowing 

Neversink River, thereby restoring 

upstream access to suitable 

spawning habitat for anadromous fish. In addition, biological 

studies showed that “the world’s 

largest and healthiest population of the dwarf wedge mussel, 

listed as endangered both in New 

York State and under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act,” lived 

just below the dam but were 

prevented by the structure from 

populating additional suitable 

river habitat. Removing the dams 

would allow the dwarf wedge 

mussel to expand its range to the 

area above the dams.88 Finally, 

removal of the dams would eliminate safety concerns about their 

deteriorated state.

A survey of the southwest dam 

(the smaller of the two) indicated 

that it was unsafe because it facilitated the pile-up of debris, which 

people then used to cross over to 

an island in the river. Dam failure 

and the resultant flood of water 

and debris during a high-water 

Sunrise at Cape May Meadows 

State Park
219

Environmental Programs

event were also considered potential risks. The larger northeast 

dam, meanwhile, had an eroded 

apron at its base. According to the 

Nature Conservancy, dam failure 

was “a major concern due to the 

heavy undercutting that can be 

seen below the dam.”89

The Philadelphia District 

took on the Cuddebackville Dam 

Removal Project under its CAP, 

with the Eastern New York Chapter 

of the Nature Conservancy as 

project sponsor and the district’s 

nonfederal partner in the removal 

process. In February 2003, the 

district signed a cooperative agreement with the Nature Conservancy 

for the Cuddebackville Dam 

removal, committing the group to 

supplying 35 percent of the project 

costs. The nonprofit organization 

eventually supplied “$150,000 in 

materials and $449,000 in other 

project requirements” out of the 

final $1.3 million contract total.90

After evaluating proposals for 

the removal of both dams, the 

district concluded that possible 

adverse effects on the historic 

The Cooper River Fish Ladder Project
220

Chapter 5

Delaware and Hudson Canal meant 

that only the southwest dam should 

be removed.91 The northeast dam 

was left standing at the request of 

Orange County, so that its reservoir would provide a regular water 

flow to a feeder canal that helped 

maintain the water level of the 

Delaware and Hudson Canal, a 

portion of which was designated a 

national historic landmark.92

The Philadelphia District 

awarded a construction contract 

for this project in June 2003, 

and work commenced soon after. 

Specifics of the dam removal 

involved construction of a temporary bridge across the river below 

the dams and installation of a 

cofferdam below the southwest 

dam to provide a dry worksite 

and to collect sediment flowing 

downstream during excavation. 

Demolition was accomplished by 

placing explosives at locations calculated to break the concrete into 

large pieces, which the contractor 

then removed from the river. After 

demolition was completed, crews 

removed the temporary bridge and 

initiated revegetation of damaged 

areas.93 The project was completed 

Removal of the old Cuddebackville Dam 

(above) and subsequent restored flow 

on the Neversink River (below)
221

Environmental Programs

in November 2004, and the following year the district received a 

Coastal America partnership award 

for the project team’s “outstanding 

efforts to restore and protect the 

coastal environment.”94

The Philadelphia District used 

its CAP to construct three other 

environmental restoration projects 

involving fish passages. One of 

these—the Batsto River Fishway 

Restoration—involved construction of a fishway on a dam on 

the Batsto River in New Jersey’s 

Burlington County. This was not the 

first time the district had restored 

a fishway on a dam. In 2001, the 

district completed a fishway restoration project on the Cooper 

River near Cherry Hill, N.J., that 

garnered a Coastal America award. 

Drawing on its experience with this 

project, the district worked on the 

Batsto Dam, which had blocked 

passage of upstream spawning 

habitat for two anadromous fish 

species. District personnel collaborated with staff from FWS, the New 

Jersey chapter of the Corporate 

Wetlands Restoration Project, 

and the New Jersey State Historic 

Preservation Office to plan and 

build a fish passage structure that 

bypassed the dam’s spillway, with 

the state of New Jersey serving as 

the nonfederal sponsor. Because the 

project site was in historic Batsto 

Village, planning had to ensure 

that “the design was compatible 

with the historic nature of the site,” 

in addition to incorporating the 

required engineering and biologic 

expertise.95

Project construction on the 

Batsto Fishway began in November 

2004 and was completed in 

October 2005, within the projected budget of $600,000. The 

fishway consisted of three 10-footlong concrete ramps covered with 

removable wooden roof segments 

that helped the structure blend 

in with the historic features of 

the village.96 The Batsto River 

Restoration Project successfully 

restored access to an additional 

eight miles of upriver spawning 

habitat for the migratory alewife 

and blueback herring, and 

provided greater ecological diversity to the Batsto River. Design 

features of the fishway and its 

location in historic Batsto Village 

gave park visitors opportunities 
222

Chapter 5

The Batsto River fishway restoration under construction 

(above) and an inside look at the removable wooden 

structures enclosing the fish ladders (below)
223

Environmental Programs

for “environmental education 

regarding the ecological importance of anadromous fish.”97

The third project, completed 

in 2008, involved upgrading an 

existing fish ladder alongside 

Philadelphia’s historic Fairmount 

Dam on the Schuylkill River. 

Partnering with the Philadelphia 

Water Department, the district 

used state-of-the-art design methodologies to make the structure 

more negotiable to native fish 

working their way upstream 

around the dam.98

The Fairmount Fish Ladder 

was located in a scenic and 

prominent setting, along a linear 

park that had been built under 

a previous CAP project. In 2005, 

the district had partnered with the 

city of Philadelphia, the Schuylkill 

River Development Corporation, 

and Fairmount Park Commission 

to renovate and beautify a milelong corridor of the river’s east 

bank between the Philadelphia 

Art Museum and South Street. 

The project incorporated grading, 

topsoil, planting, and groundcover, 

and was designed to make the 

area “a more natural recreational 

resource for center city visitors 

and area neighborhoods.”99 As 

reported in the district newsletter, 

Schuylkill River Park was “the first 

construction project within walking 

distance of the Wanamaker 

Building home office.”100

These projects all brought 

accolades to the district for its 

ecosystem restoration work, as did 

other projects that were ongoing 

in 2008, such as the Delaware 

Bay Oyster Restoration initiative. 

Work in ecosystem restoration as 

a stand-alone project (as opposed 

to as a byproduct of navigation or 

of flood or storm risk reduction) 

did not begin in the Philadelphia 

The Fairmount Dam Fish Ladder 

Project upgraded an existing structure 

in the heart of Philadelphia, helping 

restore native fish migration up the 

Schuylkill River
224

Chapter 5

District until the 1990s, but it 

has continued to be an important 

part of the district’s workload in 

the 2000s. The success of these 

projects guaranteed that this kind 

of work would increase in importance in the years after 2008.101

* * * * * * *

As the Philadelphia District 

headed into the second decade 

of the twenty-first century, the 

number and technical range of 

its environmental projects had 

expanded far beyond what the 

staff could have imagined in 1972. 

In addition to the growth of the 

Regulatory Branch into one of the 

district’s biggest program elements, 

emerging environmental work in 

other realms led to the creation 

of new programs in Superfund 

cleanup, other site remediation 

tasks, and ecosystem restoration. 

The district performed admirably 

on all these projects, both in technical expertise and in its ability to 

work with all interested parties to 

guarantee the success of a project. 

The environmental function had 

thus become one of the focal points 

of the district by the twenty-first 

century.

The Schuylkill River Park Trail 

represented the cooperative efforts of 

the City of Philadelphia, the Schuylkill 

River Development Corporation, the 

Fairmount Park Commission and the 

Philadelphia District Ground-up shells being deposited in the 

Delaware Bay in 2005 to promote oyster 

habitat and help restore the native 

oyster population
Chapter 5 — Endnotes

225

1

 John Burnes interview by Paul Sadin and Joshua Pollarine, 15 January 2009, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, transcript, 14, 17; John Burnes, conversation with Matthew 

Godfrey, 25 May 2010; “Getting to Know Environmental Resources Branch,” 10–11; 

Edward Voigt, Chief, Public and Legislative Affairs, Philadelphia District, personal 

communication with Joshua Pollarine, 18 April 2011.

2

 Cianfrani interview, transcript, 4; “Getting to Know Regulatory Branch,” The 

Observer (July/August 1999): 7.

3

 Ann Vileisis, Discovering the Unknown Landscape: A History of America’s Wetlands

(Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997), 254.

4

 Vileisis, Discovering the Unknown Landscape, 255.

5

 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 97–98

6

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 816).

7

 Jeffrey K. Stine, “Regulating Wetlands in the 1970s: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

and the Environmental Organizations,” Journal of Forest History 27 (April 1983): 

64–66.

8

 Vileisis, Discovering the Unknown Landscape, 258.

9

 Michael C. Blumm, “The Clean Water Act’s Section 404 Permit Program Enters its 

Adolescence: An Institutional and Programmatic Perspective,” Ecology Law Quarterly 8 

(1979–1980): 416–417.

10 “Getting to Know Regulatory Branch,” 7.

11 “Getting to Know Regulatory Branch,” 7.

12 Blumm, “The Clean Water Act’s Section 404 Permit Program Enters its 

Adolescence,” 441.

13 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 97. 

14 Blumm, “The Clean Water Act’s Section 404 Permit Program Enters its 

Adolescence,” 419.

15 Cianfrani interview, 2–3.

16 Cianfrani interview, 3.

17 Blumm, “The Clean Water Act’s Section 404 Permit Program Enters its 

Adolescence,” 443.

18 “Regulatory Jurisdiction Overview,” n.d., document from Philadelphia District.

19 Cianfrani interview, 3.

20 Locurcio interview, 23.

21 Cianfrani interview, 6.

22 “Getting to Know Regulatory Branch,” 8.

23 Sam Reynolds, Regulatory Branch, Application Section Chief, as quoted in 

“Getting to Know Regulatory Branch,” 8.

24 U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Loveladies Harbor, Inc. and Loveladies 

Harbor, Unit D, Inc. v. The United States, No. 91-5050, 15 June 1994, available at 

<http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/28/28.F3d.1171.91-5050.html> (15 March 

2010).

25 Loveladies Harbor, Inc. and Loveladies Harbor, Unit D, Inc. v. The United States.

26 Loveladies Harbor, Inc. and Loveladies Harbor, Unit D, Inc. v. The United States.

27 Cianfrani interview, 10.

28 Cianfrani interview, 5.

29 “Mid-County Expressway (‘Blue Route’) Historic Overview” <http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/blue-route> (26 March 2010).

30 G. William Quinby, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, District 

Engineer, “Statement of Findings,” Application Philadelphia DistrictOP-R-86-1035-11, 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 23 November 1987, 2, document provided 

by Frank Cianfrani, Philadelphia District.

31 Cianfrani interview, 6.

32 Cianfrani interview, 8.

33 Locurcio interview, 23.

34 “Regulatory Opens Dover Office,” The Observer (May 1992): 1.

35 “Regulatory Branch: Where the Environment Is Always Paramount,” The Observer

(May 1993): 5-6; “Getting to Know Regulatory Branch,” 6.

36 Ted Williams, “Who Can Save a Wetland,” Audubon 101 (September/October 

1999): 60–64.

37 Williams, “Who Can Save a Wetland,” 62–63.

38 “Sporting and Environmental Groups File Lawsuit Challenging I-99 Bald Eagle 

Ridge Route,” Moshannon Sierra News (State College, Pa.), February 2000, available at 

<http://pennsylvania.sierraclub.org/moshannon/news/Newsletter00-02.pdf> (24 March 

2010).

39 Cianfrani interview, 13.

40 Cianfrani interview, 14.

41 Elaine Zettick, Chair, Bucks County Office of the Commissioners, to Montgomery 

County Commissioners, 18 May 1983, and Elaine Zettick to Neshaminy Water 

Resources Authority, 18 May 1983, File 204-01 Bucks County, Pennsylvania (Zone 4), 

Emergency Management Office Storage, Emergency Management Office, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (hereafter referred 

to as Philadelphia District-EMO).

42 Attorneys, to Lt. Col. Roger Baldwin, District Engineer, Philadelphia District, 17 

June 1983, File 204-01 Bucks County, Pennsylvania (Zone 4), Emergency Management 

Office Storage, Philadelphia District-EMO.

43 Lt. Col. Baldwin, to Robert Sugarman, 27 June 1983, File 204-01 Bucks 

County, Pennsylvania (Zone 4), Emergency Management Office Storage, Philadelphia 

District-EMO.

44 “Bucks County’s Long Water War: Decision Time,” New York Times, 12 June 

1987, online edition, available at <http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.spl.org:2048/pqdwe

b?index=16&did=956563481&SrchMode=1&sid=4&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&

RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1273777458&clientId=11206> (13 May 2010).

45 In 1988, Bucks County agreed to pay a $900,000 settlement to the water and 

construction contractors for wrongful termination of their contract; “Bucks Pays 

$900,000 To Settle Pump Suits,” 11 August 1988, The Morning Call, available at 

<http://articles.mcall.com/1988-08-11/news/2652219_1_water-diversion-project-buckssettlement-ends> (13 May 2010).

46 Cianfrani interview, 21.

47 “Cutler Group Resolves Permit Violation Via Monetary Donation to Lands Trust,” 

The Observer (2007): 7.

48 Gale quoted in “District Obtains $1.2 Million for Permit Violation,” The Observer

(September/October 2000): 3, article originally appeared in the 21 September 2000 

issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

49 “District Obtains $1.2 Million for Permit Violation,” 5.

50 “City Restores Wetlands After District Citation,” The Observer (April 1993): 3.

51 Cianfrani interview, 17.

52 “Getting to Know Regulatory Branch,” 8. By 2010, the rate had fallen to 85 

percent completed within the 60-day time period, but 100 percent of all permits 

were completed within 120 days. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, 

“Solution Builders,” <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/solution.htm> (23 

April 2010).

53 Cianfrani interview, 13.

54 John Bartholomeo interview by Paul Sadin, January 13, 2009, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, transcript, 2.
Chapter 5 — Endnotes

226

55 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (111 Stat. 

1320); Voigt personal communication.

56 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 

Update,” September 2009 (Washington D.C.: Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2009), digital copy (no page numbers). The other six districts were Baltimore, 

Buffalo, Pittsburgh, New England, New York, and St. Louis.

57 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 

Update”; Voigt personal communication.

58 “Meeting Summary, Dupont Chambers Works FUSRAP Site Restoration Advisory 

Board Meeting (RAB), Pennsville, New Jersey,” 15 October 2003 <http://www.

Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/fusrap/rab/ rab_meeting_summary_20031015.pdf> 

(5 March 2010).

59“DuPont Chambers Works FUSRAP Site” The Bulletin: DuPont Chambers Works 

FUSRAP Site 2 (September 2001): 1–2, copy in Binder DuPont Chambers Works FUSRAP 

Project (hereafter referred to as FUSRAP Binder), document provided by George Bock, 

Philadelphia District.

60 Cabrera Services, Inc., “Draft Executive Summary of the Work Management Plans 

for the Remedial Investigation at Ou 2: AOC 3, Central Drainage Ditch Area and AOC 

5, Building J-26, DuPont Chambers Works Site, Deepwater, New Jersey,” prepared 

for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore and Philadelphia Districts, September 

2003 <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/fusrap/new/DRAFT_Executive_

Summary_Oct_2002.pdf> (5 March 2010).

61 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “A Remarkable History at the 

DuPont Chambers Works Site,” The Bulletin: DuPont Chambers Works FUSRAP Site 3 

(June 2002): 3, copy in FUSRAP Binder.

62 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “OU-1 Site History,” The 

Bulletin: DuPont Chambers Works FUSRAP Site 3 (June 2002): n.p., copy in FUSRAP 

Binder.

63 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Military Helicopter Flyover,” 

The Bulletin: DuPont Chambers Works FUSRAP Site 3 (June 2002): 1, copy in FUSRAP 

Binder.

64 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Investigative Site Description: 

DuPont Chamber Works Site, Deepwater, NJ,” September 2004, FUSRAP Binder.

65 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 

Update,” 3.

66 Cabrera Services, Inc., “Draft Executive Summary of the Work Management 

Plans,” 4.

67 Cabrera Services, Inc., “Draft Executive Summary of the Work Management 

Plans,” 3.

68 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “DuPont Chambers Works 

FUSRAP Site” <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/fusrap/rab/rab_overview.

pdf> (5 March 2010).

69 Maraldo interview, 39.

70 Chief of Engineers, “Restoration Authorities of the US Army Corps of Engineers,” 

2–3.

71 Richard Pearsall, “District Works to Restore Depleted Oyster Population,” The 

Observer (Autumn 2009): 12.

72 Nicole T. Carter and Betsy A. Cody, “The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps 

of Engineers: A Primer” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 3 February 

2005, 6 <http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS20866.pdf> (2 July 2009); U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Continuing Authorities Program” <http://www.

Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/cePhiladelphia District-pl/ca.htm> (20 May 2010).

73 67 FR 232.

74 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Water Resources Policies and Authorities, Civil 

Works Ecosystem WRDA Restoration Policy,” Engineer Regulation 1165-2-501, 30 

September 1999, 2. The specific sections were WRDA 1986, Section 1135, regarding 

project modifications for improvement of the environment; WRDA 1992, Section 

205, regarding dredged material; and WRDA 1996, Section 206, aquatic ecosystem 

restoration.

75 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Ecosystem Restoration: 

Lower Cape May Meadows – Cape May Point, ENR Conference, 1 November 

2007, Powerpoint presentation, copy provided by Dwight Pakan, Project Manager, 

Philadelphia District-Programs and Project Management Division (hereafter Philadelphia 

District-PPM); Voigt personal communication.

76 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Lower Cape May Meadows – 

Cape May Point Feasibility Study,” vol. 1, August 1998, ES-1.

77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Ecosystem Restoration: 

Lower Cape May Meadows – Cape May Point.”

78 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Lower Cape May Meadows – 

Cape May Point Feasibility Study,” 3-5.

79 Lt. Gen. Joe N. Ballard, Chief of Engineers, to The Secretary of the Army, 5 April 

1999, document provided by Jeff Gebert; Voigt personal communication.

80 “Project Spotlight, Ecosystem Restoration: Lower Cape May Meadows,” The 

Observer (Autumn 2007): 8-9.

81 “Plover Patrol: Army Corps Restores Endangered Bird Habitat,” The Nature 

Conservancy (Summer 2007): 13.

82 “Project Spotlight, Ecosystem Restoration,” 9; and “Plover Patrol: Army Corps 

Restores Endangered Bird Habitat,” 14.

83 “Project Spotlight, Ecosystem Restoration,” 9.

84 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Lower Cape May Meadows – 

Cape May Point Feasibility Study,” ES-9.

85 “Integrating Ecosystem Restoration and Shore Protection,” The Observer (Autumn 

2005): 18-19.

86 Maraldo interview, 39.

87 Colin Apse, “Results of the Neversink River Rare Mussel Survey: Part of the 

Cuddebackville Dam Removal Project,” prepared for the Nature Conservancy, 31 

October 2001, Appendix A, 1-2, File EA/Design, Cuddebackville Box, Planning Division 

Office Files, Philadelphia District (hereafter Philadelphia District-Planning Division), 2.

88 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Philadelphia District 

Continuing Authorities Fact Sheet: Cuddebackville, NY,” March 2003, electronic file 

provided by Brian Mulvenna, Philadelphia District-Planning Division.

89 Apse, “Results of the Neversink River Rare Mussel Survey,” 3.

90 USACE, Philadelphia District, “Ltc. Ruch Brief One.ppt,” 9 August 2004, 

Powerpoint presentation, provided by Brian Mulvenna, Philadelphia District-Planning 

Division.

91 Bob Callegari, Chief, Philadelphia District-Planning Division, to Michael Stoll, 

Sr., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York Field Office, 12 December 2001, File EA/

Design, Cuddebackville Box, Philadelphia District-Planning Division.

92 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Philadelphia District 

Continuing Authorities Fact Sheet: Cuddebackville, NY.”

93 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Philadelphia District 

Continuing Authorities Fact Sheet: Cuddebackville, NY.”

94 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Cuddebackville Project 

Summary, n.d., ca. October 2006, electronic document provided by Brian Mulvenna, 

Philadelphia District-Planning Division.

95 Coastal America, media advisory, Batsto River Fishway Restoration, 14 October 

2005, Environmental Resources Branch electronic files, copy provided by Mark Eberle, 

Philadelphia District (hereafter Philadelphia District-ERB).

96 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Talking Points for Batsto River 

Fishway Restoration Project, n.d., ca. 2005, electronic file, Philadelphia District-ERB.
Chapter 5 — Endnotes

227

97 Coastal America, media advisory, Batsto River Fishway Restoration, 14 October 

2005, copy provided by Mark Eberle, Philadelphia District-ERB.

98 Voigt personal communication.

99 “Close to Home...Two of the District’s Projects are being Built Right Here in the 

City of Philadelphia,” The Observer (Summer 2005): 6.

100 “Close to Home...Two of the District’s Projects are being Built Right Here in the 

City of Philadelphia,” The Observer (Summer 2005): 6.

101 Delaware Bay Oyster Restoration Task Force, “Delaware Bay Oyster Restoration 

Project,” n.d. <http://www.delawareestuary.org/pdf/Oyster%20Publications/2008_fact_

sheet.pdf> (March 4, 2010).
6
229

The Corps’ emergency 

response program falls 

under the authority 

of Public Law 84-99, a 1955 

amendment to the Flood Control 

Act of 1941. This law directed 

the Corps to conduct emergency 

response activities and provided 

funding for such operations. As 

explained in the Philadelphia 

District’s Disaster Response 

Primer, PL 84-99 “authorizes 

the Chief of Engineers to provide 

disaster preparedness, emergency 

operations, advance measures, 

rehabilitation of flood control 

works threatened or destroyed 

by flood, protection or repair 

of Federally authorized shore 

protection works threatened or 

destroyed by coastal storms, and 

provisions of emergency water 

due to drought or contaminated 

source.”1

 In effect, this is the 

authority under which the district’s Emergency Management 

Office (EMO) operates in its 

response to all emergencies 

within the district’s footprint. 

Public Law 84-99 was later 

amended under Section 917 of 

the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986, which authorized 

the Corps, at the request of 

governors, to respond to state 

emergencies for ten days without 

any further disaster declaration.2

 The district provides a 

wide array of support under PL 

84-99 to state and local governments, supplying services before, 

during, and after emergency 

events. At all times, however, the 

support provided by the Corps 

of Engineers is supplemental to 

local efforts.3

Emergency and Contingency Operations

Facing page: Conducting damage 

assessments in New Hope, Pa. in June 

2006, after the third major flood event 

along the Delaware in as many years
230

Chapter 6

Background

At the Philadelphia District, 

the EMO maintains team 

preparedness to respond to emergencies and staffs the district’s 

Emergency Operations Center 

when it is activated. It coordinates with local sponsors for 

inspections of flood works, both 

federal and nonfederal, and maintains lines of communication for 

prompt response when needed. 

When storms strike, the district 

provides sandbags and innovative flood-fight products to help 

stem the tide. In the wake of 

disaster, district personnel provide 

technical assistance, including 

structural assessments of buildings 

before emergency teams conduct 

search and rescue, and the application of Corps expertise in 

inspecting flood control structures 

after a storm has passed. Finally, 

the EMO assists with executing 

contracts for rehabilitation, and 

the Corps provides needed repairs 

to damaged federal flood-protection works. In situations involving 

contaminated water or drought, 

the district provides water for 

human consumption.4

The Corps of Engineers 

responds not just locally but 

nationally and, in some instances, 

internationally. Under Public 

Law 93-288, passed in 1974, the 

federal government can “direct 

the Corps to utilize its available 

personnel, supplies, facilities, and 

other resources to provide assistance” following a presidential 

disaster or emergency declaration.5

 In the early 1990s, a federal 

response plan was created for the 

use of federal agencies under the 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA).6

 The Corps of 

Engineers became the “primary 

agency overseeing Public Works 

and Engineering,” falling under 

Emergency Support Function #3 of 

the national framework.7

Changes in the Corps’ emergency response organization 

occurred throughout the nation 

as part of the Corps’ Readiness 

2000 (R2K) restructuring to 

address the national need for Army 

Corps resources. Under R2K, the 

Corps sought to manage resources 

“through a national strategy, 

aligning the readiness community 

into a corporate Corps team that 
231

Emergency and Contingency Operations

shares planning responsibilities 

and response capabilities.”8

 An 

important aspect of this alignment 

was the creation of planning and 

response teams (PRTs). Districts 

around the country staffed teams 

dedicated to specific response and 

recovery missions, including debris 

removal and temporary roofing 

and housing. The PRT structure 

enabled the Corps to implement 

start-to-finish emergency response 

operations for teams of expertise. 

This was especially beneficial for 

sequential storms—instead of redeploying a group from one disaster 

to another, the Corps could deploy 

a different crew for each event.9

 The Philadelphia District 

became one of seven to host an 

emergency power PRT, responsible 

for prepositioning power resources, 

assessing critical facilities (with 

the 249th Engineer Battalion 

Prime Power) and, through contracting, managing the hauling and 

installation of generators. Other 

district personnel serve on national 

functional PRTs such as Global 

Information System, Urban Search 

and Rescue, External Affairs, and 

Leadership. FEMA regions follow 

state borders rather than the 

Corps’ watershed structure, so state 

capitals within a Corps district 

boundary are the principal responsibility of that district for first 

response. Thus, the Philadelphia 

District’s primary FEMA response 

area is in Delaware and New 

Jersey—FEMA Regions 2 and 3, 

respectively.10

The Philadelphia District’s 

EMO is exceptional. It is one 

of four in the United States 

that stockpiles innovative 

flood-fight materials for loan 

to local governments.11 The 

EMO is responsible for storing 

and maintaining products 

Emergency equipment on loan from the 

Philadelphia District pumps down flood 

waters in Sussex County, Del.
232

Chapter 6

designed and developed under 

the Corps’ Engineer Research 

and Development Center, headquartered in Vicksburg, Miss. 

The district EMO delivers those 

products to emergency response 

locations and inspects them after 

deployment for future use. The 

flood-fight products are designed 

to offer transportable protection 

“to critical infrastructure and key 

facilities,” providing an effective 

temporary barrier against floods. 

The district maintains responsibility for deployment of these 

supplies along the entire east 

coast.12 The Philadelphia District 

is the only district that stores 

Corps visibility items for emergency events, such as emergency 

operations shirts, hats, safety 

vests, and rain gear.13

The district’s EMO evolved as 

the Corps’ emergency response 

duties increased. Although the 

district provided personnel in 

support of emergency operations 

in the period leading up to the 

1980s, there was no established 

office for emergency management. 

During the 1970s, the district’s 

initial emergency response activities included sending two- and 

three-person teams into the 

field in the wake of natural 

disasters—usually floods or 

coastal storms—to assess damage 

and provide situation reports. In 

1980 (a year after the creation of 

FEMA and with Corps officials 

becoming increasingly aware of 

the need for a dedicated emergency response staff to answer 

to national authority when 

required), the district established 

the Readiness Branch, whose 

sole purpose was to keep district 

personnel trained and equipped 

for emergency response. Initially 

reporting to the Operations 

Division, this small office would 

see its role and responsibilities 

The Philadelphia District is the sole 

supplier of red and white “visibility items” 

worn to readily identify Corps personnel 

during emergency operations, to include 

(from left) caps, safety vests, polo shirts, 

sweatshirts and windbreakers
233

Emergency and Contingency Operations

grow in the coming decades. 

Yet, as of 2008, the EMO had 

had only three chiefs, providing 

stability and continuity to the district’s response efforts.14

The Readiness Branch functioned as a part of the Operations 

Division for nearly twenty years 

before a significant reorganization in 1999. Effective 14 June 

1999, the Readiness Branch 

was renamed the Emergency 

Management Office. With the 

change in name came a change 

in organizational affiliation. The 

EMO now reported directly to 

the deputy district commander. 

The change was “consistent with 

similar reorganizations that have 

taken place at Corps and division 

levels.”15 It also paralleled changes 

taking place at the state and local 

levels for dealing with disasters, 

leading to a formalized EMO 

network and improved disaster 

response coordination. EMO personnel maintained connections 

with people on the ground where 

events occurred; instant situation 

reports enabled the office to direct 

its response to the greatest needs 

in the hardest hit areas.16

Responses to 

Natural Disasters

Although not yet operating 

under a formal emergency office 

in the 1970s, the district provided 

personnel in response to disasters that occurred during that 

decade. The most significant 

event happened in June 1972, 

when a hurricane-turned–tropical 

storm stalled over the central 

part of Pennsylvania for nearly 

twenty-four hours. Hurricane 

Agnes dropped a minimum of 

five—in some areas as much as 

eighteen—inches of rain on the 

state, inundating streams, rivers, 

and towns.17 On the evening of 23 

June 1972, Agnes moved north 

Tropical Storm Agnes left much of 

downtown Reading, Pa. under water
234

Chapter 6

across western New York and into 

Canada, dissipating along the way. 

In its wake, the storm left “a persistent drizzle and one of the most 

devastating natural disasters in the 

history of the United States.”18

Federal flood control structures 

constructed by the Philadelphia 

District successfully accomplished 

their intended purpose during 

the storm. Elsewhere, however, 

floodwaters topped nonfederal 

flood works and inundated towns, 

leading the Philadelphia District to 

mobilize in response. Commencing 

“around the clock, on 21 June,” 

the district activated personnel 

before the arrival of Agnes for 

field monitoring, “maintaining 

a watch on storm advance, river 

stages, readiness of reservoirs to 

store flood waters, and availability 

of sandbags.” On 23 June, as the 

storm hovered over Pennsylvania, 

district officials directed that the 

Emergency Operations Center 

be activated. Shortly thereafter, 

district personnel posted to Francis 

E. Walter Reservoir deployed to 

Wilkes-Barre to help with sandbagging, although their efforts 

were halted when floodwaters 

Flooding due to Tropical Storm Agnes brought much 

of the Schuylkill Valley to a virtual standstill
235

Emergency and Contingency Operations

overflowed dikes and deluged 

the town. In other areas closer to 

Philadelphia, the district assisted 

with the removal of debris from the 

Schuylkill and Delaware rivers.19

The district’s role ramped up 

considerably in the aftermath 

of the storm with the establishment of emergency field offices in 

Pottstown and Reading. District 

personnel conducted initial 

damage assessments, identified 

and prioritized critical needs, 

and coordinated and oversaw 

the deployment of Army Reserve 

and National Guard units as first 

responders. The district provided 

contracted support on a timeand-materials basis, along with 

onsite inspection and monitoring 

of that support. In some instances, 

letter contracts were scoped, 

estimated, and awarded within 

five days. With health and safety 

taking top priority, the district’s 

missions included providing temporary drinking water, repairing 

water and wastewater treatment 

plants, restoring electrical power, 

inspecting and repairing bridges 

upon request, demolishing structures that had been assessed as 

dangerous, removing massive 

amounts of debris, restoring 

damaged stream channels, and 

repairing nonfederal flood control 

structures under existing authorities. Within a week, the district 

personnel staffing those two emergency offices were supplemented, 

Helping restore electrical power was one 

of the first orders of business for the 

Corps in its post-Agnes response
236

Chapter 6

and in some cases replaced, by 

counterparts from other Corps districts in the North Atlantic Division 

and elsewhere.20

In addition to these duties, 

the district assisted with “extraordinary functions.” The flooding 

from Agnes affected an estimated 

7,300 homes in the Schuylkill 

River Valley. Recognizing the need 

for emergency shelter for those 

displaced by the storm, North 

Atlantic Division Engineer Maj. 

Gen. Richard H. Groves arranged 

with the state for the preparation 

of two temporary mobile home 

sites, which the district contracted 

under competitive bid, successfully 

prepping sites for 58 trailers. The 

flooding also displaced “a large 

quantity of sludge remaining from 

oil-reprocessing operations and 

stored in open lagoons,” sending 

it into the Schuylkill River. In an 

effort to mitigate this disaster, the 

district removed approximately 

2,500 tons of “oil-sludge-coated 

vegetation and debris.”21 The 

district also helped the U.S. 

Postal Service survey damage 

to all post office facilities in 

eastern Pennsylvania, identifying 

an estimated $3.6 to $4 million 

in damage. As the storm waters 

receded and the commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania recovered, the district 

removed an estimated two hundred 

thousand cubic yards of debris.21

Agnes was one of the worst natural 

disasters to strike in the district’s 

history.

Although the district’s activities in national natural disasters 

were dramatic, emergency operations were more often undertaken 

in response to events within the 

district’s boundaries, under the 

Corps’ PL 84-99 authority. For 

example, in 1979, Acting District 

Engineer Joel T. Callahan exercised this authority to assist 

The aftermath of “Awful Agnes”
237

Emergency and Contingency Operations

Burlington County, N.J., following 

emergency operations conducted 

by the district in February. The 

county’s emergency services 

agency requested assistance from 

the Corps to deal with “heavy 

rains, snow melt and high tides.” 

Callahan deployed district personnel to conduct rehabilitation 

investigations “to ascertain storm 

related damages” to a local dam 

and submit a formal situation 

report. The district was also asked 

to investigate the county’s flood 

management policies and assess 

the Corps’ “capability to provide 

technical assistance in the development of a flood preparedness plan 

for Burlington County.”22 Such an 

emergency response on the part of 

the district was standard procedure 

for extraordinary situations.

In January 1996, the district 

suffered the worst natural 

disaster within its boundaries 

since Agnes in 1972. A winter 

storm affected the entire commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with 

a wintry mix of snow, rain, and 

sleet triggering floods throughout 

the state. Although every county 

in Pennsylvania was declared a 

federal disaster area, district personnel maintained their capability 

to respond within their home 

territory. The EMO activated its 

Emergency Operations Center on 

19 January 1996 and remained 

open twenty-four hours a day 

through 2 February 1996, “fielding 

requests for assistance from states, 

counties and municipalities in 

New York, Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey and Delaware.”23 As with 

Agnes twenty-seven years earlier, 

the district’s federally constructed 

flood works performed as planned, 

despite massive influxes of water 

from the storm. The reservoir at 

F. E. Walter Dam surged 100 feet 

Filling sandbags for flood-fighting
238

Chapter 6

in its water level, yet maintained 

minimum water release in its 

floodgates. Flood storage at Blue 

Marsh Lake kept the Schuylkill 

River at an estimated two to three 

feet below its projected flooding 

level.24 While flooding was not 

entirely averted, the district’s 

flood control measures prevented 

extensive damage, and the district 

made itself available to assist state 

and local entities throughout the 

disaster.

