By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

RAYMOND T. ODIERNO

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

GERALD B. O’KEEFE

Acting Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

1310605

U.S. Army Engineer School

(573) 563-8080/DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

BG Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca

563-6192

<peter.a.deluca.mil@mail.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL David Theisen

563-6192

<david.t.theisen.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY COMMANDANT

Mr. James R. Rowan

563-8080

<james.r.rowan4.civ@mail.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Butler J. Kendrick, Jr.

563-8060

<butler.j.kendrick.mil@mail.mil>

REGIMENTAL CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER

CW5 Scott R. Owens

563-4088

<scott.r.owens.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Ricardo A. Javier 

563-8045

<ricardo.a.javier.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Adam M. Calderon 

563-8046

<adam.m.calderon3.mil@mail.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Philip M. Secrist III

563-7116

<philip.m.secrist.mil@mail.mil>

COMMANDER, 1ST ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Daniel S. Larsen

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<daniel.s.larsen.mil@mail.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

LTC Jason L. Smallfield

563-4093

<jason.1.smallfield.mil@mail.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Mr. Robert F. Danner

563-2845

<robert.f.danner.civ@mail.mil>

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

COL Dan O’Rourke 

563-8142

<morgan.d.orourke.mil@mail.mil>

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER

Mr. Jonathan D. Green

563-6199

<jonathan.d.green.civ@mail.mil>

ENGINEER DOCTRINE, MSCoE CDID, CODDD

LTC John Morrow

563-2717

<john.c.morrow2.mil@mail.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT ORGANIZATION

Mr. Don Wenzel

563-7264

<donald.l.wenzel.civ@mail.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT MATERIEL

MAJ richard E. Weixelbaum

563-5055

<richard e.weixelbaum.mil@mail.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is published three times 

a year by the U.S. Army Engineer School and the Maneuver 

Support Center of Excellence G-37 Publications Support, 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Periodicals postage is paid

at Fort Leonard Wood and additional mailing offices.

Articles to be considered for publication are due

1 December, 1 April, and 1 August. Send submissions

by e-mail to <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.engineer

@mail.mil>, or send an electronic copy in Microsoft®

Word on a compact disk and a double-spaced copy of 

the manuscript to Engineer Professional Bulletin, 14010 

MSCoE Loop, Building 3201, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri 65473-8702. Due to the limited space per 

issue, we normally do not print articles that have been 

published elsewhere.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Engineer 

Professional Bulletin, 14010 MSCoE Loop, Building 3201, 

Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8702.

CORRESPONDENCE, letters to the editor, manuscripts, photographs, official unit requests to receive copies, and unit address changes should be sent to Engineer

at the preceding address. Telephone: (573) 563-4137, 

DSN 676-4137; e-mail: <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx

.engineer@mail.mil>; Web site:<http://www.wood.army.mil/

engrmag/>.

DISCLAIMER: Engineer presents professional information designed to keep U.S. military and civilian engineers 

informed of current and emerging developments within their 

areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their professional development. Views expressed are those of the 

authors and not those of the Department of Defense or its 

elements. The contents do not necessarily reflect official 

U.S. Army positions and do not change or supersede information in other U.S. Army publications. The use of news 

items constitutes neither affirmation of their accuracy nor 

product endorsement. Engineer reserves the right to edit 

material submitted for publication.

CONTENT is not copyrighted. Material may be reprinted 

if credit is given to Engineer and the author.

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is targeted to all engineer 

and engineer-related units.

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for $24.00 

($33.60 foreign) per year by contacting the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, Missouri 

63197-9000.

ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subscriptions should 

be sent to the U.S. Government Printing Office at the above 

address.
E R

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Brigadier General 

Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca

04 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Butler J. Kendrick, Jr.

05 Show the Way

By Chief Warrant Officer Five

Scott R. Owens

23 Dedication

24 Engineer Doctrine Update

33 Engineer Writer’s Guide

34 Book Review: Captains 

Courageous

Reviewed by Captain Robin C.

Bruce

MANAGING EDITOR

Diane E. Eidson

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

Contributing Editor

Diana K. Dean

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Phyllis E. Grayson

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca

FEATURES

06 One Regiment: Breaking Down the Stovepipes

By Colonel Adam S. Roth

09 Certified Facility Manager Certification

By Lieutenant Colonel Jason L. Smallfield

12 The First 300 Minutes

By Major Danny Lucitt

16 Challenges Facing a Multifunctional Engineer Battalion 

Intelligence Section

 By Captain Bradley W. Diebold

18 Visualizing Disaster Response: Interagency Information 

Sharing

 By Lieutenant Colonel David A. Foster

21 St. Louis District Fights Shrinking Mississippi River

 By Captain Matthew P. Collins

26 USACE Repairs Canal Bulkhead With Innovative Project

By Mr. Stephen Rochette

28 U.S. and Canadian Army Engineers Learn Interoperability 

Through an Exchange Program

 By Major Christopher W. Pierce

31 Requirements for Becoming a Project Management Professional

By Major Robert E. Dion, Jr.

36 Arctic Sappers Deploy to Pacific Island

By First Lieutenant Nicole L. Thompson

39 The New MSCoE Digital Training Facility

By Mr. Robert B. McFarland

Volume 43 PB 5-13-2 Headquarters, Department of the Army May–August 2013

NGINEE

U.S. ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

May–August 2013 Engineer 1

Front cover: U.S. Army Soldier calls in a 

situation report while on a route clearance 

mission with Soldiers assigned to the 10th 

Mountain Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team 

in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan. Photo by 

Sergeant First Class Kenneth Foss.

Back cover: 2013 Engineer Week photos by 

Fort Leonard Wood Visual Information Center.
2 Engineer May–August 2013

 

Clear the Way

Brigadier General Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca

Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School

“Whoever wins the reconnaissancecounterreconnaissance aspect of the battle 

wins the overall battle.”

—94th Engineer Regiment Commandant 

(me) and a lot of other military 

professionals

Sadly, this is my last Clear the 

Way article. The Army has placed 

another challenge and opportunity 

for professional and personal growth in 

my path. I will be replaced at the end of 

July 2013 by Brigadier General Anthony 

C. Funkhouser; and he will be a magnificent commandant, coach, leader, and role 

model for our great Regiment. I am honored to replace 

Major General John W. Peabody in September as the commanding general of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mississippi Valley Division and the chairman of the Mississippi River Commission. 

This column will not be a litany of achievements over 

the past 20 months of my very precious, all too brief, but 

enjoyable time as the 94th commandant of the Engineer 

Regiment. However, I do believe that we have made great 

strides in adapting and refining every area of doctrine, 

organization, training, materiel, leader development, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) for our Regiment. We 

have things moving in the right direction in all areas, with 

some extra work needed on facilities here at the home of the 

Regiment and at home stations around the Army. Please 

view my 19 April 2013 address to the Regiment at <https://

www.milsuite.mil/video/watch/video/4481> to hear a 

relatively current update on developments across the 

DOTMLPF. Also pay close attention to the 25 June 2013 

announcement of Army plans at <http://www.army.mil/

article/106373>. These plans and actions may be enabled 

or hindered by Department of Defense and Army budgeting 

decisions that will be made over the next 3 to 12 months. 

For my last formal, official words, I will return to a topic 

that somewhat obsesses my mind—the matter of how we 

re-organize, reequip, and retrain our Army and engineer 

forces to routinely win the reconnaissance-counterreconnaissance battle (something we have not done well in the 

past two wars) facing the kind of enemies that we have 

faced and will continue to face for another generation. 

We have a lot of new tools and some new experiences to 

help us see and find enemies hiding among the population; 

sheltering and defending in compartmented terrain (urban, mountain, and/

or jungle); and employing modern and 

improvised weaponry and intelligence, 

surveillance, reconnaissance, and communications capabilities in clever ways 

that deny advantages of our standoff 

sensors and long-range fires/strikes. 

Our inability to routinely win the

reconnaissance-counterreconnaissance 

battle was one reason (in my opinion, the 

main reason) that we did not achieve more 

decisive results in Iraq and Afghanistan 

much sooner. 

Let’s state it again: Whoever wins the 

reconnaissance-counterreconnaissance 

aspect of the battle wins the overall battle. I’m a very amateur historian and have searched hard for examples from 

history in which this was not the case—because every 

rule must have an exception or two. But I cannot find the 

exception. Not yet. If anyone in the field has examples of 

exceptions, please send them to me at <peter.a.deluca.mil@

mail.mil>. Even better, submit your examples and lessons 

learned to Engineer at <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.

engineer@mail.mil> for all of us to discuss and debate (see 

the writer’s guide on page 33.)

Engineers are central to the reconnaissancecounterreconnaissance battle. Our forces conduct reconnaissance and security operations to fight this battle. To 

better analyze how engineers fit within these operations, 

let’s consult some very sound, recently updated doctrine. 

Field Manual 3-90.2, Reconnaissance, Security, and Tactical Enabling Tasks, Volume 2, identifies seven fundamentals of successful reconnaissance:

■ Ensure continuous reconnaissance.

■ Do not keep reconnaissance assets in reserve.

■ Orient on the reconnaissance objective.

■ Report information rapidly and accurately.

■ Retain freedom of maneuver.

■ Gain and maintain enemy contact.

■ Develop the situation rapidly.1

You can see that engineer reconnaissance, which 

includes route clearance operations (singly or as combined arms operations) and technical engineer reconnaissance, fits within the first three fundamentals. The fifth
May–August 2013 Engineer 3

fundamental is really the heart of the Regiment’s purpose, 

and it includes assured mobility, protection, force projection, and logistics. The fourth and seventh fundamentals are 

skill sets that all tactical units, including engineers, must

possess. 

According to Field Manual 3-90.2, successful security 

operations depend on properly applying five fundamentals:

■ Provide early and accurate warning.

■ Provide reaction time and maneuver space.

■ Orient on the force or facility to be secured.

■ Perform continuous reconnaissance.

■ Maintain enemy contact.2

You can see that it is not only engineer reconnaissance 

that fits within security operations, but that our entire family of mobility, countermobility, and survivability tasks; geospatial tasks; and construction tasks also enable security 

operations to their fullest power. Please make special note 

of the first and sixth reconnaissance fundamentals, which 

overlap two of the security fundamentals—reconnaissance 

must be continuous, and the purpose of reconnaissance and 

security operations is to gain and maintain contact with 

the enemy. We can all think back on the fitful beginnings of 

our engineer clearance operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 

and how we violated both of these fundamentals. Thinking 

in terms of Defeat the Device and Attack the Network lines 

of operations and separating these tasks were helpful for 

technological development, but very harmful to our understanding of the reconnaissance-counterreconnaissance battle against our contemporary enemies. This cannot continue. 

Our engineer missions are seldom done alone; they are 

almost always part of combined arms reconnaissance and 

security operations. Like reconnaissance assets, no engineer assets should be held in reserve. We must develop 

disciplined approaches to analyzing enemy obstacle information and intelligence (including improvised explosive 

devices) to project the enemy course of action, disposition 

of forces, and positions. We have not developed this art as 

well as we must, so engineer company intelligence support 

teams and enhanced intelligence capabilities in the brigade 

combat team engineer battalion and echelons above brigade 

engineer units must be developed, manned, trained, and 

employed. We must integrate into every mission how we will 

maintain contact with the elusive enemy after we make 

contact. We cannot allow opportunities to locate and defeat 

our foes to evaporate and allow them to fight another day. 

This speaks to the combined arms nature of reconnaissance 

and security operations and to our engineer missions that 

support them. Do not accept maneuver taskings or mission 

requests that fail the test of gaining and maintaining contact with the enemy. Instead, propose alternatives that will 

enable maneuver success; enhance the effectiveness of fires; 

and develop intelligence (including obstacle intelligence) 

faster and with greater depth, scope, and understanding. 

The Army cannot win Phase III decisive operations 

until it wins Phase II deployment to the joint operating 

area. I have written about these challenges before, and we 

are enacting many reforms to better enable our Regiment 

to open and expand lodgments for the Army in Phase II. 

We cannot win Phase III decisive operations until we win 

the reconnaissance-counterreconnaissance battle every 

day, every day, every day—seizing and holding the initiative from our enemies and forcing them to react to us in 

ways that expose them to our destructive power and intelligence exploitation. Rapid deployment engineering and 

engineering to support reconnaissance and security operations (reconnaissance-counterreconnaissance) are the 

twin operational priorities of our engineer forces today. 

I am asking that you give them top priority in missionessential task lists, training time on the calendar, professional development programs, self-development, and

DOTMLPF innovation. 

Building and maintaining trust are the highest priorities for our team. They touch upon the serious, wellpublicized challenges that we face today in taking care 

of our teammates as we want to be taken care of and as 

we take care of our children. Part of that caring, however, 

must include priority training and leader development in 

rapid deployment engineering and engineering to win the 

reconnaissance-counterreconnaissance battle. 

Good luck!

Endnotes:

1

Field Manual 3-90.2, Reconnaissance, Security, and 

Tactical Enabling Tasks, Volume 2, 22 March 2013.

2

Ibid.
4 Engineer

Lead the Way

Command Sergeant Major Butler J. Kendrick, Jr.

Regimental Command Sergeant Major

First and foremost, I would like to 

thank God for the opportunity to lead 

the finest military engineers in the 

world. Hello to all our engineers around the 

globe. I am glad to be onboard as your 17th 

regimental command sergeant major as we 

continue to serve this great Nation together. 

My wife Kim and I are delighted to have 

the opportunity to serve the Engineer Regiment as it heads into this coming era of 

unprecedented uncertainty. As an engineer 

for the past 28 years, I have served in numerous capacities. All of my assignments were 

tailored to make a difference and served a purpose for the organization and the U.S. Army. 

I look forward to serving the Regiment 

of more than 80,000 engineers (including 

550 in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 

their families, and 32,000 civilians. My goal will be to lead and 

inspire everyone with a purpose, a heart, and a clear focus on 

our mission. As always, I demand a sense of urgency and a 

team that is ready to collectively tackle our most challenging 

problems, many of which we are not yet aware.

There is no doubt that sequestration will affect the Regiment. Leaders must take the time to mold their forces and 

to do it properly within the given constraints. This is nothing new. Senior leaders must teach NCOs and commissioned 

officers the fundamentals that we mastered before the ongoing overseas contingency operations and the sequestration. 

Our first obligation to our Nation is—and always has been—

to the Soldiers, since they are the ones who bear the brunt 

of accomplishing the mission. We will learn from each other 

and assuredly recapture our profession of arms, the profession which has lapsed over the past decade of war. We will 

start by making sure that leaders know Field Manual 3-21.75, 

The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills.

1

 Satisfaction is 

guaranteed if leaders can shape their formation—even with 

limited resources and budget constraints—by mastering the 

tasks outlined in this excellent manual.

My responsibilities to the Engineer Regiment are to ensure 

that we are well trained, fully disciplined, and ready for whatever our Nation asks of us. Below is a list, not all-inclusive and 

in no particular order, of some areas of interest:

■ Engineers and families. Our most precious resources

must be equipped with education, leadership, competence, and commitment to family readiness. Under

every conceivable circumstance, our organizations must 

be armed with sufficient resilience to take care of

themselves and the Nation. We simply do not know

what is next. Resilience gives us the ability to handle

100 percent of what’s coming—and then some.

■ Training. This is the best quality of 

life we can offer the team. It starts

with updated doctrine publications 

(Army doctrine publications, Army

doctrine reference publications, field 

manuals, and Army techniques publications); the NCO Education System; leader development; and individual and collective training. A welltrained force is a confident force that

is ready for anything.

■ Brigade combat team engineer battalions (BEBs). The BEB is designed 

to provide full spectrum capabilities, 

with a baseline of organic engineer

capabilities, to the brigade combat team.

We must understand the implementation of the BEB and truly appreciate

what this multiple-effects battalion brings to the fight.

■ Resources. Apply creative thinking skills to ensure that

we get the best from our equipment and have the confidence to fight anyone, anywhere, anytime. There is no

doubt that we have the most competent and seasoned

combat force in the world. If the equipment we are providing is not meeting the specified intentions, let me

know. I can’t promise you immediate solutions, but I will

always bring your perspective to the attention of our

most senior Army leaders. Of that, you can be certain.

■ Will to try and succeed. Whenever you feel that you

don’t have the passion or commitment to follow or lead

in this Regiment, take a moment to think about the 378

engineers killed in action during Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and New Dawn. Then, remember all of those who came before in World War I, World

War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Those

engineers believed in their leaders; their fellow engineers; their organization; their Regiment and; most

importantly, the engineer mission.

I look forward to seeing each and every formation that we 

have out there and to knowing who you are, what your capabilities and limitations are, and how you envision your role in 

our mission. I am ready, willing, and able to join you in action, 

either here or downrange as we close out Operation Enduring 

Freedom. As multipurpose engineers, every day we will learn, 

grow, and remain instrumental in moving our Army forward 

into the Army of 2020. Essayons!

Endnote:

1

Field Manual 3-21.75, The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat 

Skills, 28 January 2008.

May–August 2013
May–August 2013 Engineer 5

Chief Warrant Officer Five Scott R. Owens

Regimental Chief Warrant Officer 

Show the Way 

As usual, this year seems to be going 

by very quickly. Summer is .here, 

.and summer transitions come 

with it. Within a short time, the U.S. Army 

Engineer School will transition nearly all 

of its leadership, including the commandant, Brigadier General Peter A. “Duke” 

DeLuca. Transitions like these are bittersweet. We have an extremely professional 

group of leaders, all of whom bring their 

personal perspectives and talents to their 

roles. I’ve grown professionally and personally from working with them and will miss 

all of them. 

But I look forward to working with the 

next group of professionals, many of whom 

I’ve had the good fortune to work with in the 

past. As I contemplate these changes, they trigger thoughts of 

how the Army has always been in a state of transition. It’s this 

adaptability, which is geared toward meeting evolving threats, 

that keeps the Army ready to meet its mission requirements. 