Also in response to the 1996 

floods, the district repaired 

damaged local flood control 

structures in Allentown and 

Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. The 

work was covered by the PL 84-99 

Rehabilitation and Inspection 

Program, under which non-Corps 

flood control structures that have 

been operated and maintained 

according to certain engineering 

criteria are eligible for restoration to pre-flood conditions at 

75 percent federal funding. The 

district made similar repairs at 

Stroudsburg, as well as in East 

Stroudsburg and Weissport, Pa., 

Flooding in Bucks County, Pa., 

January 1996
239

Emergency and Contingency Operations

following high water events in 

2004, 2005, and 2006.25

In addition to its postdisaster 

responsibilities, the district’s 

emergency management role 

included efforts to reduce the risk 

of damages from future events. 

Emergency stream-bank erosion 

studies were a part of this mission. 

In cooperation with local sponsors, 

the district conducted studies to 

determine best practices and effective measures for the repair—and, 

in some instances, replacement—

of eroded stream embankments. 

Such mitigating construction 

measures may include placement 

of supplemental rip-rap, gabions 

for support of embankments, and 

backfill. These preventive actions 

help protect public works, such 

as roads that follow the course 

of streams and rivers, from being 

undermined in significant storm 

events. In the 1980s, the district 

completed such projects along 

Perkiomen Creek and Darby 

Creek in Pennsylvania, and the 

Manasquan River in New Jersey.26

While the Corps takes proactive measures to prevent flooding, 

communities are at the mercy of 

nature when it unleashes its fury. 

Coastal storms striking Delaware 

and New Jersey have caused significant damage, requiring a response 

by the district. For example, 

in March 1984, New Jersey’s 

governor declared a limited state of 

Overseeing logistical support following 

Hurricane Ike, 2005

Repairs to a storm-damaged levee 

at Stroudsburg, Pa., under the 

Public Law 84-99 Rehabilitation & 

Inspection Program
240

Chapter 6

emergency after a nor’easter struck 

the shore. The district was involved 

in surveying damage all along the 

New Jersey coast, noting beach 

erosion and damage to streets and 

structures, and providing estimates 

of material lost from beaches and 

debris that collected in the wake of 

the storm.27

In December 1992, the New 

Jersey and Delaware coasts were 

again battered by a storm that 

caused flooding throughout the 

mid-Atlantic region. Along the 

coast, “waves swept over roads, 

destroying seawalls and battering 

houses, boats and businesses.” The 

district was involved in reconnaissance surveys to assess damages 

immediately after the storm.28

Once the surveys were complete, 

FEMA asked the Corps to compile 

preliminary damage estimates. 

Using survey results and other 

data, President George Bush 

determined that the destruction 

inflicted by the storm warranted 

a federal disaster declaration. The 

district subsequently went to work 

for FEMA, developing detailed 

damage survey reports throughout 

Delaware and New Jersey. The 

Corps completed “1,100 of the 

more than 3,100 damage survey 

reports for FEMA,” identifying $9 

million of an estimated $35 million 

worth of damage from the storm in 

New Jersey alone..29

The district worked with 

FEMA after other natural disasters 

as well. For example, the devastating storm that caused severe 

damage to Pennsylvania in 1996 

was also followed by a presidential 

disaster declaration. After its initial 

efforts to staff the Emergency 

Operations Center and respond to 

communities within its boundaries, 

the district assisted FEMA with 

damage survey reports in the wake 

of the disaster. District personnel 

worked with local authorities to 

Philadelphia District personnel 

conducting flood damage surveys 

in Bucks County, Pa.
241

Emergency and Contingency Operations

review damage assistance applications and document the extent 

of destruction. FEMA used the 

surveys to determine compensation 

for the state.30

District work in support of 

FEMA has not been limited to 

emergency assistance. The district’s Flood Plain Management 

Services Branch has provided 

Geographic Information System 

(GIS) services to the federal 

agency that have been applied 

to “emergency preparedness, 

community planning and water 

resources management.” Although 

not formally part of the district’s 

International and Interagency 

Services Program (see Chapter 

Nine), as of 1997 these reimbursable services for FEMA accounted 

“for close to 60 percent of the 

branch workload,” including the 

branch’s development of an innovative “all-hazards” map covering 

the entire state of Delaware. The 

map, “the first such GIS product 

in the country,” provided critical 

Surveying damages from a 1992 

Nor’easter in Rehoboth Beach, Del.
242

Chapter 6

location information based on the 

potential for emergency response 

necessitated by floods, hurricanes, 

earthquakes, and even nuclear 

disasters.31

On numerous occasions, the 

Philadelphia District has supported FEMA outside the district’s 

boundaries. In September 2003, 

the district deployed personnel to 

support FEMA’s response operations in the wake of Hurricane 

Isabel along the east coast. On 

16 September, the district’s 

Emergency Operations Center was 

activated, and the next day the 

district’s emergency power crew, 

under the national PRT framework, headed to Virginia. Other 

district personnel, along with extra 

supplies of sandbags, were sent 

to assist with emergency response 

efforts in Delaware and New Jersey. 

As the storm subsided and the 

extent of damage was revealed, 

the district deployed additional 

staff to Washington, D.C., to assist 

FEMA with procuring and distributing ice.32 Hurricane Isabel caused 

power outages, floods, and debris 

accumulation along the entire east 

coast, and the district did its part 

to assist with federal emergency 

response efforts throughout the 

affected area.

District deployments in 

response to hurricanes have 

extended beyond the borders of 

the continental United States, 

including twice to the Caribbean. 

In 1995, after Hurricane Marilyn, a 

small district team deployed to the 

U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico 

to help with building rehabilitation 

and debris removal, and to provide 

technical inspection services for 

contract operations.33 Three years 

later, another team was in Puerto 

Rico providing disaster relief in the 

wake of Hurricane Georges. Fifteen 

district employees, including the 

first emergency power team to 

arrive in Puerto Rico following 

the storm, worked to mitigate 

damages. The teams assisted with 

debris removal, roofing, and onsite 

logistics. Back in Philadelphia, 

other district personnel were supporting the response by handling 

contracting services, running the 

Emergency Operations Center, 

and distributing essential Corps 

visibility items to persons on the 

ground.34
243

Emergency and Contingency Operations

Other Emergency 

Responses

In addition to responding to 

natural disasters, the Philadelphia 

District has been involved in a 

number of unique activities related 

to its emergency response mission. 

In November 1990, the district’s 

EMO participated in the recovery 

and extraction of American 

Civil War era artifacts from Fort 

Delaware on Pea Patch Island, 

Del. The fort was built in the early 

1800s as part of America’s coastal 

defense system and retained that 

purpose through the Civil War. 

However, as the war escalated, the 

fort functioned less as a defense 

against seaborne attack and more 

as a penitentiary for Confederate 

prisoners of war.35

More than 125 years later, 

the district received the mission 

of “coordinating the lifting and 

transporting of the Fort Delaware 

artifacts” from the island, which 

is accessible only by boat. Further 

complicating matters, historic gun 

carriages were buried in sand and 

exposed only at low tide, which 

restricted the project schedule 

to six days every two weeks for 

In the early 90s, the District worked with the State of 

Delaware to retrieve and restore a number of Civil War-era 

gun carriages from Fort Delaware that had been exposed by 

erosion on the eastern shore of Pea Patch Island
244

Chapter 6

daylight operations. An additional 

safety concern was the potential 

for “unexploded ordnances in the 

vicinity of the gun carriages.” 

District staff coordinated airlift 

operations with the Delaware 

National Guard to move the gun 

carriages to the mainland. As 

stated in a later account, “The successful completion of this mission 

is attributable to the conscientious 

efforts of the district personnel who 

were involved.” The report went on 

to note that “the project was not 

only completed ahead of schedule, 

but was accomplished safely and 

to the complete satisfaction of the 

State of Delaware.”36

The district also has responded 

to emergencies that have involved 

loss of life. On the night of 18 May 

2000, patrons of a Philadelphia 

nightclub located on Pier 34 along 

the Delaware River were suddenly 

plunged into sixty-degree water 

“amid tons of debris” as a portion 

of the pier collapsed. The Coast 

Guard contacted the district for 

help in debris removal, “both to 

free up the shipping channel and 

to facilitate divers’ search for 

bodies.”37 The collapse resulted 

in three deaths and forty-three 

injuries.38 The district provided 

the Crane Barge Titan to assist 

with the removal of debris, the 

Survey Boat Shuman to inspect 

the vicinity for “obstructions 

to navigation,” photographic 

The McFarland on an emergency 

dredging mission in 1996 to clear North 

Carolina’s Cape Fear River after Hurricane 

Fran—one of many such missions along 

the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts

A crane from the Philadelphia District’s 

labor and equipment force removes 

debris from the Pier 34 site 
245

Emergency and Contingency Operations

and videographic support, 

and technical staff to provide 

forensic engineering assistance to 

Philadelphia investigators.39

The district also took part 

in emergency operations in New 

York City on 11 September 2001, 

after terrorists flew airplanes into 

the World Trade Center towers. 

Starting “within hours of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 

when five of the McFarland’s crew 

helped transport thousands to 

safety across the Hudson River,” 

the district was involved in aiding 

rescue and recovery efforts over 

the course of the ensuing weeks. 

District volunteers helped with 

“tasks from water transportation and power restoration to 

structural surveys and administrative and logistical services.”40 In 

Philadelphia, the EMO activated 

its Emergency Operations Center 

to assist with relief coordination; 

the center was staffed continuously 

for ten days following the attacks. 

Onsite, the district was tasked with 

the mission of receiving, staging, 

onward movement, and integration (RSOI)—processing all Corps 

personnel deployed to New York to 

ensure that everyone was properly 

credentialed and had personal 

protective equipment before they 

engaged in operations.41

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks 

and the subsequent heightened 

scrutiny of homeland defenses, 

district staff engaged in risk 

assessment surveys to help the 

federal government determine 

the threat to the district’s dam 

infrastructure. The mission was 

to “improve protection, lower 

risk and be cost effective” by 

assessing potential damage and 

developing “techniques and procedures to mitigate such damage.”42

Following Corps-directed training 

Philadelphia District personnel assisted in 

the initial federal response at “Ground 

Zero” in downtown Manhattan following 

the attacks of September 11, 2001
246

Chapter 6

in Risk Assessment Methodology 

for Dams (RAM-D), district 

teams were sent to conduct the 

surveys, compile information, 

and quantify recommendations 

for Corps Headquarters. As Barry 

Leatherman, the district’s team 

leader, reported after the operation, 

“The Team’s thorough research 

and recommendations resulted in 

final products that were 200 to 

500-hundred-page [sic] documents 

for each site assessed.”43

The Corps also responded 

to disasters that were manmade 

or attributable to human error. 

The Philadelphia District’s footprint covered waterways on which 

vessels transported petroleum 

products, inherently running the 

risk of oil spills. Although the U.S. 

Coast Guard was the first federal 

responder for such disasters, the 

Corps often worked with the Coast 

Guard to provide expert assistance. For example, on Friday, 

26 November 2004, the day after 

Thanksgiving, the Tanker Athos I

spilled approximately “265,000 

gallons of crude oil into the 

Delaware River while en route to 

its destination.” The Coast Guard 

called on the Philadelphia District 

to conduct surveys of the channel 

in search of obstructions that might 

have caused the spill. The district 

performed survey operations over 

the course of two weeks following 

the incident and found no objects 

impeding channel transport.44

Ultimately, investigations concluded 

that nothing in the channel had 

caused the spill, placing responsibility for the resultant damages on 

the owner of the craft.45

Support for Military 

Contingency 

Operations

The district, like the rest of 

the Corps, has provided staff in 

support of the Global War on 

Terror, the military operations 

policy promulgated by the Bush 

administration in response to 

the 9/11 attacks. The district’s 

EMO was responsible for administering the initial deployment of 

district personnel in support of 

this mission, soliciting volunteers, 

preparing them for deployment, 

and supporting overseas staff with 

administrative matters at home. 

The district’s first task in preparing 

Among those from the Philadelphia 

District who helped out after 9/11 were 

five McFarland crew members, in New 

York City for training, who immediately 

shifted to ferrying evacuees across 

the Hudson
247

Emergency and Contingency Operations

volunteers for overseas service 

involved helping them assemble 

what EMO Chief Micky Mulvenna 

referred to as “the Fours”: security 

clearance, an up-to-date passport, 

a signed volunteer statement, and 

a preliminary medical statement 

certifying their capacity to perform 

their potential jobs. Once volunteers had their papers in order, 

the EMO put them in contact with 

the Corps’ Deployment Center for 

assignment overseas.46

The first decade of the 2000s 

closed with the United States 

embroiled in conflict abroad—

the EMO supported 48 district 

volunteers who took their expertise to the front lines. Many 

served multiple tours in Iraq or 

Afghanistan. On the home front, 

the EMO provided the critical 

function of maintaining personal 

connections with the deployed 

staff’s family at home.47

Beyond the collective contributions of the Philadelphia 

District’s deployed civilian volunteers, its Contracting Division 

became a key component of the 

Corps’ support for contingency 

operations. For example, in 1995 

and 1996, the district’s Civil 

Works Contract Administration 

Branch handled an estimated 

$30 million worth of contracts 

under its Work for Others Team. 

The contracts were to help U.S. 

peacekeeping forces upgrade 

medical facilities in Croatia and 

Bosnia. The work involved the 

installation of local and wide-area 

computer networks and videoteleconferencing, facilitating 

communications between overseas 

field hospitals and their support 

bases, and “improving the effectiveness of medical care for U.S. 

troops,” an integral component of 

all military operations.48

The district’s own contracting 

specialists also played a vital role 

Philadelphia District hydrographic survey 

crews helped clear the Delaware River 

for reopening after the December 2004 

Athos I oil spill
248

Chapter 6

in the Global War on Terror (later 

redesignated Overseas Contingency 

Operations) in the 2000s, handling 

Corps contracts for power missions 

in support of both civil and military 

construction. As the district took on 

the challenge of restoring facilities 

and infrastructure in Iraq, one of 

the most urgent tasks was restoring 

and stabilizing that nation’s electrical grid. The Philadelphia 

District’s Contracting Division 

was selected as the Corps’ single 

procurer of electrical power contracts to backfill the first response 

efforts of the 249th Engineer 

Battalion (Prime Power) in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. Multimillion 

dollar agreements were managed 

from the Philadelphia District 

office to install and operate power 

plants, construct transmission and 

distribution lines, and connect 

installations with electricity in 

ongoing missions overseas.49

* * * * * * *

The district’s emergency and 

contingency operations have 

varied greatly in its history, but 

it has retained its fundamental 

mission of providing assistance to 

local and state governments and 

Civilian volunteers from the Philadelphia 

District have assisted with a wide variety 

of construction and repair projects in Iraq 

and Afghanistan since 2002
249

Emergency and Contingency Operations

to other federal entities in time 

of need. District personnel have 

served as emergency responders 

within the district, around the 

nation, and throughout the world, 

and have successfully enabled 

communities to recover and rehabilitate in the wake of natural 

and manmade disasters. In each 

instance, the district has answered 

the call quickly and fully, with 

numerous volunteers ready and 

willing to serve. This willingness 

is part of the very fabric of the 

Philadelphia District and its people, 

who prove themselves responsive 

and reliable when those qualities 

matter most. A brochure explaining how the Philadelphia District supports the 

Gulf Region District of the Corps in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo

The power plant and distribution grid for Bagram Air Field, 

Afghanistan, contracted by the Philadelphia District and 

constructed by the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) and 

the Corps’ Afghanistan Engineer District-North
Chapter 6 — Endnotes

250

1

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Disaster Response Primer,” 

n.d., 3, Emergency Management Office Storage, Emergency Management Office, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (hereafter 

referred to as NAP-EMO).

2

 Act of 17 November 1986 (100 Stat. 4082).

3

 Kathleen “Micky” Mulvenna, conversation with Joshua Pollarine, 22 October 2009.

4

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Support to State & Local 

Governments (Emergency Authorities under Public Law 84-99)” <http://www.nap.

usace.army.mil/emo/PL8499.htm> (21 May 2010).

5

 “Disaster Response Primer,” 2–3.

6

 The Federal Response Plan was renamed the National Response Plan in 2004, 

and in 2008 became the National Response Framework. Mulvenna conversation, 22 

October 2009.

7

 “Disaster Response Primer,” 3.

8

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, “Responding to Emergencies: 

The Role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Support of the Nation” <http://www.

spn.usace.army.mil/infopaper.pdf> (21 May 2010) [emphasis in original].

9

 Mulvenna conversation, 22 October 2009.

10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “The Corps and the Federal 

Response Plan” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/emo/nrp.html> (21 May 2010); 

Mulvenna conversation, 22 October 2009; Edward Voigt, Chief, Public & Legislative 

Affairs, NAP, personal communication with Joshua Pollarine, 8 April 2011.

11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Innovative Flood Fight 

Products Distribution Process” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/emo/NAP%20FloodFighting%20Products.pdf> (21 May 2010).

12 Mulvenna conversation, 22 October 2009; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Philadelphia District, “Innovative Flood Fight Products Distribution Process” <http://

www.nap.usace.army.mil/emo/NAP%20Flood-Fighting%20Products.pdf> (21 May 

2010); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Innovative Flood Fight 

Products” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/emo/NAP%20Innovative%20Flood%20

Fight%20Fact%20Sheet%202007.pdf> (21 May 2010).

13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Corps Visibility Items” 

<http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/emo/shirts.htm> (21 May 2010).

14 The three regular EMO chiefs were Richard Nocella, Brian Mulvenna, and Kathleen 

“Micky” Mulvenna; however, acting chiefs were employed between tenures. Mulvenna 

conversation, 22 October 2009.

15 “Organizational Update...Readiness Branch Renamed, Reports Directly to Front 

Office,” The Observer (May/June 1999): 5.

16 Mulvenna conversation, 22 October 2009.

17 Patricia Barnes-Svarney, “Awful Agnes,” Weatherwise (May/June 2002): 40.

18 Philadelphia District, “Post-Flood Report, Hurricane Agnes, June 22, 23 1972,” 

n.d., 1, Loose Papers, Box 7, Accession 77-97-0001, RG 77, FRC.

19 “Post-Flood Report, Hurricane Agnes, June 22, 23 1972,” n.d., 92, Loose Papers, 

Box 7, Accession 77-97-0001, RG 77, FRC.

20 Voigt personal communication.

21 “Post-Flood Report, Hurricane Agnes, June 22, 23 1972,” n.d., 93-94, 96-100, 

Loose Papers, Box 7, Accession 77-97-0001, RG 77, FRC.

22 Joel T. Callahan, Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Acting District Engineer, 

“Emergency Operations Assistance,” 2 March 1979, File 500-1-1q Smithville Dam, Files, 

Emergency Operations Center, NAP-EMO.

23 “Projects, People Join Forces in Wake of Flooding,” The Observer (February 

1996): 3.

24 “Projects, People Join Forces in Wake of Flooding,” 3.

25 Voigt personal communication.

26 “Continuing Authorities Fact Sheet, Emergency Streambank Erosion, Perkiomen 

Creek, Hereford Twp.,” 30 May 1986, as found in “Philadelphia District Emergency 

Activities, 1989, Zone 3, Berks County,” n.d., File 204-01, Berks County, PA, (Zone 3), 

Emergency Operations Center, NAP-EMO; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia 

District, “Emergency Streambank Erosion Study, Feasibility Report, Manasquan River, 

Howell Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey,” December 1989 (Revised October 

1990), miscellaneous reports, unlabeled box, Planning Division, NAP; “Continuing 

Authorities Fact Sheet, Emergency Streambank Erosion Project, Darby Creek, 

Lansdowne Borough,” 30 May 1986, File 204-01, Delaware County, PA, (Zone 5), 

Emergency Operations Center, NAP-EMO.

27 Untitled document, report of damages to New Jersey communities from 1984 

coastal storm, n.d., File Atlantic County, NJ, Emergency Operations Center, NAP-EMO.

28 Andrews, Miller & Assoc., Inc., “Post Storm Report: Coastal Storm of 11-15 

December 1992, Delaware and New Jersey Coast,” November 1993, 1, 7, 70, 

Emergency Management Office Storage, NAP-EMO.

29 “Work for FEMA Completed,” The Observer (April 1993): 7.

30 “District Answers FEMA Call for Damage Surveys,” The Observer (March 1996): 4.

31 “Getting to Know Flood Plain Management Services Branch,” The Observer

(February 1997): 6-7; Voigt personal communication.

32 “District Provides Support during Hurricane Isabel,” The Observer (October/

November 2003): 24-25. For people affected by significant storm events, FEMA supplies 

such items as bottled water, bags of ice, tarps, and Meals Ready to Eat (MREs). In its 

response to Hurricane Isabel in Washington, D.C., the district was “mission assigned 

to provide ice.” Kathleen Mulvenna email to Joshua Pollarine, 25 May 2010, copy in 

possession of the authors.

33 “Three from District Take Part in Hurricane Marilyn Cleanup Work,” The Observer 

(December 1995): 3, 19.

34 “Volunteers Recognized for Hurricane Georges Relief Role,” The Observer

(January/February 1999): 4.

35 “Saving Pea Patch Island,” The Observer (September/October 1998): 8.

36 At the time of the project, it was unclear why Emergency Management received 

this mission. Mulvenna conversation, 22 October 2009; “Justification,” document 

provided by Robert Eckhardt, NAP.

37 “Rapid Response at Pier 34,” The Observer (May/June 2000): 3.

38 Emilie Lounsberry, “Judge Declines to Jail Pier 34 Owner, Operator,” The 

Philadelphia Inquirer, 22 June 2007.

39 “Rapid Response at Pier 34,” The Observer (May/June 2000): 3, 16; Voigt personal 

communication.

40 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Emergency Management” 

<http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/sb/emerg.htm> (21 May 2010).

41 Mulvenna conversation, 22 October 2009.

42 “District Team Supports Homeland Defense,” The Observer (July/August 2002): 4.

43 Leatherman quoted in “District Team Supports Homeland Defense,” 4.

44 “Survey Team Responds to Delaware River Oil Spill,” The Observer (Winter 

04/05): 4.

45 Mulvenna conversation, 22 October 2009.

46 Mulvenna conversation, 22 October 2009

47 Mulvenna conversation, 22 October 2009; Voigt personal communication.

48 “Contracting Plays Supporting Role in Bosnia Mission,” The Observer (February 

1996): 5.

49 “Task Order,” 27 June 2006, document provided by Bill Bailey, NAP; “Scope of 

Work,” n.d., document provided by Bill Bailey, NAP; Voigt personal communication.

7
253

Facing page: pouring the foundation for 

a section of the Air Freight Terminal at 

Dover Air Force Base, Del.

Throughout the twentieth 

century, the Philadelphia 

District’s military construction (MILCON) mission 

encompassed widely varying 

levels of responsibility, from significant project loads in times of 

war to periods when the district 

had no military construction 

role. These workload fluctuations reflected larger trends in 

the Corps and the military as a 

whole, from periods of massive 

mobilization and the need for 

an increased military infrastructure to efforts aimed at reducing 

military spending and downsizing 

defense installations. The North 

Atlantic Division responded to the 

changing needs of the military by 

balancing its MILCON workload 

across its stateside districts. Thus, 

the Philadelphia District’s level 

of construction support to Army 

and Air Force bases was largely 

dependent on other districts’ capabilities. When demand was high, 

Philadelphia often supported more 

than one installation; in quieter 

times, its involvement was scaled 

back. Because of these fluctuations, the district had to exhibit 

flexibility in mobilizing quickly 

to respond to military construction needs; it was able to do this, 

thereby providing efficient and 

responsive service to the bases 

it served.

The Philadelphia District 

took on a significant MILCON 

role during the Second World 

War in response to the nation’s 

mobilization efforts. The district 

participated in barracks construction to house the influx of recruits 

entering military service and 

Military Construction and Installation Support
254

Chapter 7

constructed arsenal and ammunition facilities. It completed projects 

at installations such as Fort Dix, 

N.J., and Dover Army Airfield, 

Del. However, on 1 October 1944, 

the district’s MILCON mission 

was transferred to New York and 

Baltimore, primarily so that the 

Philadelphia District could focus 

on civil works.1

But the break from the 

MILCON mission was a brief one. 

In 1950, as the United States 

again faced increasing military 

needs because of the Cold War and 

the Korean conflict, the district 

resumed its MILCON role, performing work at McGuire, Dover, 

and Pittsburgh Air Force Bases. 

Projects included ordnance depot 

design and construction, building 

facilities for the Signal Corps, and 

conducting rehabilitation work at 

Fort Dix. After the Korean armistice, the district’s work turned 

toward missile defense sites in 

the greater Philadelphia area as 

America braced itself against the 

threat of nuclear attack. Although 

the district successfully carried out 

its MILCON mission throughout 

the 1950s, by 1960 Corps officials 

decided once more to transfer this 

work to New York and Baltimore.2

Again, the transfer was temporary, 

although it lasted into the 1980s.

Installation Support: 

Fort Dix and McGuire 

Air Force Base

In the mid 1980s, Philadelphia 

District Engineer Lt. Col. Ralph 

Locurcio, facing a civil works 

mission that had declined from the 

1970s because of the cancellation 

of projects such as Tocks Island 

and Trexler, sought to regain the 

district’s MILCON role. In 1985, 

an opportunity presented itself 

when the North Atlantic Division 

was considering which district 

should construct what amounted 

to a completely new Army base 

at Fort Drum, N.Y. At a division 

meeting, Locurcio proposed transferring New York’s responsibility 

for Fort Dix and McGuire Air 

Force Base to Philadelphia to allow 

the New York District to focus its 

efforts on constructing the new 

base. The division commander 

agreed with this suggestion, and in 

October 1985, after a twenty-fiveyear hiatus, the district resumed 
255

Military Construction and Installation Support

MILCON operations as primary 

installation support provider to Dix 

and McGuire.3

Although the Philadelphia 

District now had responsibility 

for some military construction, it 

was not officially classified as a 

Corps Military District and thus 

did not directly receive MILCON 

funds. Instead, those monies were 

funneled through the Baltimore 

District, which had the Military 

District designation. However, to 

manage the increased workload, 

the Philadelphia District created 

the Military Project Management 

Branch within its Engineering and 

Construction Division, and continued to shape its workforce over 

the next several years as it recommenced construction assignments 

at these military installations.4

Much of the district’s initial 

MILCON work was in operations 

and maintenance. For example, 

on an early trip to Fort Dix, 

Construction Branch Chief Brian 

Heverin found a sewage treatment 

center in particular disrepair. The 

steel frame of the facility was torn, 

and the pink insulation inside the 

wall was shredded. As Heverin 

contemplated the cause of the 

building’s deterioration, the answer 

rounded the corner: a goat.5

 He 

wondered if this was an inauspicious introduction to the work 

needed at Fort Dix.

District officials wasted no 

time consulting with personnel 

at Dix and McGuire to identify 

past problems at the bases and 

determine what the Corps could 

do better. Resident engineers and 

contractors working at the bases 

told district staff that the contractors were concerned about 

getting paid on time, and the bases 

wanted projects completed on 

time. Another issue was the need 

An aerial view of Fort Dix, N.J. (now part 

of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), 

with the district-built wastewater 

treatment facility in the foreground
256

Chapter 7

for better communication. The 

district responded by establishing 

a single point of contact and clear 

lines of accountability, streamlining and documenting business 

practices, equipping the resident 

engineer offices with updated telecommunications and information 

technology, and instituting monthly 

reports and meetings with the base 

civil engineers and the directorates 

of engineering and housing at Dix 

and McGuire. These innovations 

improved communications, which, 

in turn, improved levels of service 

to the bases.6

Over the next several years, the 

district handled a wide variety of 

MILCON projects. These included 

improvements to existing infrastructure and renovations to family 

housing and enlisted personnel 

dormitories, as well as the design 

and construction of state-of-the-art 

military facilities, such as a flight 

simulator addition for McGuire 

and weapons ranges at Fort Dix. 

By 1992, the district had twentyseven active military construction 

contracts in hand totaling $61.3 

million.7

One of the district’s most significant and challenging projects 

in the 1990s was the construction 

of a tertiary wastewater treatment 

plant to serve both installations, 

one of the first such joint facilities, with a programmed project 

amount of $49.7 million. Outdated 

treatment plants at both bases 

necessitated renovation to handle 

military, domestic, and industrial wastewater. This project was 

unusual in the parameters within 

which it had to be completed—a 

strict, court-ordered time frame—

and the environmental impacts 

that had to be considered. Because 

of the installations’ failure to meet 

water quality discharge standards, 

a court order had been issued 

Resource Recovery Facility, Fort Dix
257

Military Construction and Installation Support

requiring standards to be met, 

meaning that the district had to 

work on an expedited timeline. In 

addition, the project was located 

in the Pinelands National Reserve 

in New Jersey, which Congress had 

designated a natural reserve in 

1978. Because of this designation, 

effluent could not be discharged 

into surface waters but had to be 

treated “to achieve drinking water 

quality for total direct recharge to 

the protected Pinelands Aquifer.”8

The project required intensive 

coordination with the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP), the 

Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), and the Pinelands 

Commission.9

 During the course 

of design and development, the 

district faced challenges in permit 

acquisition, compliance requirements, and changes in project 

effluent flow after the pilot tests 

had been completed.10 Although 

the project underwent significant 

alterations while in progress, the 

district succeeded in constructing 

the new facility at 14 percent 

below the programmed cost.11

Completed in 1996, the project 

incorporated innovative technologies to meet the mandates of 

environmental protection coupled 

with the demands of treated wastewater flow. The plant featured “one 

of the first large-scale applications 

of an innovative biological nutrient 

removal (BNR) technology, the 

Completed in 1996, the Tertiary 

Wastewater Treatment Facility was built 

to serve both Fort Dix and McGuire 

Air Force Base
258

Chapter 7

Bardenpho advanced activated 

sludge process, which removes 

nitrogen and phosphorus to 

extremely low levels.” Capable of 

handling 4.6 million gallons daily 

through “total effluent recharge 

to the aquifer,” the Fort Dix and 

McGuire Air Force Base tertiary 

wastewater treatment facility was 

“one of the first aquifer recharges 

of treated military wastewaters,” 

and was “hailed by both military 

and government officials as a monumental step toward environmental 

enhancement.”12

Beyond its joint work at 

Dix and McGuire, the district’s 

MILCON included significant 

projects at each base. For example, 

at Fort Dix, the district oversaw 

the modernization and upgrading 

of base firing ranges. This $6 

million project involved the renovation of firing ranges for pistols, 

machine guns, grenade launchers, 

and light antitank weapons, as 

well as those for tank ranges 

(using both stationary and moving 

targets). In addition, the district 

constructed new tube-launched, 

optically tracked, wire-guided 

(TOW) missile ranges.13 These 

projects included building facilities 

such as weapons racks, classrooms, 

latrines, and ammo huts, and 

incorporated the installation of 

upgraded technology for remoted 

engagement target system (RETS) 

ranges.13 The firing range project 

began in 1986 and was scheduled 

for completion before 1990, but 

it was delayed in August 1988 

after the EPA and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service required the 

creation of new wetlands to replace 

those lost in construction of the 

ranges, which was not part of the 

original scope of work. To meet 

these requirements, the district 

created an in-house design for 

Construction of the US Army Reserve 

Center at Fort Dix, N.J., built to 

accommodate units from other 

installations being closed under 

BRAC 2005
259

Military Construction and Installation Support

the mitigation of approximately 

nineteen acres of wetlands and 

procured the NJDEP’s approval 

of the proposed site. Final inspections of the Fort Dix range upgrade 

occurred in the early 1990s.14

Meanwhile, at McGuire Air 

Force Base, the district oversaw 

the construction of a $3 million 

addition to an existing C-141 flight 

simulator training facility for the 

438th Military Airlift Wing. The 

project began in the early 1990s; 

two years in, the Air Force issued 

a temporary stop work order. Five 

months later, the district received 

a directive to “resume design 

with revised floor plan,” which 

increased the size of the facility 

from 14,000 to 16,800 square feet. 

The Corps designed the facility to 

house “2 modern state-of-the art 

C-141 flight training simulators” 

as well as offices, a classroom, 

debriefing rooms, a cockpit procedures trainer, and other amenities. 

Despite the challenge of adjusting 

to the changed floor plan, the 

addition was quickly completed 

and underwent a final inspection 

in 1994, after jurisdiction had been 

transferred back to the New York 

District (see below).15

In addition, in the late 1980s 

and early 1990s, the Philadelphia 

District managed the design and McGuire’s Flight Simulator Facility
260

Chapter 7

construction of a nearly $2 million 

security police complex at McGuire. 

The two-story facility was designed 

to house law enforcement, investigation, training, emergency 

services, and administration 

sections as well as a 900-squarefoot armory. The project initially 

received only one construction bid 

in 1989 (30 percent higher than 

the government estimate); it was 

reopened for bids the following 

year and eventually completed 

under the initial estimated project 

amount of $2.3 million.16

Other projects at McGuire 

were geared toward health services 

facilities. The district managed a 

contract for the construction of 

a $3.6 million, 17,000-squarefoot dental clinic that included 

laboratories, executive offices, 

and storage rooms. As part of the 

project, the district demolished 

the old clinic. Simultaneously, the 

district served as in-house architect for a new building adjacent to 

McGuire’s whole blood processing 

laboratory to house freezer units 

for the storage of whole blood.17

The Philadelphia District also 

completed projects at McGuire 

that involved family housing and 

barracks renovation. Between 

1986 and 1993, the district completed in-house design work for 

the demolition of nearly three 

hundred termite-damaged and 

deteriorated buildings in disrepair. 

These multimillion dollar contracts involved asbestos removal 

and modifications to utility and 

Military construction projects at 

McGuire Air Force Base in the 80s 

and 90s included both demolition (top) 

and renovation (bottom) of enlisted 

personnel housing
261

Military Construction and Installation Support

service lines. In the same period, 

the district oversaw the renovation 

of barracks and improvements to 

unaccompanied enlisted personnel 

housing and family housing; these 

included roof repairs, installation of new doors and windows, 

asbestos abatement, and installation of air-conditioning in family 

housing units. Finally, in the 

early 1990s, the district completed the in-house design of a 

29,000-square-foot child development center with a capacity 

of three hundred children for 

McGuire, scheduled for construction contract award in September 

1993.18 The district’s MILCON 

work served both soldiers and 

their families.

However, the resumption 

of the district’s MILCON role 

at Dix and McGuire was relatively short-lived. On 12 October 

1993, the Philadelphia District 

Military Project Management 

Branch attended its final inprogress review meeting for the 

two installations, as Corps officials transferred the bases back 

to the New York District in 1994. 

The branch noted in its October 

monthly report that its association with Fort Dix and McGuire 

Air Force Base “has been mutually 

beneficial” and wished the 

Child Development Center at McGuire
262

Chapter 7

installations continued success 

in working with the New York 

District.19 The phased transfer 

began on 1 October 1993, with 

active contracts transferred to the 

New York District by 1 October 

1994 and a full transfer of contracting duties completed by 

December of that year. The only 

exception was the tertiary wastewater treatment facility, which 

the Philadelphia District would 

continue to administer “until 

financial closeout,” including the 

retention of resident personnel 

assigned to the project.20 Nearly 

six years later, the district’s 

MILCON responsibility would 

return to Fort Dix through the 

Base Realignment and Closure Act 

(discussed below).

Installation Support: 

Dover Air Force Base

While its MILCON role was 

diminishing at Dix and McGuire, 

the district received a new 

assignment at another familiar 

base. In 1994, the Corps reassigned military construction 

at Dover Air Force Base from 

the Baltimore District to the 

Philadelphia District. With this 

reassignment, the district inherited responsibility for a number 

of projects in progress at Dover, 

among them over $12 million 

in new construction of airmen’s 

dormitories and a $16 million 

replacement of an underground 

aircraft hydrant fueling system, 

as well as new design and construction assignments.21 The 

district applied the experience it 

had gained through its Dix and 

McGuire work to take a more 

active role in the design of new 

projects at Dover.

One of the first Dover projects 

the district designed was a $5.9 

million mobility passenger processing center. At 34,900 square 

feet, the new center was over 

twice the size of its predecessor 

and was designed to handle “more 

than 100,000 active military personnel, retirees, and dependents 

who pass through Dover AFB each 

year.”22 At the facility’s groundbreaking ceremony on 30 October 

1995, North Atlantic Division 

Commander Brig. Gen. Milton 

Hunter commented on the district’s 

efforts and the partnership it had 
263

Military Construction and Installation Support

Airman dormitories at Dover

A common area inside Dover’s 

dormitories
264

Chapter 7

created with the state of Delaware 

and the base:

We prepared a state-of-the-art 

design in less than 10 months, 

thanks to a great effort by both the 

Philadelphia District and the base 

civil engineer. The State of Delaware 

worked closely with us to address 

all the environmental issues, and we 

benefited from strong congressional 

support. As a result, this facility 

will serve our airmen and women, 

soldiers, sailors and marines well 

into the 21st century.23

Just two years later, on 10 

October 1997, the terminal opened 

for business. Dover Air Force Base 

Commander Col. Felix M. Grieder 

expressed his thanks to the Corps 

for constructing, in his words, “the 

finest Air Force passenger terminal 

in the United States.”24

For the district, this was just 

one project among many. By 

October 1996, Philadelphia was 

managing “14 projects totaling $67 

million out of its resident office 

at Dover.”25 One of them was a 

projected $6.8 million C-5 aerial 

delivery facility under in-house 

design by the district, which would 

be used by pilots to maintain 

required drop certifications. 

Dover’s then state-of-the-art Passenger Terminal

The award-winning Visiting Officers’ Quarters 

at Dover
265

Military Construction and Installation Support

The district was also involved 

in evaluating proposals for a 

64,200-square-foot visiting officers’ 

quarters for temporary duty personnel. This project, estimated at 

$12 million and under Philadelphia 

contract management, received an 

Air Force award for design excellence in 1998. It opened its doors 

in February 2000.26

Another MILCON project was 

notable for its solemn significance: 

the Charles C. Carson Center for 

Mortuary Affairs at Dover Air Force 

Base. As of 2008, the mortuary 

held numerous distinctions: it “not 

only serves as our Nation’s sole 

port mortuary but is the largest 

mortuary in the DoD [Department 

of Defense] and the only one 

located in the continental United 

States.”27 The Philadelphia District 

undertook the mission to design 

and construct the 73,000-squarefoot facility to replace the existing 

mortuary at Dover, which had been 

in service since 1955. The assignment, “designated an emergency 

project based on the 9/11 attacks 

and the continued threat of major 

terrorist activity,” included demolition of the existing mortuary 

The Charles C. Carson Center for 

Mortuary Affairs at Dover Air Force Base 

is the Department of Defense’s sole 

stateside mortuary

An interior view of the new facility
266

Chapter 7

Fort Dix Consolidated Club

Timmerman Conference Center, Fort Dix

Ammunition Storage Facility, Fort Dix
267

Military Construction and Installation Support

Fire/Crash Rescue Station, Dover Air Force Base

Air Freight Terminal, Dover Air Force Base

Dover Air Force Base Consolidated Club
268

Chapter 7

buildings and construction of 

a $30 million, state-of-the-art 

facility. The district broke ground 

on 8 April 2002, and the mortuary 

officially opened in October 2004.28

According to the Air Force, the 

center was responsible “for the 

return of all Department of Defense 

(DoD) personnel and dependents from Overseas Contingency 

Operations (OCO)” and, when 

requested, “maintains contingency 

response capabilities in the event 

of homeland mass fatalities.”29 The 

mortuary was the first stopping 

point on United States soil in the 

return journey of all U.S. service 

personnel killed in the line of duty 

in operations abroad.30

The district’s near-decade-long 

span of work at Dix and McGuire 

had prepared it for MILCON 

projects at Dover, and it applied 

the expertise it gained at those 

bases to its Dover work. Likewise, 

as the district moved into the 

2000s, it expected to use the experience it had gained at Dover. This 

experience would prove important 

as the district dealt with changes 

produced by the Base Realignment 

and Closure program.

The Effects of the 

Base Realignment 

and Closure (BRAC) 

Program on MILCON

In October 1988, not long after 

the district resumed its MILCON 

activities, Congress enacted the 

Base Realignment and Closure 

Act (BRAC). According to the 

Department of Defense (DoD), this 

law was intended to allow DoD 

“to more readily close unneeded 

bases and realign others to meet 

its national security requirements.” 

The act stemmed from the ending 

of the Cold War in the late 1980s, 

which left the United States with 

a downsized military and excess 

facilities in the United States 

and in Europe. The law created 

BRAC commissions to “recommend specific base realignments 

and closures to the President, who 

in turn sent the commissions’ recommendations with his approval 

to the Congress.”31 Over the next 

eighteen years, five rounds of 

BRAC commissions either closed 

or realigned numerous bases in the 

United States. The Philadelphia 

District’s MILCON work emerged 

relatively unscathed from BRAC, 
269

Military Construction and Installation Support

but it did experience some effects. 

The most significant were the 

closure of a Defense Logistics 

Agency facility in Philadelphia, 

the realignment of Fort Dix from 

an active Army training installation to an Army Reserve facility, 

and the addition of more MILCON 

work at Aberdeen Proving Ground 

in Maryland.

In 1993, the BRAC commission slated the Defense Personnel 

Support Center (DPSC) in 

Philadelphia for closure. This was 

a facility for which the district had 

provided some support in the preceding years. The center, known 

throughout the Second World War 

and up to 1965 as the Philadelphia 

Quartermaster Depot, was a branch 

of the Defense Logistics Agency 

tasked with providing the armed 

forces with the consumable items 

necessary for the execution of their 

duties. In the 1990s, the DPSC was 

the troop support center, supplying 

“armed services members with 

food, clothing, textiles, medicines, 

medical equipment, and construction supplies and equipment.”32

The Philadelphia District assisted 

with this mission by managing 

both MILCON and operation and 

maintenance construction for the 

DPSC. These projects included 

heating and cooling system maintenance and roof repair as well 

as contaminant remediation for 

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) 

transformer removal and DDT 

clean-up. After BRAC designated 

the facility for closure, the district 

prepared to end its support at the 

center. When the DPSC officially 

closed in 1999, the district’s work 

at the facility ended as well.33

Although BRAC removed 

some military facilities under 

the district’s jurisdiction, the 

program also added MILCON 

work. For example, because of 

Headquarters building for the Defense 

Personnel Support Center before closure 

and redevelopment (currently leased 

by Defense Realty, LLC)
270

Chapter 7

BRAC realignment of Fort Dix’s 

responsibilities, the district once 

again received jurisdiction over 

it on 1 May 2000.34 Dix retained 

its military training mission for 

Reserve personnel, so its MILCON 

needs continued.35 Upon receiving 

responsibility for Fort Dix, the 

Philadelphia District immediately 

assumed work on several multimillion dollar projects in progress.

One of these projects was 

the construction of an approximately $7 million centralized 

tactical vehicle wash facility that 

incorporated access roads and 

drive-through prewash basins; 

another involved taking on contracting responsibilities for a nearly 

$10 million ammunition supply 

point that would include an operations building, inspection building, 

residue turn-in building, and ten 

2,000-square-foot storage magazines. Work on the supply point 

was delayed when ordnance was 

discovered at the job site, but six 

months later the project was back 

online, and it officially opened on 

10 February 2003.36

An armored personnel carrier proceeds 

through Fort Dix’s Tactical Vehicle 

Wash Facility
271

Military Construction and Installation Support

The district also completed 

in-house design work for Dix in the 

early 2000s, modernizing the base 

in two distinct ways. Beginning 

in 2001, the district designed a 

complete $13 million renovation 

of three barracks dating from the 

1950s for officers’ quarters. The 

three-story buildings required 

both interior and exterior renovations, including new windows, 

doors, interior partition walls, an 

upgraded dining facility, and connections for computers, telephones, 

and cable television.37

The second modernization 

project occurred in 2004 when 

the district completed an in-house 

design of an urban assault course. 

The project reflected the changing 

nature of America’s involvement in 

modern war, in which operations 

occur against armed insurgents 

in primarily populated areas. 

The course was “based on the 

most recent designs developed” 

by the Combined Arms Military 

Operations in Urban Terrain Task 

Force. The five-station facility 

incorporated “an Individual/Team 

Trainer, Squad/Platoon Trainer, 

Grenadier Gunnery Trainer, 

Fort Dix ammunition storage facility 

under construction

Renovated barracks at Fort Dix
272

Chapter 7

Offense/Defense House, and an 

Underground Trainer.” The course 

included targets for each station, 

and although it was not designed 

as a live-fire range, the Grenadier 

Gunnery station could support the 

use of 40mm target practice rounds 

and 5.5mm service ammunition. 

The total cost for the project was 

estimated at $2.4 million.38

The BRAC process also brought 

the Philadelphia District new work 

at Aberdeen Proving Ground in 

Maryland. The 2005 BRAC commission recommended the closure 

of Fort Monmouth, N.J., and the 

transfer of the Army’s research and 

development operations for Army 

Team C4ISR (Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers, 

Intelligence, Surveillance and 

Reconnaissance) to Aberdeen. 

Because the Baltimore District 

(which had responsibility for 

Aberdeen) was already facing 

an increased MILCON workload 

under BRAC, Baltimore outsourced work on the C4ISR 

center (at one time estimated to 

be nearly $500 million) to the 

Philadelphia District.39 Most of 

the work involved constructing a 

1.6-million-square-foot facility and 

streamlining Monmouth’s sixty to 

seventy buildings into thirteen new 

structures (plus one to be renovated) at Aberdeen. On 17 March 

2008, a groundbreaking ceremony 

heralded the start of Phase I construction on the project.40

Fort Dix Annual Training Barracks, 

renovated by the District for the 

U.S. Army Reserve Command

Building new family housing units at 

Dover Air Force Base
273

Military Construction and Installation Support

By 2007, the North Atlantic 

Division had programmed $275 

million in MILCON work to the 

Philadelphia District for the next 

five years.41 Recognizing the 

increasing role the district was 

playing in military construction, 

the Corps restored its official designation as a Military District in 

2009.42 With that designation, and 

with projects such as C4ISR, the 

Philadelphia District seemed poised 

to continue its MILCON work in 

the twenty-first century.

* * * * * * *

New facilities under construction at 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., in 2008 

for relocation of the Army’s Team C4ISR 

from Fort Monmouth, N.J.

An artist’s rendering of the completed 

C4ISR complex at Aberdeen 

Proving Ground
274

Chapter 7

Throughout the twentieth 

century, the Philadelphia District’s 

MILCON role fluctuated with the 

changing needs of the military. 

During periods of massive 

military build-up, the district 

was called on to provide military 

installation support where needed; 

it completed a number of construction assignments throughout 

the Northeast. Through the 1970s 

and the first half of the 1980s, the 

district had no MILCON mission, 

but that hiatus ended in 1985 

when new military construction 

necessitated a shared workload 

among Corps districts, resulting in 

the transfer of responsibilities for 

Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force 

Base to the Philadelphia District. 

In its resumed MILCON role, the 

district took on a wide variety 

of projects—from facilities for 

frontline soldiers, such as training 

courses and firing ranges, to 

renovation of barracks and family 

Dover’s new Air Traffic Control Tower, 

2008
275

Military Construction and Installation Support

housing. As the basing requirements of the military changed 

in the 1990s, so did its military 

construction needs and, accordingly, the district’s MILCON 

duties. Dix and McGuire were 

transferred to other districts, but 

the Philadelphia District acquired 

work at Dover Air Force Base. 

The district took the changes in 

stride, applying lessons learned 

from its work at Dix and McGuire 

to Dover. As a result of the BRAC 

program, some of the district’s 

MILCON work came to an end 

and the DPSC closed permanently; but the district gained 

new work, including responsibility 

again for Fort Dix and the C4ISR 

project at Aberdeen Proving 

Ground. Despite the repeated 

transfers, the district maintained 

a strong association with its 

MILCON customers throughout 

this period and became known 

for its responsiveness to the 

needs of the various bases. This 

responsiveness allowed the district 

to complete projects in an efficient and cost-effective manner, 

earning it recognition for its outstanding work and cementing 

its military construction role for 

the future.
Chapter 7 — Endnotes

276

1

 Snyder and Guss, The District, 142–144.

2

 Snyder and Guss, The District, 145, 150, 155.

3

 Locurcio interview, 6–7; Snyder and Guss, The District, 155; Unpublished Morgan 

Draft District History, 132.

4

 It is not clear why MILCON funds came through the Baltimore District and not 

the New York District. Paul Gaudini email to Joshua Pollarine, 20 April 2010, copy in 

possession of the authors.

5

 Brian Heverin, conversation with Paul Sadin, 8 August 2009.

6

 Heverin conversation, 8 August 2009; Edward Voigt, Chief, Public & Legislative 

Affairs, Philadelphia District, personal communication with Joshua Pollarine, 19 April 

2011.

7

 Construction Services Branch, Philadelphia District, “Orientation Briefing for LTC 

Richard F. Sliwoski, District Commander,” July 1992, Loose Papers, Drawer 3, John 

Burnes Office, Philadelphia District.

8

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chief of Engineers, Design and Environmental 

Awards Program, “Fort Dix/McGuire Air Force Base Tertiary Wastewater Treatment 

Facility,” 1998, document provided by Paul Gaudini, Philadelphia District [emphasis in 

original]; Paul Gaudini email to Joshua Pollarine, 1 June 2010, copy in possession of the 

authors.

9

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Military Construction 

Management Report [hereafter Military Construction Management Report], “In 

Progress Review: Design Projects, Fort Dix, New Jersey,” 19 October 1988, A-2, File FY 

1989 IPR Fort Dix, Drawer Dix IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia 

District; Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design 

Projects, Fort Dix, New Jersey,” September 1988, A-2, File 1988 IPR Fort Dix, ibid.; 

Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, Fort 

Dix, New Jersey,” October 1990, A-1.2, File FY 1991 IPR Fort Dix, ibid.

10 Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, 

Fort Dix, New Jersey,” October 1989, A-2-1, File FY 1990 IPR Fort Dix, Drawer Dix IPR, 

Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District. Although design started in 

1988, a directive altering flow amount to 3.6 million gallons daily was not issued until 

10 January 1991. Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: 

Design Projects, Fort Dix, New Jersey,” 8 October 1991, A-1.1, File FY 1992 IPR Fort 

Dix, ibid.

11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chief of Engineers, Design and Environmental 

Awards Program, “Fort Dix/McGuire Air Force Base Tertiary Wastewater Treatment 

Facility,” 1998, document provided by Paul Gaudini, Philadelphia District.

12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chief of Engineers, Design and Environmental 

Awards Program, “Fort Dix/McGuire Air Force Base Tertiary Wastewater Treatment 

Facility,” 1998, document provided by Paul Gaudini, Philadelphia District.

13 Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, 

Fort Dix, New Jersey,” October 1989, A-1, File FY 1990 IPR Fort Dix, Drawer Dix 

IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; Military Construction 

Management Report, “STAR Report, Military Construction, Fort Dix, New Jersey,” 23 

June 1986, n.p., 33–34, 38, File FY 1986 IPR Ft Dix, Drawer McGuire IPR, Cabinet 8, 

files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; S. J. Bucolo, Acting Chief, Planning/

Engineering Division, “SUBJECT: MCA PN 227, FY88, Range Upgrade, Fort Dix,” 24 

September 1986, File FY 1986 IPR Ft Dix, Drawer McGuire IPR, Cabinet 8, files in 7th 

floor hallway, Philadelphia District.

14 Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, 

Fort Dix, New Jersey,” 10 September 1991, C-2, File FY 1991 IPR Fort Dix, Drawer 

Dix IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; see also Military 

Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, Fort Dix, New 

Jersey,” 19 October 1988, A-1, File FY 1989 IPR Fort Dix, Drawer Dix IPR, Cabinet 10, 

files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; “Fort Dix Military Construction,” 13 July 

1992, 1, Loose Papers, Drawer 3, John Burnes Office, Philadelphia District.

15 Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, 

BCE McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey,” 9 October 1990, 4, File FY 1991 IPR 

McGuire AFB, Drawer McGuire IPR, Cabinet 8, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia 

District; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Fort Dix/McGuire Resident 

Office, “In Progress Review, Military Construction Projects, Management Reports, 

McGuire A.F.B., New Jersey,” 12 October 1994, n.p., File FY 94 IPR McGuire, ibid.

16 Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, 

BCE McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey,” 11 October 1988, 3, File FY 1989 IPR 

McGuire AFB, Drawer McGuire IPR, Cabinet 8, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia 

District; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Fort Dix/McGuire Resident 

Office, “In Progress Review, Military Construction Projects, Management Reports, 

McGuire A.F.B., New Jersey,” 12 October 1993, 5, File FY 94 IPR McGuire, ibid.; Military 

Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, BCE McGuire 

Air Force Base, New Jersey,” 4 October 1989, 2, File FY 1990 IPR McGuire AFB, ibid.; 

Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, BCE 

McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey,” 9 October 1990, 2, File FY 1991 IPR McGuire 

AFB, ibid.

17 Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, 

BCE McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey,” 4 October 1989, n.p., File FY 1990 IPR 

McGuire AFB, Drawer McGuire IPR, Cabinet 8, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia 

District.

18 Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, 

Fort Dix, New Jersey,” September 1986, F-1, File FY 1986 IPR Ft Dix, Drawer McGuire 

IPR, Cabinet 8, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; Military Construction 

Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, Fort Dix, New Jersey,” 10 

September 1991, D-2, File FY 1991 IPR Fort Dix, Drawer Dix IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 

7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; Military Construction Management Report, “In 

Progress Review: Design Projects, Fort Dix, New Jersey,” September 1988, F-1, File 1988 

IPR Fort Dix, Drawer Dix IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; 

Military Construction Management Report, “STAR Report, Military Construction, 

Fort Dix, New Jersey,” 23 June 1986, n.p., File FY 1986 IPR Ft Dix, Drawer McGuire 

IPR, Cabinet 8, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; Military Construction 

Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, Fort Dix, New Jersey,” 12 

October 1993, D-1, File FY 1993 IPR Fort Dix, Drawer Dix IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 7th 

floor hallway, Philadelphia District; Military Construction Management Report, “In 

Progress Review: Design Projects, Fort Dix, New Jersey,” October 1990, 2, File FY 1991 

IPR Fort Dix, Drawer Dix IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; 

Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, BCE 

McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey,” 14 September 1993, 2, File FY 1993 IPR McGuire 

AFB, Drawer McGuire IPR, Cabinet 8, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District.

19 Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, 

Fort Dix, New Jersey,” 12 October 1993, forward, File FY 1993 IPR Fort Dix, Drawer Dix 

IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District.

20 Draft, Memorandum of Understanding between New York District and 

Philadelphia District, North Atlantic Division, for Transfer of Military Programs Work, 

Fort Dix, N.J. and McGuire Air Force Base, N.J., 3 September 1993, 3, 4–6, File Military 

Transfer Aug-Sep 93, Drawer 2, John Burnes Office, Philadelphia District.

21 Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Construction 

Projects, BCE Dover Air Force Base, Delaware,”6 September 1994, n.p., File FY 

1994 IPR Dover AFB, DE, Drawer Dover IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, 

Philadelphia District; Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: 

Design Projects, BCE Dover Air Force Base, Delaware,”19 October 1994, 11, File FY 

1994 IPR Dover AFB, DE, ibid.

22 “The Project Place: Getting the Job Done at Dover AFB,” The Observer (October 

1996): 8; Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design 

Projects, BCE Dover Air Force Base, Delaware,” 19 October 1994, 9, File FY 1994 IPR 

Dover AFB, DE, Drawer Dover IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia 

District.

23 As quoted in “Work Begins on Passenger Terminal for Dover AFB,” The Observer

(December 1995): 15.

24 “Passenger Terminal, Dorms Completed at Dover,” The Observer (September/

October 1997): 4.
Chapter 7 — Endnotes

277

25 “The Project Place: Getting the Job Done at Dover AFB,” 8.

26 Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, 

Air Mobility Command, Base Civil Engineering, Dover Air Force Base, Delaware,” 18 

September 1996, 4–5, no file title, Drawer Dover IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor 

hallway, Philadelphia District; “Award-winning Design Goes to Work at Dover Air Force 

Base,” The Observer (January/February 2000): 4.

27 U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet, “Air Force Mortuary Affairs, Port Mortuary,” 

August 2009 <http://www.mortuary.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet_print.

asp?fsID=15361&page=1> (21 May 2010).

28 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “A New Millenium: 1999-

2005” <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.army.mil/sb/Time_1999-2005.pdf> (21 

May 2010); “Dover Air Force Base: Mortuary,” The Observer (November/December 

2002): 6; K. L. Vantran, “New DOD Mortuary Opens at Dover,” American Forces Press 

Service, 30 October 2003, digital copy available at <http://www.af.mil/news/story.

asp?storyID=123005914> (21 May 2010).

29 U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet, “Air Force Mortuary Affairs, Port Mortuary.” Overseas 

Contingency Operations was the Obama administration’s name for the Global War 

on Terror, the military operations policy promulgated by the Bush administration in 

response to the attacks of 11 September 2001.

30 Vantran, “New DOD Mortuary Opens at Dover.”

31 U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO], Military Base Closures: Better Planning 

Needed for Future Reserve Enclaves, Report No. GAO-03-723 (Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003), digital copy (no page numbers) available at 

<http://www.gao.gov/htext/d03723.html> (21 May 2010); see also U.S. Department 

of Defense, Report of the Defense Secretary’s Commission, “Base Realignment and 

Closures,” December 1988, 6–11, digital copy available at <http://www.hqda.army.mil/

acsimweb/brac/003283.pdf> (21 May 2010).

32 Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, “History of Defense 

Supply Center Philadelphia” <http://www.dscp.dla.mil/history.asp> (21 May 2010); 

Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center, Philadelphia, “Defense Supply Center 

Philadelphia” <http://www.dscp.dla.mil/> (21 May 2010).

33 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Defense Personnel Support 

Center, Military Construction,” 10 July 1992, 30–41, Loose Papers, Drawer 3, John 

Burnes Office, Philadelphia District; Military Construction Management Report, “In 

Progress Review: Construction Projects, Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, 

PA,” 1 February 1996, 1, File FY 1989 IPR McGuire AFB, Drawer McGuire IPR, Cabinet 

8, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; Military Construction Management 

Report, “In Progress Review: Construction Projects, Defense Personnel Support Center, 

Philadelphia, PA,” 1 February 1996, 5, File FY 1989 IPR McGuire AFB, Drawer McGuire 

IPR, Cabinet 8, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; Department of Defense, 

“Base Closure and Realignment Schedules as of September 30, 2001,” 30 September 

2001 <http://www.oea.gov/OEAWeb.nsf/D6457626D512D16E85256E8300447D2F/$F

ile/ BRAC%20Schedules%20Report2.pdf> (21 May 2010).

34 “Fort Dix Returns to the Philly Fold,” The Observer (March/April 2000): 4.

35 GAO, Military Base Closures, n.p.

36 The project amount started at $6.4 million and was later modified to $7.2 million. 

Military Construction Management Report, “In Progress Review: Design Projects, Fort 

Dix, New Jersey,” 14 November 2000, 1, File Ft Dix IPR 14 Nov 00, Drawer Dix IPR, 

Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; “Tactical Vehicle Wash 

Facility,” 24 September 2004, File Dix IPR 24 Sep 04, Drawer Dix IPR, Cabinet 10, files 

in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Brown, “As I see 

it...Global Expertise + Neighborhood Solutions – The DISTRICT that GETS IT DONE,” 

The Observer (Summer 2001): 3; “Ammunition Supply Point,” 24 September 2004, File 

Dix IPR 24 Sep 04, Drawer Dix IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia 

District.

37 Fact Sheet, AT Barracks Upgrade, Ft. Dix, FY 02, October 2001, File Ft Dix IPR 27 

Aug 01, Drawer Dix IPR, Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District; “AT 

Barracks Renovation,” 25 October 2004, File Dix IPR 29 Oct 04, ibid.

38 “Urban Assault Course,” 27 October 2004, File Dix IPR 29 Oct 04, Drawer Dix IPR, 

Cabinet 10, files in 7th floor hallway, Philadelphia District.

39 Ed Lopez, Communications-Electronics Command [CECOM], “Future Army 

C4ISR Facilities a Convergence of Many Goals,” 6 July 2009 <http://www.army.mil/-

news/2009/07/06/23924-future-army-c4isr-facilities-a-convergence-of-many-goals/> (21 

May 2010); Jim Parsons, “Owner of the Year: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore 

District,” Summer 2009 <http://midatlantic.construction.com/ features/archive/2009/

summer09_C_OwnerOfTheYear.asp> (21 May 2010).

40 Ed Lopez, Communications-Electronics Command [CECOM], “Future Army 

C4ISR Facilities a Convergence of Many Goals,” 6 July 2009 <http://www.army.mil/-

news/2009/07/06/23924-future-army-c4isr-facilities-a-convergence-of-many-goals/> (21 

May 2010); Jim Parsons, “Owner of the Year: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore 

District,” Summer 2009 <http://midatlantic.construction.com/ features/archive/2009/

summer09_C_OwnerOfTheYear.asp> (21 May 2010); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Philadelphia District, “Solution Builders,” <http://www.Philadelphia District.usace.

army.mil/solution.htm> (21 May 2010). By the summer of 2010 the district would turn 

over the first five buildings to Team C4ISR on time and within budget. Voigt personal 

communication.

41 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Division, “Corps of Engineers BRAC/

MILCON 07-11,” 10 August 2006, document provided by Philadelphia District.

42 Brigadier General Todd T. Semonite, Commander, North Atlantic Division, 

Memorandum for Record, 17 April 2009, document provided by Edward Voigt, 

Philadelphia District.
8
279

Created in 1908 as the 

Marine Division and 

headquartered with the 

Philadelphia District since 1938, 

the Marine Design Center (MDC) 

has had a distinguished history 

within the Corps of Engineers. 

From the outset, the mission of 

the Marine Division (renamed the 

Marine Design Division in 1938 

and the Marine Design Center in 

1979) was to provide the Corps 

with “a group of naval architects 

and marine, mechanical, and 

electrical engineers who could 

design, build, and maintain the 

complex craft needed to improve 

and maintain our inland and 

coastal waterways.”1

 The center 

has upheld and expanded this 

mission throughout its history, as 

it has provided services not just for 

the Corps but for other government 

agencies as well. Physically collocated with the Philadelphia District 

but operating as a separate entity, 

the MDC uses innovative technologies and rehabilitative maintenance 

to keep the Corps’ fleet afloat.

At its inception, the MDC was 

the only division in the Corps 

with nationwide responsibility.2

Its initial assignment centered 

on the development and maintenance of the Corps’ dredge fleet, 

the critical element in ensuring 

the navigability of the nation’s 

waterways. During the Second 

World War, the division’s responsibilities increased significantly, 

as it engaged in various projects 

and expanded its portfolio. The 

division designed and constructed 

“tugboats, towboats, barges of 

wood and steel, floating cranes, 

floating machine shops, port 

The Marine Design Center

Facing page: Survey Boat Moritz during 

sea trials, prior to delivery by the Marine 

Design Center to the New York District

The USACE Marine Design Center logo
280

Chapter 8

repair ships, and floating power 

plants.” It outfitted dredges with 

guns, armor, and ordnance.3

 These 

changes supported the war effort; 

with the cessation of hostilities, the 

division turned away from gunnery 

and armaments and resumed its 

work of refining, rehabilitating, 

and applying state-of the-art technologies to Corps vessels.

From the 1950s to the 1970s, 

the MDC worked on a variety of 

innovative projects. It designed 

controllable pitch propellers for 

dredge use and implemented 

the first enclosed duct-type bow 

thruster on an American dredge. 

Staying on the cutting edge of 

technology, the MDC designed the 

first floating nuclear power plant, 

the Sturgis, which was capable 

of generating 10,000 kilowatts. 

The Corps deployed the vessel 

for use in the Panama Canal 

Zone. At the same time the MDC 

was developing new technologies, it upgraded older ships with 

modern equipment so they could 

continue in service, repowering 

dredges and converting them to use 

The Towboat Creve Coeur
281

Th e M a r i n e D e s i g n C e n t e r

contemporary techniques, such as 

topside discharge via a “snorkel” 

(1960s). The division continued its 

work on other watercraft for the 

Corps, designing and managing the 

construction of barges, towboats, 

and survey boats.4

The 1970s was a time of 

change for the MDC. Throughout 

most of the decade, the center 

operated under the aegis of the 

Philadelphia District, so the 

division chief reported to the 

district engineer. In 1979, that 

arrangement changed as a result 

of a Corps-wide reorganization 

in which a number of separate 

organizations dealing with water 

resources were gathered under the 

umbrella of the Water Resources 

Support Center, headquartered at 

Fort Belvoir, Va. The MDC was 

transferred to the new organization and placed within its Dredging 

Division. But although the center 

reported to a new chief, its 

offices remained in Philadelphia. 

As former MDC Director Keith 

Lawrence recalled, “We stayed 

right there. Nothing changed, Construction of a survey boat
282

Chapter 8

nobody moved, nothing happened, 

but organizationally we were no 

longer part of the Philadelphia 

District. We were now part of the 

Water Resources Support Center.”5

The organizational transfer 

of the MDC was followed by 

other changes focused on keeping 

up with rapid innovations in 

technology, such as upgrading 

personnel qualifications to incorporate computer-aided drafting 

and design. Certain positions were 

realigned, with such jobs as inspectors and draftsmen reclassified 

to professional engineering posts. 

Having an increasingly professional 

staff generated new responsibilities, and expanded responsibility 

led to increased staff interest 

in the projects. In addition, the 

creation of project teams allowed 

a greater delegation of accountability within the center. Each 

team, with its own project manager 

and project engineers, became 

“the face of the organization” to 

the project sponsor.6

 The use of a 

single project manager “from the 

initial studies to sea trials” was an 

effective maneuver and foreshadowed the Corps’ implementation 

of life cycle project management in 

the 1990s.7

Although the MDC was 

under the auspices of the Water 

Resources Support Center, it was a 

self-sustaining unit. As Lawrence 

explained, “Nobody in the Corps 

of Engineers has Marine Design 

Center in their budget....the organization exists only on the work 

that comes in.” The MDC had 

to promote itself as an organization to ensure that other entities 

within the Corps knew “who could 

help them, who could get them 

the right kind of equipment that 

they needed to help them repair 

what they needed, improve what 

they had.”8

 The MDC’s continued 

existence testified to its usefulness, 

expertise, and excellence.

Because the MDC remained 

housed with the Philadelphia 

District, it continued to rely on the 

district for administrative support. 

The district provided contracting 

and human resources services, as 

well as finance, accounting, and 

legal support on a reimbursable 

basis—and occasionally assisted 

with technical support unique to 

district missions. As Lawrence 

The Marine Design Center teams with 

workers at the Corps’ Ensley Engineer 

Shipyard in Memphis, Tenn. to set the 

kingpost on the St. Paul District’s Crane 

Barge Leonard prior to load testing
283

Th e M a r i n e D e s i g n C e n t e r

recalled, although it was separate, 

the MDC “still worked hand-inglove with all the elements of the 

Philadelphia District.” Because the 

district provided contract support, 

the district engineer had to sign off 

on contracted work for the MDC, 

although the work was subsequently managed by the MDC with 

minimal district involvement.9

Changes in the MDC’s administrative affiliation continued into 

the 1980s. Just as the MDC had 

to perpetuate itself through its 

project load, its umbrella organization, the Water Resources 

Support Center, was also 

somewhat precariously positioned. 

According to Lawrence, when the 

head of the Dredging Division 

retired, that branch of the Support 

Center simply “ceased to exist.”10

With no clear direction as to the 

revised chain of command, the 

MDC director took the initiative 

to report to the director of civil 

works at Corps Headquarters. 