Throughout my career, I’ve often heard Soldiers say, “This 

isn’t the same Army that I joined.” Usually, this was meant to 

convey the notion that the Army was lacking in some way and 

that the old ways were somehow better. Although the Army 

has changed a lot from when I joined, it is a much better Army 

today. Yet, in a fundamental way, some of the best things are 

still very much the same. When I entered the Army in 1983, 

the echoes of the Vietnam War were still being heard and the 

Army was well underway in its transformation and modernization. This transformation was led by the Soldiers who were 

in the Army at the time—from the senior leaders in the Pentagon, to the staffs at the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command and the officers, warrant officers, and noncommissioned officers in the field. It was—as it has always been—the 

Soldiers who were serving in the Army who transformed it and 

made it the professional force that we have today. 

Now that the Army is coming out of prolonged conflict, 

it will draw on its experiences of the past dozen years while 

incorporating time-tested best practices to retool this professional force to meet the Nation’s future requirements. You 

have inherited this legacy and responsibility, and you will 

make this Army even better by building on the solid foundations built by those who served before us. 

Remember that you are not in the Army—you are the Army. 

You have a vested interest and stake in the Army’s future; 

and whether you realize it or not, you have the ability and 

responsibility to help shape that future. Start by reflecting on 

your experiences. Learn as much as you 

can about how your unit works and how 

it fits into the mission of its higher headquarters. Then, learn about the strategic 

picture. Read all that you can about past 

campaigns, emerging doctrine, and current events; never miss an opportunity 

to pick the brains of your senior leaders. 

Most importantly, when you see veterans, stop and thank them for their service. You’ll never know what treasures 

of information they have stored away in 

their memories. At the 348th Combat 

Engineer Battalion reunion dinner in 

October 2012, I had the honor of meeting Arthur Emilio “Art” Sedillo, a World 

War II veteran. He was a sergeant in the 

battalion and, as part of the 5th Engineer Special Brigade, 

was the first man to put his foot on Omaha Beach on D-Day, 

6 June 1944. His squad was charged with securing the 

beach in advance of the invasion by the 1st and 29th Infantry 

Divisions. One of Art’s duties was to place the 4- by 20-foot 

banners that directed the infantry troops to their positions. 

He told me that he never ran so fast in his life, going up 

and down the beach as machine gun bullets struck the sands 

where his feet had just been. Although his body was old 

and he walked with a cane, his eyes shone with youth as he 

recalled that morning as if it were yesterday. There was also 

an unmistakable flash of sorrow as he remembered the thousands of Soldiers who never came home from that day. Art 

rejoined those buddies a few weeks after the reunion, when he 

passed away at home among family and friends on 8 November 2012. He was 91 years old. I was very humbled and honored to be able to speak with Art and hear his story firsthand. 

Through it all, he kept expressing how impressed he was with 

the Army of today, while at the same time downplaying his 

own achievements. 

That got me thinking that Soldiers haven’t really changed 

at all. We do our job because it’s our duty. We form strong 

bonds of comradeship, and it’s comradeship that drives us 

and keeps us humble. Art and his comrades at the reunion 

approved of what we have done with the legacy they left us. 

As we approach the summer transitions, I have confidence 

in the Army because it was built by Soldiers like Art. His 

spirit is reflected in you, our current generation of Soldiers. 

Together, we will carry the legacy forward and make the 

Army even better for the next generation. 

Until we meet again, stay safe. Essayons et Faissons!
6 Engineer May–August 2013

The four components that comprise the Engineer 

Regiment are the Regular Army, the Army National 

Guard, the U.S. Army Reserve, and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE). As the Regiment moves 

toward the Army of 2020, it also moves toward a period of 

constrained resources, fiscal austerity, and sequestration. 

These factors confound the “flow” of the Regiment, which 

has flowed in a laminar fashion for the past decade at war, 

using overseas contingency operations funding. Now, however, it finds itself flowing in a turbulent fashion due to 

budget decrements. Some factors that have made the flow 

become turbulent include the decrease in authorized funding, the curtailment of training and exercises and—for our 

Regiment specifically—the postponement of ENFORCE. 

Moving forward, the Regiment must look at things holistically, studying the way it supports the Army and the Nation 

from a “one Regiment” perspective. 

The flow would stop if we retrenched back to the way our 

components were before 11 September 2001 and continued to 

operate along tribal “stovepipes.” After more than a decade 

of warfighting, we must do everything possible to continue 

developing and cultivating the mutual trust among the components that we now enjoy as institutional knowledge. We 

must also continue the dialogue, especially when the opportunities for “professional intimacy” decrease. Face-to-face 

interactions (which cannot be wholly replicated through teleconferences, video teleconferences, and blogs) will become 

fewer. Brigadier General Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca, the U.S. 

Army Engineer School commandant, says that there should 

be no single-purpose engineer Soldier. Similarly, there 

should also be no single-purpose engineer event. Our challenge is to preserve professional intimacy while operating at 

the same level of operational tempo with fewer resources. It 

will be the Regiment moving forward, as one that must preserve the “engineerness” of our rich Regiment and thrive in 

that environment. 

Governance

The Engineer Regiment has a heartbeat, which is 

the normal battle rhythm that fuels the decisionmaking of our senior leaders and determines the way 

we interact with the larger, institutional Army. Examples of 

this heartbeat include—

■ Regimental synchronization teleconferences (usually 

held on the second Tuesday of every month).

■ Engineer fusion cell/engineer warfighter forums (secure

video teleconferences usually held on the last Wednesday 

of every month).

■ Regimental command councils (held semiannually). 

■ ENFORCE (held annually). 

By Colonel Adam S. Roth
May–August 2013 Engineer 7

These events are inclusive 

and touch on all components. 

There are also other forums germane to specific components, 

such as the engineer advisory 

team for the Army National 

Guard, the engineer advisory 

board for the Army Reserve, 

and the Chief of Engineers 

Reserve Command Council for 

the National Guard and Army 

Reserve. USACE also holds a 

number of meetings throughout 

the year to aid in senior level 

decisionmaking. As USACE 

becomes “greener” and we move 

toward one Regiment, are there 

synergies that can allow the 

discussion of USACE-specific 

issues such as civil works and include numerous “green 

suit” issues as well? The challenge for the Regiment is to 

find where and how we can optimize those engagements, 

continue to foster professional intimacy, and return the flow 

to its laminar state.

USACE District Footprint

I

n the move toward one Regiment, there is potential in 

the interaction and mutual benefits of association with 

local USACE districts. Any district may have countless Active Army units in its footprint. But 81 percent of the 

Regiment is in Reserve Component units, and many of these 

units may not have access to the same opportunities as units 

located on major installations. We have started discussions 

with a few districts and units to see where synergies may 

exist, and the potential benefits may include access to—

■ Professional credentialing, such as the project management profession credential or professional engineer

licensure.

■ Individual training opportunities offered through venues such as proponent-sponsored Engineer Corps training (PROSPECT) courses that deal with the professional

level of competence expected of Army engineers in 

the field.

■ Troop construction work (if legally feasible) that could 

provide training for units and help districts complete 

projects that do not warrant the involvement of a major

contractor.

■ Broadening opportunities that may provide noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and junior officers the opportunity 

to serve on a detailed assignment to support design, 

quality control, quality assurance, or another function 

that provides training for the individual and a measurable benefit in cost avoidance to the district.

■ Training areas, since USACE controls and provides stewardship for numerous tracts of land that could provide 

training areas to nearby units far from major installations, thereby decreasing transportation costs and

increasing training opportunities.

■ The Drilling Individual Mobilization Augmentee Program, which allows Reserve Component officers and 

NCOs to perform their duties at a USACE district in support of their mission. It will be critical to promote this 

program and provide opportunities to participate to those

who may not be aware of its existence.

■ Military units and organizations that can provide benefits, such as the Emerging Leader Program, to USACE

efforts.

■ Training that relies on Reserve Component units to test 

new technologies and possible materiel development

solutions in a training environment.

Broadening

When it comes to talent management, it is critical 

that Engineer Regiment senior leaders develop 

engineer officers, NCOs, and future leaders who 

have a broad knowledge of the Army and the systems that 

comprise it. The challenge for engineers is much more 

complex because the vastness of the Engineer Regiment 

requires efficacy in the three major disciplines of combat, 

general, and geospatial engineering and the many niche specialties such as prime power, firefighting, and well drilling. 

While four components comprise the Regiment, there are 

also tribes within those components that provide training 

opportunities for engineers and materially contribute to the 

readiness of the force. These include training support battalions and brigades under First U.S. Army; training divisions and Total Army School System battalions in the Army 

Reserve; Army schools such as the Engineer School at Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri; and regional training institutes in 

the Army National Guard. 

Are senior leaders taking the opportunity to tell their best 

and brightest to become small-group instructors, advanced 

USACE engineers work to control beach erosion in New York.
8 Engineer May–August 2013

individual training platoon sergeants, or observerscontrollers at a training support battalion? Or are they still 

pushing the next assignment to a line unit and another 

Afghanistan deployment? USACE districts offer broadening 

opportunities; but looking toward one Regiment, are we taking full advantage of the other opportunities available, such 

as the Olmsted scholarships, White House fellowships, and 

joint schooling such as the Engineer School joint engineer 

officer training?

Exercises

There has been a decrease in overall exercise participation due to a loss of funding. Can we afford to 

have exercises that only involve a single component? 