Perhaps because of this, the MDC 

was established as an unaffiliated 

field operating activity in 1989, 

reporting directly and officially to 

the Directorate of Civil Works.11

Cover design for MDC information brochure

The Dredge Chester Harding
284

Chapter 8

The MDC was significantly 

affected by operational changes 

as well. In 1976, the Office of 

the Chief of Engineers “directed 

the Marine Design Division to 

begin preliminary design work on 

three new state-of-the-art hopper 

dredges,” to be constructed under 

the most “modern marine construction techniques.”12 However, 

in 1978, Congress passed legislation requiring the secretary of the 

army to “retain only the minimum 

federally owned fleet capable of 

performing such work.”13 In effect, 

the MDC was tasked with designing 

new dredges while the Corps 

sought ways to reduce the fleet.

A Corps of Engineers study 

completed in response to the 

1978 legislation recommended 

“that the hopper dredge portion 

of the minimum fleet consist of 8 

dredges: 1 large class, 4 medium 

class and 3 small class dredges.”14

This would occur as a phased 

reduction in the fleet, dropping 

from fifteen dredges in fiscal year 

1978 to the recommended eight by 

fiscal year 1983.15 The upshot of 

phasing in the fleet reduction was 

that the MDC continued with its 

design and construction of three 

new dredges that would replace 

older, still active models.

The MDC successfully 

carried out its orders. In 1981, 

it completed construction of the 

small-class Dredge Yaquina, and 

in spring 1982, it finished the 

medium-class Essayons, both 

of which were assigned to the 

Portland District to serve the 

entire west coast and Hawaii. 

(Essayons was originally destined 

for the Philadelphia District but 

was replaced by the McFarland.) 

In 1981, the MDC also completed 

construction of the large-class 

Wheeler, assigned to the New 

Three of the Corps’ four “Minimum Fleet” 

oceangoing Hopper Dredges (from front): 

McFarland, Wheeler, and Essayons
285

Th e M a r i n e D e s i g n C e n t e r

Orleans District “for work along 

the Gulf Coast and in the lower 

Mississippi River.” The latter two 

dredges replaced two Corps vessels 

that had been in service since the 

first half of the twentieth century: 

the Goethals, built in 1938, and 

the Langfitt, completed in 1947. 

The new ships incorporated automated technology, which reduced 

the number of crew required to 

operate the vessels and effectively 

cut costs. Additionally, the modernized dredges had such luxuries as 

air-conditioning and recreational 

facilities for the crews, including 

gyms and saunas.16

Even with the reduction in 

the number of dredges, the MDC 

continued its mission to maintain 

and improve the Corps’ fleet 

into the twenty-first century, 

remaining at the forefront of 

technology and implementing 

Design drawings for the Crane Barge 

Henry M. Shreve
286

Chapter 8

the latest innovations in marine 

design. With a fleet comprising 

debris collectors, survey and patrol 

vessels, towboats, floating cranes, 

dredges, and barges, this was no 

small task.17 According to Richard 

Pearsall of the Philadelphia 

District’s Public Affairs Office, 

“At any given time the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers keeps 2,500 

vessels afloat,” and the MDC “gives 

a decentralized fleet a central 

organization to turn to for advice 

on everything from repairing old 

craft to designing and purchasing 

new ones.”18

 In addition to designing 

new craft for the Corps, the 

MDC rehabilitated aging vessels 

to extend their operational life. 

In 1985, the MDC repowered 

the Dredge Jadwin from steam 

powered to diesel-electric powered 

for the Vicksburg District. The 

refurbished dredge returned to 

Vicksburg with new generators, 

propellers, propulsion motors, and 

Crane Barge Henry M. Shreve dredge pump gears and motors, 
287

Th e M a r i n e D e s i g n C e n t e r

among other substantial improvements that incorporated “power 

management”—the enhanced 

application of power, fuel savings, 

and the resultant emission reductions. The renovation was an 

outstanding achievement considering that the Jadwin was 

originally commissioned in 1932 

and its contemporaries had long 

been retired from active service. 

In 2001, the MDC completed a 

similar rehabilitation (also from 

steam to diesel-electric) with the 

Dredge Potter for the St. Louis 

District.19

In its rehabilitation projects, 

the MDC operated within the 

confines of increasingly stringent environmental standards. As 

William F. Gretzmacher III, who 

became director of the MDC in 

1999, reported, “A lot of what we 

do deals with being more ‘green.’”20

Even relatively recently built Corps 

craft, such as the Yaquina and the 

Essayons, constructed in the early 

1980s for the Portland District, 

underwent substantial repowering 

in the first decade of the twentyfirst century. The Essayons, in 

particular, benefited from changes 

in technology—a major renovation 

completed in 2009 would boost its 

propulsion by 2000 horsepower. 

The MDC was also providing the 

dredge with new propellers to 

increase its efficiency and eight 

new engines that would “greatly 

reduce” emissions, keeping the 

vessel in line with environmental 

emission standards.21

Beyond increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

Corps’ fleet, the MDC was an 

innovator in the field of floating 

cranes. According to Lawrence, 

“One of the most dangerous pieces 

of marine equipment ever is a 

floating crane.”22 Engineers at the 

MDC developed a set of standards 

to make the cranes safer, while at 

the same time optimizing crane 

load charts in relation to vessel 

stability.23 The result, according to 

Lawrence, was that “any floating 

crane that comes out of the Marine 

Design Center today is the safest 

floating crane anybody is ever 

going to see and it will do the 

job that it’s designed to do.”24 A 

notable example was the heavylift Floating Crane Shreve, which 

allowed a new lock and dam 

New launch boat for the Hopper Dredge 

Essayons, delivered to the Portland 

District in 2003
288

Chapter 8

maintenance concept—replacing 

existing gate leaves with spares, 

thus reducing lock closure periods 

and the resultant delaying effects 

on the transportation industry.

In 1993, the Corps’ Waterways 

Experiment Station (WES) enlisted 

the assistance of the MDC in its 

efforts to minimize the impact of 

dredging on sea turtles in Florida’s 

waterways. A study conducted by 

the Jacksonville District and the 

WES investigated the potential 

for a device “installed on hopper 

dredges to deflect turtles before 

they got sucked into the dredge 

pumping system.” The MDC 

created a prototype deflector to be 

installed on the draghead intake, 

“the ‘working ends’ of dredging 

equipment which suck up material 

from a navigation channel.” The 

study involved two other experimental deflectors constructed by 

outside sources, along with three 

hundred artificial turtles built from 

concrete and foam to approximate the “actual size, shape, and 

weight of sea turtles.” After initial 

tests, project manager Mark Wolff 

reported that the MDC’s design 

was “far and away the most 

successful.”25

In addition to its work for the 

Corps, the MDC worked for other 

federal entities. In the early 1990s, 

the MDC completed a project for 

The Floating Crane Monallo
289

Th e M a r i n e D e s i g n C e n t e r

the Navy, working alongside a 

Navy research and development 

group operating out of the Naval 

Surface Warfare Center, Carderock 

Division. The approximately $2 

million project (funded by the 

Navy) involved the repowering of 

a surface effect ship, transforming 

it “from a traditional propeller 

configuration to a water jet configuration.”26 When the MDC 

began the project, the use of water 

jet propulsion was an experimental 

practice. The collaborative effort 

was a singular success—designed, 

contracted, and completed in just 

over two years, an impressive 

accomplishment for the Navy.27

William Gretzmacher recalled that 

the “two organizations blended 

very well together and we had an 

excellent combined Government 

team.”28

Another federal agency for 

which the MDC worked was the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 

the twenty-first century, the MDC 

assisted the USGS with the construction of two fisheries research 

vessels: the Kiyi, commissioned in 

2000, and the Sturgeon, commissioned in 2004. The MDC worked 

in partnership with the USGS 

Great Lakes Science Center, based 

in Ann Arbor, Mich., for the construction of both craft, completed 

at a total project cost of approximately $6 million. The vessels 

were placed in active service in the 

waters of the Great Lakes.29

The MDC also worked on 

projects in other countries, most 

notably one completed in the 

1980s for Sudan. In the early 

1980s, Khartoum, the capital, 

and 87 percent of the rest of the 

nation received their power from 

a hydroelectric plant on the Blue 

Nile River. However, the dam providing the power had been subject 

Turtle deflector visor designed by the 

Marine Design Center for the McFarland
290

Chapter 8

to repeated spring runoffs that 

deposited silt in and around the 

hydroelectric generating turbines. 

The issue came to a head when 

runoff collapsed a stream bank, 

clogging a turbine with silt and 

compromising power generation 

for the country. To assist the government of Sudan, the U.S. State 

Department solicited the aid of the 

Corps, which, in turn, looked to 

the MDC.30

The MDC faced the task of 

designing a dredge that would be 

assembled in the United States, 

disassembled, transferred to the job 

site half a world away, reassembled 

using less-than-modern tools, and 

put to work removing the excess 

silt from the river. Keith Lawrence 

explained the assignment to his 

staff this way: “‘This is a new 

challenge. . . . You guys are constantly working on state-of-the-art 

stuff . . . [but] this has to be low 

tech.’”31 Working under this directive, the center designed a dredge 

that would meet the need.

Vint Bossert was the MDC 

technical representative who 

oversaw the reassembly of the craft 

in Sudan in 1984. He recalled 

The U.S. Geological Survey Research 

Vessel Kiyi

The USGS vessel Sturgeon on the waters 

of the Great Lakes
291

Th e M a r i n e D e s i g n C e n t e r

that the delegation that delivered 

the project “built it, launched it, 

operated it, showed them how to 

operate it, made sure it could be 

maintained, and then we took off.” 

Although in Sudan for just four 

months, the MDC crew, augmented 

by Sudanese laborers, successfully 

completed the mission of clearing 

the silt from the turbine. The 

MDC team trained the Sudanese 

in the operation of the equipment 

to maintain their waterway in 

the future.32

As the 2000s drew to a close, 

the MDC continued to function 

as a streamlined technical organization, although it had grown 

to comprise three branches with 

a staff of thirty. Eighteen people 

worked in the Design Branch, 

including “all the engineers 

engaged in technical work.” The 

MDC also included a Program 

Management Branch, composed 

of the program manager, project 

managers, and a contract administrator. Finally, the center had 

a Support Services Branch that 

provided administrative support, 

although the MDC continued to 

rely on the Philadelphia District 

for contracting services to assist 

with the MDC’s use of best value 

procurements—maximizing the use 

of industry and vendor knowledge 

and participation to obtain better 

overall results, rather than going 

with the lowest bidder.33

* * * * * * *

Throughout its history, the 

MDC has been the Corps’ go-to 

source for state-of-the-art marine 

design. Its record has made it 

“the Corps of Engineers center 

of expertise and experience for 

Installing an engine on a hopper dredge
292

Chapter 8

Above: Crane Barge Binkley, Memphis District 

Left: Survey Boat Moritz, New York District 

Below: Towboat Gordon M. Stevens,

Louisville District
293

Th e M a r i n e D e s i g n C e n t e r

Above: Dredge Goetz, St. Paul District

Right: Deck Cargo Barge, Omaha District

Below: Dredge Hurley, Memphis District
294

Chapter 8

the development and application of innovative strategies and 

technologies for naval architecture 

and marine engineering.”34 The 

MDC has extended its expertise to 

other federal agencies and even to 

other nations. Although the center 

underwent numerous administrative and operational changes after 

1972, it continued to fulfill its 

mission and earn its reputation 

for cutting-edge marine design 

and engineering in the twenty-first 

century.

The newly repowered Dredge Potter

headed back to work
Chapter 8 — Endnotes

295

1

 “Marine Design Center,” document provided by William F. Gretzmacher III, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Marine Design Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (hereafter 

referred to as MDC); Snyder and Guss, The District, 187.

2

 Keith Lawrence telephone interview by Paul Sadin, 9 March 2009, transcript, 8.

3

 Snyder and Guss, The District, 188.

4

 Quotations in Snyder and Guss, The District, 189–192; see also Unpublished 

Morgan Draft District History, 114.

5

 Quotations in Lawrence interview, 8-9; see also Unpublished Morgan Draft District 

History, 114.

6

 Lawrence interview, 8–10.

7

 “Marine Design Center.”

8

 Lawrence interview, 10–11, 17.

9

 Lawrence interview, 12–13; Edward Voigt, Chief, Public & Legislative Affairs, NAP, 

personal communication with Joshua Pollarine, 4 April 2011.

10 Lawrence interview, 19.

11 “Marine Design Center.”

12 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 115–116.

13 Act of 26 April 1978 (92 Stat. 218).

14 “Minutes, Corps of Engineers Marine Engineering Board, 24–26 April 1979, 

Philadelphia, PA,” 3, Minutes of the Marine Design Engineering Board, Sept 77 thru 

Apr 79, Marine Design Center Library, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania [hereafter referred to as MDC-Library].

15 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 115.

16 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 116–117; Voigt personal 

communication.

17 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Marine Design Center, “USACE Vessel Factsheets” 

<http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/mdc/factsheets.htm> (7 April 2010). Regarding survey 

vessels, the MDC designed high-speed craft, with specific attention to the incorporation of multibeam survey transducers. Voigt personal communication.

18 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “District Spotlight: Marine 

Design Center Keeps the Fleet Fit” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pa/spotlight/

index.htm> (7 April 2010).

19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Marine Design Center, “USACE DREDGE POTTER” 

<http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/mdc/fs13.htm> (7 April 2010); Voigt personal 

communication.

20 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “District Spotlight: Marine 

Design Center Keeps the Fleet Fit” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pa/spotlight/

index.htm> (7 April 2010).

21 “MDC Repowers Portland’s Essayons,” The Observer (Spring 2008): 8-9.

22 Lawrence interview, 21.

23 William F. Gretzmacher III email to Joshua Pollarine, 2 April 2010, copy in possession of the authors.

24 Lawrence interview, 21.

25 “McFARLAND and Marine Design Center Assist with Study to Save Sea Turtles,” 

The Observer (July 1993): 9.

26 Gretzmacher email to Pollarine, 2 Apr 2010; William F. Gretzmacher III email to 

Joshua Pollarine, 5 April 2010, copies in possession of the authors.

27 Lawrence interview, 15.

28 Gretzmacher email to Pollarine, 5 April 2010.

29 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Marine Design Center, “USACE Fisheries Research 

Vessel KIYI” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/mdc/fs12.htm> (7 April 2010); U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Marine Design Center, “USACE Fisheries Research Vessel 

STURGEON” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/ mdc/fs17.htm> (7 April 2010).

30 Vint Bossert, conversation with Joshua Pollarine, 6 April 2010.

31 “Low tech” may have been an understatement. Lawrence recalled that the craft 

was reassembled in Sudan and “put to work with nothing but screwdrivers and pliers 

and hammers.” Lawrence interview, 14.

32 Bossert conversation, 6 April 2010.

33 Gretzmacher email to Pollarine, 5 April 2010; see also U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Philadelphia District, “District Spotlight: Marine Design Center Keeps the 

Fleet Fit” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pa/spotlight/index.htm> (7 April 

2010); Voigt personal communication.

34 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Marine Design Center, “Our Mission” 

<http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/mdc/index.htm> (7 April 2010).
9
297

The Corps is a unique 

federal agency in that 

its technical capabilities 

can be applied to a wide array 

of applications. In addition to 

multiple engineering disciplines, 

its expertise is well suited to “environmental and project management 

issues.”1

 In the later twentieth 

century and entering the twentyfirst, the Corps found its services 

increasingly in demand by other 

government agencies that had need 

of these capabilities.

While Congress determined the 

authorities and annual funding 

for the Corps’ civil works and 

military construction programs, 

the Corps was authorized to 

perform work for others in the 

public sector—such as state and 

local governments, federal agencies 

outside the Department of Defense, 

foreign countries, and international 

agencies—on a reimbursable basis. 

In this role, the Corps operated 

essentially as a global engineering, 

environmental, and construction 

firm, although one that belonged to 

the United States government.

In 1984, as its work for other 

agencies outside the Department 

of Defense continued to expand, 

the Corps centralized management in the reimbursable arena by 

establishing its Support for Others 

(SFO) program. SFO became 

the Corps’ reimbursable support 

platform and quickly grew to constitute a significant share of the 

Philadelphia District’s workload.2

The goal of SFO was to “apply 

its capabilities to assist others in 

the execution of their missions.” 

By centralizing program management, SFO facilitated the use of the 

Work for Others (Reimbursable Services)

Facing page: Inside the groundwater 

pump-and-treat operation at the Vineland 

Chemical Company site, one of the 

District’s largest EPA Superfund projects
298

Chapter 9

Corps’ technical resources by other 

government agencies—customers 

now had a formal path to securing 

the Corps’ assistance on a reimbursable basis. All entities involved 

benefited from the program. The 

customer funding the project 

received Corps services while 

retaining control and responsibility 

for its program; in turn, SFO 

“enable[d] the Corps to maintain 

and enhance its capabilities.”3

The Office of Interagency and 

International Activities, Directorate 

of Civil Works, manages the SFO 

program. Under this umbrella, the 

Corps uses a number of program 

authorities for its reimbursable 

work. Work for other federal 

agencies is done under authority 

provided in the Intergovernmental 

Cooperation Act of 1968 and the 

1935 Economy in Government 

Act, as amended. In addition, 

the Foreign Assistance Act of 

1961 allows the Corps to provide 

support to foreign nations and 

international organizations. The 

Corps is authorized to initiate work 

for other agencies when either 

“funds or reimbursable orders” are 

received.4

Since the formalization of 

SFO in 1984, the Corps has had 

a steady flow of work for outside 

entities. A number of the projects 

have involved EPA Superfund 

support (also mentioned in 

Chapter Five); in 1995, this was 

the single largest program in the 

Corps’ environmental work for 

Because of the increase in the Support 

for Others Program in the 1980s and 

1990s, the Corps began publishing a 

newsletter devoted to that mission
299

Wo r k f o r Ot h e rs

others, comprising $322 million 

in contracts.5

 The numbers reflect 

the success of SFO. By 1989, just 

five years after its inception, the 

Corps had managed $207 million 

in SFO projects. Seven years later, 

that figure had ballooned to over 

$700 million and was projected 

to hit $800 million by fiscal year 

1997.6

 The district’s involvement 

in SFO reflected a larger Corpswide trend. At the close of 2007, 

the district managed nearly $60.5 

million in SFO work, $58.8 million 

of which was in EPA Superfund 

projects. Through SFO, the Corps 

has provided assistance to nearly 

sixty federal agencies, as well as 

international entities such as the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

and foreign governments that 

include Sweden, Argentina, and the 

Republic of Belarus.7

Work for the 

U.S. Postal Service

The Philadelphia District’s 

involvement in SFO predated the 

centralization of the Corps function 

in the 1984. In the early 1970s, 

the district assisted the U.S. Postal 

Service with the construction of a 

bulk mail center in Philadelphia, 

a cutting-edge facility designed 

to incorporate the transition to 

automated mail sorting sweeping 

throughout the Postal Service in 

that decade. As former District 

Engineer Col. Harry Dutchyshyn 

explained, because the Postal 

Service was not “in the business of 

building post offices . . . they had 

asked the Corps to help solve the 

problem of building major facilities all over the country all at the 

same time.”8

 The Philadelphia bulk 

mail center involved innovative 

automated equipment, upgrading 

the agency’s work “from a pen and 

pencil post office to a computerized 

system.”9

 However, the complicated nature of the project proved 

problematic for the contractors 

Philadelphia Bulk Mail Center (now 

Philadelphia Network Distribution Center), 

U.S. Postal Service
300

Chapter 9

involved, leading to delays and 

increased costs. In addition, government-furnished equipment was 

delivered to the district in random 

order rather than according to a 

planned implementation schedule. 

Dutchyshyn, as the district’s chief 

contracting officer, had the task 

of managing the myriad problems 

and reconciling legitimate contract 

costs with discrepancies in charges. 

Nevertheless, in November 1975, 

two years after the start of construction, the bulk mail center was 

successfully completed; it began 

operating early the following 

year.10

The district also helped the 

Postal Service renovate older 

post offices in the Philadelphia 

area. Through the first half of the 

1970s, the district oversaw the 

“rehabilitation and expansion of 

existing postal facilities, building of 

training facilities, and installation 

of sprinkler systems, mail sorting 

machines, and service counters 

with bullet-proof screens.” The district’s work on the smaller facilities 

concluded in 1976 when the Postal 

Service took sole control of the 

rehabilitation effort.11

Work for Qatar 

and Gabon

In addition to its work in the 

United States, the Philadelphia 

District provided technical support 

to governments overseas. In 1978, 

the emir of Qatar contacted the 

U.S. Department of State for 

assistance in investigating the 

legitimacy of dredging surveys and 

their associated costs completed 

by private contractors for the 

emirate. At issue were two locations: the Doha harbor and marine 

facilities at Umm Said. The State 

Department contacted the Corps, 

which delegated the project to the 

Philadelphia District owing to its 

expertise in dredging operations.12

District personnel sent to 

review the work conducted “comparative surveys over selected 

sites” at Umm Said and ultimately 

judged the surveys to be accurate 

and the expenses comparable to 

other projects of that scale. “At 

Doha, however,” according to one 

account, “the District team concluded that additional costs being 

charged to the government of 

Qatar were not justified.” The emir 

was pleased with the district’s work 
301

Wo r k f o r Ot h e rs

and paid the Corps $32,000 plus 

all expenses for its assistance.13

The following year, the 

Philadelphia District took on a 

more comprehensive project for 

the government of Gabon, Africa. 

Located along the equator in central-west Africa, the nation sought 

economic growth and development through the use of its vast 

natural resources, especially its 

extensive reserves of iron ore and 

manganese. On 10 January 1979, 

President Omar Bongo of Gabon 

sent a letter to the U.S. ambassador “requesting that a team 

of American experts be sent to 

make a survey and give recommendations for maintenance and 

upgrading of the National Road 

System, improvement of port facilities and forestry development.” The 

work in Gabon’s ports included 

dredging and development, while 

investigations into Gabon’s forestry 

incorporated “evaluating and 

exploiting native timberlands.”14

The ambassador transmitted 

Gabon’s request to the Agency for 

International Development (AID), 

U.S. Department of State. In a 

letter dated 5 February 1979, AID 

“authorized the Chief of Engineers 

to undertake an exploratory 

mission as provided by Section 661 

of the Foreign Assistance Act.”15

Lt. Gen. John W. Morris, then Chief 

of Engineers, assigned the mission 

to the Philadelphia District on the 

basis of its broad experience in 

maintaining one of America’s major 

waterways, the Delaware River, 

and its expertise in building and 

relocating highways in conjunction 

with flood control and Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal work.16 Map of the Republic of Gabon
302

Chapter 9

Given the scope of the request, 

the U.S. and Gabon governments 

agreed on a two-phase mission—

a preliminary reconnaissance 

followed by more detailed site 

investigations—over the course of 

two trips in 1979. The first trip 

occurred in March; the second in 

July. The project teams quickly 

discovered that significant work 

was required if the government of 

Gabon was to begin exploiting its 

natural resources, as the country’s 

road network was barely developed. Of approximately 1,740 

miles of state roads in Gabon, only 

180 miles—roughly 10 percent—

were paved.17 The remaining roads 

were primarily dirt, subject to 

frequent damage and even closure 

from the average annual rainfall 

of a hundred inches.18 Massive 

construction would be necessary to 

provide a stable system to transport forestry products and iron 

and manganese ore, found mostly 

inland, to the coast for export. 

In addition, even if the Gabonese 

had been able to get the ore to 

the shore, none of the ports had 

channels deep enough to accommodate the deeper draft vessels 

necessary to transport the heavy 

loads. The proposed location, 

the Port of Owendo, proved 

problematic—preliminary investigations “found significant rock 

deposits in the channel area, formations that could make dredging 

either impractical or more difficult.” Additional hydrographic 

surveys would be necessary before 

initiating any development of 

Gabon’s port facilities.19 It became 

increasingly clear that the costs to 

develop Gabon’s commerce infrastructure would be immense.

Following its in-country investigations, the Philadelphia District 

compiled technical reports on the 

three issues: roads, ports, and 

Bridge conditions in Gabon
303

Wo r k f o r Ot h e rs

forestry development. The reports 

detailed the need for improvements to the infrastructure, such 

as deeper channels at the ports 

for shipment of natural resource 

products and an enhanced and 

extended road system to access 

resources. The district’s conclusions and recommendations were 

to be used to obtain international 

funding. But as project team 

member Vince Calvarese recalled, 

“It never went any further than 

the report.”20

Support for the EPA 

Superfund Program

Congress established the 

Superfund program with 

the passage of the landmark 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA), signed 

by President Jimmy Carter on 

11 December 1980. The new 

law, which arrived on the heels 

of the highly publicized environmental disaster at Love Canal, 

N.Y., created a trust fund (the 

Superfund) to pay for federal 

cleanup activities at selected sites 

across the country and authorized 

the EPA to develop and manage 

the program. Although the Clean 

Water Act and Clean Air Act of 

the early 1970s ended outright 

dumping of pollutants into the 

nation’s rivers and streams, industrial producers of toxic wastes 

continued to pour chemical 

residues and other hazardous compounds into large underground 

tanks or into barrels warehoused 

onsite, buried offsite, or dumped 

on abandoned property. As the 

unmonitored storage tanks and 

barrels began to leak, a plethora 

of highly toxic materials escaped 

into streams and lakes, turning 

them into death traps for aquatic 

species. Toxins also seeped into the 

water table, where they became a 

Soil sampling to assess Superfund 

site conditions
304

Chapter 9

hidden threat to public drinking 

water supplies. Congress established the Superfund program to 

address these biological and public 

health hazards.

Superfund attempted to 

identify the most highly polluted 

areas where, for the most part, 

dumping had already occurred. 

Federal taxes on the chemical 

and petroleum industries formed 

the initial pool of $1.6 billion to 

pay for cleanup projects; in 1986, 

Congress amended CERCLA to 

increase the amount in the trust 

to $8.5 billion. In addition to 

the original trust fund, CERCLA 

allowed the government to collect 

mitigation payments from individuals and companies found liable 

for creating or dumping pollutants 

at designated Superfund sites.21

The EPA divided Superfund 

cleanup activity into two programs. 

The first involved short-term 

removal of toxic substances, while 

the second encompassed long-term 

remedial actions that addressed 

The Krysowaty Farm Site, the first 

Superfund cleanup completed by the 

Philadelphia District for EPA Region 2
305

Wo r k f o r Ot h e rs

a wide range of cleanup and restoration work. The Philadelphia 

District’s Superfund projects were 

almost all long-term remedial 

actions. The EPA also developed a 

three-part administrative framework to organize toxic waste 

response and cleanup activities. 

The components were the National 

Contingency Plan, the Hazard 

Ranking System, and the National 

Priorities List. The EPA used the 

Hazard Ranking System to determine which sites required the most 

immediate or extensive action. In 

1983, the agency issued the first 

Superfund National Priorities List 

(NPL), which identified specific 

toxic/hazardous waste sites that 

were “national priorities for 

receiving further investigation and 

long-term cleanup actions.”22

In the meantime, interagency 

agreements signed in 1982 and 

1984 authorized the EPA to 

seek support from the Corps for 

tasks that included research and 

development, environmental assessments, five-year reviews, real estate 

activities, and other technical 

assistance.23 According to James 

Woolford, director of the Office 

of Superfund Remediation and 

Technology Innovation, “EPA has 

relied on the USACE to provide 

construction support for the 

Superfund program based on their 

expertise as both constructors and 

construction contract and project 

administrators.” Woolford said the 

Corps’ support included “an on-site 

Federal presence at Superfund 

sites, along with expertise in 

contract administration, field level 

management and management of 

construction change orders and 

claims.” The Corps also provided 

“overall construction expertise.”24

At the outset of the program, 

the EPA did not designate the 

Philadelphia District for Superfund 

work. However, the large number 

of NPL sites in the Northeast put 

a heavy load on the Corps districts 

in that region that were responsible 

for EPA projects: the New England, 

New York, and Baltimore districts. 

To reduce its Superfund workload, 

the New York District decided to 

“broker” individual projects in New 

Jersey to the Philadelphia District.25

The district’s first completed 

Superfund remediation was at 

Krysowaty Farm in Somerset 
306

Chapter 9

County, N.J. (in the New York 

District). Cleanup at Krysowaty 

Farm involved excavating and 

removing contaminated soil and 

debris from the one-acre site where 

five hundred drums of toxic paints, 

dyes, and other chemicals were 

dumped and buried between 1965 

and 1970.26 When the state of New 

Jersey first investigated the site in 

1979, it found that volatile organic 

compounds, pesticides, acids, and 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

had seeped into the groundwater 

and contaminated numerous local 

wells. EPA Region 2 developed 

the cleanup strategy (excavation, 

removal, and monitoring) in 1984 

and tapped the Corps to begin 

the cleanup operation in 1985. 

Philadelphia District staff and the 

contractor completed work at the 

site in 1987; in 1989, Krysowaty 

Farm became one of the first 

Superfund sites to be “delisted” 

from the NPL.27

Although the effort at 

Krysowaty Farm was relatively 

small compared with those that 

followed, it gave the district’s 

Superfund team valuable experience. The quality of the district’s 

performance also convinced EPA 

Region 2 to begin delivering 

NPL cleanup sites directly to the 

Philadelphia District. As retired 

program chief John Bartholomeo 

explained, “Philadelphia District 

had a great Superfund team and 

An EPA publication about successful 

remediation of the Krysowaty Farm Site
307

Wo r k f o r Ot h e rs

had a wealth of knowledge... 

[therefore,] EPA Region 2 always 

turned to Philadelphia when they 

had something that was tough.”28

The district obtained larger and 

more difficult Superfund projects, 

some of which included long-term, 

high-profile cleanup activities. 

To meet this larger workload, 

the district created a dedicated 

Superfund staff of five employees.29

In May 1989, the district began 

work on one of its largest and 

possibly most complex Superfund 

projects, the cleanup and disposal 

effort at the Bridgeport Rental 

and Oil Services property on the 

Delaware River in southwestern 

New Jersey. Bridgeport was number 

15 on the NPL when the project 

launched and remained on the list 

until waste removal work ended in 

early 1996. The total cost of the 

cleanup came to $174 million, the 

largest single-site total in district 

Superfund history to date. But the 

significance of the Bridgeport work 

went well beyond the price tag. 

Bridgeport was one of the district’s 

highest-profile Superfund projects: 

the huge oil lagoons were featured 

in magazine articles, making the 

site a poster child for America’s 

legacy of industrial toxic waste and 

a symbol for the entire Superfund 

program.30 Bridgeport also became 

a “giant lessons learned project 

for the District” as well as for the 

Superfund program nationwide. 

Remediation of the Vineland Chemical Company site 

would eventually eclipse both Bridgeport and 

Lipari in scope and complexity
308

Chapter 9

Jeanne Fox, EPA Region 2 administrator at the time, observed that 

Bridgeport “was the classroom for 

the nation—the laboratory where 

we wrote the formula on how to 

clean up hazardous waste sites.” 

Fox said one unique and innovative aspect of the project—the 

onsite incineration of PCBs—

subsequently became “a standard 

item in the cleanup toolbox for 

Superfund.”31

The Bridgeport property had 

been a toxic dump site since the 

1940s, but the problem was compounded when an oil reprocessing 

facility operated there from 1959 

to 1980. By the time the oil operation closed, the site contained 

detritus of four decades of industrial waste releases, including “a 

13-acre waste oil lagoon, more 

than 100 storage tanks and process 

vessels interconnected by miles 

of piping, seven concrete-blockand-steel buildings, a number of 

abandoned vehicles (including an 

entire school bus later found in the 

lagoon), and a large quantity of 

discarded drums and other debris.” 

Additionally, PCBs were present 

at the site.32 As John Bartholomeo 

said, “It was disgusting.”33

And these items were only 

the hazards visible from surface 

surveys and testing. As work continued, the discovery of additional 

The Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services 

Superfund Site during remediation 

(above) and afterward (below)
309

Wo r k f o r Ot h e rs

materials submerged in the lagoon 

revealed an even bleaker environmental picture. When contractors 

began to pump oil out of the 

lagoon, site managers realized that 

waste drums lined the lagoon’s 

entire embankment. Instead of the 

original estimate of approximately 

one hundred drums of waste to 

process, “it turned out to be thousands of them.”34 The remediation 

contractor had to process each 

drum, which involved identifying 

the contents, recording all visible 

marks on the barrels, draining 

them, and neutralizing the toxic 

compounds.

The precedent-setting decision 

to incinerate the PCBs onsite made 

the Bridgeport cleanup a technically challenging project and a 

potential public affairs dilemma 

for the district. Bartholomeo called 

it “a baptism by fire” for the district’s Superfund team. He said 

the process the district had to 

negotiate to obtain approval for 

the incinerator (which at one point 

included meeting with approximately forty different New Jersey 

agencies and citizens’ groups) 

was “worse than a root canal.”35

When construction of the incinerator was finally completed, 

district staff and the contractor 

had to perform test burns of PCBs 

to ensure that no contaminants 

would be released into the atmosphere, a major concern of local 

residents. In what must have 

been an irony for the Superfund 

team, regulations required that 

they had to obtain permission to 

bring PCB-contaminated material 

from another location onto the 

highly toxic Superfund site; the 

team described this as an “administrative nightmare.”36 After a 

half-year delay, the contractor 

was finally able to conduct trial 

burns in March 1991. The incinerator went online in November 

1991; it was the first time an 

incinerator was permitted to burn 

PCB-contaminated material at a 

Superfund site.37

To burn the enormous amount 

of contaminated oil, sludge, and 

soil in the lagoon and to keep the 

project on schedule, the contractor 

for that phase of the cleanup 

operated the incinerator twentyfour hours a day, seven days a 

week, for four years. The “thermal 
310

Chapter 9

destruction facility” incinerated 

the material at extremely high 

temperatures, reducing the oil and 

sludge to an inert ash residue that 

was eventually used to backfill 

the lagoon after it was emptied 

of all pollutants. Excavation of 

the lagoon sludge was completed 

in October 1995; by early 1996, 

172,000 tons of contaminated 

material had been incinerated.38

As the full extent of the 

Bridgeport cleanup became clear, 

and as the district began to tackle 

other Superfund projects in the 

vicinity, it opened a civil works and 

Superfund office adjacent to the 

Bridgeport site in the summer of 

1989. By that time, the district was 

already engaged in another massive 

Superfund cleanup project at the 

Lipari Landfill in Pitman, N.J.39

Cleanup tasks at Lipari 

Landfill were almost as staggering as those at Bridgeport, 

and the materials at the site 

were even more toxic. When the 

district assumed responsibility for 

the cleanup, Lipari Landfill was 

number 1 on the NPL—the most 

contaminated Superfund site in 

the country. Lipari contained three 

million gallons of liquid waste and 

twelve hundred cubic yards of solid 

waste, which included “solvents, 

paints and thinners, formaldehyde, 

dust collector residues, resins, and 

solid press cakes from the industrial production of paints and 

solvents.”40 Studies showed that the 

plume of contaminants had reached 

underlying aquifers and leached 

into the area’s marshlands, streams, 

and lakes. Before the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental 

Protection was able to close the 

landfill in 1971, nearby residents 

had reported at least one large 

explosion and two fires at the site.41

The district’s Superfund team 

tackled cleanup tasks that consisted of a batch flushing system 

and treatment plant (completed in 

January 1992) for liquid contaminants extracted from the soil and 

groundwater. At the completion of 

the initial phase in 1993, the contractor had extracted and treated 

a total of “150 million gallons 

of landfill leachate containing 

approximately 55 tons of contaminants.”42 In 2000, the district 

team and contractor adapted 

the batch flushing system “for 
311

Wo r k f o r Ot h e rs

simultaneous soil vapor extraction 

to enhance the removal of volatile, 

less water soluble site contaminants.”43 By 2002, more than 330 

million gallons of leachate that 

held roughly seventy-seven tons of 

chemical contaminants had been 

extracted and treated. The Lipari 

Landfill Superfund project also 

entailed offsite extraction, treatment, and monitoring tasks; in 

2008, the district was still looking 

ahead to a significant operation 

and maintenance role at this site.

Lt. Col. Robert Keyser, 

Philadelphia District Commander 

in 1997, said the Superfund team’s 

management of the enormous 

Bridgeport and Lipari cleanup 

projects “gained nationwide recognition” for the district.44 The 

team’s success was a boon for the 

continued growth of the Superfund 

program and brought the Support 

for Others program, of which 

Superfund was the biggest part, 

into greater prominence. 

The Philadelphia District 

further solidified its Superfund 

position in 1993, when EPA Region 

2 decided that it would assign all 

new Superfund sites in New Jersey 

Aerial view of the cleaned-up Lipari 

Landfill site
312

Chapter 9

south of Trenton to the district. All 

sites north of Trenton would go to 

the New York District, although 

Philadelphia would retain responsibility for the projects it was 

already conducting north of the 

line. Technically, the Philadelphia 

District did not have a bona fide 

Superfund “mission,” but the 

quality of its early work helped it 

carve out a niche in the program. 

From 1989 to 1993, the average 

value of the district’s Superfund 

projects was roughly $25 million a 

year; in fiscal year 1994 it was $45 

million, and in fiscal year 1995 it 

was $73 million.45

Another challenging Superfund 

project was the Tranguch Gasoline 

site in Hazleton, Pa. The project 

site was in the center of the town, 

where gasoline vapors from nearby 

storage tanks were escaping from 

cracked sewer lines and seeping 

into the basements of hundreds 

of houses. The airborne vapors 

released several toxic compounds, 

including dissolved benzene, a 

confirmed carcinogen.46 Project 

planning was complicated by the 

fact that the contractor would 

have to dig a ditch down one of 

the town’s main streets, risking the 

release of potentially hazardous 

fumes into the adjacent houses and 

the surrounding neighborhood. 

The district’s project design team 

created a remediation system that 

was both novel and effective.47

The construction contractor 

carried out a three-tiered cleanup 

strategy that included sewer 

replacement, groundwater retention, and “soil vapor extraction,” 

all in a single trench. After 

removing the old clay sewer pipes, 

workers installed a new sewer line 

and two other sets of pipes: one to 

collect the contaminated groundwater and another to collect the 

gasoline vapor. Sumps transported 

The batch flushing and treatment plant at 

the Lipari Landfill site
313

Wo r k f o r Ot h e rs

the contaminated groundwater 

to a nearby mobile treatment 

facility, while the soil vapor was 

passed through a vacuum pump 

and carbon filters. To keep toxic 

fumes from escaping from the 

trench, the contractor sprayed a 

foam suppressant over the soil as 

it was unearthed, then sealed the 

trench with an impermeable plastic 

liner before refilling the ditch. 

Throughout the process, crews 

carefully monitored basements for 

fumes from the trench.48

All the cleanup work in 

Hazleton was completed between 

May and September 2001, and 

subsequent testing revealed that 

the air in all previously affected 

properties was within state 

and federal safety levels. The 

Superfund team’s dynamic cleanup 

design for the Tranguch project 

was highly lauded and landed the 

district a spot as one of the four 

finalists for an OPAL (Outstanding 

Projects and Leaders) award, 

which the American Society for 

Civil Engineers bestows for “innovation and excellence in civil 

engineering design.” Although the 

district did not win, the nomination 

garnered national acclaim and 

boosted morale.49

Perhaps more than any other 

single program in terms of sheer 

dollars committed, Superfund 

emerged as a mainstay of the 

Philadelphia District’s workload 

going into the twenty-first 

century. As of 2008, in addition 

to the projects already mentioned, the district had carried 

out EPA Region 2 remediation 

work at the following sites in 

New Jersey (county in parentheses): D’Imperio Property and 

the adjacent South Jersey Clothing 

Co. and Garden State Cleaners 

Co. sites (Atlantic); Helen Kramer 

Workers conduct drilling operations in 

Hazleton, Pa. during remediation of EPA 

Region 3’s Tranguch Gasoline site
314

Chapter 9

Landfill (Gloucester); Industrial 

Latex Corp. (Bergen); Pepe Field 

(Morris); Vineland Chemical Co. 

(Cumberland); and Welsbach & 

General Gas Mantle (Camden). 

The last two multiphase cleanups 

were still under way in 2008 and 

ultimately surpassed Bridgeport 

and Lipari in cost and scope.50

Work for the 

U.S. Coast Guard

While most of its installation 

support for the Army and Air Force 

fell under the MILCON program, 

the district also provided reimbursable services to the U.S. Coast 

Guard. One project of particular 

interest (and visibility, owing to its 

close proximity to Interstate 95) 

was the renovation in 2004 of a 

vertical lift bridge at the site of the 

Philadelphia Naval Business Center 

(formerly the Philadelphia Naval 

Shipyard). The approximately $23 

million contract involved the disassembly of the horizontal span 

for a full overhaul of the bridge’s 

mechanical, electrical, and structural components, complete with 

a fresh coat of paint and new 

decking. The Philadelphia District 

oversaw design and construction of 

the project, including the removal 

of the horizontal span via a floatout, using barges and tugboats to 

remove the section. As resident 

engineer Mark Wheeler recalled, the 

float-out was the most significant 

Groundwater treatment plant, Cosden 

Chemical Coatings Superfund Site Cleanup of the Welsbach & General Gas 

Mantle site in and near Camden, N.J., involved 

a multi-year, multi-phase project to remove 

radiological contamination
315

Wo r k f o r Ot h e rs

challenge of the project, requiring 

“three tries over two days until we 

were successful.” The project was 

a significant success, completed in 

close to a year and preparing the 

vertical lift bridge for an indefinite 

amount of future service.51

Work for the 

Federal Aviation 

Administration

The Philadelphia District 

was also engaged by the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) 

for remediation services at the 

Atlantic City International Airport 

in Pomona, N.J. John Bartholomeo 

recalled that the district started 

out conducting “little hazardous 

cleanups, not major stuff” for 

the FAA, after which the agency 

became a regular customer for a 

wide variety of tasks, including 

building renovations, maintenance 

work, and minor construction.52

This connection helped the district 

land a much larger project with 

the FAA: the construction of a 

runway pavement test facility at 

the airport.

In 1994, recognizing the 

constantly advancing nature of 

technology in the field of aeronautical engineering, the FAA 

Float-in of the renovated main span for 

the Coast Guard’s Vertical Lift Bridge 

project at the former Philadelphia 

Naval Shipyard (above)

Remediation of the Roebling Steel 

Company Superfund site involved 

preservation and restoration of historic 

artifacts, such as the old gatehouse and 

this 124-ton, 28-foot-diameter flywheel, 

both now part of the Roebling Museum
316

Chapter 9

determined that “airport design 

standards may not accommodate” larger, heavier aircraft “with 

more complex landing gear.”53

Of primary concern was Boeing’s 

B-777, scheduled for release in 

1995, with a set of six wheels on 

each rear landing gear that “presented a challenge to establish 

its compatibility with existing 

runways.”54 With an investment 

of nearly $4 billion per year on 

pavement maintenance for a 

runway infrastructure valued at 

over $100 billion, the need existed 

to protect the landing strips from 

potential harm. To resolve the 

problem, the FAA and Boeing 

developed a plan for an innovative 

airport runway test facility in New 

Jersey that would “collect realtime data to create new pavement 

standards.”55

The FAA asked the district 

to act as its agent “in the design, 

construction and operation/

prove-out of the facility.” The 

district was involved in the project 

on a daily basis throughout 

design and construction, providing a project manager and 

resident engineer who successfully 

implemented management 

decisions at ground level and facilitated communication between the 

cooperative entities, streamlining 

project management. The result 

was the successful completion 

of a $21 million, state-of-theart test facility for the FAA in 

1999, “delivered on time with an 

unprecedented cost growth of only 

$50,000.”56 The William J. Hughes 

Technical Center was the world’s 

“largest, enclosed, full-scale 

pavement test facility dedicated 

solely to pavement research” and 

has been in continuous operation 

since its completion.57

Work for the 

City of Philadelphia

The district also completed 

an award-winning runway project 

for the city of Philadelphia 

at Philadelphia International 

Airport. In 1996, the city applied 

for a permit for a runway construction project that affected 

federally regulated wetlands.58 In 

the course of reviewing permit 

applications, attentive Operations 

Division employees recognized a 

win-win possibility: the potential 
317

Wo r k f o r Ot h e rs

to use material dredged from the 

Delaware River as fill in the construction of the new runway.59 The 

district pitched the plan to the city 

and a deal was made.

Both sides benefited from the 

project. The city of Philadelphia 

saved $7 million by using the 

locally procured dredged material, 

and the contract saved the district 

(and thus the federal government) 

about $8 million in channel maintenance costs. The cooperative 

projected eliminated the need for 

expensive transport from inland 

fill sources and reduced the pollution that would have occurred in 

moving the material via highway. 

Approximately two and a half 

million cubic yards of dredged 

material were moved from the 

Delaware River channel to the 

airport. The project was a notable 

achievement. On 21 July 1998, the 

project team, including the city 

of Philadelphia and district staff, 

received the Vice President Gore 

Hammer Award, in recognition of 

“teams of federal employees who 

have helped reinvent government 

according to the President’s four 

National Performance Review 

principles: (1) putting customers first, (2) cutting red tape, 

(3) empowering employees and 

(4) getting back to basics.”60

Construction of the Airport Pavement 

Test Facility at the FAA’s William J. 

Hughes Technical Center
318

Chapter 9

The district also worked on 

infrastructure for the city of 

Philadelphia. In 1985, district 

staff completed a technical study 

of water mains throughout the 

city to assess “the current and 

likely future condition of the City 

of Philadelphia’s water distribution system.” The project included 

analyzing water main problems 

through the use of computer 

models and pipe samples to establish “primary structural causes 

of main breaks” and “develop a 

profile of mains which are likely 

to break.” The overarching goal 

was the creation of a computerized information system for the 

maintenance of the city’s water 

infrastructure.61 The district completed the study at the request of 

the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Resources as part 

of a program for the development 

and conservation of Pennsylvania’s 

water resources.62

Additional assignments from 

the city of Philadelphia covered 

a broad range of projects. For 

example, in 1997, the district 

completed an inspection report 

of homes on Osage Avenue at the 

city’s request and on a reimbursable basis. Three years later, the 

district used this information in 

the rehabilitation and repair of 

the inspected homes. It prepared 

“plans, specifications and cost 

The Philadelphia International Airport 

Runway Project under construction Dredging the “Reserve Basin” at the 

mouth of the Schuylkill River for the 

Department of the Navy
319

Wo r k f o r Ot h e rs

estimates” for the rehabilitation 

of housing units, including the 

replacement of “roofs, windows, 

sliding doors, cedar siding and 

exterior brick, drywall repairs, 

painting, and mechanical and 

electrical repairs.” District personnel provided design services 

and oversaw construction of 

the renovations, conducting 

onsite inspections and schematic 

reviews.63

The city also requested assistance in investigations of residence 

demolition. In the late 1990s, 

the district participated in engineering studies regarding houses 

in the Logan and Wissinoming 

sections of Philadelphia that were 

built on foundations of cinder, 

ash, and “varying amounts of 

construction debris.”64 The severe 

differential settlement of the fill 

material resulted in “sinking 

homes,” rendering the structures 

uninhabitable and necessitating 

demolition.65 The city called 

on the district to analyze each 

area; this involved preparing a 

development scenario to replace 

demolished homes in Logan and 

further examining the extent 

of potential damage to the 

Wissinoming section. The district 

researched historical records, 

mapped the depth of the fill—

including a topographic change 

map to record shifts in surface 

elevation—and assessed the effects 

Cover of the Philadelphia District’s report 

on the City of Philadelphia’s water supply 

infrastructure
320

Chapter 9

of Philadelphia’s water, gas, and 

sewer infrastructure on the fill 

material. The district reported its 

findings to the city, along with 

recommendations to address the 

problems.66

The district carried its partnership with the city of Philadelphia 

into the twenty-first century. In 

2000, it participated in a costshare project for the demolition 

of the East Central Incinerator, 

which was “built in the 1960s 

and operated as a municipal trash 

incinerator until July 1988” but 

had since become an obstacle 

to development along Penn’s 

Landing, at the heart of the city’s 

Delaware River waterfront. The 

district removed hazardous waste 

from the site, then demolished 

the inactive facility. Ultimately, 

the area was slated to provide 

“much-needed additional parking 

for growing retail activity in 

the area.”67

* * * * * * *

The district’s SFO program 

has encompassed a wide array 

of services across a large territory. From within walking 

distance of the district’s offices 

in Philadelphia to locations in 

the Middle East and Africa, the 

district has carried out missions 

in conjunction and cooperation 

with a variety of government 

agencies—both before and since 

the establishment of the Corpswide program known as Support 

for Others. The district’s ongoing 

overseas missions ensured 

opportunities for future support 

projects, while its successful work 

within its own footprint created 

a lasting connection between the 

district and its hometown, illustrating again the responsiveness 

that has always been a hallmark 

of Philadelphia District work.

Visible settlement cracks characterized 

“sinking homes” such as this one in 

Philadelphia’s Wissinoming section

The District’s standard redevelopment 

plan for the Logan neighborhood 

in Philadelphia
321

Wo r k f o r Ot h e rs

Demolition of the East Central Incinerator 

along Philadelphia’s Penn’s Landing 

waterfront area

Another federal customer was the U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, which 

engaged the District’s services to repair 

and upgrade the roads inside Beverly 

(N.J.) National Cemetery 
Chapter 9 — Endnotes

322

1

 Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Support for Others Program,” 

March 1993, Support for Others (SFO) Files in temporary holdings, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Office of History, Alexandria, Virginia (hereafter referred to as Office of 

History).

2

 Arthur E. Williams, Major General, USA, Director of Civil Works, Policy Guidance 

Memorandum, Conduct of International Activities, 3 April 1992, 2, SFO Files in temporary holdings, Office of History; Donita M. Moorhus and Gregory Graves, “The Limits 

of Vision: A History of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988-1992,” April 2000, 96, 

unpublished manuscript, copy provided by Office of History; Al Bertini, “Information 

Paper, SUBJECT: Support for Others, FY 95,” 18 April 1996, SFO Files in temporary 

holdings, Office of History; Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Support for 

Others (SFO) Program, “Annual Report for FY 96,” n.d., page 1, SFO Files in temporary holdings, Office of History; Edward Voigt, Chief, Public & Legislative Affairs, 

Philadelphia District, personal communication with Joshua Pollarine, 18 April 2011.

3

 Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Support for Others (SFO) Program, 

“Annual Report for FY 96,” n.d., 1–2, SFO Files in temporary holdings, Office of 

History.

4

 Williams, Policy Guidance Memorandum; Bertini, “Information Paper, SUBJECT: 

Support for Others, FY 95.”

5

 Bertini, “Information Paper, SUBJECT: Support for Others, FY 95.”

6

 Moorhus and Graves, “The Limits of Vision,” 97; Department of the Army, Corps 

of Engineers, Support for Others (SFO) Program, “Annual Report for FY 96,” 1, 21.

7

 The district’s 2007 SFO figures were provided by Mark S. Wheeler, Chief, 

Interagency and International Services, Environmental Programs Branch, 

Philadelphia District; Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Interagency and 

Intergovernmental Support (IIS) Program, “Annual Report, Fiscal Year 97,” n.d., 22, 

SFO Files in temporary holdings, Office of History; Department of the Army, Corps 

of Engineers, Support for Others (SFO) Program, “Annual Report for FY 96,” 20; 

“International Activities News,” Support For Others (SFO) Newsletter (November 1993): 

2–4; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold 

Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, “Support for Others” <http://www.crrel.

usace.army.mil/rsgisc/sfo.htm> (21 May 2010).

8

 Dutchyshyn interview, 5.

9

 Dutchyshyn interview, 8.

10 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 120; Dutchyshyn interview, 5–8.

11 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 120–121.

12 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 130.

13 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 131.

14 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Technical Report to the 

Republic of Gabon, Part 2, Roads and Bridges, Section A – Report,” December 

1979, 1-1, Philadelphia District-Library; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia 

District, “Technical Proposal to the Republic of Gabon, Part 1 – Dredging and 

Port Development, Section B – Proposals,” January 1980, 1, 4–5, Philadelphia 

District-Library.

15 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Technical Report to the 

Republic of Gabon, Part 2, Roads and Bridges, Section A – Report,” 1-1. Section 661 

was an amendment to the original 1961 act. Act of 30 December 1974 (88 Stat. 1795).

16 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Technical Proposal to the 

Republic of Gabon, Part 1 – Dredging and Port Development, Section B – Proposals,” 

January 1980, 1, Philadelphia District-Library; Unpublished Morgan Draft District 

History, 125–126.

17 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Technical Proposal to the 

Republic of Gabon, Part 1 – Dredging and Port Development, Section B – Proposals,” 1; 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Technical Report to the Republic 

of Gabon, Part 2, Roads and Bridges, Section A – Report,” 1-2, 1-5.

18 Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 126.

19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Technical Proposal to the 

Republic of Gabon, Part 1 – Dredging and Port Development, Section B – Proposals,” 

7–9; Unpublished Morgan Draft District History, 129.

20 “Minutes, Corps of Engineers Marine Engineering Board, 24–26 April 1979, 

Philadelphia, PA,” 8, Minutes of the Marine Design Engineering Board, Sept 77 thru 

Apr 79, Marine Design Center Library, Philadelphia District; Calvarese interview, 2.

21 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(94 Stat. 2797).

22 EPA, “Superfund: 20 Years of Protecting Human Health and the Environment,” 13 

<http://www.epa.gov/superfund/20years/20yrpt1.pdf> (3 March 2010).

23 Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Interagency 

Agreement Between the USACE and the USEPA in Executing P.L. 96-510, the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(CERCLA),” Memorandum of Understanding, December 3, 1984, available at Army 

Corps of Engineers Environmental Community of Practice site, <https://environment.

usace.army.mil/what_we_do/superfund/prg_docs> (29 March 2010).

24 James Woolford, Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation, to Superfund National Policy Advisors, Memo, 3 April 2008, 2, available 

at <https://environment.usace.army.mil/downloaddbfile.cfm?file_id=53AEEA04-188B313F-1B4CE180A876BEC3&CFID=26606635&CFTOKEN=76037752> (3 March 2010). 

25 Bartholomeo interview, 10.

26 EPA Region 2, “Krysowaty Farm, New Jersey,” EPA fact sheet, 5 March 2008 

<http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/0200670c.pdf> (14 April 2010).

27 “District Gets Added Superfund Role,” The Observer (May 1993): 1. In 1983, 

district personnel (working out of the Engineering Division’s Construction Branch) 

began two projects at Superfund sites: installing a wall and cap to contain contamination at the Lipari Landfill site and pumping out the lagoon at the Bridgeport Rental 

and Oil Services site, both located in Gloucester County, N.J. The district’s primary role 

in Superfund remediation at these locations did not begin in earnest until a later date. 

Voigt personal communication.

28 Bartholomeo interview, 9.

29 Maraldo interview, 32. The district’s Superfund work came under its Support for 

Others program.

30 Bartholomeo interview, 9.

31 Jeanne Fox quoted in “Superfund ‘Poster Child’ Moves On to New Phase,” The 

Observer (March 1996): 8.

32 “Superfund ‘Poster Child’ Moves On to New Phase,” 8. Emphasis in original.

33 Bartholomeo interview, 6.

34 Bartholomeo interview, 13.

35 Bartholomeo interview, 12.

36 Bartholomeo interview, 13.

37 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Superfund,” Powerpoint 

slide, no date, copy provided by John Bartholomeo, U.S. Army Corps of Engineersretired, Philadelphia District.

38 “Superfund Projects Get Underway,” The Observer (September 1989): 2.

39 “Superfund Projects Get Underway,” 2.

40 EPA, Region 2, “Lipari Landfill, New Jersey,” NPL fact sheet, April 2002 <http://

www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplfs/fs0200557.pdf> (19 May 2010).

41 EPA, “Lipari Landfill, New Jersey,” 1.

42 EPA, “Lipari Landfill, New Jersey,” 1.

43 EPA, “Lipari Landfill, New Jersey,” 2.

44 Lt. Colonel Robert Keyser, “As I See It,” The Observer (February 1997): 2.
Chapter 9 — Endnotes

323

45 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “NAD Superfund Placement,” 

Powerpoint presentation, n.d., copy provided by John Bartholomeo.

46 EPA, “Tranguch Gasoline, Current Site Information,” 26 June 2008 <http://epa.

gov/reg3hwmd/npl/PA0001409671.htm> (24 February 2009).

47 Bartholomeo interview, 24.

48 “Tranguch Emergency Response Remediation System,” The Observer (Winter 

2004): 4.

49 Bartholomeo interview, 23; American Society of Civil Engineers, “Outstanding 

Projects And Leaders (OPAL) Awards” <http://content.asce.org/handa/opal.html> (23 

April 2010).

50 In the same year that Congress passed CERCLA (1980), it also passed the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In contrast with Superfund, which 

dealt mostly with pollution at abandoned or inactive sites, RCRA focused on identifying 

and halting companies that were actively releasing toxic wastes into the environment. 

The Philadelphia District oversaw RCRA operations not just within its own boundaries but throughout EPA Region 3. Although on a significantly smaller scale than the 

Superfund work it carried out in support of EPA Region 2, the district was managing 

RCRA cleanups for EPA Region 3 over much the same time period. Voigt personal 

communication.

51 “Restoring a Bridge for the Coast Guard,” The Observer (Winter 04/05): 11–13.

52 Bartholomeo interview, 19.

53 Paul Gaudini, untitled draft document composed for the tenth anniversary of the 

FAA test facility (hereafter referred to as FAA anniversary draft document), document 

provided by Paul Gaudini, Philadelphia District.

54 Federal Aviation Administration, “The National Airport Pavement Test Facility, July 

2009,” document provided by Paul Gaudini, Philadelphia District.

55 Quotations from Gaudini, FAA anniversary draft document; Federal Aviation 

Administration, “The National Airport Pavement Test Facility, July 2009.”

56 Gaudini, FAA anniversary draft document.

57 Federal Aviation Administration, “The National Airport Pavement Test Facility, July 

2009.”

58 “The Runway Built from a River is Now Open for Business in Award-winning 

Example of ‘Beneficial Use’ Dredging,” The Observer (November/December 1999): 5.

59 “One Good Idea from the Philadelphia District Amounts to $7 Million Cost 

Savings for the City of Philadelphia,” The Observer (July 1996): 4; “2 for 1 – Maintain a 

Waterway, Create a Runway,” The Observer (February 1997): 5.

60 “The Runway Built from a River is Now Open for Business in Award-winning 

Example of ‘Beneficial Use’ Dredging,” 5.

61 Richard A. Weiss, Theresa M. King, and D. Kelly O’Day et al., “Philadelphia Water 

Supply Infrastructure Study,” May 1985, 1, Philadelphia District-Library.

62 According to one report, “Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1974 (PL 93-251) as amended, authorizes the Corps of Engineers to provide Planning 

Assistance to States for the development, utilization, and conservation of the state’s 

water and related resources.” Weiss, King, O’Day et al., “Philadelphia Water Supply 

Infrastructure Study,” May 1985, 1, Philadelphia District-Library.

63 “City, District Working Together on Multiple Fronts,” The Observer (January/

February 2000): 3.

64 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Wissinoming Sinking 

Homes Study, Philadelphia, PA,” May 2000, 1, document provided by Paul Gaudini, 

Philadelphia District.

65 “City, District Working Together on Multiple Fronts,” 3

66 “City, District Working Together on Multiple Fronts,” 3; U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Philadelphia District, “Wissinoming Sinking Homes Study, Philadelphia, PA,” 

2–4.

67 “City, District Working Together on Multiple Fronts,” 3; Voigt personal 

communication.
10
325

Between 1972 and 2008, 

the Philadelphia District 

underwent numerous 

changes—in the scope and variety 

of its missions, in the size and 

composition of its workforce, in its 

organizational relationship with the 

Marine Design Center, and even in 

the location of its home office. In 

1972, the district had many civil 

works projects on the horizon, most 

of them related to the Delaware 

River Basin Comprehensive Plan. 

The district was preparing to 

begin construction on Tocks Island 

Dam, the linchpin of the comprehensive plan, and was working 

on other dams at Blue Marsh and 

Beltzville, with one at Trexler in 

the planning stages. The district 

was just beginning a fledgling 

regulatory program based on new 

responsibilities given to it by the 

Clean Water Act. It had no military 

construction program at the time 

and, even though it would provide 

much aid in 1972 after Hurricane 

Agnes ravaged the eastern coast, it 

did not have a specific emergency 

management program. Consisting 

of approximately six hundred 

employees and housed in the 

Customs House, the district primarily focused on navigation and 

flood control.

By 2008, much of this picture 

had changed, although certain 

trends persisted. Navigation was 

still at the core of the district’s civil 

works program. Within the Corps, 

the district had long been strongly 

identified with dredging, hydrographic surveying, and marine 

design. That was still the case. 

Although down from its previous 

fleet of three seagoing hopper 

Conclusion

Facing page: The Philadelphia District—

which owns more high-level highway 

bridges (five) than any other Corps 

district—has been designated a center 

of expertise for Bridge Inspection and 

Evaluation, with structural engineers and 

rope access technicians certified for short 

span and high-level complex bridges
326

Chapter 10

dredges, the district still claimed 

one of only four such dredges 

owned and operated by the Corps. 

While one major waterway deepening project was halted in the 

design stage and another experienced many delays before reaching 

construction, annual maintenance 

of those two channels continued 

without incident. Although the 

Marine Design Center was now 

officially separate from the 

Philadelphia District, it had always 

been a national resource, and its 

mission (like its location) remained 

essentially the same.

“Flood control” in the historic 

sense no longer took center stage 

at the district. The concept of 

“control” had evolved to the 

more modest and realistic goal 

of reducing risk and was applied 

increasingly to coastal storms 

as well as floods. Soft structures—those more imitative of 

nature—had come to be preferred 

over traditional hard structures 

such as dams and culverts. Most 

significantly, the district’s civil construction workload had experienced 

a strong eastward shift toward the 

Atlantic Coast. In a little more than 

a decade, the district went from 

dedicating its last dam and reservoir (Blue Marsh Lake, 1979) to 

beginning its first beach nourishment project (Cape May, 1990). 

By 2008, eleven of these projects 

were in place along the New Jersey 

and Delaware shorelines, and more 

were being developed.

The end of the dam-building 

era was a national trend extending 

far beyond the Tocks Island and 

Trexler projects. It was linked 

to the rise of the environmental 

movement and its influence on 

the nation’s water policy, which 

subjected Corps projects to more 

scrutiny than ever and killed some 

projects that originally seemed to 

be viable solutions. Yet that same 

movement and its focus on maintaining the nation’s environmental 

quality would ultimately result 

in an increase in the district’s 

missions and workload, especially 

in terms of Superfund cleanup and 

the implementation of ecosystem 

restoration projects. 

In 2008, the Philadelphia 

District, with a new home in 

the Wanamaker Building, had 

reclaimed a major part of its 

The C&D Canal at Chesapeake City, 

Maryland, where District dispatchers 

monitor and control ship traffic 24/7
327

Conclusion

historical workload that had been 

transferred elsewhere by 1972: a 

flourishing military construction 

program. In 2009, Philadelphia 

was again designated a Military 

District. Two other elements that 

had historically been present— 

responding to disasters and 

working for other agencies and 

governments—were now represented by a permanent branch 

and a third major mission area, 

respectively. After 11 September 

2001, the Emergency Management 

Branch’s oversight expanded from 

disaster to contingency operations; 

during one stretch, it managed 

deployments to both the Gulf of 

Mexico and the Persian Gulf. In 

terms of total project dollars, in 

some years the district’s Support 

for Others program surpassed both 

civil works and MILCON.

Through all of these changes, 

the Philadelphia District maintained its commitment to excellent 

service to its customers and to the 

nation as a whole. Its trademark 

responsiveness, coupled with flexibility, proved indispensable in the 

pivotal 1970s and beyond, especially with regard to the challenge 

Sunrise at Blue Marsh Lake

The District-built Schuylkill River Park 

recreation trail at Market Street Bridge, 

Philadelphia
328

Chapter 10

of adaptation. This responsiveness was apparent in the district’s 

readiness to assume military 

construction responsibilities when 

asked and to be able to shuffle 

the bases on which it worked as 

needed. It was also shown in the 

way the district responded to environmental changes in the United 

States, adapting to reordered priorities in its civil works program 

and developing innovative ways to 

fight flooding and keep waterways 

viable with minimal environmental 

impact. Across all sectors of its 

business, the district applied its 

collective ingenuity and resourcefulness to produce better solutions: 

using dolosse and CORE-LOC 

to strengthen the jetties flanking 

Manasquan Inlet, combining 

beach nourishment and freshwater 

wetland restoration to save Lower 

Cape May Meadows for migratory birds, building a sand bypass 

plant at Indian River Inlet to continuously counteract littoral drift, 

constructing one wastewater treatment plant to serve both Fort Dix 

and McGuire Air Force Base, and 

renovating and upgrading a fish 

ladder in the heart of Philadelphia 

so shad and other native species 

could flourish again as they did 

at the nation’s founding. Willing 

to embrace new technology and 

new applications, the Philadelphia 

District was well poised to adjust 

to the dynamism of water policy 

in the late twentieth and early 

twenty-first centuries.

Challenges remained, of course. 

Even though the district worked 

diligently not only to comply with 

environmental laws and regulations but also to address public 

concerns, it still faced opposition 

in some of the work Congress 

asked it to perform. This opposition led to project delays (as with 

the Delaware River main channel 

project); personal attacks on Corps 

Groundbreaking for the C-17 Flight 

Simulator Facility, Dover Air Force 

Base, 2006
329

Conclusion

officials (as with the Tocks Island 

project); and even unfavorable 

publicity from both sides of an 

issue, with the district alternately 

labeled as hostile to environmental 

needs or to property rights (as 

sometimes happened with the 

regulatory program). No matter 

how hard the Corps worked to 

satisfy all interests in a project, 

it seemed that at least one group 

always remained dissatisfied. The 

Philadelphia District persisted 

in reaching out and doing what 

it could to hear and consider 

interested parties’ concerns—over 

time building trust and respect, if 

not agreement, with some of those 

in opposition.

The fluctuations in the district’s workload also proved to 

be challenging, especially in the 

early 1980s, when the district 

was downsized after the cancellation of the Tocks Island project 

and the district engineer position 

was reduced from a colonel to 

a lieutenant colonel, and in the 

early 1990s, when a general Corps 

restructuring targeted the district 

Hikers behind the dune—placed for both 

economic and environmental benefit—

in Cape May Meadows State Park, with 

the Cape May Point Lighthouse in 

the background
330

Chapter 10

for closure. Such events led to an 

unsettled feeling in the district 

that was, at times, compounded by 

changes in its workload. Having 

Corps leadership take away 

missions and functions and later 

return them (such as with design 

work in the 1980s and the military 

mission in general) detracted from 

a sense of continuity in the district. 

Thus, the same events that enabled 

the district to become more flexible 

and responsive in its work also 

created difficulties.

The Philadelphia District dealt 

with these fluctuating workloads 

and responsibilities through solid 

internal teamwork and as part of 

a larger Corps team that included 

other districts in the North 

Atlantic Division. In the twentyfirst century, this teamwork took 

the form of regionalization and 

the USACE 2012 initiative, which 

promoted working across districts 

and across division boundaries in 

an attempt to eliminate the “stovepipe” perception of the Corps. In 

contrast to past reorganizations 

that diminished the Philadelphia 

District’s roles and responsibilities, these changes had a positive 

overall effect on the district’s 

workload. The most prominent 

The vertical lift bridge at the former 

Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, after 

complete renovation by the District for 

the United States Coast Guard
331

Conclusion

example was the C4ISR program at 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, which 

Philadelphia took on as part of 

a division-wide project reallocation to handle the MILCON surge 

stemming from BRAC 2005.

As the Philadelphia District 

moved into the twenty-first 

century, its future looked bright. 

The district was poised to continue 

its strong environmental work in 

terms of Superfund cleanup, ecosystem restoration, and wetlands 

permitting, having developed 

a large amount of expertise in 

these fields over the preceding 

years. Likewise, the district would 

continue its dredging and navigation functions in the waterways 

under its jurisdiction and along 

the coastline, and would continue 

to use its expertise in beach nourishment projects to protect the 

shorelines of New Jersey and 

Delaware. Flood control would 

still to be an important component 

of the district’s work, although 

the forms such work took would 

continue to evolve. The military 

construction mission was set to 

become an even larger element 

of the district’s responsibilities, 

in both project management and 

contracting, in part because of 

the excellent work the district 

had done for years at Fort Dix, 

McGuire Air Force Base, and Dover 

Air Force Base. The district would 

also continue to offer its expertise 

and experience to a host of other 

federal, state, and local agencies.