Should not all components participate in a troop construction exercise that may also serve to support theater security cooperation planning and execution? Exercises such 

as Nuevos Horizontes in the U.S. Southern Command area 

of operations and Operation Sand Castle at the National 

Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, were focused on 

Reserve Component units, but provided training opportunities for all. We need to get better at this. If brigade combat 

teams will lead efforts to start the Army’s regionally aligned 

force, should not other components be part of this solution 

by bringing the echelons above brigade force structure that 

has been a hallmark of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom? 

During the Cold War, U.S. Army Europe developed “multiechelon training.” Can we not conduct exercises that start 

with a Phase III fight; progress to a “road to war” scenario 

that includes setting the theater and initial-entry operations 

(with additional units not in the primary training audience); 

involve operations by Phase IV forces in a joint, interagency, 

intergovernmental, and multinational environment; and 

then continue with postconflict operations after a traditional exercise terminates? There could be multiple training 

audiences for different phases of the operation, just as there 

can be training opportunities for higher-level “white cells” 

that interact with the training unit commander. As we move 

toward “one Regiment,” many formations can participate 

(virtually or physically), getting training value from a table 

that is set with limited dollars. The opportunities are there 

if we want to pick them up. 

Seventh Army Service 

Component Command

As resources decline, so too will funding for facilities 

maintenance and renovation. Is now not the time 

.when we, together with the facilities engineer tribe, 

develop demand signals (as a normal Army service component command would use global force management tools) 

that lead to associations and missions that hone critical 

construction skills, while also helping ourselves? The time 

is now for Army engineers to meld facilities requirements 

(under the U.S. Army Installation Management Command) 

and turn them into the sort of training opportunities that 

our U.S. Air Force Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force 

(BEEF) and Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineers (RED HORSE) brethren 

exploit when they are not forward-deployed. Could we see 

a small subunit of a “construction effects” battalion dedicated to perform as the repairs and utilities section that 

picks up daily work orders from the Directorate of Public 

Works and gains critical job skill training at the same time? 

Is the U.S. Army Installation Management Command not 

the seventh Army service component command? If so, what 

is the Engineer Regiment engagement strategy to support 

its requirements?

Conclusion

This article should serve to stir discussion about how 

we come together as “one Regiment.” It is by no means 

all-inclusive. It is apparent that we must turn the 

turbulent flow generated by fiscal uncertainty back to a laminar flow by producing less stovepiping. Above all, we must 

not stop the flow due to retrenchment into our basic tribes. 

Otherwise, when the music stops, we will find ourselves 

without a chair to sit in. As always, the author welcomes 

vociferous debate and can be reached at <adam.s.roth2.mil

@mail.mil>.

Colonel Roth serves as the deputy assistant commandant–

U.S. Army Reserve at the U.S. Army Engineer School. He is 

a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff 

College and holds a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Boston University. 

Army National Guard engineers drill a water well in Africa.
May–August 2013 Engineer 9

The U.S. Army Profession Campaign began on 

27 October 2010 with guidance from the Secretary of 

the Army and Army Chief of Staff to execute a review 

of the Army profession in an era of persistent conflict.2

 The 

campaign developed and included four key conceptual 

developments:

■ Revised typology for the Army profession.

■ Essential characteristics of the Army profession.

■ Leader attributes and competencies.

■ Criteria for professional certification.3, 4

Three criteria to identify those who have attained the 

status of “Army professional” include—

■ Competence.

■ Character.

■ Commitment. 

Objective 4a of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) campaign plan—to identify, develop, maintain, 

and strengthen technical competencies5

—nests with the 

greater U.S. Army campaign plan in urging professional certification to maintain and strengthen technical competency. 

The second Engineer Regimental line of effort—to develop 

engineer leaders6

—further nests with the U.S. Army and 

USACE campaign plans and culminates in professional 

certifications. These certifications will result in seven new 

Army engineer skill identifiers, including—

■ W1 for facilities planners.

■ W2 for geospatial engineers.

■ W3 for professional engineers.

■ W4 for degreed engineers.

■ W5 for project management professionals.

■ W6 for project engineers.

■ W7 for environmental officers.

In the September–December 2011 issue of Engineer, 

Major Kelcey R. Shaw described the background of professional certification, the reasons that it is important, and the 

options available to Army officers.7

 While his article focused 

on why to certify, this article is focused on how to certify in 

the specific area of facilities management. Other certifications, however, also help to support the Army, USACE, and 

Engineer Regiment campaign plans even though they will 

not result in the award of an additional skill identifier. One 

of these certifications is the certified facility manager (CFM) 

certification. The CFM is a competency-based, civilian certification process that requires a high level of facility management experience, skill, and education.8

 The certification 

is granted to those who pass a comprehensive examination 

covering all facility management core domain areas.

By Lieutenant Colonel Jason L. Smallfield

“The Engineer Regiment faces a future in which our leaders must all be engineer warriors (Sappers) and be technically 

skilled and credentialed engineer practitioners in order to deliver all of the effects our Army, joint military forces, and nations 

require from us. Credentialing programs, such as the one highlighted in this article, are important tools to help us pursue, 

develop, and maintain our technical edge. Engineers operate in small groups within vast agencies and formations distributed 

in commands and lodgments around the globe. To succeed, we must be capable of technical as well as tactical engineering; 

and we will all execute ‘Apollo 13 engineering’ practices, drawing on our operational experiences and technical depth.”

—Brigadier General Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca1
10 Engineer May–August 2013

The CFM is sponsored by the International Facility 

Management Association (IFMA), a strategic partner with 

the Society of American Military Engineers. The IFMA is a 

member-centered association that exists to guide and develop 

facility management professionals by providing services, 

products, resources, and opportunities. It supports Soldiers 

and veterans by having a General Services Administration 

schedule that offers discount courses and credential applications for military personnel. In addition, eligible persons 

may apply to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for 

reimbursement of CFM examination fees.

Before taking the exam, individuals must meet one of 

the levels of education and work experience in the chart 

below.9

 Most Army engineer officers should be able to meet 

the requirements within 5 years of commissioning, which is 

about the time most are attending the Engineer Captains 

Career Course. Experience in the nine competency areas 

may be interpreted liberally, similar to the way experience 

for professional engineer licensing may be interpreted. The 

nine competency areas for CFM certification include the

following:

■ Planning and project management. This can include 

developing facility plans, planning and managing all

phases of a project, managing programming and design, 

and managing construction and relocations.

■ Operations and maintenance. This includes managing

the maintenance of building structures, such as overseeing repair and utilities operations; overseeing the

disposition of building systems, such as handling work

orders; and overseeing the disposition of grounds, such

as managing cleanup details.

■ Real estate. This includes managing real estate assets

and the real estate master planning process.

■ Quality assessment and innovation. This includes

assessing the quality of services and managing the

benchmark process and audit activities.

■ Leadership and management. This includes planning

and administering the facility function, managing personnel assigned to the facility function, and managing 

the delivery of facility services.

■ Human and environmental factors. These include

practices that promote and protect health, safety, security,

quality of work life, environment, and organizational 

effectiveness along with managing emergency preparedness procedures. Most of these activities are performed 

daily in all motor pools.

■ Finance. This includes managing the finances of the

facility function.

Legend:

FM - facility management

FMP - facility management professional

Certification Requirements

“The CFM is a competency-based, civilian certification 

process that requires a high level of facility management 

experience, skill, and education.”
May–August 2013 Engineer 11

■ Communication. This includes communicating effectively, which Army officers are expected to do every day

through verbal and written skills.

■ Technology. This includes planning, directing, and managing facility management business and operational 

technologies. An example would be using spreadsheet

software to manage barracks space utilization.

IFMA membership is not required to take advantage of 

the CFM program, and membership is not automatic once 

certification is received. The certification process is as simple as assessing personal readiness, submitting an application, and then scheduling and passing the examination. 

The CFM application includes online documentation of past 

employers and supervisors, brief descriptions of major job 

activities and responsibilities, and education and continuing 

education accomplishments. The application also includes 

a list of references and a short essay on why the applicant 

wants to become a CFM. The examination fee is $550 for 

IFMA members and $815 for nonmembers.

Methods of preparation for the CFM examination

include self-study or participation in a formal preparation

course. Self-study should include buying and studying the

IFMA-published CFM Examination Review Course Study

Set ($199 for members and $249 for nonmembers). This

alternative is less expensive and offers more flexibility, but

lacks information on test-taking tactics, techniques, and

procedures and may offer a less comprehensive understanding of the material. Attendance at a formal 2-day preparation course offered by IFMA or its local chapters is highly 

recommended. The cost—$495 for IFMA members and $695 

for nonmembers—includes the CFM Examination Review 

Course Study Set. Locations and dates of the course are 

available at the IFMA Web site.10

The CFM examination takes 4 hours to complete and consists of 180 multiple-choice questions delivered in random 

order. The test is pass or fail, based on the number of correct 

answers. Some questions, however, will ask for two or three 

correct responses to be selected. These questions will clearly 

state “choose two” or “choose three.” Each question counts 

as one right or one wrong, regardless of how many options 

must be selected. To have a question marked as correct, all 

of the correct options must be given; there is no partial score.

The CFM certification is valid for 3 years. To maintain 

the certification, CFMs must earn 120 maintenance points 

in a minimum of two of the following four categories:

■ Practice.