By 2008, the Philadelphia 

District had built a solid reputation on its ability to adjust to the 

context of the times while still 

providing responsive and reliable 

service to its clients. This flexibility would serve the district well 

as it carried its legacy into a new 

century.

Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers, 

Chief of Engineers from 2000 to 2004, 

consults a map on the McFarland with 

dredge master Captain Karl Van Florcke

Appendices
334

Philadelphia District Dams and Reservoirs
335

Project General Edgar

Jadwin Dam

Prompton

Lake

Francis E.

Walter Dam

Beltzville

Lake

Blue Marsh

Lake

Location Honesdale, Pa. Prompton, Pa. White Haven, Pa. Beltzville, Pa. Leesport, Pa.

County Wayne Wayne Carbon & 

Luzerne

Carbon Berks

Stream Dyberry Creek West Branch

Lackawaxen R.

Bear Creek &

Lehigh R.

Pohopoco Creek Tulpehocken 

Creek

River Basin Lackawaxen Lackawaxen Lehigh Lehigh Schuylkill

Upstream Drainage Area 65 sq. mi. 60 sq. mi. 288 sq. mi. 96 sq. mi. 175 sq. mi.

Authorized Purposes Flood Control Flood Control Flood Control

Recreation

Flood Control

Water Supply

Water Quality

Recreation

Flood Control

Water Supply

Water Quality

Recreation

Start of Dam Operations 1959 1960 1961 1971 1977

Park Open for Recreation (1) (2) 1972 1979

DAM

Dam Structure Earthfill Earthfill Earthfill Earthfill Earthfill

Elevation at Top of Dam (3) 1,082’ 1,233’ 1,474’ 672’ 332’

Height above Stream Bed 109’ 147’ 234’ 170’ 98’

Length 1,255’ 1,230’ 3,000’ 4,560’ 1,775’

Top Width 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’

OUTLET WORKS

Conduit Cross-Sectional Area 50 sq. ft. 59 sq. ft. 201 sq. ft. 38 sq. ft. 94 sq. ft.

Conduit Length 530’ 548’ 1,150’ 1,165’ 440’

Control Gates Fixed opening Fixed opening 3 @ 5’8”x10’ 2 @ 2’10”x7’4” 2 @ 6’x10’

SPILLWAY

Crest Elevation (3) 1,053’ 1,200’ 1,450’ 651’ 307’

Crest Length 164’ 130’ 450’ 275’ 300’

Design Discharge 69,000 c.f.s. 57,890 c.f.s. 193,721 c.f.s. 47,000 c.f.s. 73,900 c.f.s.

RESERVOIR

Surface 

Area

Normal Dry dam 290 acres 80 acres 947 acres 963 acres

Recreation/Summer 574 acres 1,147 acres

Top of 

Pool (3)

Normal 1,125’ 1,300’ 628’ 285’

Recreation/Summer 1,370’ 290’

Total Storage Capacity 8 billion gals. 17 billion gals. 36 billion gals. 22 billion gals. 16 billion gals.

(1) Walter is authorized for recreation, but not as a managed park.

(2) Recreation at Beltzville is managed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Beltzville State Park).

(3) All elevations are relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29).
336

Philadelphia District Major Vessels

USACE Minimum Fleet Hopper Dredge

McFarland

USACE Survey Vessel

Shuman

Philadelphia District Hopper 

Dredges (since World War II)

Goethals Comber Essayons McFarland

Year Built 1937 1947 1949 1967

Dredge Type Side Drags Side Drags Side Drags Side Drags

Power Turbo-Electric Turbo-Electric Turbo-Electric Diesel Electric

Length 476’ 0” 351’ 9” 525’ 2” 300’ 0”

Beam 68’ 0” 60’ 0” 72’ 0” 72’ 0”

Depth 36’ 3” 30’ 0” 40’ 5” 33’ 0”

Hopper Capacity 5,000 c.y. 3,000 c.y. 8,000 c.y. 3,140 c.y.

Maximum Loaded Draft 25’ 0” 22’ 2” 28’ 0” 22’ 0”

Maximum Dredging Depth 60’ 62’ 60’ 55’

Dragpipes No. – Size 2 – 32” 2 – 30” 2 – 36” 2 – 34”

Dredge

Pumps

No. – Size 2 – 30” 2 – 28” 2 – 32” 2 – 26”

Rating (Each) 1,300 h.p. 1,150 h.p. 1,850 h.p. 2,800 h.p.

Propulsion

(All Twin

Screw)

Total Shaft Rating 4,500 h.p. 6,000 h.p. 8,000 h.p. 6,000 h.p.

Speed

Light 15.46 m.p.h. 15.35 m.p.h. 17.30 m.p.h. 15.40 m.p.h.

Loaded 12.44 m.p.h. 12.85 m.p.h. 16.55 m.p.h. 14.90 m.p.h.

Year Retired 1982 1983 1981 Active
337

USACE Minimum Fleet Hopper Dredge McFarland

Year built. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1967

Dimensions

Length, w/o boom overhang. . . . . . . 300’

Length, w/ boom overhang. . . . . . . . 319’ 8”

Boom length beyond side of vessel. . 136’

Beam, molded. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72’

Depth amidship, molded. . . . . . . . . . 33’

Length of drag arms. . . . . . . . . . . . . 63’

Material

Hull & superstructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . Steel

Dredging depth

Maximum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55’

Minimum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21’

Design mean draft

Loaded. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22’

Hopper capacity

1 hopper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,140 c.y.

Total capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 doors

Draft

Loaded – Forward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23’ 7/8”

Loaded – Aft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23’ 7/8”

Light – Forward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15’ 3”

Light – Aft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16’ 6”

Displacement

Loaded. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,720 T.

Light. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,152 T.

Tonnage

Loaded. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,036 T.

Light. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,644 T.

Dredging capabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hopper, Pipeline, Sidecast

Pumping power

Total output. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,600 h.p.

Motors, electric (2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,800 h.p. ea. @ 225/425 r.p.m.

Engines, diesel (3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,160 h.p. ea. @ 900 r.p.m.

Pumps (2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225/425 r.p.m.

No. of vanes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Suction pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34” dia.

Discharge pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26” dia.

Propulsion power

Total output. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,000 h.p.

Engines, direct drive diesel (4). . . . . . . . . 1,600 h.p. ea. @ 900 r.p.m.

Propellers, 4-blade, variable pitch (2). . . . 13’ 6” dia.

Bow thruster, electric, reversible. . . . . . . 65” dia.

Thrust. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,000 lbs. @ 500 h.p.

Direct pumpout

Discharge line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26” dia.

Maximum length of discharge line. . . . . 20,000’

Sidecasting

Discharge pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34” dia.

Length of pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175’

Casting distance from side of dredge. . . 163’

Fuel

Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270,000 gal.

Cruising range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,500 mi.

Speed (statute miles)

Light. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4 m.p.h.

Loaded. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.9 m.p.h.

USACE Survey Vessel Shuman

Year built. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1970

Dimensions

Length, overall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65’

Beam, overall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26’

Hull depth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8’ 5”

Clearance, top of mast. . . . . . . . . . . 30’

Vessel type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catamaran

Material

Hull & deckhouse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aluminum

Draft

Loaded – Forward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4’ 9”

Loaded – Aft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4’ 9”

Light – Forward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4’ 7”

Light – Aft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4’ 7”

Displacement

Loaded. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 T.

Light. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 T.

Propulsion

Total output. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,480 h.p.

Engines, diesel (2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 740 h.p. ea. @ 2,300 r.p.m.

Reduction gears (2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:1 ratio

Generators (2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 kW.

Propellers, 5–blade, Nibral (2). . . . . . . . . 40” dia. x 42 pitch,

3 3⁄4” dia. shaft

Fuel

Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,128 gal.

Speed (statute miles). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 m.p.h.

Hydrographic survey equipment

Hi-res multibeam sonar system . . . . . . . 240 kHz., 150° swath

Position & orientation system. . . . . . . . . 0.5-2.0 m. DGPS

0.02-0.10 m. RTK

Digital side scan sonar system. . . . . . . . . 100 kHz. to 450 m.

500 kHz. to 150 m.

Single beam sonar system. . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2-600 m. depth range

0.01 m. resolution
338

Active Philadelphia District 

O&M Navigation Projects
339

Project

Map

No. Authorized

Last

Modified

Authorized Channel Dimensions O&M

Length

(if less)

Last

Depths Widths Length Dredged

Absecon Inlet, NJ 1 1922 1946 15’-20’ 200’-400’ 1.5 mi. 2004

Barnegat Inlet, NJ 2 1935 1946 8’-10’ 200’-300’ 4.5 mi. 2009

Cedar Creek, DE 3 1981 5’ 50’-80’ 1.2 mi. 2009

Cohansey River, NJ 4 1907 1937 8’-12’ 75’-100’ 19.5 mi. 1990

Cold Spring (Cape May) Inlet, NJ 5 1907 1945 20’-25’ 300’-400’ 2.3 mi. 2009

Delaware River at Camden, NJ 6 1919 1988 18’-40’ varies ~4 mi. 1992

Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA

to Trenton, NJ 7 1930 1990 25’-40’ 300’-400’ ~30 mi. 23.5 mi. 2009

Delaware River, Philadelphia

to the Sea, PA, NJ & DE (1) 8 1885 1992 45’ 400’-1000’ 102.5 mi. Annual

Indian River Inlet & Bay, DE 9 1937 1945 4’-15’ 60’-200’ ~13 mi. ~2 mi. 2009

Inland Waterway, Delaware River

to Chesapeake Bay, DE & MD

(Chesapeake & Delaware Canal)

10 1919 1990 35’ 450’ ~46 mi. Annual

Inland Waterway, Rehoboth Bay

to Delaware Bay, DE

(Lewes & Rehoboth Canal)

11 1912 1990 6’-10’ 50’-200’ ~12 mi. ~2 mi. 2004

Manasquan River, NJ 12 1930 1990 12’-14’ 100’-300’ 1.5 mi. 2009

Maurice River , NJ 13 1910 1990 7’ 100’-150’ 21 mi. 1996

Mispillion River, DE 14 1907 1992 6’ 60’ 13.6 mi. ~1 mi. 2009

Murderkill River, DE 15 1892 1990 7’ 60’ 8.5 mi. 2002

New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway 16 1945 1990 6’-12’ 100’ 117 mi. 2009

Salem River, NJ 17 1925 1990 16’ 100’-150’ ~5 mi. 2007

Schuylkill River, PA,

Mouth to University Avenue 18 1917 1988 22’-33’ 200’-400’ 6.5 mi. ~4 mi. 2008

Toms River, NJ 19 1910 1979 5’ 100’ 4.5 mi. 1998

Tuckerton Creek, NJ 20 1902 1916 3’-6’ 40’-80’ 3.8 mi. 1977

Wilmington Harbor,

Christina River, DE 21 1896 1960 7’-38’ 100’-340’ 9.9 mi. ~1 mi. Annual

(1) Deepening from 40 to 45 feet per most recent authorization (1992) began in 2010 and was under construction as of this writing.
340

High-Level Highway Bridges over the 

Chesapeake & Delaware Canal

Chesapeake City 

Bridge

Summit 

Bridge

Senator William V. 

Roth, Jr. Bridge

Saint Georges 

Bridge

Reedy Point 

Bridge

Structure

Tied Arch Cantilever Truss Cable Stay Tied Arch Cantilever Truss

Constructed

1947–1948 1957–1959 1993–1995 1940–1941 1966–1969

Route Designation

Md. 213 U.S. 301, Del. 896 Del. 1 U.S. 13 Del. 9

Highway Type

2-lane 4-lane, divided 4-lane, divided, 

limited access, tolls

4-lane, divided 2-lane

Average Daily Trips (2008)

14,538 22,801 67,564 10,208 1,742

Overall Bridge Length (between abutments)

3,954’ 2,058’ 4,650’ 4,209’ 8,432’

Main Span Length

540’ 600’ 750’ 540’ 600’

Maximum Height

240’ 196’ 335’ 240’ 190’

Air Gap (ship clearance)

135’ 135’ 138’ 133’ 134’

342

Marine Design Center Projects, 1982–2008

(in chronological sequence)

•	Yaquina Hopper Dredge, Small Class Design 

•	 Essayons Hopper Dredge, Medium Class Design, Claim 

Support

•	Wheeler Hopper Dredge, Large Class Design 

•	Gelberman Tugboat 85’, Design 

•	 Titan Crane Barge 96’x48’x8’4”

•	 LD-707 Shop Barge 140'x36'x9'

•	Brownlee Standard Floating Crane 90T, 195’x54’x10’

•	 Sewell Standard Floating Crane 75T, 195’x54’x10’

•	Warren Crane Barge 6CY, 150’x60’

•	 #869 Dragline Crane Barge 120'x42'x7'

•	 Standard Floating Crane Barge

•	DeLong A Kings Bay Jackup DPO 

•	Woodie Walden Floating Crane Design (Bluestone Repl.)

•	 LD 730/731 Deck Cargo Barges (2) 125'x54'x7'

•	Deck Barges (3) 120'x30'

•	 Fish Transport Barge

•	 Luckiamute Emergency Conversion

•	Hurley Dustpan Dredge (Burgess Repl.)

•	Boyd Surveyboat 45’

•	Azores Dredge Aid

•	 SG Cutterhead Dredge

•	 LD-727 Power Service Barge

•	Workboat 50', P&S Review

•	Crane Barge Conversion

•	 Swath Surveyboat (Adams Repl.) 

•	Merritt Vessel Modifications 

•	Roseires Dredging Plant 

•	Racine Vessel Modifications 

•	 Peck Towboat 100’ 

•	Wallace Surveyboat 60’

•	Quad Cities Gatelifter 350T 

•	USAF Cutterhead Dredge

•	HD 290/291 Deck Cargo Barges 150'x50'

•	Warioto Towboat, Medium Class

•	Bunyan, Conversion to Diesel-Electric 

•	Jadwin, Conversion to Diesel-Electric 

•	Britton Towboat 100’

•	DCB-75/76 Deck Cargo Barges (2) 120'x30'

•	 #96 Deck Cargo Barge 110'x26'

•	 SV 101 Service Barge

•	Harvey Hodge Surveyboat 42’

•	Reynolds Drift Collection Vessel 60’x20’ (Patapsco Repl.)

•	 SLG-3 Spare Miter Gate Barge

•	 #100 Gate Barge, Deck Cargo 150'x52'

•	 Swath Surveyboat 

•	HD 250 Deck Cargo Barge 105'x25'x8'

•	 #906-909 Deck Cargo Barges (4) 150'x35'x6'

•	 YMN1 Cutterhead Dredge 82'x27'x6' for MINSY (USN)

•	Bettendorf Towboat 85’x30’ (Andrews Repl.)

•	 Lusk Tender (Wailes Repl.) 

•	Dauntless Salvage Support Services 

•	 #8501 Deck Cargo Barge 200'x50'x8'

•	 Service Launch (Moore Repl.) 

•	 #8601 Deck Cargo Barge 200'x50'x8'

•	Dustpan Dredge (Potter Repl.) 

•	M/V Mississippi Repl. 

•	 LD 733 Deck Cargo Barge 140'x36'x7'

•	 #850-853 Deck Cargo Barges (4) 110'x26'x6'

•	 Spud Barge 150'x35'x9'

•	 #8601-5/701-5 Deck Cargo Barges (10) 160'x34'x9'6"

•	 Buoy Barge 90'x30'x6'6"

•	 #8603 Deck Cargo Barge 260'x45'x7'

•	 #8604 Ramp Barge, Deck Cargo 120'x30'x7'

•	R.W. Davis Floating Crane 160’x54’x10’6” (Upatoi & 

Tallawampe) 

•	DB 65 Floating Crane 75'x52'x8.5' (DB 7 Repl.)

•	DB 11 Floating Crane 75'7"x52'x8'9" (DB 8 Repl.)

•	ND 40 Shop/Spud Barge 150'x52'x9' (DB 10 Repl.)

•	HD 251 Deck Cargo Barge 105'x26'x8'

•	C: Bogue Crewboat (for Hurley)

•	DD: Hurley Drydock # 5801

•	 PL: Hurley Pipeline

•	 SP: SP1/101-102 Barges (3) (for Hurley)

•	 T: Tender One (for Hurley)

•	 Floating Crane (DB 4401 Repl.)

•	 #185 Power/Shop Barge

•	 #910-919 Deck Cargo Barges (10) 150'x35'x6'

•	 #8801-5\901-5 Deck Cargo Barges (10) 160'x34'x9'6”

•	HD 292 Deck Cargo Barge 151'x52'x8'

•	 #91 Deck Cargo Barge 105'x26'x7'

•	 #9201 Work Barge 55'x20'x5'

•	 #869 Barge & Crane Analysis

•	 Spud Barge 100'x54'

•	 Towboat 65'

•	Cherneski Surveyboat 42’ 
343

•	Creve Coeur Tender 1200HP (Kankakee Repl.)

•	Dredge Thompson Repl. Design 

•	 P. H. Worley Lock Tender 50’x18’x8’ (Winfield L&D)

•	Duluth/Superior Harbor

•	M/V Hatton Repl. 

•	Robinson Bay Repowering 

•	DCB-77/78 Stop Log Barges (2), Deck Cargo 120'x30'x7'

•	Rouge Harbor Tugboat 65’, Repowering

•	Dump Scow 200CY

•	Mister Pat Towboat 1375HP, 82’x35’x10’

•	H. J. Schwartz Floating Crane (Coleman and Markus Repl.)

•	 SES-200 Repowering

•	Moline Towboat (Craigel), Small Size 600–800HP

•	Hopper Barge 151'x25'

•	Harrell Patrol Boat 35’ (Craney Island Repl.)

•	 Ted Cook Towboat 1800HP, 82’3”x34’x10’10” (Anglin

Repl.)

•	Utility Barge 30'x12'

•	 Surveyboat 44'

•	Currituck Repowering 

•	 Tender (Marmet) 

•	 Surveyboat 44'

•	Crane Barge 150'x52'x9', R.C. Byrd L&D

•	DB-766 Crane Barge 150'x50'x10' (DB-762 Repl.)

•	Dredge Pipeline Pontoons (50) 47'6"x16'x4'

•	 #854-857 Deck Cargo Barges (4) 110'x26'x6'

•	 #105 Deck Gate Barge 150'x52'x8'

•	 Pathfinder Towboat 75’x30’x8’6” (Repl.)

•	Grand Tower Towboat Repl. 

•	 Fisher Crane Barge (#1 Repl.)

•	Deck Cargo Barges

•	Deck Cargo Barge (#46 Repl.)

•	DB-767 Crane Barge (DB-763 Repl.)

•	 Surveyboat (Hickson Repl.) 

•	 Towboat (Singleton Repl.) 

•	 Fred Lee Towboat 85’x28’x9’, Red River

•	 #9502

•	 Lock Stop Log Barge

•	Dam Stop Log Barge

•	Utility Boat

•	HD 252 Deck Cargo Barge 105'x26'x8'

•	Halcyon Engineering Support 

•	William R. Porter Tender 50’ (Gallipolis Locks)

•	 #2256 Crane Barge 150'x50'x8'

•	Wheeler Repowering 

•	 LCOB McFarland Launch Repl. 

•	 LaSalle Towboat (Pekin) 

•	 Tender (Cottel Repl.) 

•	 Stringout Barges

•	 Floating Crane Barge, Winfield L&D 150'x52'x9'3"

•	 QB 9401 Quarters Boat, Barge 266'x40'x10'7"

•	 #9801 Crane Barge

•	Duluth Tug Repowering 

•	 Floating Crane (Upatoi & Tallawampe) 

•	Drift Vessel Elizabeth Repl. 

•	 Tenn-Tom Towboat 1800HP, 85’x30’x10’

•	Halcyon Surveyboat 60’ (Swath), Repowering

•	M/V Iroquois Repl. 

•	 Tennessee Towboat 800HP 

•	USFWS Research Vessel 95'

•	 QB 9901 CEMVK Quarters/Galley Goat, Mess Barge

301'x40'x11'

•	 #5801 Casualty to Drydock

•	Henry M. Shreve Gatelifter Barge, Floating Crane 350T, 

300’x100’x14’

•	CELMK Fuel Oil Barge 195'x35'x12'

•	 QB 9501 Quarters/Office Barge 266'x40'x10'7" (Similar to

QB 2281)

•	HD 294 Deck Cargo Barge 151'x52'x8'

•	 Olmsted Lock and Dam

•	HD 293 Deck Cargo Barge 151'x52'x8'

•	Roger R. Henry Derrickboat (#49 Repl.)

•	Ossabaw Surveyboat 32’, Sea Ark (GSA) 

•	Donlon Tug Steel Tender 50’ (Palmyra/Paulsboro Repl.)

•	 Tug Pilot Repl.

•	Deck Cargo Barges, 700 Series (2), 150'x35'x6'

•	 QB 2001 Office/Locker Barge 150'x35'x6'

•	Melvin Price Docking Barge 150’x48’x9’3”

•	 #9511 Fuel Oil Barge 125'x26'x7'6”

•	ND6 Crane Barge Conversion

•	 Sturgeon Research Vessel Conversion 

•	 Towboat

•	Drift Collector 100’x30’x10’ (Raccoon Repl.)

•	 Standard Inland River Crane Barge 150'x50'x10'

•	HD 253/254 ORH Deck Cargo Barges 105'x26'x8' with

Cargo Box
344

Marine Design Center Projects

•	Wildcat Repl. 

•	J. C. Thomas Towboat 125’

•	Grizzly Tug, Engineering Support 

•	Davenport Towboat 59’x22’x8.5’ (Monmouth Repl.)

•	 #9511 LMK Fuel Oil Barge 125'x26'x7'6”

•	Kenneth Eddy Towboat Repl. 100’x34’x11’

•	Work Layout Barge 230'x68'x12'

•	Debris Barge

•	Dobrin Surveyboat 67’x19’

•	Adams II Surveyboat 67’x19’

•	DB-9 Crane Barge 150'x50'x10'

•	DB-10 Crane Barge 150'x50'x10'

•	Hercules Floating Crane Barge

•	Hiram Downs Jet Surveyboat 38’

•	 #9701 Fuel Oil Barge 195'x35'x12'

•	 Surveyboat 36'-38'

•	 Potter Repowering 

•	Goliath Spud Operating Mechanism 

•	M/V Bogue Crewboat Repairs 

•	 Fuel Oil Barge 130'x35'x12'6”

•	Water Barge

•	Bettendorf Warranty Claim

•	 Titan Floating Crane Barge 205’x108’x17’

•	 Evanick Towboat Repl. 100’x35’x11’

•	Hudson CENAN Surveyboat/Patrol Boat Repl. 53’

•	Bluestone Debris Mgt. Vessel 50’x20’

•	Moritz Surveyboat Repl. 65’

•	Monallo III Crane Barge 195’x80’x13’ (Monallo II Repl.)

•	Mckelvey Steel Workboat 50’ (Belleville L&D)

•	 Stevens Steel Workboat 50’ (Willow Island)

•	 Rock Barge, Deck Cargo 150'x35'x8'

•	CE 64 Fuel Oil Barge 195'x35'x12'

•	CE 407 Fuel Oil Barge 125'x26'x8'

•	 Praire Du Rocher Towboat 880HP, 50’ 

•	Barron Launch (Pittsburgh Repl.)

•	 Surveyboat 26'

•	Deck Cargo Barges (3) 120'x30'x7'

•	 Teche Surveyboat 55’ (M/V Granada Repl.)

•	 Forney Tug Repowering 

•	Choctawhatcee Floating Crane (Seatrax) 

•	Irvington Surveyboat Repl. 50’

•	 PCC Dredge Mindi Engineering Support 

•	Olmsted Manuever Barge 

•	Deck Cargo Barges (3) 105'x26'x7'

•	Redlinger Surveyboat 32’, Truckable (Rodolf Repl.)

•	 Elton Surveyboat 65’, Deep-Vee (Hickson Repl.)

•	Derrick 6 Anchor Handling Barge 75’x35’x5’6”

•	 Gate Barge 175'x70'x12'

•	 #37A Maneuver Boat

•	Maneuver Boat, Peoria L&D

•	MB 2001 & 2002 Maneuver Boat, LaGrange L&D

•	Goetz Dredge, Thompson Dredge Repowering, 595-Old & 

659-New

•	 Titan Crane Barge 96’x48’x8’4”

•	 Lafourche (M/V Alexander Repl.)

•	 KIYI Research Vessel

•	Cherneski Spicer Shaft 

•	 Shorty Baird Cooling System Conversion 

•	Driftmaster Boom Repl. 

•	Monallo III Floating Crane Barge 

•	 Potter Overhaul & Repair 

•	 Pontoons

•	Channahon Towboat Repowering 

•	DB-768 Crane Barge (Kewanee Repl.) 

•	 Essayons Dredging Control & Automation 

•	 L/D 53 Olmsted Washdown Barge 70'x30'x5'

•	 Tanner Surveyboat (C.M. Wood Repl.)

•	 SG-4 Spare Gate Barge

•	Mike Hendricks MPLD Floating Crane 

•	Yaquina Repowering 

•	Morewood Drift Control Barge

•	CB 11 Crane Barge (Mazon Repl.) 

•	Bray Surveyboat, Engineering Support 

•	 #670 Scow, Engineering Support

•	Harvey Crane Barge 

•	 Barge, Dredge Floating Pipeline 48'x18'x4'

•	William James Towboat (Lipscomb Repl.) 

•	 Sanderford (M/V Wailes Repl.)

•	M/V Key Woods

•	 Essayons Launch Repl. 

•	 Fish Stocking Vessel, Jordan Fish Hatchery

•	Crane Barge

•	Choctawhatchee Crane Barge 

•	 Leitner Towboat Vibration 

•	Yaquina Hopper Dredge, Crane Repl. 

•	 Rock Island Rock Barges, Deck Cargo (6) 150'x35'x8'

•	 Essayons Repowering 

•	 BD-7 Drift Crane, Floating Crane Barge

•	Kimmswick Repl. 

•	Jadwin Dredge Repairs

•	Brown Crane Barge Repl. 

•	Gordon M. Stevens Towboat Repl. 
345

Marine Design Center Projects

•	 BD-1 Barge

•	John A B Dillard Jr., Debris Vessel 

•	City of Ottawa Towboat 85’ (Peoria Repl.)

•	Workboat for Racine Lock

•	Montgomery Point Barge 

•	 Lawson Towboat 96’x39’x8’, (3) screws @ 670 ea. 

(Patoka Repl.)

•	 Linthicum Repowering

•	 Rock Barge (2) (Peoria)

•	Crane Barge

•	Blanchard Surveyboat 44’ 

•	 934 Deck Barge 150'x35'x6'

•	Deck Cargo Barges (6)

•	 Rock Barges (2)

•	 Thompson Quarters/Galley Boat Barge

•	Gen. Warren Towboat (Thompson Repl.) 

•	 Shuman Surveyboat Repowering 

•	 Shallow Draft Dredge Repl., Split Hull

•	CN-4 Flat Deck Crane Barge 80'x29'x7' (Existing)

•	Jadwin Pipeline Repl. 

•	Anchor Handling Barge Repl. 60'x22'x5'

•	Wheeler Repowering 

•	Breton Surveyboat Repl. 48’x16’

•	M/V Mississippi Landing Barge 120’x68’

•	 Surveyboat

•	 Pipeline Barges (3)

•	ND 45-48 Deck Cargo Barges (4) 120'x28'x7'

•	Yaquina Launch Repl. 

•	Crawler Crane

•	 Taggatz Quarters Boat 

•	 Rock Barges (6)

•	Marmet Workboat (Marmet L&D) 

•	Gavins Point Landing Craft 

•	Gordon M. Stevens Towboat (Olmsted L&D)
346

Philadelphia District Gallery of 

Distinguished Employees

Nicholas J. Barbieri, P.E., joined the 

District in 1952 as a construction engineer 

and concluded as Chief of the Planning/

Engineering Division. He served as resident 

engineer for the widening and deepening of 

the C&D Canal and supervised completion of 

planning studies for modification of the F.E. 

Walter Dam. Moreover, he was the driving 

force behind successful efforts to restore the 

Military Construction mission at Ft. Dix and 

McGuire Air Force Base to the Philadelphia 

District, soon after plans for Tocks Island 

Dam had been shelved and at a time when 

the District’s workload was near its all-time 

low. Also, he encouraged the District’s shift 

toward increased reimbursable work for the 

EPA and other federal agencies. In 1984, he 

received the Outstanding Manager of the 

Year award from the Federal Executive Board 

in Philadelphia, largely in recognition of his 

transformational leadership. He retired in 

1986, following thirty-five years of service.

Lewis A. Caccese, P.E., joined the District 

in 1941 as a First Lieutenant active duty with 

the Army. After being discharged in 1946, he 

remained with the District as a civil engineer, 

rising to Chief of Operations Division in 1954. 

He developed the “direct pumpout” dredging 

technique, allowing material to be pumped 

directly into onshore disposal areas. He also 

launched the District’s Long Range Disposal 

Study to develop new concepts allowing 

use of distant disposal areas. His leadership 

in applying environmental considerations to 

Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 

1899 helped preserve the District’s wetlands. 

In 1971, he became the first employee of the 

Philadelphia District to receive the Secretary 

of the Army’s Distinguished Civilian Service 

Award. He was named Engineer of the Year 

by the Technical Societies of the Delaware 

Valley in 1974. He retired in 1979 after thirtyeight years of service.

Robert L. Callegari came in as Chief of 

the District’s new Planning Division in 1987 

after sixteen years with the North Atlantic 

Division and New York District. Faced with 

few active studies and only one project authorized for construction, he reached out to the 

congressional delegation and to potential 

non-federal partners to identify the District’s 

civil works capabilities. His efforts led to one 

of the Corps’ largest and most successful 

coastal programs, including beach nourishment projects for New Jersey’s Long Beach 

Island, Atlantic City, Ocean City, Avalon and 

Stone Harbor, Cape May, and The Meadows/

Cape May Point, and for Delaware’s Lewes, 

Rehoboth Beach, Bethany Beach, and Fenwick 

Island. He also made highly effective use of 

the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program to 

facilitate small projects for purposes such as 

aquatic ecosystem restoration and beneficial 

use of dredged material, and was instrumental 

in moving the Delaware River Main Channel 

Deepening from concept to construction.

Vincent L. Calvarese, P.E., began his long 

career with the District in 1962 as a civil 

engineer and rose to become Chief of the 

Design Branch in the Engineering Division. His 

achievements include the redecking and rehabilitation of the St. Georges and Chesapeake 

City Bridges; the Tocks Island study; and the 

construction of the Barnegat Inlet South Jetty. 

He worked on the construction of the Blue 

Marsh Dam, the relocation of Gruber Wagon 

Works, the selective water withdrawal tower 

at Beltzville and the F.E. Walter Dam modification, all the while serving as a teacher 

and advisor to others. He was instrumental 

in Philadelphia becoming the first East Coast 

District to utilize concrete dolosse, which 

was done during the reconstruction of the 

Manasquan Inlet jetties. His insistence on 

using steel reinforcing rods in that project, 

contrary to the advice of some experts, 

proved sound.
347

Harry F. Flynn served with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers for nearly twenty-four 

years, from 1910 to 1933, in the Seattle, 

Wilmington, and Philadelphia Districts. His 

government career began with the Coast 

and Geodetics Survey, in 1892, and included 

a tour of duty with the Bureau of Public 

Lands in the Philippine Islands. While with 

the Philadelphia and Wilmington Districts 

he introduced tidal hydraulics processes that 

still are used. He designed and built the first 

tidal model of a portion of the Delaware 

River and influenced the decision to lower the 

Chesapeake & Delaware Canal to sea level.

Ernest P. Fortino, P.E., joined the District’s 

Operations Division in 1939 as a student 

engineer. He transferred to the Marine Design 

Division and served in various positions, 

becoming Assistant Chief in 1961 and Chief 

of the Division in 1975. He was a leader in the 

division’s effort to improve dredge equipment 

and develop instrumentation that improved 

efficiency aboard hopper dredges. He personally directed the design of three of the Corps’ 

hopper dredges. He advised several foreign 

governments on design and construction of 

floating plant and served as a consultant to 

the Corps of Engineers’ Marine Engineering 

Board. He retired in 1979 after almost forty 

years of federal service.

Albert J. Depman, C.P.G., joined the 

District in 1948 as a civil draftsman, having 

earned his bachelor’s degree in geology from 

the University of Pennsylvania in 1947. As 

Supervisory Engineering Geologist during 

the mid-1960s, he supervised a team of 

geologists sudying the Beltzville and Tocks 

Island dam sites and conducted subsurface 

investigations of the Blue Marsh and Trexler 

sites. He also worked on subsurface investigations for the Chesapeake & Delaware 

and Point Pleasant canals. Promoted to 

branch-level Supervisory Geologist in 1968, 

he was honored by the Corps and by many 

external customers for his exceptional work 

as a geologist. He served as president of the 

Association of Engineering Geologists. He 

retired in 1978 after nearly thirty-three years 

of federal service, including active duty with 

the U.S. Navy during World War II and the 

Korean conflict.

Elaine H. Dickinson began her career with 

the District in 1966 and became the District’s 

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) officer 

in 1978. She started a proactive EEO program 

that included an effective affirmative action 

plan to recruit minorities and women. Her 

work with ethnic heritage month celebrations 

did much to increase employee awareness 

of different cultures. She founded PRIME, 

a program designed to encourage minority 

students to pursue careers in mathematics, 

science, and technology, in the District. She 

participated in the Urban League and was a 

member of the Federal Executive Board’s EEO 

Officers’ Council. She reached out to all areas 

of the District from field offices to the decks 

of the Dredge McFarland, providing sound 

and valuable advice to District employees. She 

retired in 1994 with thirty-six years of federal 

service, leaving a legacy of an innovative EEO 

program that continues to this day.
348

Gallery

Captain Jerome H. Jackson joined the 

District in 1931 as Master of a survey boat. 

He subsequently served as Master or Deck 

Officer aboard the Corps Dredges Clatsop, 

Rossell, Davison, Comber, and Essayons. He is 

best remembered for his long service with the 

Philadelphia District as Master of the Dredge 

Goethals. He served in the Korean theater 

as a Major in the U.S. Army, engaged in 

dredging operations. He retired in 1972 after 

thirty-nine years of service.

George A. Johnson joined the District as a 

Naval Architect in 1945, after six years in the 

same capacity with the U.S. Navy. He became 

Chief, Marine Design Division, in 1958. He 

participated in the design and construction of the Hopper Dredges McFarland and 

Markham and the Sidecasting Dredge Fry,

and directed the design of a floating nuclear 

plant and the conversion of a Navy vessel into 

a sidecasting dredge for duty in Vietnam. He 

was involved with designing floating plant for 

Korea, Australia, and the Panama Canal. He 

retired in 1975 after nearly thirty-six years’ 

federal service.

Paul B. Gaudini, P.E., joined the District 

in 1971, after earning his bachelor’s and 

master’s in civil engineering from Drexel 

University and the University of Missouri, 

respectively, and serving two years active 

duty with the U.S. Army. He took on increasing levels of responsibility, from his role as 

a resident engineer during the Hurricane 

Agnes response in 1972 to serving as Chief 

of the Project Development Branch and as 

Acting Chief of the Planning Division before 

his retirement in 2004. Throughout a career 

that covered all aspects of the District’s workload, in planning, engineering and project 

management, he provided technical advice 

and senior leadership for such diverse projects 

as the Advanced Tertiary Wastewater Facility, 

the National Airport Pavement Test Machine, 

and the Delaware River Basin Study. Known 

for his dependable and disciplined approach 

in managing all available resources to accomplish the mission, he also dedicated himself 

as a mentor and coach to many others who 

worked for or with him.

T. Brian Heverin, throughout his thirtyseven years of service to the nation, was a 

dedicated, talented, and valued engineer, 

friend, and public servant in the EngineeringConstruction and Operations Divisions. At 

various times he served as District Negotiator, 

Project Engineer, and Chief of the Recreation 

and Relocation section; Chief of the General 

Design Section; Chief of the Specification 

and Estimates Section; and first Chief of the 

Superfund and Construction Branches. He 

served on the negotiation team for Israeli 

air bases as part of the Camp David Accord, 

and accomplished many notable firsts in the 

Superfund program. Among his most notable 

accomplishments were the relocation and 

restoration of the historic Gruber Wagon 

Works and the oversight of military construction activities at Fort Dix and McGuire and 

Dover Air Force Bases. He retired in 2000 as 

Chief of the Technical Support Branch.
349

Gallery

Stephen A. Krajnik, P.G., joined the District 

in 1965 as a geologist and retired in 1990. 

During this time he was personally and significantly involved in almost every major project 

the District planned, constructed, or operated, 

including Beltzville Dam, Blue Marsh Dam, 

Barnegat Inlet New South Jetty, Delaware 

River Main Channel Deepening, Chesapeake 

& Delaware Canal, Molly Ann’s Brook, and 

the Lipari and Vineland Superfund sites. 

Despite a heavy workload he always made 

time to teach those around him, thus aiding 

the development of scores of professionals, 

many of whom rose to senior Corps positions. 

He staunchly advocated repair rather than 

replacement of instrumentation. By devising 

and fabricating simple but effective tools out 

of commonly available materials he saved the 

government tremendous downtime and tens 

of thousands of dollars in replacement costs.

H. Ronald Kreh, P.E., began his career 

with the Army Corps in 1955 after receiving his bachelor’s degree from the University 

of Delaware. He rose to become Chief of 

Operations in 1978. Under his leadership, 

Operations and Maintenance programs 

thrived. He expanded routine testing of 

sediments to prevent damage to the environment. He was a key member of the Corps’ 

Dredging Research Program and Minimum 

Fleet Study, and was deeply involved with 

maritime labor union negotiations. Under his 

management, the Regulatory Branch became 

a model for the North Atlantic Division, 

executing more than 2,500 permit actions 

annually. His expertise led to his selection on 

many Corps-wide committees as well as an 

intergovernmental task force to Africa. His 

ability to direct a large staff and accomplish 

complex missions while dealing with the 

public, media, Congress, and other agencies 

became legendary. He retired in 1993 after a 

thirty-seven-year career that, except for the 

short period as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, 

was spent entirely with the District.

Wesley E. Jordan joined the Corps in 1937 

as a deck hand on the Pipeline Dredge 

Delaware. He served as Master and Deck 

Officer aboard the Dredges Delaware, 

Rossell, Goethals, and Raritan, and the Sump 

Rehandler New Orleans. As Resident Engineer 

of the Edgemoor, Del., office, he carried out 

many innovative projects to improve hopper 

dredge operations. He participated in direct 

pumpout operations in the Delaware River 

and the District’s first beach nourishment by 

direct pumpout at Sea Girt, N.J. He served 

in the Army during World War II as a captain 

aboard the Hopper Dredge Barth. He retired 

in 1965 and continued working on dredging 

projects, serving as a special consultant to 

the Corps on beach nourishment projects in 

Norfolk, Va., and Jacksonville, Fla.

Arthur A. Klein, P.E., joined the District in 

1947 as a Supervisory Hydraulic Engineer in 

the Design Branch, having served earlier in 

both the Huntington and Pittsburgh Districts. 

He became Chief of the Design Branch in 

1960 and retired in that capacity in 1966. 

He twice served in France in the 1950s as 

a consultant on military construction. He 

assisted the U.S. House Appropriations 

Committee in its 1961 investigation of 

construction by non-military federal agencies. 

He contributed to the design and construction of many structural projects in the District 

and is remembered for his interest in the 

development of young engineers.
350

Gallery

Captain Joseph D. Mahoney served for 

thirty-seven years in the Philadelphia District, 

working on the Pipeline Dredges Raymond

and Gillespie and the Sump Rehandler New 

Orleans, of which he was captain. Born in 

1899, he died February 14, 1959, while on 

duty as Master of the New Orleans. He died 

while directing operations and emergency 

repairs during a storm. Although frequently 

cautioned by his physician against overexertion, his devotion to duty proved to be 

greater than his regard for his personal safety.

Anthony L. Marolda, a 1931 graduate of 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, began his 

career with the Army Corps of Engineers in 

the Nashville District in 1935. A year later he 

transferred to the Philadelphia District, where 

he remained until he became part of the New 

York District in 1960. He became Resident 

Engineer for McGuire Air Force Base and the 

Fort Dix Infantry Center in 1952 following the 

outbreak of hostilities in Korea. Serving in this 

assignment, he oversaw hundreds of millions 

of dollars worth of construction as the twin 

bases became a major military installation.

Keith W. Lawrence, P.E., joined the Army 

Corps as a summer hire in the Detroit District 

in 1956 and concluded his career as Director 

of the Marine Design Center in 1990. He 

consistently distinguished himself in a wide 

variety of significant marine projects for the 

Corps. He was responsible for maintaining the 

three largest seagoing dredges in the Corps’ 

fleet (the Comber, Goethals, and Essayons) 

at a time when the Corps performed most 

of the nation’s hopper dredging. He was also 

responsible for the development of a number 

of pump-ashore and beach nourishment 

procedures. He implemented the concepts of 

individual project management and mentoring prior to their general adoption by the 

Corps and led the Corps in developing stateof-the art marine design capabilities to satisfy 

customers’ needs.

Leonard J. Lipski, P.E., joined the District 

in 1957 and obtained his civil engineering 

degree from Villanova University in 1958. 

After the Delaware River Basin’s 1965 record 

drought, he helped determine the required 

level of reservoir releases to prevent the 

salt line from reaching Philadelphia’s water 

supply. He also studied the effects of shore 

structures on beach erosion, and employed 

his own improved analysis techniques in 

the design of flood control structures. After 

earning his master’s degree from Stanford 

University in 1973, as chief of the Hydrology 

& Hydraulics Branch he played a key design 

role in proposed Walter and Prompton Dam 

modifications, the Delaware River Main 

Channel Deepening, Barnegat Inlet New 

South Jetty, the Molly Ann’s Brook flood risk 

reduction project, several EPA Superfund 

cleanups, and the Delaware and New Jersey 

shore protection studies. Later as Chief of 

the Design Branch, he combined his extensive technical background with a disciplined 

approach and effective management of all 

available resources to accomplish the District’s 

missions.
351

Gallery

Alfred Padula, P.E., joined the Corps as a 

Delaware River boatman in the hydrographic 

survey party. He became Chief of Surveys and 

then Chief of the Research and Development 

Branch, Engineering Division. He was instrumental in improving the Corps’ dredging 

techniques and in developing the “harpoon” 

and “liquid mud” methods of sampling river 

sediments. He served as Project Engineer for 

many military projects during the Korean War. 

He supervised construction at the F.E. Walter, 

Prompton, Jadwin, and Beltzville Dams. 

He supervised the dredging of the 40-foot 

Delaware River navigation channel from 

Philadelphia to Morrisville, PA, and the widening and deepening of the C&D Canal. He 

retired in 1969 after a forty-two-year career 

with the Corps of Engineers.

George W. Padula began his forty-sevenyear career with the Corps in 1929 as a survey 

aide. He subsequently performed in a variety 

of increasingly responsible positions, including Fiscal Accountant and Administrative 

Officer. He is best remembered for his long 

and dedicated service as Financial Manager. 

His outstanding leadership and fund management substantially contributed to the Corps’ 

accomplishment of its mission.

Douglas C. Moore joined the District in 

1962, advancing steadily to become Chief 

of the Survey Section. He became recognized worldwide—in both government and 

industry—as an authority in field of hydrographic surveying. Always keeping abreast of 

technology, he procured and implemented 

the District’s first global positioning system 

for hydrographic work, followed by its first 

multibeam system. He was frequently called 

as an expert witness to resolve disputes on 

dredging contracts, in once case helping save 

the government about a quarter of a million 

dollars. For years he has taught the Corps’ 

Hydrographic Survey course, and helped 

update the Hydrographic Survey Manual in 

1998 and 2002. He serves on the American 

Congress of Surveying and Mapping’s fivemember board that certifies hydrographic 

surveyors. After the 9/11 attacks, he deployed 

to Ground Zero to personally supervise the 

establishment and operation of a constant 

building monitoring system. This served to 

verify the stability of the surviving structures 

and ensured the safety of the response crews.

Frederic Mullineaux contributed thirty-one 

years of engineering work to the Wilmington 

and Philadelphia Districts during his outstanding career. He served as Chief of Construction 

Division, Chief of Operations Division, and 

Special Assistant to the District Engineer. He 

exhibited exceptional leadership and engineering ability during the Korean conflict and 

in dealing with the floods of 1955 and 1962. 

He served in the Army Reserve, retiring with 

the rank of colonel. An engineering graduate 

of the University of Delaware, he was affiliated with the American Institute of Electrical 

Engineers. He retired in 1962.
352

Gallery

Leigh D. Shuman began his federal career 

in 1903 at the Bureau of Navigation in the 

Philippines. After six years there he transferred to the Philadelphia District. From 

January 1918 to January 1919 he had the 

distinction of being the only civilian to hold 

the position of Philadelphia District Engineer. 

He was recognized as a foremost authority on dredging techniques, equipment and 

organization, and during World War II he 

was a consultant on port rehabilitation to 

the commander of the European Theater of 

Operations. An individualist and a forceful 

and dedicated leader, he retired in 1950 as 

Chief of the Operations Division.

Frank Snyder, a graduate of the Fine Arts 

Academy in Rome, began his career in 1951 

as an illustrator, and eventually became the 

illustrator for the NAD Commander. His 

knowledge of Corps’ missions and projects 

contributed to his excellent portrayals of 

District assets. His sketches and paintings 

greatly enhanced public appreciation of the 

Corps’ many roles. He achieved a virtually 

flawless record of dependability depicting 

Corps’ plant and projects with exacting detail. 

Under his direction, the District history team 

produced an exhaustive, detailed, finely written and illustrated book, District History, 

1866 to 1972. He participated in the efforts 

to preserve the Gruber Wagon Works and 

was effective in providing the renderings that 

were used by area congressmen to secure 

funding. After retiring he directed the efforts 

to preserve the Old Pump House at the C&D 

Canal as a museum and constructed a scale 

model of the pump house on his own time.

Charles F. Ruff began his thirty-four-year 

career with the Corps in 1939 as a junior 

Clerk Typist. He subsequently held a variety of increasingly responsible positions, 

including Placement Officer and Employee 

Utilization Officer. He is best remembered 

for his long and dedicated service as the 

District’s Personnel Officer. He was responsible for establishing the Corps in a leadership 

role in developing and implementing a labor 

management relations program within the 

Department of the Army. He served as a 

Captain in the United States Army during 

World War II and subsequently attained the 

rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army 

Reserve. He retired from federal service 

in 1973.

Thomas Schina joined the District in 1969 

as a junior engineer in training and within 

three years took on the challenge of expanding the old Permit Section, Navigation & 

Maintenance Branch into what is now the 

Regulatory Branch following passage of 

the Clean Water Act in 1972. In 1980 he 

became Chief, Programs Section, Navigation 

& Maintenance Branch, where he was essentially the sole project manager for Operation 

and Maintenance (O&M) navigation projects. 

In 1989 he took over as Chief, Program 

Management Branch, Programs & Project 

Management Division, just before a twofold 

increase in the District’s civil construction 

workload. He also led a major rehabilitation 

of the St. Georges Bridge and took on the 

duties of congressional liaison. He returned to 

Operations as Assistant Chief in 1996, overseeing an O&M budget that would reach $7.1 

million. He worked closely with the states in 

obtaining multiyear water quality certificates 

for the Delaware River, Philadelphia-to-Sea 

and other navigation projects.
353

Gallery

Captain Joseph P. Vilord, following seven 

years in the Coast Guard, started with the 

District in 1965 as 3rd Mate of the Goethals

and eventually served as Master or Assistant 

Master of all four of the District’s hopper 

dredges. Aboard the McFarland from 1982 to 

1999, and as Master from 1994, he earned 

the respect and admiration of all his crew. He 

was never too busy to discuss a problem or 

offer guidance, and he always encouraged 

self-development to supplement the many 

hours he spent training them. Known Corpswide for his superb ship handling skills, he also 

trained the officers of the new Essayons in 

1983 and helped save the life of a McFarland

crew member during a 1984 pump room fire. 

He led the McFarland on emergency dredging 

assignments along both the Atlantic and Gulf 

Coasts from Maine to Louisiana, including a 

post-hurricane response in 1997 to reopen 

the federal channel serving Fort Bragg, N.C. In 

leadership, customer service, professionalism, 

and technical expertise, he set a standard for 

Army Corps of Engineers dredge masters that 

prevails to this day.

Frank W. Vinci, P.E., joined the District in 

1953 after receiving his bachelor’s degree in 

civil engineering from Villanova University. He 

became Assistant Chief of the General Design 

Branch in 1963 and was responsible for the 

engineering and design of the Chesapeake 

& Delaware Canal expansion, the Beltzville 

Dam and Reservoir, rehabilitation of the Cold 

Spring Inlet jetties at Cape May, and ship 

anchorages in the Delaware River. As Chief 

of the Engineering Branch from 1974 until 

his retirement in 1984 he was involved in the 

design and construction of Blue Marsh Dam 

and the Bernville Protective Works; rehabilitation of the Manasquan Inlet jetties, using 

precast concrete armor units; reconstruction 

of Wilmington Harbor; and a major rehabilitation and upgrade of the Chesapeake 

City Bridge. He also headed the District’s 

first inspections of non-federal dams, and 

helped the emerging African nation of Gabon 

develop its transportation infrastructure.

Henry R. Spies, C.L.S., started his career 

with the District as a Supervisory Survey 

Technician in the early 1950s and was 

promoted to Assistant Chief of Survey Branch 

in the early 1960s. In 1971, he was promoted 

to Chief of Surveys and served in that capacity until 1983. His expertise in hydrographic 

surveying placed him in great demand not 

only at the District level but nationally. He 

was the prime developer and coordinator for microwave positioning systems and 

automated hydrographic data collection and 

processing. Under his leadership, Philadelphia 

became one of the first Districts to successfully automate hydrographic surveys. The 

author of numerous papers on hydrographic 

surveying, he also served as an instructor of 

Corps’ Prospect courses.

Lee H. Trader began his forty-five-year 

career with the Corps of Engineers in 1927 as 

a laborer at the Pedricktown Basin. In 1942, 

he was promoted to Labor Foreman in charge 

of maintenance of disposal areas, in which 

position he directed personnel who assembled and changed the locations of pipelines. 

He also supervised construction and repairs 

to trestles, sluices, spillways, and drainage 

pipe. He completed these assignments under 

difficult conditions and in the most expeditious manner, receiving many commendations 

and awards for his proficiency. His leadership 

contributed immensely to the effective operation of the Fort Mifflin Project Office.
354

Gallery

Lifetime Customer Care Award

Anthony S. Bley began his career with 

the District as a staff photographer in 1971. 

His first-rate photographic services covered 

every major District project and numerous 

internal and external events. He would work 

at odd hours or in less than ideal weather to 

meet tight deadlines, and took many of his 

pictures from an open helicopter to capture 

large project areas or post-flood damages. 

As testament to the superb quality of his 

photography, some of his project shots are 

included in the Library of Congress’s historical 

photograph collection. He combined technical 

mastery with the rare sensibilities of an artist, 

whether understanding what types of shots 

best represented the complex design of a 

facility as realized in construction, or knowing 

how to orchestrate special “people” ceremonies. Most important, he anticipated needs, 

knew how to meet them, and did so with 

total professionalism. He retired in 1973 with 

thirty-six years of service, having set a high 

standard for Corps project photography.

Eli K. Wells served as a Marine Engineer 

for thirty-four years prior to his retirement 

in 1959 from his position as Chief Engineer 

aboard the Dredge Goethals. His entire 

career was spent in the Philadelphia District 

except for brief periods of service with the 

Wilmington and Norfolk Districts. He served 

as Chief Engineer aboard the Goethals, 

Delaware, and Clatsop and acquired a 

Corps-wide reputation as a top marine 

engineer both in steam and diesel-powered 

vessels. His skill frequently enabled the 

dredges to operate under the most adverse 

conditions, thus saving the government 

incalculable hours of labor and substantial 

sums of money.

Clarence F. Wicker was Chief of the 

Engineering Division from 1944 to 1962, 

in which position he provided outstanding direction to numerous military and civil 

engineering projects. He was recognized 

internationally as an authority on tidal hydraulics and was engaged as a consultant on a 

number of programs overseas. As chairman 

and member of the Corps’ Tidal Hydraulics 

Committee, he contributed enormously to 

the documentation of knowledge in the field 

of tidal hydraulics. A Penn State graduate, 

he retired in 1962 after thirty-three years of 

federal service.

Mary A. Wilson began her federal career 

in 1934 with the National Housing Agency 

and joined the Philadelphia District’s Marine 

Design Division in 1942. In 1951, she was 

assigned to the Supply & Procurement 

Division and in 1961 she became Chief 

of the Division, a position she held until 

her retirement. She provided procurement 

support for the Chief of Engineer’s worldwide 

military construction program and became 

Contracting Officer for the Susquehanna 

District in 1972 when that District was temporarily established in the wake of Tropical 

Storm Agnes. She retired in 1973 with thirtynine years of service.

Bibliography

The story of the Philadelphia District’s history since 1972 emerges from an extensive range of sources. 

The district itself provided many of these sources, including files and documents housed in its different divisions, active files of current district personnel, reports and publications from the district’s 

library, and a variety of materials from the Marine Design Center. We also reviewed older primary source 

material currently stored at the Federal Records Center in Philadelphia, Pa. In addition, we consulted records 

held by the Corps’ Office of History in Alexandria, Va. These materials included correspondence, press releases, 

policy directives, reports such as environmental assessments and feasibility studies, maps, photographs, and 

charts. Historical Research Associates (HRA) also researched numerous government documents, congressional 

hearings, and Internet and electronic sources to add to, and provide context for, the district’s materials.

Another important source was the Philadelphia District’s newsletter, The District Observer. The newsletter 

provided important information regarding administrative changes in the district, contemporary discussions 

about the district’s various divisions and personnel, and updates on projects as they progressed through time. 

A column written by the district engineer in each issue addressed significant topics pertinent to the district. 

The newsletter was a useful resource for the perspective of the district and supplied a valuable reference for 

projects as they developed.

Oral histories collected by HRA were an essential component in composing this history. HRA interviewed 

a number of people (with the recommendation of the district) who had tremendous knowledge of the district 

over time and were familiar with a wide array of projects under the district’s purview. These persons (listed in 

the bibliography below) supplemented factual information about district projects with personal perspective, 

356
357

allowing a more comprehensive understanding of the district’s work over time. Others provided highly useful 

information through personal communication to supplement areas of interest not recorded in print.

As with any history, secondary sources provided background for a variety of topics, ranging from national 

environmental policy and water resource management to the perspective of environmentalist organizations, 

allowing a broader understanding of the issues at hand. Previous Philadelphia District histories and other 

general Corps histories supplied a foundation from which to launch this one.

A complete bibliography of sources used and consulted follows.
358

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Manuscripts

1972–1995 unpublished working draft administrative history of the 

Philadelphia District. Compiled by Joe Morgan. U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pa.

Administrative Records. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia 

District, Philadelphia, Pa.

Documents and Reports. Technical Library. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pa.

Documents and Reports. Emergency Management Office. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pa.

Documents and Reports. Marine Design Center Library. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Marine Design Center, Philadelphia, Pa.

Documents and Reports. Planning Division. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pa.

Edward Voigt Papers. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia 

District, Philadelphia, Pa.

George Bock Papers. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia 

District, Philadelphia, Pa.

Jeff Gebert Papers. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia 

District, Philadelphia, Pa.

Moorhus, Donita M., and Gregory Graves. “The Limits of Vision: 

A History of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988-1992.” 

January 1999. Unpublished manuscript. Copy provided by Office 

of History, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, Va.

Oral history interviews provided by Scott Watson. U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Baltimore District, Baltimore, Md.

Paul Gaudini Papers. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia 

District, Philadelphia, Pa.

Programs and Project Management Division materials. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pa.

Records of the Office of Chief of Engineers. Record Group 77. 

Federal Records Center, Philadelphia, Pa.

Research Collections. Office of History, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Alexandria, Va.

SFO files in temporary holdings. Office of History, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Alexandria, Va.

Oral History Interviews

Burnes, John. Interview by Paul Sadin and Joshua Pollarine. 

15 January 2009.

Calvarese, Vince. Interview by Joshua Pollarine. 19 January 2010.

Cianfrani, Frank. Interview by Paul Sadin and Joshua Pollarine. 

12 January 2009.

Dutchyshyn, Harry. Interview by Joshua Pollarine. 3 August 2009.

Gebert, Jeff. Interview by Joshua Pollarine. 19 October 2009.

Lawrence, Keith. Interview by Paul Sadin. 9 March 2009.

Locurcio, Ralph. Interview by Paul Sadin. 16 and 20 March 2009.

Maraldo, Richard. Interview by Joshua Pollarine. 19 August 2009.

Schoenebeck, Al. Interview by Joshua Pollarine. 14 January 2009.

Vilord, Joe. Interview by Paul Sadin. 13 January 2009.

Newspapers and Periodicals

Cecil County Times (Maryland).

Gloucester County Times (Woodbury, N.J.).

Morning Call (Allentown, Pa.).

New York Times.

District Observer (newsletter of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Philadelphia District).

Philadelphia Inquirer.

Pocono Record.

Reading Eagle (Reading, Pa.).

Internet Sources

“Background Information on USACE 2012” <http://corpslakes.

usace.army.mil/employees/ strategicplan/2012.html> 

(27 April 2009).

Carter, Nicole T., and Betsy A. Cody. “The Civil Works Program of 

the Army Corps of Engineers: A Primer.” CRS Report for 

Congress. 20 September 2006. CRS-2 

<http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/ assets/crs/RS20866.pdf> 

(14 May 2010).

Defense Logistics Agency. Defense Supply Center Philadelphia. 

“Defense Supply Center Philadelphia” <http://www.dscp.dla.

mil/> (21 May 2010).

Defense Logistics Agency. Defense Supply Center Philadelphia. 

“History of Defense Supply Center Philadelphia” 

<http://www.dscp.dla.mil/history.asp> (21 May 2010).

Delaware River Basin Commission. “DRBC Overview” 

<http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/over.htm> (7 May 2009).

FEMA. “About the National Dam Safety Program” 

<http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/ damfailure/ndsp.shtm> 

(2 April 2010).
359

Bibliography

________. “The National Dam Safety Program: 25 Years of 

Excellence” <http://www.fema.gov/library/file;jsessionid=

990ABE86437E65977608FE9C65955AB3.WorkerLibrary?type

=publishedFile&file=ndsp_25_years.pdf&fileid=2995cdf0-3d90-

11db-8620-000bdba87d5b> (2 April 2010).

“Group: Surf City Alerted to Ordnance; Surfriders Say They 

Warned of Danger in Beach Project.” pressofAtlanticCity.com. 

27 March 2007 <http://www.surfriderjsc.org/ press.asp?pid=2> 

(20 May 2010).

Gruber, Amelia. “Army Corps to Release Final Reorganization Plan 

Next Week.” 3 October 2003 <http://www.govexec.com/

dailyfed/1003/100303a1.htm> (27 April 2009).

“Hopper Dredges” <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/

ship/dredge-hopper.htm> (20 May 2010).

“Kanjorski Officially Opens New Road at Francis E. Walter Dam, 

Increasing Dam’s Capacity.” News Release. 6 July 2005. The 

Kanjorski News Room <http://kanjorski.house.gov/ index.

php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=103> (1 April 2010).

Lopez, Ed. Communications-Electronics Command. “Future Army 

C4ISR Facilities a Convergence of Many Goals.” 6 July 2009 

<http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/07/06/23924-future-armyc4isr-facilities-a-convergence-of-many-goals/> (21 May 2010).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Coastal Services 

Center. “Beach Nourishment: A Guide for Local Government 

Officials” <http://www.csc.noaa.gov/beach nourishment/html/

human/law/history.htm> (16 April 2010).

NOAA Satellite and Information Service. “The Perfect Storm: 

October 1991” <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/

satelliteseye/cyclones/pfctstorm91/pfctstorm.html> 

(16 April 2010).

“Pascrell Joins Army Corps to Announce Completion of Molly Ann’s 

Brook Flood Damage Reduction Project.” Press Release. 21 April 

2008 <http://pascrell.house.gov/list/press/ nj08_pascrell/

Pascrell_Joins_Army_Corps_To_Announce_Completion_Of_

Molly_Anns_Brook_Flood_Damage_Reduction_Project.shtml> 

(6 April 2010).

Parsons, Jim. “Owner of the Year: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Baltimore District.” Summer 2009 <http://midatlantic.

construction.com/ features/archive/2009/summer09_C_

OwnerOfTheYear.asp> (21 May 2010).

Prettyman-Beck, Colonel Yvonne J., Chief of Staff, Corps of 

Engineers. Memorandum for Commanders, Major Subordinate 

Commands, Districts, Centers and Labs. Subject: Revision of 

ER 5-1-11, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Business 

Process. 12 January 2007 <http://140.194.76.129/publications/

eng-regs/er5-1-11/entire.pdf> (21 May 2009).

U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet. “Air Force Mortuary Affairs, Port 

Mortuary” August 2009 <http://www.mortuary.af.mil/library/

factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=15361&page=1> 

(21 May 2010).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “USACE 2012: Aligning the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers for Success in the 21st Century.” 

October 2003 <www.aapa-ports-org/files/PDFs/USACE_2012 

Final_ExSum.pdf> (27 April 2009).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Engineer Research and Development 

Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 

“Support for Others” <http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/ rsgisc/

sfo.htm> (21 May 2010).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Headquarters. “Supplemental Report 

Confirms Economic Justification of Delaware River Deepening 

after Independent Review.” Release No. PA-04-03-19 

<http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pl/drmcdp/nr.htm> 

(18 May 2010).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. North Atlantic Division. “Corps of 

Engineers BRAC/MILCON 07-11.” 10 August 2006 

<http://www.linkedworkforce.org/LWShowcase/past_events/ 

November_2006_Showcase_1/CENADProgAcqPlan06Draft%

2010%20Aug%2006%201730.PPT> (21 May 2010).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Marine Design Center. “USACE 

DREDGE POTTER” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/mdc/

fs13.htm> (7 April 2010).

________. “USACE Fisheries Research Vessel KIYI” 

<http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/mdc/fs12.htm> (7 April 2010).

________. “Our Mission” <http://www.nap.usace. army.mil/mdc/

index.htm> (7 April 2010).

________. “USACE Fisheries Research Vessel STURGEON” <http://

www.nap.usace.army.mil/ mdc/fs17.htm> (7 April 2010).

________. “USACE Vessel Factsheets” <http://www.nap.usace.

army.mil/mdc/factsheets.htm> (7 April 2010).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Philadelphia District. “The 

Chesapeake & Delaware Canal” <http://www.nap.usace.army.

mil/sb/c&d.htm> (27 May 2010).

________. “Continuing Authorities Program” <http://www.nap.

usace.army.mil/cenap-pl/ca.htm> (2 April 2010).

________. “The Corps and the Federal Response Plan” <http://

www.nap.usace.army.mil/emo/nrp.html> (21 May 2010).

________. “Corps Rehabilitation & Inspection Program” <http://

www.nap.usace.army.mil/emo/fcw-list.htm> (12 April 2010).

________. “Corps Visibility Items” <http://www.nap.usace.army.

mil/emo/shirts.htm> (21 May 2010).

________. “Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project” 

<http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pl/drmcdp/drmc.htm> 

(14 May 2010).

________. “Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project: LTC 

Brown’s Testimony, Delaware River Main Channel Deepening 

Project, State of Delaware Public Hearing, Dec. 4 and 5, 2001, 

Dover, Del.” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/ cenap-pl/

drmcdp/brown.html> (5 May 2010).
360

Bibliography

________. “Project Factsheet: New Jersey Shore Protection, 

Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, N.J.” 

March 2010 <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-dp/

projects/factsheets/NJ/ 4CG_NJShore% 20Protection_

Absecon%20Island.pdf> (30 April 2010).

________. “Project Factsheet: Prompton Lake, Prompton, PA, 

January 2008.” May 2009 <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/

cenap-dp/projects/factsheets/PA/Prompton%20Lake.pdf> 

(1 April 2010).

________. “Project Factsheet: Wilmington Harbor, New Castle 

County, DE, January 2010” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/

cenap-dp/projects/factsheets/DE/5OM_Wilmington Harbor.pdf> 

(27 May 2010).

________. “Solution Builders.” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/

solution.htm> (21 May 2010).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Philadelphia District. North Atlantic 

Division. “Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project 

(Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware): Comprehensive 

Economic Reanalysis Report.” Copy at <http://www.nap.usace.

army.mil/cenap-pl/ drmcdp/reports/Final%20Main%20

Report%20December%2016 %202002.PDF> (18 May 2010).

________. “Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project 

(Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware): Supplement to 

Comprehensive Economic Reanalysis Report, December 2002.” 

February 2004. Copy at <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/

cenap-pl/drmcdp/reports/February%202004%20Del% 20Riv

%20Final%20Supplemental%20Report.pdf> (18 May 2010).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. San Francisco District. “Responding 

to Emergencies: The Role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 

Support of the Nation” <http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/

infopaper.pdf> (21 May 2010).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Walla Walla District. “Section 205: 

Authority for: Flood Damage Reduction Projects” <http://

www.nww.usace.army.mil/html/pub/ap/facts/sec205.pdf> 

(5 April 2010).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water Resources Support Center. 

Institute for Water Resources. Shoreline Protection and Beach 

Erosion Control Study: Final Report: An Analysis of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Program. IWR Report 

96-PS-1. Alexandria, Va.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water 

Resources Support Center, Institute for Water Resources, 1996.

U.S. Department of the Army. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

“Hydraulic Design for Coastal Shore Protection Projects.” 

Engineering Regulation [ER] No. 1110-2-1407 

<http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-regs> (16 April 2010).

________. Regulation No. 10-1-2. “Organization and Functions, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division and District Office.” 

31 October 1999 <http://140.194.76.129/ publications/

eng-regs/er10-1-2/entire.pdf> (21 May 2009).

________. “Delaware River Main Stem & Channel Deepening 

Project” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pl/drmcdp/

drmc.htm> (14 May 2010).

________. “District Spotlight: Marine Design Center Keeps the Fleet 

Fit” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pa/spotlight/index.

htm> (7 April 2010).

________. “Dredging” <http://www.nap.usace.army. mil/dredge/

d2.htm> (26 May 2010).

________. “Emergency Management” <http://www.nap.usace.army.

mil/sb/emerg.htm> (21 May 2010).

________. “Francis E. Walter Dam Flow Management Working 

Group” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Projects/FEWalter/

index.htm> (1 April 2010).

________. “Innovative Flood Fight Products” <http://www.nap.

usace.army.mil/emo/NAP%20Innovative%20Flood%20

Fight%20Fact%20Sheet%202007.pdf> (21 May 2010).

________. “Innovative Flood Fight Products Distribution Process” 

<http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/emo/NAP%20FloodFighting%20Products.pdf> (21 May 2010).

________. “A New Millenium: 1999-2005” <http://www.nap.usace.

army.mil/sb/Time_1999-2005.pdf> (21 May 2010).

________. “Project Factsheet: Barnegat Inlet, Ocean County, NJ” 

January 2010 <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-dp/

projects/factsheets/NJ/ 5OM_BarnegatInlet.pdf> (30 April 2010).

________. “Project Factsheet: Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, 

N.J., January 2010” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/ cenap-dp/

projects/factsheets/NJ/4CG_CapeMayInlet_to_LowerTwp.pdf> 

(20 April 2010).

________. “Project Factsheet: Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen 

to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany, DE” January 

2010 <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-dp/projects/

factsheets/DE/4CG_DelCoast_Bethany%20S %20Bethany.pdf> 

(28 April 2010).

________. “Project Factsheet: Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen 

to Fenwick Island, Fenwick Island, DE.” January 2010 <http://

www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-dp/projects/factsheets/DE/4CG_

DelCoast_Fenwick% 20Island.pdf> (28 April 2010).

________. “Project Factsheet: Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen 

to Fenwick Island, Rehoboth Beach/Dewey Beach, DE.” January 

2010 <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-dp/projects/

factsheets/DE/4CG_DelCoast_Rehoboth %20Dewey.pdf> 

(27 April 2010).