■ Continuing education.

■ Professional development.

■ Development of the profession. 

These maintenance points, however, are easier to obtain 

than they might appear. For example, full-time, practicing 

facility managers earn 20 points per year. Any unit commander can fall into this category. Seminar attendance earns 

1 point for each hour of instruction. Attendance at monthly 

Society of American Military Engineer luncheons can qualify, while regularly reading professionally relevant publications earns 10 points. Membership in facility management 

professional associations earns 5 points per year per association, and IFMA and the Society of American Military Engineers both qualify. Working as a presenter at a workshop or 

publishing an article can earn 5 and 15 points, respectively. 

(Writing this article earned the author 15 points.)

The CFM is an attainable certification that engineer 

officers can pursue, obtain, and maintain. The certification 

process can help applicants personally and professionally 

by allowing them to distinguish themselves, invest in their 

future as Soldiers or civilians, demonstrate their leadership 

and initiative, advance their profession, and enhance their 

professional networks. The certification process can also 

help officers in garrison and combat posts by helping them 

gain a better understanding and comprehension of the nine 

competency areas.

Endnotes:

1

Brigadier General Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca, e-mail message, 14 January 2013.

2

Terms of Reference, 27 October 2010, <http://cape.army

.mil/repository/ProArms/TOR%20Signed.pdf>, accessed on 

13 March 2013.

3

Sean Hannah, “Army Profession Campaign Overview,” 

Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, 16 December 

2011.

4

U.S. Army White Paper, “The Profession of Arms,” 

<http://cape.army.mil/repository/ProArms/ProfessionWhite

%20Paper%208%20Dec%2010.pdf>, accessed 18 March 

2013.

5USACE Campaign Plan, <http://www.usace.army

.mil/Portals/2/docs/CampaignPlanQuickReference.pdf>, 

accessed on 14 March 2013.

6

“Achieving a Vision,” U.S. Army Engineer Headquarters 

and School, <http://www.flwsame.com/Engineer%20

Campaign%20Plan.pdf>, accessed on 14 March 2013.

7

Kelcey R. Shaw, “Professional Certification of Army 

Engineer Officers,” Engineer, Vol. 41, No. 3, September–

December 2011, pp. 6–8.

8CFM certification, IFMA, <http://www.ifmacredentials

.org/cfm/>, accessed on 14 March 2013.

9

Ibid.

10Ibid.

Lieutenant Colonel Smallfield is the deputy commander 

of the 36th Engineer Brigade. He holds master’s degrees from 

the University of Missouri–Rolla (now Missouri University of 

Science and Technology), the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the U.S. Army School of Advanced 

Military Studies. He is working toward a Ph.D. in engineering management from Walden University. He is a project 

management professional and a certified facility manager. 
12 Engineer May–August 2013

All societies have had conflicts by which they are 

known—a moment never forgotten even if little is 

.known about the clashing participants. Troy had a 

wooden horse, the Spartans had a pass, and Marie Antoinette lost her head over cake. Long after the fall of the 

American empire, men will study our American moment, 

6 June 1944—D-Day. On this day, Canadian, British, and 

American forces breached Fortress Europe and seized a foothold on the way to defeating fascism. At Omaha Beach, the 

1st Infantry Division charged its engineers with the daunting task of clearing the beach of obstacles and mines. The 

20th Engineer Battalion of the 1140th Engineer Combat 

Group maintained the audacity and tempo required for the 

1st Infantry Division to seize its Normandy objective.

While World War II raged 

in the South Pacific, it 

was first fought only on 

the periphery of Europe. 

Allied ground forces could 

only battle with the Axis 

in Africa and Italy, naval 

forces routinely fought in 

the North Atlantic, and the 

air forces of both sides had 

moments of victory. Still, 

to end the Third Reich, the 

Allies needed to bring the 

ground war to Berlin. The 

approach into Europe required 

a certain amount of deception, 

and deception meant difficulty. 

Landing in Italy to maneuver 

north into Germany would 

prove futile once Allied 

forces reached the Alps 

and neutral Switzerland. 

As deception though, it was 

brilliant. The coast of France, 

however, was where the main 

advance had to be conducted. 

Over the course of months, 

By Major Danny Lucitt

British and American leaders gathered in Britain to plan 

Operation Overlord, the invasion of Europe. It would be 

led by Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. 

Eisenhower. The 1st and 9th Infantry Divisions and the 2d 

Armored Division would reposition from the Mediterranean 

to England for training.

The initial entry of the Allied forces would not be easy. 

The Normandy beaches were heavily fortified with steel 

and concrete barriers and manned by thousands of soldiers. Although the Germans believed that Allied forces 

would enter Europe from across the English Channel, they 

foresaw an invasion farther north. This belief was due in 

part to articles that Colonel Paul W. Thompson had been 

U.S. Navy Seabees constructed this floating 

dock at Normandy soon after D-Day.
May–August 2013 Engineer 13

publishing about invading Europe since 1940. A 

U.S. Army engineer, Colonel Thompson had begun planning the invasion even before the declaration of war. He 

commanded the 1st Engineer Special 

Brigade on D-Day.1

Wherever the eventual 

beachhead, the Germans continued to fortify and deny space all 

along the French shore.

Once the planning 

of Operation Overlord 

began, it was apparent that five beaches—

code-named Juno, 

Sword, Gold, Utah, 

and Omaha—would be 

required to land many 

troops. U.S. forces would 

focus on Utah Beach 

(assigned to the 4th Infantry 

Division) and Omaha Beach 

(assigned to the 1st Infantry 

Division—the Big Red One). 

To land the equipment needed 

for the invasion to succeed, 

General Eisenhower would 

require weeks of secure and 

sustained entry at Normandy. 

D-Day served only to begin the 

initial assault to defeat the German overwatch. This included five 

battalions of combat engineers. In the days that followed, 

10 more battalions of Army engineers and six naval engineer units would land on Omaha Beach to build up the 

foothold seized. An operation known as Mulberry Harbor established a portable harbor from 8 to 25 June 

1944. Although short-lived, it created the necessary 

harbor infrastructure and initial lodgment required for 

follow-on forces.

The Big Red One faced only three obstacles at Omaha 

Beach: the beach itself, the 100-foot cliffs beyond it, and the 

obstacles emplaced by the Germans. All of them were covered by machine gun fire. As natural obstacles, the cliffs jut 

out from pebbly sand, which made foot maneuver difficult 

and provided excellent vantage points and fields of fire for 

the Germans. This stretch of beach had 8,000 yards of frontage; the villages to the rear were Colleville, St. Laurent, 

and Vierville. The beachfront was divided into seven lanes: 

Dog Green, Dog White, Dog Red, Easy Green, Easy Red, 

Fox Green, and Fox Red.2

 These entry lanes corresponded 

roughly to five natural draws that led inland to the villages. 

These draws became known as exit roads.3

 Once prepared, 

the exit roads became transit routes for vehicles, tanks, and 

artillery pieces intended to support the ground forces that 

were seizing forward areas.

The German obstacle belt was 

emplaced under the management of Field 

Marshal Erwin Rommel. He reported to Field Marshall 

Gerd von Rundstedt, which caused some animosities, since 

responsibilities were assigned by Adolf Hitler.4

 A number 

of constraints hampered Field Marshal Rommel’s creativity 

in designing his engagement area. There were 50 German divisions in France, with nine designated for coastal 

defense, but the principal fighting of the war was not in 

France. Therefore, these divisions were at less than full 

strength (in some cases, at only 50 percent strength) and 

were led by inexperienced cadre. Often, these units were 

used to backfill divisions on the Eastern Front.5

Field Marshal Rommel began his defense with a tidal 

zone obstacle design in the littorals of the coast, using underwater mines and Teller mines atop long, wooden poles to 

accommodate the tide. These mines were connected to each 

other with antihandling devices and wire. In total, 31,000 

mines and 517,000 nonexplosive obstacles were strung along 

the Atlantic Wall to deny the space.6

 Most of these were 

emplaced inland from the littoral region to hamper paratroopers rather than landing craft. The obstacles at Omaha 

were manned by the German 352d Infantry Division, a 

“Type 44” division. This type of division included just over 

12,000 soldiers, of whom 6,800 were combat troops. This 

was more than 5,000 fewer soldiers than the older model 

German division.7

 Arguably, this reduction to their force 

contributed to the success of the Allied invasion. 

The Germans emplaced extensive obstacle belts to 

deny the space to Allied forces.
14 Engineer May–August 2013

On D-Day, one in every 12 American Soldiers was a combat engineer.8

 He carried the same basic load of equipment 

and ammunition as his infantry counterpart, plus 40 pounds 

of explosives. The explosives were used to destroy the mines 

that prevented Allied equipment from moving inland. The 

engineer also carried Bangalore torpedoes, 5-foot cylindrical explosives that were used against minefields and wire 

obstacles. His mission was simple: exploit the gaps that led 

to the five draws inland. Combat engineers were required 

to clear and mark these lanes.9

 This simple plan was 

boldly executed as defined by the Army’s characteristic of 

audacity.10

The larger landing craft carried tankdozers, which were 

medium tanks with a blade on the front.11 They represented 

the heaviest equipment that was at the disposal of the engineers. These engineer vehicles were assigned to only a few 

battalions. Of 16 that were sent to Omaha Beach, only six 

actually landed.12 The 20th Engineer Battalion tankdozers 

never arrived. The battalion obstacle clearance was strictly 

a manual process. 