________. “Project Factsheet: Little Mill Creek, New Castle County, 

DE, October 2009” <http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-dp/

projects/factsheets/DE/Little%20Mill%20Creek%20NCC.pdf> 

(5 April 2010).

________. “Project Factsheet: Molly Ann’s Brook, Haledon, Prospect 

Park & Paterson, N.J.” October 2009 <http://www.nap.usace.

army.mil/cenap-dp/projects/factsheets/NJ/Molly%20Anns %20

Brook.pdf> (6 April 2010).
361

Bibliography

________. Small Projects Program. Philadelphia, Penn.: 

Philadelphia District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, n.d.

U.S. Congress. House. Beach Nourishment Project: Communication 

from the Acting Assistant Secretary (Civil Works), the Department 

of the Army, Transmitting a Report on the Storm Damage 

Reduction and Shoreline Protection Project for Rehoboth Beach 

and Dewey Beach, Delaware, Pursuant to Section 101(b)(6) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. 105th Cong., 

1st sess., 1997. H. Doc. 105-144.

________. Delaware River Basin, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania 

and Delaware: Letter from the Secretary of the Army Transmitting 

a Letter from the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, 

Dated April 2, 1962, Submitting a Report . . . On a Review of the 

Delaware River and Tributaries . . . , in Eleven Volumes. 87th 

Cong., 2d sess., 1962. H. Doc. 522.

________. New Jersey Shore Protection Study: Communication from 

the Acting Assistant Secretary (Civil Works), the Department of 

the Army, Transmitting a Report on a Storm Damage Reduction 

and Shoreline Protection Project for Brigantine Inlet to Great 

Egg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey, Pursuant to 

Pub. L. 104-303, Sec. 101(b)(13). 105th Cong., 1st sess., 1997. 

H. Doc. 105-153.

________. Proposed Legislation, Government Reform and Savings 

Act of 1993: Message from the President of the United States. 

103d Cong., 1st sess., 1993. H. Doc. 103-155.

U.S. Congress. House Subcommittee on Water Resources of the 

Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Water Resources 

Development Act of 1992 and the Reorganization of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers: Hearings Before the Subcommittee 

on Water Resources of the Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation, House of Representatives. 102d Cong., 2d sess., 

1992.

________. Water Resources Problems Affecting the Northeast: 

The Drought, and Present and Future Water Supply Problems: 

Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the 

Committee on Public Works and Transportation, House of 

Representatives. 97th Cong., 1st sess., 1981.

U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works. Reorganization of the Corps of Engineers: Hearing Before 

the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States 

Senate. 102d Cong., 2d sess., 1992.

U.S. Congress. Senate Subcommittee on Water Resources of the 

Committee on Public Works. Tocks Island Deauthorization: 

Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the 

Committee on Public Works, United States Senate. 94th Cong., 

2nd sess., 1976.

U.S. Department of the Army. Office of the Chief of Engineers. 

National Program of Inspection of Dams. Washington, D.C.: 

Department of the Army, 1975.

________. Regulation No. ER 5-1-13. “Resource Management: U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Policy on Regional Business Centers 

(RBCs)” <http://140.194.76.129/ publications/eng-regs/

er5-1-13/entire.pdf> (25 January 2008).

U.S. Department of Defense. Defense Secretary’s Commission on 

Base Realignment and Closures. “Base Realignment and Closures: 

Report of the Defense Secretary’s Commission.” December 1988. 

Copy at <http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsimweb/brac/003283.

pdf> (21 May 2010).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response. Superfund: 20 Years of Protecting Human 

Health and the Environment. EPA Report 540-R-00-007 <http://

www.epa.gov/superfund/20years/index.htm> (12 May 2009).

Vantran, K. L. “New DOD Mortuary Opens at Dover.” American 

Forces Press Service, 30 October 2003 <http://www.af.mil/news/

story.asp?storyID=123005914> (21 May 2010).

Government Documents

Catton, Theodore and Matthew C. Godfrey. Steward of Headwaters: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, 1975-2000. St. 

Paul, Minn.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District, 2004.

Mighetto, Lisa, and William F. Willingham. Service-TraditionChange: A History of the Fort Worth District, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 1975-1999. Fort Worth, Tex.: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Fort Worth District, 2000.

Reuss, Martin A. Reshaping National Water Politics: The Emergence 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute of Water 

Resources, 1991.

Reuss, Martin. Shaping Environmental Awareness: The United States 

Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board, 

1970-1980. Washington, D.C.: Historical Division, Office of 

Administrative Services, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 1983.

Snyder, Frank E., and Brian H. Guss. The District: A History of the 

Philadelphia District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1866-1971. 

Philadelphia, Pa.: U.S. Army Engineer District Philadelphia, 

1974.

URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc., and Conklin & Rossant. A 

Comprehensive Study of the Tocks Island Lake Project and 

Alternatives, Vol. B—Review of Tocks Island Lake Project. New 

York: URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc., 1975.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Office of History. Engineer Profiles: 

Major General James A. Johnson, U.S. Army, Retired. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Office of History, n.d.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Philadelphia District. The 

Chesapeake & Delaware Canal. Philadelphia, Penn.: U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, 1974.

________. “Design Phase Underway on Deepening Project.” C&D 

Update 1 (April 1998): 1-2.
362

Bibliography

Books and Articles

Albert, Richard C. Damming the Delaware: The Rise and Fall of 

Tocks Island Dam. 2nd ed. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania 

State University Press, 1987.

Barnes-Svarney, Patricia. “Awful Agnes.” Weatherwise (May/June 

2002): 38–43.

Burton, W. H., J. S. Farrar, F. Steimle, and B. Conlin. “Assessment of 

Out-of-Kind Mitigation Success of An Artificial Reef Deployed in 

Delaware Bay, USA.” ICES Journal of Marine Science 59 (2002): 

S106–S110.

Carter, Jimmy. Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President. Toronto: 

Bantam Books, 1982.

Carter, Luther J. The Florida Experience: Land and Water Policy in 

a Growth State. Baltimore: Resources for the Future, Johns 

Hopkins University Press, 1974.

“Cost-Benefit Trips Up the Corps.” Business Week (19 February 

1979): 96.

Flippen, J. Brooks. Nixon and the Environment. Albuquerque: 

University of New Mexico Press, 2000.

Kahn, James. “History Takes a Step Forward.” Water Spectrum 7 

(Fall 1975): 40.

Kraft, Michael E. “U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: From the 

1960s to the 1990s.” Journal of Policy History 12, no. 1 (2000): 

17–39.

Mazmanian, Daniel A., and Jeanne Nienaber. Can Organizations 

Change? Environmental Protection, Citizen Participation, and the 

Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1979.

Nichols, Margaret S. “Showdown at Tocks Island.” Field & Stream

80 (August 1975): 14–20.

Reuss, Martin. “Coping with Uncertainty: Social Scientists, 

Engineers, and Federal Water Resources Planning.” Natural 

Resources Journal 32 (Winter 1992): 101–135.

Rome, Adam. “‘Give Earth a Chance’: The Environmental 

Movement and the Sixties.” Journal of American History 90 

(September 2003): 525–554.

Sale, Kirkpatrick. The Green Revolution: The American Environmental 

Movement, 1962-1992. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993.

Stansfield, Charles A., Jr. “The Tocks Island Controversy.” Parks and 

Recreation 7 (March 1972): 29–33, 53–54.

Steinberg, Bory. “The Federal Perspective.” In Water Resources 

Administration in the United States: Policy, Practice, and 

Emerging Issues (264–273), Martin Reuss, ed. East Lansing, 

Mich.: American Water Resources Association/Michigan State 

University Press, 1993.

Stine, Jeffrey K. “Regulating Wetlands in the 1970s: U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Organizations.” 

Journal of Forest History 27 (April 1983): 60–75.

Wallace, Mike. Mickey Mouse History and Other Essays on American 

Memory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996.

U.S. Department of the Army. Philadelphia District. Corps of 

Engineers. Blue Marsh Lake: Design Memorandum No. 14, 

Reservoir Clearing. Philadelphia, Penn.: Department of the Army, 

Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers, 1974.

________. Lehigh River Basin, Trexler Lake, Jordan Creek, 

Pennsylvania: Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Philadelphia, Penn.: Department of the Army, Philadelphia 

District, Corps of Engineers, 1973.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Federal Historic Preservation Laws. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1993.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Delaware River Deepening Project: 

Comprehensive Reanalysis Needed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

General Accounting Office, 2002.

________. Military Base Closures: Better Planning Needed for 

Future Reserve Enclaves, Report No. GAO-03-723. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003.

Statutes

Act of 30 June 1948 (62 Stat. 1171).

Act of 28 June 1955 (69 Stat. 186).

Act of 2 October 1968 (82 Stat. 906).

Act of 8 August 1972 (86 Stat. 506).

Act of 22 October 1976 (90 Stat. 2917).

Act of 26 April 1978 (92 Stat. 218).

Act of 15 August 1985 (99 Stat. 293).

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852).

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 3467).

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4082).

Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4797).

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3658).

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 269).

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2572).

Secondary Sources

Dissertations and Theses

Bloodworth, Gina. “Tocks Island Dam, the Delaware River and the 

End of the Big-Dam Era.” Ph.D. dissertation. State College, Pa.: 

The Pennsylvania State University Graduate School, Department 

of Geography, 2005.
363

A

Aberdeen Proving Ground, 269, 272–273

Absecon Island Coastal Storm Risk 

Reduction Project, 121–123

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

71, 73, 75

Afghanistan, 247–249

Agency for International Development, 301

AID. See Agency for International 

Development

“All-hazards” map, 241–242

American Society for Civil Engineers, 313

Andrews, Robert, 166

Aquashicola Creek Flood Control Project, 

100–101

Archeological and Historic Preservation 

Act, 73

Army Team C4ISR, 272–273

Arsenic, 68–69

Aspin, Les, 22

Athos I oil spill, 246

Atlantic City, NJ risk reduction project, 

121–123

Atlantic City Field Survey Section, 145–146

Atlantic City International Airport, 

315–316

Atomic Energy Commission, 207

B

Bald Eagle Mountain, 198

Baldwin, Lt. Col. Roger, 201

Ballard, Lt. Gen. Joe N., 24, 175–176

Bardenpho advanced activated sludge 

process, 258

Barnegat Inlet, NJ, 131–134

Barnegat Lighthouse, 132–133

Base Realignment and Closure Program, 

17, 18, 268–275

Batsto River Restoration Project, 210, 

221–223

Bayley Report, 16

Beach erosion. See Coastal engineering

Beachfill, 118–119, 122–123, 128

Bear Creek Dam. See Walter Dam

Bear Creek Reservoir, 81

Beltzville Lake Project, 65–79

Beltzville State Park, 67

Benzene, 312

Berms. See Coastal engineering

Bethany Beach, 126–130

Biological nutrient removal, 257–258

Blue Marsh Dam, 67–79

Blue Marsh Lake, 65–79

“Blue Route,” 195–197

BNR. See Biological nutrient removal

Boeing, 316

Bog turtle, 203

Bongo, Omar, 301

BRAC. See Base Realignment and 

Closure Program

Bradley, Bill, 87, 113

Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services 

Superfund Site, 205, 307–310, 311

Bridges, 339–340

Brigantine Jetty, 122

Brown, Lt. Col. Tim, 167–168

Bucket dredging, 157–159

Bulkheads, 107

Bureau of Reclamation, 91

Burlington County, NJ, 237

Bush, George, 240, 246

Byrne, Brendan T., 55, 57, 92

C

Cahill, William T., 50–51

Callahan, Lt. Col. Joel T., 154–155, 

236–237

Cannonsville Reservoir, 81

Canyon Lake Dam, 91

CAP. See Continuing Authorities Program

Cape Fear River, NC, 147, 244

Cape May Harbor, 117–118

Cape May Inlet Beach Nourishment Project, 

118–119

Cape May Inlet Federal Navigation Project, 

213

Cape May Inlet Shore Protection Project, 

109

Cape May Point project, 211–217

Carey, Hugh, 57

Carper, Thomas, 19–20

Carson, Rachel, 4

Carter, Jimmy, 9–10, 27, 63, 92, 303

Case, Clifford, 58

C&D. See Chesapeake and Delaware Canal

CEQ. See Council on Environmental 

Quality

CERCLA. See Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act

Chapman, Lt. Col. Thomas C., 33–34

Charles C. Carson Center for Mortuary 

Affairs, 265, 268

Cheney, Richard, 17, 18

Cherry Island, 157

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal

dredging, 170–180

high-level highway bridges, 339–340

Civil Works Contract Administration 

Branch, 247

Civil Works Program, 115, 209

Clean Air Act, 303

Clean Water Act, 1, 13, 186, 188–193, 198, 

203, 303

Clinton, Bill, 15, 22, 23, 24, 112–113

Clow, Lt. Col. Kenneth H., 21

Coastal America awards, 209–210, 221

Coastal engineering

Delaware projects, 124–130

early coastal protection projects, 

109–115

inlet navigation improvement projects, 

131–137

New Jersey projects, 116–124

Coastal Zone Management Act, 186, 210

Columbia Transmission Communications 

Corporation, 203

Comber, 143–144, 336

Combined Arms Military Operations in 

Urban Terrain Task Force, 271

Commission on Base Realignment and 

Closure, 17, 18

Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation, 19

Comprehensive Delaware River Basin Plan, 

43

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act, 14, 

186, 206, 303–304

The Concerned Citizens, 173

Conklin and Rossant, 55

Construction General Fund, 108

Continuing Authorities Program, 97–101, 

211, 221

Cooper River Fish Ladder project, 210, 221

CORE-LOC®, 135–137

Cosden Chemical Coatings Superfund Site, 

314

Cost-sharing initiatives, 27–29

Council on Environmental Quality, 6, 48

Crane barges, 285–286

Cuddebackville Dam Removal Project, 210, 

217–221

Cutler Group, 202

Index
364

Index

D

D-Pad computer model, 17

Dam Safety Committee, 93–94

Dam safety inspection program, 91–94

Dams, 334–335. See also specific dams 

by name

David Miller & Associates, 166–167

DDT clean-up, 269

Defense Authorization Amendments and 

Base Realignment and Closure Act, 17

Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act, 

17

Defense Logistics Agency, 269

Defense Personnel Support Center, 269

Delaware Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Management Cooperative, 157

Delaware Bay Oyster Restoration, 210, 223

Delaware coastal protection projects, 

124–130

Delaware Department of Natural Resources 

and Environmental Control, 127–129, 172

Delaware Estuary Salinity Intrusion Study,

79–83

Delaware River

dredging disposal study, 150–160

main channel deepening, 160–170

Delaware River Basin

basin planning, 41–43

Beltzville Lake, 65–79

Blue Marsh Lake, 65–79

Delaware Estuary Salinity Intrusion 

Study, 79–83

flood risk management, 42

Level B study, 79–83

Prompton Dam, 83–91

Tocks Island Dam project, 6–7, 43–62

Trexler Lake project, 7, 62–65

Walter Dam, 83–91

Delaware River Basin Commission, 43, 

47–52, 55, 57, 60, 68. See also individual 

projects by name

Delaware River Basin Compact, 87

Delaware River Basin Comprehensive Plan, 

58, 62, 65–66, 84

Delaware River Comprehensive Navigation 

Study, 162

Delaware River Port Authority, 163, 168

Delaware Riverkeeper, 163

Delaware Valley Conservation Association, 

51

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation 

Area, 7, 47, 53, 57–58, 61

Dewey Beach, 126–128

D’Imperio Property Superfund Site, 313

Disaster response. See Emergency 

Management Office

Disaster Response Primer, 229

DNREC. See Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control

DOE. See U.S. Department of Energy

Dolosse, 136–137

Door to the Corps initiative, 24

Dorn, Nancy P., 18, 20

Dover Air Force Base, 262–268

DPSC. See Defense Personnel Support 

Center

DRBC. See Delaware River Basin 

Commission

Dredged Material Research Program, 153

Dredging

bucket dredging, 157–159

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 

170–180

deep draft projects, 155

Delaware River dredging disposal 

study, 150–160

Delaware River main channel 

deepening, 160–170

direct pumpout, 146

environmental effects, 150–160, 

163–164, 167–168

fleet, 143–150

function of, 150

Hopper dredges, 143–146, 336–337

hydraulic dredging, 158–159

material disposal, 141–142, 150–157

O&M navigation projects, 338–339

Wilmington Harbor, 197

DRPA. See Delaware River Port Authority

du Pont, Pierre S., 58

Dunes. See Coastal engineering

DuPont Chambers Works, 207–209

Dutchyshyn, Col. Harry V., 64, 299–300

E

East Central Incinerator, 320–321

Economy in Government Act, 298

Ecosystem restoration, 15, 209–224

Edelman, Les, 17

Edgar, Robert W., 58

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 

207

EIS. See Environmental impact statements

Emergency Management Office

Disaster Response Primer, 229

Emergency Operations Center, 230, 

234, 237

emergency responses, 243–246

flood-fight materials, 231–232

military contingency operations 

support, 246–249

natural disaster response, 233–242

planning and response teams, 231, 242

Readiness Branch, 232–233

Emergency Operations Center, 230, 234, 

237, 240, 242

EMO. See Emergency Management Office

Employees, 346–354

Endangered Species Act, 186, 191, 218

Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act, 16, 206

Engineer Research and Development 

Center, 232

Environmental Advisory Board, 12

Environmental Defense Fund, 49

Environmental Effects of Dredging, 151

Environmental impact statements, 6, 12, 

48–49, 63, 164, 175, 186, 196

Environmental issues. See also

Environmental Protection Agency; 

National Environmental Policy Act

dredging, 150–160, 163–164, 167–168

ecosystem restoration, 209–224

penalties for violations, 202–204

Regulatory Branch operations, 

187–205

waste remediation, 205–209

Environmental Protection Agency

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act, 185

Superfund program, 2, 13–14, 24, 185, 

205–206, 303–314

water quality protection, 188, 190, 257

Environmental Resources Branch, 12, 186

EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency

Essayons, 143–144, 284, 287, 336

Estuaries and Clean Waters Act, 211

Eutrophication, 48, 56, 63

F

FAA. See Federal Aviation Administration

Fairmount Dam Fish Ladder Project, 

223–224

Federal Aviation Administration, 315–316

Federal Design Achievement Award, 157

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

93, 127, 230, 231, 240–242

Federal Highway Administration, 198

Federal Power Commission, 91

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 64, 

188
365

Index

Federal Water Quality Administration, 68

Federal Workforce Restructuring Act, 22

FEMA. See Federal Emergency 

Management Agency

Fenwick, Millicent, 58

Fenwick Island, 126–127, 129–130

F.E.Walter Reservoir, 81

Flight training simulator, 259

Flood Control Act, 47, 84, 94, 98, 229

Flood Plain Management Services Branch, 

241

Flood protection. See also Emergency 

Management Office

Beltzville Lake Project, 65–79

Blue Marsh Dam, 67–79

Continuing Authorities Program, 

97–101

flood-fight materials, 231–232

Molly Ann’s Brook Project, 95–97

risk management, 42, 326

Flowers, Lt. Gen. Robert B., 25, 331

Foglietta, Thomas, 20

Ford, Gerald, 74

Foreign Assistance Act, 298, 301

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 

Program, 185, 205, 206–209

Fort Delaware, 243–244

Fort Dix, 254–262, 270–272

Fort Mifflin, 203

Fox, Jeanne, 308

Francis E. Walter Dam, 83–91

Francis E. Walter Dam Flow Management 

Working Group, 90

FUSRAP. See Formerly Utilized Sites 

Remedial Action Program

FWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

G

Gabon, 300–303

GAO. See General Accounting Office; 

Government Accountability Office

Garden State Cleaners Co. Superfund Site, 

313

Genega, Brig. Gen. Stanley G., 115

General Accounting Office, 47

Geographic Information System, 208, 

241–242

Gianelli, William, 27–28

Gilman, Benjamin A., 58

GIS. See Geographic Information System

Global Positioning System, 147

Global War on Terror, 246–248

Goddard, Maurice K., 59

Goethals, 143–144, 285, 336

Gore, Albert, 22

Government Accountability Office, 166

GPS. See Global Positioning System

Graves, Maj. Gen. Ernest, 58

Great Egg Harbor Inlet, 118, 119

Great Lakes Science Center, 289

Grieder, Col. Felix M., 264

Griffin, Maj. Gen. Robert, 166

Groins, 107, 118, 123, 132

Groves, Maj. Gen. Richard H., 236

Gruber Wagon Works, 70–76

H

Hackettstown Reservoir, 81–82

Hansler, Gerald, 86

Hatch, Lt. Gen. Henry, 16, 17, 29–30

Hazard Ranking System, 305

Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste 

Center of Expertise, 208

Hazardous waste remediation, 205–209

Hazleton, PA, 312–313

Helen Kramer Landfill Superfund Site, 

313–314

Historic American Engineering Record, 73

Historic Preservation, Advisory Council on, 

71, 73, 75

Home inspections, 318–320

Hopper dredges, 143–146, 336–337

House Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation, 115, 162, 170

House Subcommittee on Water Resources, 

19

Hunter, Brig. Gen. Milton, 262, 264

Hurricane Agnes, 91, 233–236

Hurricane Felix, 119

Hurricane Fran, 147

Hurricane Georges, 242

Hurricane Ike, 239

Hurricane Isabel, 242

Hurricane Marilyn, 242

Hydraulic dredging, 158–159

I

Indian River Inlet, 124–125

Industrial Latex Corp. Superfund Site, 314

Information technology, 2–3

Inlet navigation improvement, 131–137

Inspection program, 91–94

Interagency and International Activities, 

14, 298

Interagency Committee on Dam Safety, 93

Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 298

Iraq, 247–249

J

Jadwin, 286–287

Javits, Jacob K., 58

Jetties, 117–118, 124

Johnson, Col. James A., 50

Junior Ranger program, 78

Jurisdiction Determination, 204

K

Kanjorski, Paul, 87

Kelly, Brig. Gen. James, 57

Keyser, Lt. Col. Robert, 311

Kickapoo River, WI, 7–8

Kilcohook Confined Disposal Facility, 142

Kiyi, 289–290

Kosovo, 249

Krysowaty Farm, 305–306

L

La Farge Dam project, 7–8

Lake Como Dam, 93

Langfitt, 285

LaRue, John, 20

Leni Lenape League, 51

Levees, 107

Level B study, 79–83

Lewes Beach Project, 116

Life-cycle project management, 30

Lipari Landfill Superfund Site, 310–312

Little Mill Creek Flood Control Project, 

98–100

Locurcio, Lt. Col. Ralph, 15, 32, 34, 86, 

151, 254

Longwood Lake Dam, 92

Love Canal, NY, 14, 303

Loveladies Harbor, 192–194

Loveladies Harbor v. U.S., 194

Lower Cape May Meadows Ecosystem 

Restoration Project, 123–124, 211–217

Lower Township Beach Nourishment 

Project, 119

Lower Township Inlet Shore Protection 

Project, 118

M

Madigan-Praeger study, 55–56

Magnifico, Lt. Col. Robert P., 23–24, 119

Manasquan Inlet, NJ, 134–137

Marine Design Center, 11, 147, 279–294, 

325, 326, 342–345

Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act, 186, 191

Maryland Department of Transportation, 

171–172
366

Index

Maryland Port Authority, 172, 176

McFarland, 144–149, 284, 336–337

McGuire Air Force Base, 254–262

MDC. See Marine Design Center

Merrill Creek Reservoir, 87–88

Meyner, Helen, 58

MILCON. See Military construction

Military construction

Base Realignment and Closure 

Program effect, 268–275

Dover Air Force Base, 262–268

Fort Dix, 254–262

McGuire Air Force Base, 254–262

World War II, 253–254

Military contingency operations, 246–249

Military Project Management Branch, 255, 

261

Molly Ann’s Brook Project, 95–97

Morris, Lt. Gen. John W., 301

Mortuary Affairs, Charles C. Carson Center 

for, 265, 268

Moss-Bennett Act, 73

N

National Audubon Society, 5

National Contingency Plan, 305

National Dam Safety Program, 91–94

National Defense Reserve Fleet, 144

National Endowment for the Arts, 157

National Environmental Policy Act, 1, 

3–10, 48, 164, 185–186, 196

National Estuarine Protection Act, 186, 210

National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 122, 

128

National Historic Landmarks, 75

National Historic Preservation Act, 70–71, 

186, 191

National Marine Fisheries Service, 157, 191

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 113

National Park Service, 47, 57, 61, 71–73

National Parks and Recreation Act, 61

National Performance Review, 22

National Priorities List, 305–306

National Program of Inspection of Dams, 91

National Register of Historic Places, 73, 75

National Resources Defense Council, 189

National Resources Defense Council v. 

Callaway, 189–190

National Wildlife Federation, 189

Natural disasters, 233–242

Nature Conservancy, 203, 211–212, 214, 

217, 219

Naval Surface Warfare Center, 289

NAVD. See North American Vertical Datum

Navigable waterways. See Dredging

NEPA. See National Environmental Policy 

Act

Neshaminy Water Resources Authority, 199

Neshaminy Water Supply System, 201

Neversink River. See Cuddebackville Dam 

Removal Project

New Jersey coastal protection projects, 

116–124

New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, 96, 210, 212, 257, 310

New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, 135

New Jersey Shore Protection Study, 120, 

211

New Jersey State Parks, 217

NGVD. See National Geodetic Vertical 

Datum

NHPA. See National Historic Preservation 

Act

Nixon, Richard, 5, 185–186

NJDEP. See New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection

North American Vertical Datum, 128–129

Northwest Lehigh Citizens Association, 63

NPS. See National Park Service

NRDC. See National Resources Defense 

Council

O

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 208

Ocean City, NJ

beach erosion control project, 118–119

Office of Superfund Remediation and 

Technology Innovation, 305

Oil spill, 246

OPAL award, 313

Outstanding Coastal Project Award, 125

Outstanding Projects and Leaders award, 

313

Overseas Contingency Operations, 248, 268

P

Page, Robert, 29–30

Palmyra Cove Nature Park, 159–160

Pascrell, Bill, Jr., 97

Patten, Edward J., 59

PDHEW. See Pennsylvania Department of 

Health, Education and Welfare

Pea Patch Island, DE, 243–244

Peck Beach Project, 118

Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks, 67

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources, 90

Pennsylvania Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare, 68

Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation, 195–198

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 90

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission, 71

Pepe Field Superfund Site, 314

Permits Section, 187–188, 190–191

Philadelphia, PA

Support for Others projects, 316–321

Philadelphia District. See also specific 

projects by name

Civil Works Contract Administration 

Branch, 247

dams and reservoirs, 334–335

employees, 346–354

Environmental Resources Branch, 12, 

186

Flood Plain Management Services 

Branch, 241

functions of, 325–331

high-level highway bridges over 

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 

340

hopper dredges, 336–337

Marine Design Center projects, 

342–345

Military Project Management Branch, 

255, 261

O&M navigation projects, 338–339

perceptions of, 34–37

Programs Branch, 32

Project Management Branch, 32

Readiness Branch, 232–233

Regulatory Branch, 12–13, 187–205

Philadelphia International Airport, 

316–318

Philadelphia Naval Business Center, 314

Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot, 269

Philadelphia River Port Authority, 168

Pier 34 collapse, 244–245

Pinelands Commission, 257

Pinelands National Reserve, 257

Piping plover, 212, 215

Planning and response teams, 231, 242

PMF. See Probable maximum flood

Point Pleasant Water Diversion Project, 

199–201

Polychlorinated biphenyls, 269, 306, 

308–310

Postal Service, 299–300

Potter, 287
367

Index

PPMD. See Programs and Project 

Management Division

PRO-LAKE Group, 65

Probable maximum flood, 89–90

Program Management Office, 30

Programs and Project Management 

Division, 31–32

Programs Branch, 32

Project Management Branch, 32

Project Partnership Agreement, 168

Prompton Dam, 83–91

PRTs. See Planning and response teams

Public Works Appropriation Act, 55

Puerto Rico, 242

Q

Qatar, 300–303

Quinby, Lt. Col. G. William, 196

R

Radioactive waste remediation, 205–209

Radium, 206

Radziul, Joseph F., 60

Rainear, Don, 20

RAM-D. See Risk Assessment Methodology 

for Dams

Ramsar List of Wetlands of International 

Importance, 212

Readiness 2000, 230

Readiness Branch, 232–233

Reagan, Ronald, 27

Receiving, staging, onward movement, and 

integration, 245

Record of Decision, 164

Reedy Point Bridge, 179

Regional Management Boards, 25–26

Regionalization, 24–27

Regulatory Branch, 12–13, 187–205

Rehabilitation and Inspection Program, 

238

Rehoboth Beach, 126–128, 130

Reid, Ogden R., 57

Remoted engagement target system, 258

Reorganization Study Team, 17

Reservoirs, 334–335

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 

185

Restoration Advisory Board, 209

RETS. See Remoted engagement target 

system

Revetments, 107

Risk Assessment Methodology for Dams, 

246

Rivers and Harbors Act, 13, 110, 126, 187

R2K. See Readiness 2000

Robinson, Aubrey, 189

Roebling Steel Company Superfund Site, 

315

Rooney, Frederick, 7, 65

Roosevelt Inlet/Lewes Beach Project, 116

Roth, William V. Jr., 178

Roth Bridge, 178–179

Roy F. Weston Inc., 48

RSOI. See Receiving, staging, onward 

movement, and integration

Rutgers University, 69

S

Safety inspection program, 91–94

Salinity intrusion study, 79–83

Sand bypassing, 107–108

Save the Delaware Coalition, 51

Schuylkill River. See Fairmount Dam Fish 

Ladder Project

SDF. See Spillway Design Flood

Sea turtles, 288

Seawalls, 107

Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works, 125, 152, 162

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 

245–246

SFO. See Support for Others program

Shapp, Milton, 57, 59

Shore protection fund, 117

Shoreline protection. See Coastal 

engineering

Short-nose sturgeon, 200

Shreve, 287–288

Shuman, 145–146, 337

Shuster, E.G. “Bud,” 198

Sierra Club, 5, 51, 198

Silent Spring, 4

Sliwoski, Lt. Col. R.F., 88

South Bethany Beach, 126–130

South Jersey Clothing Co. Superfund Site, 

313

Spillway Design Flood, 93

Spruce Run Dam, 92

Squatters, 54

St. Georges Bridge, 178–179

Storm risk management

Delaware projects, 124–130

early coastal protection projects, 

109–115

inlet navigation improvement projects, 

131–137

New Jersey projects, 116–124

Sturgeon, 289–290

Sturgis, 280

Sudan, 289–291

Superfund program, 2, 13–14, 24, 185, 

205–206, 303–314

Support for Others program, 14, 297–299. 

See also individual projects by name

Surge barriers, 107

Surveillance and Enforcement Section, 197, 

201

Survey boats, 145–147

T

Temple University, 71

Terrorist attacks, September 11, 2001, 

245–246

The Comprehensive Review Study of 

the Tocks Island Lake Project and 

Alternatives, 55–56

Thompson, Frank, 59, 60

Thorium, 206

Tocks Island Dam project, 6–7, 43–62, 169

Ton, Col. James G., 92–93, 151

Torricelli, Robert, 166

TOW. See Tube-launched, optically tracked, 

wire-guided missile

Townsends Inlet Shore Protection Project, 

109, 119

Toxic waste remediation, 205–209

Train, Russell, 50

Tranguch Gasoline Superfund Site, 

312–313

Trexler Lake project, 7, 62–65

Tribbitt, Sherman, 57, 60

Tropical Storm Agnes, 52, 91, 233–236

Tropical Storm Floyd, 96–97

Trout Unlimited, 51

Tube-launched, optically tracked, wireguided missile, 258

U

Uranium, 206–208

Urban assault course, 271–272

URS/Madigan-Praeger Inc., 55

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See also

specific projects by name

benefit-cost analyses, 8

Emergency Management Office, 

229–249

project management initiatives, 27–34

Readiness 2000, 230

regionalization, 24–27

relationship with Congress, 8–10

reorganization in the 1990s, 16–24
368

Index

reorganization in the 1970s and 1980s, 

10–16

USACE 2012, 25–27, 330

Waterways Experiment Station, 132, 

153

U.S. Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center, 135–136

U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, 195

U.S. Coast Guard, 246, 314–315

U.S. Congress

project approval and funding, 8–10

U.S. Department of Defense, 265, 268

U.S. Department of Energy, 206

U.S. Department of State, 300–301

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 157, 188, 

191, 198, 210

U.S. Geological Survey, 289

U.S. Maritime Administration, 144

U.S. Postal Service, 299–300

U.S. Virgin Islands, 242

U.S. Water Resources Council, 79

USACE 2012 initiative, 25–27, 330

V

Vineland Chemical Company Superfund 

Site, 307, 314

Visibility items, 232

W

Walter, Francis E., 83

Walter Dam, 83–91

Waste remediation, 205–209

Water Resources Association of the 

Delaware River Basin, 57

Water Resources Development Act of 1974, 

186, 210

Water Resources Development Act of 1976, 

74

Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 

15, 27–29, 65, 86, 114, 118, 124, 169, 

229

Water Resources Development Act of 1992, 

163, 211

Water Resources Development Act of 1996, 

122, 175

Water Resources Development Act of 1999, 

128

Water Resources Development Act of 2000, 

129

Water Resources Development Act of 2007, 

145, 178, 179

Water Resources Support Center, 11, 

281–283

Waterways Experiment Station, 132, 153, 

288

Watt, James, 27

Weldon, Wayne “Curt,” 19

Welsbach & General Gas Mantle Superfund 

Site, 314

West Milford Lake Dam, 92

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network, 212

Westphal, Joseph, 176

Wheeler, 284–285

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 60–61

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 61

Wilderness Society, 51

William J. Hughes Technical Center, 316, 

317

Williams, Harrison A., Jr., 59

Williams, Lt. Gen. Arthur E., 17, 21, 22

Wilmington Harbor, 157–158, 197

Wilmington Harbor South Disposal Area, 

155–157

Wilson, Malcolm, 55

Woolford, James, 305

Work for Others Team, 247

World War II facilities construction, 

253–254

WRDA. See Water Resources Development 

Act

Wright, James W., 60

Y

Yaquina, 284, 287

Z

Zabel v. Tabb, 188

Zirschky, John H., 115