The battalion boarded landing craft, loaded with explosives and ammunition, in Bournemouth for the assault on 

France.13 The first elements to land received little enemy 

fire. Friendly fire, however, was abundant. Once the ramp 

went down on their landing craft, the Soldiers jumped into 

armpit-deep water and waded ashore, where there was 

little cover and where most obstacles were 

booby-trapped. Alpha Company, supporting the 16th Infantry Regiment of 

the 1st Infantry Division, landed in the 

vicinity of Colleville. There, the beaches 

were still being prepped with artillery 

fire from the battleships and destroyers in the English Channel. Alpha 

Company arrived later than planned, 

and the unit became strung out more 

than a mile from its intended beachhead, which did not aid in massing 

an effort at a decisive time and place. 

Also, the 3d Platoon landing craft 

was hit by a German artillery shell 

before making it ashore, leaving 27 

men in the company to accomplish 

the mission. They maneuvered several hundred yards to establish 

exit E-3. The unfavorable circumstances and the crowded beach 

made it impossible for the engineers to remain on schedule,14 but 

they continued to push forward. 

The landings, which occurred 

between 0700 and 0800 hours 

on D-Day, would not secure an 

exit road until much later in the 

day, even though the roads were only

 a few hundred meters away.

Bravo Company supported the 18th Regimental Combat 

Team of the 1st Infantry Division. The company landed near 

St. Laurent (Easy Red) at about H + 120 minutes. The company advanced to the beach under much heavier fire than 

Alpha Company had received, because the Allied artillery 

preparation there had ceased. Unfortunately, the naval 

gunfire had not silenced the German fortifications and gun 

emplacements, so the company received fire from 32 fortified positions. Their landing had not put them in position to 

clear mines, obstacles, and debris from their intended routes 

across the beach. It was not until Charlie Company landed 

at H + 300 minutes that Bravo Company could maneuver 

across the beach. Charlie Company was supposed to support 

the 26th Regimental Combat Team, but became separated 

from that unit after landing. The only hope that Charlie 

Company had of achieving mission success was to work with 

Bravo Company toward the same exit route. Army Doctrine 

Reference Publication (ADRP) 3-90, Offense and Defense, 

states, “Commanders never permit the enemy to recover 

from the shock of the initial assault. They prevent defenders from massing effects against the friendly decisive operation.”15 Leading the infantry, the engineers moved inland 

to clear lanes and establish exit road E-1. For its achievements, the 20th Engineer Combat Battalion received a 

unit citation. 

The days that followed led to tasks in Colleville and farther inland. Now detached from the 1st Infantry Division for 

Allied vehicles landed on Omaha Beach.
May–August 2013 Engineer 15

the first time since the war began, the 20th Combat Engineers supported the 1171th Engineer Combat Group and 

aided in bridge reconnaissance and minesweeping operations. By 18 June, the battalion had planned and rigged the 

demolition of all bridges in the vicinity of Castillon, Rouxeville, and Foulognes, the new footprint of 1st Army.

The Corps of Engineers is as old as the U.S. Army itself. 

A small percentage of engineers are responsible for field fortifications and demolitions. These engineers are commonly 

referred to as sappers, an occupational term in armies 

around the world for soldiers whose main purpose is to provide mobility to maneuver forces. It is the responsibility of 

the sapper to aid the infantryman with attacks to maximize 

his efforts in manipulating the characteristics of the offense: 

■ Surprise.

■ Concentration.

■ Tempo.

■ Audacity.16

On D-Day, tempo and audacity carried the day. The 

tempo that the engineers achieved allowed the infantry to 

maintain the initiative and disrupt enemy forces as prescribed in Army Doctrinal Publication (ADP) 3-0, Unified 

Land Operations.

17 Landing on a beach and breaching obstacles under heavy fire that resulted in 40 percent casualties 

was the definition of audacity. As stated in the same publication, audacity is a simple plan of action, boldly executed. 

The actions of the 20th Combat Engineers and sappers 

that fateful day proved how well-trained engineer battalions 

can lead the Army to successful lodgments and then fight 

as infantry when necessary. Their versatility and agility 

contributed greatly to the massing of combat power on the 

objective. Within days, the engineers had transitioned once 

again from the tactical offense to stability and reconstruction operations for First Army. In the words of the renowned 

correspondent Ernie Pyle, “Even the infantry took its hat off 

to them—for not infrequently, the engineers were actually 

ahead of the troops.”

Endnotes:

1

Sid Berger, Breaching Fortress Europe: The Story of U.S. 

Engineers in Normandy on D-Day, Kendall Hunt Publishing 

Company, Dubuque, Iowa, 1994.

2

Cornelius Ryan, The Longest Day, Simon and Schuster, 

New York, New York, 1959.

3

Sherwood B. Smith, “Defenses of the Normandy Peninsula,” The Military Engineer, No. 232, Volume 37, February 

1945, pp. 49–51. 

4

Berger, 1994.

5

Smith, 1945.

6

Fred Majdalany, The Fall of Fortress Europe, Hodder 

and Stoughton, London, England, 1969.

7

Records of the German Army High Command (OKH), 

(Microfilm), Combined Arms Research Library, U.S. Army 

Command and General Staff College.

8

Berger, 1994.

9

Blanche D. Coll, Jean E. Keith, and Herbert H. Rosenthal, The Corps of Engineers: Troops and Equipment, Office 

of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, 

Washington, D.C., 1958.

10ADRP 3-90, Offense and Defense, 31 August 2012.

11Coll, Keith, and Rosenthal, 1958.

12Berger, 1994.

13William C. Johnson, History of the U.S. Army 20th Engineer Combat Battalion, Follow the Wavy Arrow, S.N., 1948.

14Coll, Keith, and Rosenthal, 1958.

15ADRP 3-90, 2012.

16Ibid.

17ADP 3-0, Unified Land Operations, 10 October 2011.

Major Lucitt is the executive officer of the 35th Engineer 

Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He attended the 

Infantry Captains Career Course, the Royal School of Military Survey, and the U.S. Army Command and General 

Staff College. 

“On D-Day, one in every 12 American Soldiers was a 

combat engineer. He carried the same basic load of 

equipment and ammunition as his infantry counterpart, 

plus 40 pounds of explosives.”
16 Engineer May–August 2013

As the war in Afghanistan concludes, more is being 

asked of the units still fighting there—a phenom-

.enon that is typical near the end of a long military 

campaign. This article describes the effects of this phenomenon on one engineer unit from the perspective of its intelligence (S-2) section, with a focus on how engineer battalions 

can better prepare deploying personnel who will be working 

with S-2 sections.

As a combat effects engineer battalion headquarters, the 

20th Engineer Battalion has adapted its training and equipment to prepare for a deployed mission that is different from 

its original mission. Deployed with short notice to Regional 

Command–South to support Operation Enduring Freedom, 

the battalion mission became that of a multifunctional 

engineer battalion responsible for construction effects and

mobility assurance for theater level-controlled and operational environment (OE)-specific routes. For a small S-2 

section, which was authorized only two military intelligence 

specialists, this new mission set translated to the OE equivalent of a division. While the battalion S-2 section did not 

have the full responsibilities or resources of a 90-member 

division analysis and control element, functioning with a 

staff of only two school-trained military intelligence specialists was a distinct disadvantage. The section was able 

to acquire another lieutenant to help increase the analysis 

and overall capacity of the section. It is highly recommended 

that other engineer battalions acquire more intelligence 

capacity before deploying. 

The company intelligence support team (CoIST) offers 

intelligence support at the company level, which is a huge 

advantage when companies are not colocated with their 

higher headquarters. Among its functions, CoISTs provide 

routine intelligence requirements such as patrol prebriefs 

and debriefs at remote locations. Formulated at the battalion level, prebrief and debrief formats become a collaboration of efforts throughout the OEs as additional threats are 

identified and disseminated. CoIST training before deployment presents its own challenges, especially for separate 

brigades and Army National Guard units. While units 

within brigade combat teams usually have CoIST training scheduled well before deployment, individual company 

deployments often require an ad hoc training schedule. 

CoIST training for these units is often scheduled whenever 

time is available, rather than in conjunction with significant 

predeployment training exercises. The result is that a new 

and perishable skill may not be used for several months 

between conducting the training and performing the mission in-theater. Predeployment planners should try to incorporate CoIST training into their major training exercises 

to improve their teams. When this is not possible, smaller 

CoIST training sessions are offered in-theater. Team members should attend these sessions whether or not they conducted predeployment training. 

There are multiple Internet-based, data-mining tools to 

assist intelligence analysts and CoISTs. While the military 

intelligence program of record remains the Distributed Common Ground System–Army, it is rarely available in engineer 

battalions and is nonexistent at the company level. Because 

this system requires extensive training and is lacking in 

many units, intelligence collection requires a more practical 

By Captain Bradley W. Diebold

“The company intelligence support 

team (CoIST) offers intelligence 

support at the company level, which 

is a huge advantage when companies are not colocated with their 

higher headquarters.”
May–August 2013 Engineer 17

approach. There are civilian intelligence analysis systems 

that can be learned quickly and used by personnel without 

prior intelligence training. Some of these programs are built 

to enhance collaboration between the battalion S-2 section 

and CoISTs. This increases, streamlines, and enables the 

intelligence warfighting function within the engineer battalion. Field service representatives for those systems are 

available to conduct training and assist CoISTs during the 

relief-in-place process.

Another useful force multiplier has been the addition of 

a contracted civilian counter improvised explosive device 

(C-IED) analyst team that was developed for the Afghanistan theater of operations in 2010. The team provides the 

war fighter with multiple sources of expertise in C-IED and 

counterinsurgency analysis and operations. It is usually composed of an all-source analyst, a human intelligence analyst, 

and a collection manager. While not all teams are fully staffed, 

the addition of their experience increases the knowledge 

and productivity of the entire section. The team’s combined 

expertise and knowledge of data-mining systems increase 

understanding of the dynamics involved along the routes. 

This increases the capability for predictive analysis, which is 

fundamental to assured mobility. The presence of the C-IED 

intelligence analysis team quickly ramped up the organic analyst capabilities of the 20th Engineer Battalion. This resulted 

from the team method of training the complete process of 

multidiscipline intelligence operations and the resulting 

analysis, rather than simply providing a “black box” product.

Surveillance is an integral and often contentious component of the intelligence collection process which presents 

additional challenges for an engineer battalion that provides 

general support at the regional level. As a multifunctional

 engineer battalion operating in numerous OEs, the 20th 

Engineer Battalion was not an OE owner. Therefore, it was 

near the bottom of the queue for acquiring surveillance 

assets. Optical change detection assets allow predicative 

analysis before route clearance patrols conduct missions. 

Likewise, persistent surveillance and overhead collection 

platforms allowed the battalion to hold ground by ensuring that routes remained clear for longer times after missions were complete. The extensive experience with collection management and the overall asset awareness of the 

C-IED intelligence collection specialist allowed the battalion 

to acquire surveillance outside the experience level of the 

usual battalion S-2 section. To meet routine surveillance 

requirements while on patrol, route clearance patrols used 

theater-provided equipment such as PumaTM and Raven®

unmanned aircraft to enhance their situational awareness 

of the battlefield. Since these assets are not part of normal 

engineer company equipment, the operator’s introduction 

to them is usually during a deployment, which means that 

training must be scheduled and conducted after arrival intheater. While this is an inefficient method, the dividends to 

commanders and patrol leaders are worth the investment 

of time and personnel. Units should ensure redundancy in 

trained personnel for each route clearance patrol since it is 

A CoIST member briefs a battlefield circulation team in Afghanistan.

(Continued on page 20)
18 Engineer May–August 2013

On 29 October 2012, Hurricane Sandy paralyzed 

much of New York and New Jersey. Many people 

along the East Coast were left wet and lacking 

power, shelter, and basic resources. Local, state, and federal resources, including the Department of Defense (DOD), 

were employed to save lives, mitigate suffering, and begin 

the recovery process. Key to the response efforts were 

interagency collaboration, coordination, and cooperation, 

strengthened by standard processes of sharing and visualizing information of the operating environment. 

Although DOD is vital to major response efforts, it is 

not the lead federal agency for most operations that occur 

in the United States, but operates in support of them. 

Therefore, military organizations must rapidly adapt to 

the cultures of federal, regional, state, and local government agencies that they are assigned to support after natural disasters. Embracing this fact significantly reduces the 

challenges of transitioning into a support, rather than a

lead, role.

Military personnel understand that they should prepare, or prepare to fail. For those responding to natural 

disasters within the Homeland or conducting humanitarian

assistance and disaster relief abroad, some of the life-anddeath questions they may face include—

■ Where are significant events occurring? 

■ Where are friendly forces and/or mission partners? 

■ Where are those in need? 

■ How do we get resources to the people affected? 

The Department of Homeland Security has published the 

Federal Interagency Geospatial Concept of Operations that 

outlines authoritative data sources by emergency support 

function.1

 It also consolidates key infrastructure data in the 

Homeland Security Infrastructure Program database, which 

is available to authorized users. Additionally, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) consolidates 

sources of information focused on response efforts. During 

crises, these documents are published and provided for use 

by federal and state response communities. U.S. Northern 

Command (NORTHCOM) and its service component commands receive these daily summaries of resources and push 

them to subordinate units.

Federal agencies share this necessary information, 

since those who do not share become ineffective partners. 

By Lieutenant Colonel David A. Foster
May–August 2013 Engineer 19

The Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist 

Attacks Upon the United States stated that the U.S. government needed to move from a culture of “need to know” to one 

of “need to provide.” Coordination among responding organizations is vital to successfully divert and mitigate disasters. Central to this is the seamless sharing of unclassified 

information among organizations. Conventional DOD operations systems do not support interoperability with civilian 

organizations that lead missions of defense support of civil 

authorities, but alternatives are available.2

“Secrecy stifles oversight, accountability, and information sharing. Unfortunately, all the current organizational 

incentives encourage overclassification. This balance should 

change . . . . The President should lead a government-wide 

effort to bring the major national security institutions into 

the information revolution, turning a mainframe into a 

decentralized network. The obstacles are not technological.”3

Civilian authorities employ numerous tools that enable 

interagency team members to rapidly share, view, and 

understand the operating environment, therefore improving the quality of information provided to decisionmakers. 

Department of Homeland Security information management standards and the efficient use of existing tools make 

this possible. Any Open Geospatial Consortium®-compliant 

platform is the tool to use. Locally provided resources vary 

broadly, but are typically based on Environmental Systems 

Research Institute® (ESRI) Flex viewer or Google EarthTM 

Enterprise. Certificates of networthiness for these tools 

exist, reducing the effort of those who use them. 

NORTHCOM is a leader in the field of shared situational awareness. DOD and interagency partner users 

may register for access to the NORTHCOM Situational 

Awareness Geospatial Environment at <https://sageearth

.northcom.mil>. It is the unclassified, common operational 

picture for DOD and contains vast amounts of dynamic (live) 

and static data. 

Advances in information technology mean that data feeds 

are more common than ever and are accessible via Open 

Geospatial Consortium-compliant tools. Examples include 

information on—

■ Earthquakes.

■ Wildfires (fire lines).

■ Flooding.

■ Hurricane tracks.

■ Storm surge models.

■ Plume models.

■ Blue Force tracking.

■ Weather.

■ Traffic cameras.

■ Traffic status (road closures).

■ Stream gauges.

■ Operational data feeds.

The need to find a report and transcribe it for use in a 

local viewer has been reduced since many reports are fed 

directly to the end user’s Web-based map. The FEMA Geospatial Information and Services page at <http://gis.fema

.gov/Datafeeds.html> and the U.S. Geological Survey emergency operations portal at <https://hdds.usgs.gov/EO/> are 

starting points for event-specific data feeds.

Technology is extremely useful, but it may fail at a critical point. The intrinsic value of a hardcopy map cannot be 

overstated; it can be folded, placed in a pocket, thrown onto a 

dashboard, rained on, hit by shrapnel, partially burned, and 

even used as a small personal sun or rain shelter. A hardcopy map is light, compact, and often more robust than its 

high-tech counterpart. Technology should be embraced, but 

some reliable tools that are less flashy still play an important role and cannot be replicated on a computer screen. 

Hardcopy maps are one of those tools.

TerraGo GeoPDF® at <http://www.terragotech.com

/products/field-data-collection/terrago-toolbar> is a valuable asset for responders. It allows users to annotate digital 

maps, turn layers of information on or off, and view global 

positioning system tracks. When forces are disconnected 

from their headquarters, these products may be printed 

on local printers rather than large plotters. Although DOD 

geospatial engineers can create specialized products that 

support specific requirements, the U.S. Geological Survey is 

the authoritative source for federal mapping of the United 

States. A large portion of the agency’s map inventory is in 

GeoPDF format, ready for the end user to employ.

Smartphone technology, although not widely used by federal agencies, is making an impact. The U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Research and Development Center has developed a handheld field data collection 

application to speed information sharing from the incident 

response location to the leaders responsible for force employment. The USACE mobile information collection application 

was deployed during the Mississippi River floods in the 

spring of 2011 and during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. During the 2011 floods, 50 smartphones were deployed to seven 

counties, garnering more than 12,000 photographs, videos, 

and notes that were then transmitted within seconds to map 

viewers from various commands. The power of this tool is 

indisputable. Although DOD has not fully transitioned to 

smartphone technology, organizations such as the Engineer 

Research and Development Center continue to develop applications to improve disaster response and recovery efforts. 

“Technology should be embraced, 

but some reliable tools that are less 

flashy still play an important role 

and cannot be replicated on a

computer screen.”
20 Engineer May–August 2013

In the past, teams were responsible for gleaning, consolidating, and presenting operationally relevant information. 

With advancements in technology, everyone can be a common operational picture operator. Today, many units and 

senior leaders have TwitterTM and Facebook® accounts to 

tell the story of their organization. However, there is still 

significant room for growth in leveraging these tools directly 

in support of response coordination. It can be done, but will 

require time, policy changes, and departures from past processes. With organizations like NORTHCOM and USACE 

setting the pace, the use of smartphone technology is slowly 

becoming the norm.

The other side of information-sharing technologies is the 

concern for information security. Digital threats are real 

and cannot be ignored. Information assurance processes and 

digital rules of engagement continue to adjust to the everchanging digital environment. Balancing the requirements 

for security against operational necessity is a constant 

effort. Speeding the process to find balance must occur at 

every level. Failure to share information with others or to 

use information from others, is no longer an option. Keeping select datasets for use by authorized users is mandatory, 

but it can be done without restricting everything. Access to 

information may require end users to have numerous user 

names and passwords or other methods of control. Users of 

information should always be vigilant in how they access, 

use, create, and disseminate data, but that should not stop 

them from sharing. 

The success of interagency-shared situational awareness depends on preparation before the next major disaster. Forces responding to disasters within the Homeland 

must adapt to the tools and processes of the organizations 

they support. Although they are different from those traditionally employed by military units, information-sharing 

resources are readily available for use by those supporting 

domestic operations. 

We must prepare, or prepare to fail. We will not fail; 

therefore, we prepare. 

Endnotes:

1Federal Interagency Geospatial Concept of Operations, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, June 2011, 

<http://www.ct.gov/gis/lib/gis/storm/dhs_geospatial_conops

_v30_85x11.pdf>, accessed on 2 April 2013.

2The 9/11 Commission Report Executive Summary, 

<http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report /911Report_Exec

.pdf>, accessed on 2 April 2013. 

3

Ibid.

Lieutenant Colonel Foster served 22 years in the U.S. 

Army and 4 years in the U.S. Army Reserves. In his final 

assignment before retirement, he was the geospatial information officer (provisional) for U.S. Army North. He holds an 

associate’s degree in liberal arts, a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice, and a master’s degree in military studies.

(“Challenges,” continued from page 17)

such a laborious process to become proficient at operating 

these assets.

While thorough coordination between internal components is critical in any S-2 section, it is especially important in a multifunctional engineer battalion. Because of the 

support relationships that the battalion has with numerous OE owners, short-notice taskings appear far more frequently than in other units. As enemy targets on the battlefield appear and disappear, so do time-sensitive missions. 

Thorough intelligence analysis and product development 

are required for the intelligence preparation of the battlefield. The S-2 section must be integrally linked with the battalion operations and construction management sections. 

Construction project activities constantly shift as priorities 

change because of evolving requirements in multiple OEs. 

Standard meetings are not enough to meet the requirements; it is necessary to conduct constant dialogue with 

these sections and to maintain a presence on countless distribution lists to stay informed of changes. This allows the 

S-2 section to manage its own internal production to ensure 

that commanders have timely and accurate intelligence to 

use in planning and executing their missions.

A vast amount of information is learned during a deployment, sometimes at a high cost. It is essential that these 

lessons, products, architectures, systems, and processes continue during the handover from one unit to the next. The outgoing unit must have a systematic knowledge management 

system in place to ensure that incoming personnel can pick 

up the mission in stride. Knowledge management is an ongoing process that requires finesse, deliberate organization, 

and constant supervision. Armed with tools such as Palantir®, Microsoft SharePoint®, and a shared network computer 

drive, the S-2 section must store this information in a way 

that is easy to locate, access, and understand. Naming conventions, proper classifications, and standing operating procedures are needed to create this organizational framework. 

However, knowledge management is not the job of one 

person. The entire team must understand its importance 

and execution to ensure that the next unit can maintain the 

processes that work and to preserve institutional knowledge. Another recommendation is to ensure that information is stored (or at least a copy is maintained) on networks 

accessible to follow-on units before deployment. While most 

business in Afghanistan is conducted on the Combined 

Enterprise Regional Information Exchange (CENTRIX) system, most engineer units do not have access to CENTRIX 

in garrison. It is crucial to ensure that products, situational 

reports, and formats are transferred to networks that these 

units can access, ensuring that they understand the situational environment before they deploy.

Captain Diebold is the intelligence officer for the 20th 

Engineer Battalion. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Western Illinois University and is a graduate of the Intelligence 

Captains Career Course.
May–August 2013 Engineer 21

Last summer’s Midwest drought was unlike any in 

several decades, causing water levels in the Mississippi River to drop to near-record lows. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), St. Louis District, one of 

six districts in the Mississippi Valley Division, is authorized 

by Congress to maintain a 300- by 9-foot navigation channel 

in the river. The channel efficiently carries massive amounts 

of raw material that the United States 

imports and exports, including corn, 

wheat, soy, coal, liquefied natural gas, and 

other commodities. Lock 27 (the river’s 

southernmost lock) allowed more than 

80,000,000 tons of cargo to pass safely at 

Granite City, Illinois, in 2011. The channel 

connects ports throughout the Midwest to 

the rest of the world through the Port of 

New Orleans. The channel is maintained 

in three ways: locks and dams, river training structures, and rock and sediment 

removal. This article focuses on how the 

St. Louis District and the Mississippi 

Valley Division use all three methods to 

maintain a safe and reliable navigation 

channel during droughts. 

Locks and Dams

On the upper Mississippi River, 

locks and dams create a stairstep effect to hold back water and 

allow ships to travel through. There are 

29 lock-and-dam sites between St. Paul, 

Minnesota, and Granite City. Each lock is meant to pool 

water upstream and has the added benefit of helping to 

regulate the depth of the river downstream. The area below 

the last lock is typically the most affected during droughts 

because there is no pool effect. The most affected region 

extended to the confluence of the Ohio River, where the 

depth of the Mississippi increases naturally. 

By Captain Matthew P. Collins

Chevron-shaped training structures direct the flow of the river.
22 Engineer May–August 2013

River Training Structures

River training structures are rock dikes used to direct 

the flow of the river. If used correctly, they can benefit the river industry and the environment. Below 

Granite City, the channel is maintained primarily by using 

river training structures and sediment dredging to keep 

buildup from occurring in the channel. The effect maximizes 

the flow of water within the channel itself, carrying sediment out of the channel. 

The previous major drought in the Midwest was in 1988–

1989. Many river training structures have been constructed 

since then. This work is a permanent improvement to the 

channel and has reduced the number of dredges needed in 

the middle Mississippi area from eight to two. 

Dredging Operations

The dredge Potter was primarily 

used by the St. Louis District 

during the drought, operating 

around the clock with a rotating crew 

of 54 from July 2012 to January 2013. 

In operation since 1932, it is one of the 

oldest working pieces of equipment in 

the Army. Potter uses a dustpan style 

dredge that acts like a giant vacuum, 

pumping 4,500 cubic yards of water, 

sand, and gravel each hour from the 

bottom of the river out through a pipeline extended as much as 1,200 feet. 

During the drought, 8,400,000 cubic 

yards of sediment were dredged out 

of the channel, more than double the 

amount removed during a nondrought 

year. The dredge removes sand and 

rocks up to roughly basketball size. 

Any bedrock or large boulders require 

specialized removal techniques, such as 

those used near the Thebes Reach. 

Thebes Reach Rock 

Removal

The Thebes Reach presents 

problems for maintaining a 

safe and reliable navigation 

channel in the Mississippi River. 

Sand and gravel at the bottom of 

the river, which can be dredged 

easily, are the usual hazards in 

the channel. However, natural 

limestone formations near Thebes, 

Illinois, (about 38 miles above the 

confluence of the Ohio River) protrude from the bedrock and impede 

shipping traffic when water levels are low. Periods of low water 

are the optimum time to remove obstacles since they allow 

excavators and hydraulic hammers easier access to the river 

bottom. Taking advantage of the low water caused by the 

drought, the St. Louis District contracted with two companies to remove rock at the bottom of the reach. The excavation work began on 15 December 2012, with the first blast 

occurring on 21 December. The contractors mechanically 

excavated or blasted the most critical 890 cubic yards of rock 

formations out of the way. The St. Louis District is evaluating a second phase to widen the channel for additional safety 

in several nearby river bends. The work is a joint operation 

between USACE, the U.S. Coast Guard, river industry representatives, and local stakeholders with an interest in ensuring safe navigation during the rock removal. To help ensure 

safety, St. Louis District employees and qualified contractors 

routinely conduct surveys to verify the depth of the channel.

Contractors blast a limestone obstacle at the Thebes Reach.

The dredge Potter vacuums sediment from the channel and pumps it out of a 

pipeline that extends as much as 1,200 feet.
May–August 2013 Engineer 23

Dedication

The following members of the Engineer Regiment have been lost in overseas contingency operations since the last 

issue of Engineer. We dedicate this issue to them.

Private First Class Barrett L. Austin Company A, 4th Special Troops Battalion, Fort Stewart, Georgia

 4th Brigade Combat Team

Mr. Hyun K. Shin U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Transatlantic Division Hesperia, California

Sergeant Tristan M. Wade 573d Engineer Company, 2d Engineer Battalion, White Sands, New Mexico

36th Engineer Brigade 

 

Channel Surveys

The St. Louis District uses 

sonar-based surveys to verify 

that a 300- by 9-foot channel 

exists. The survey equipment shoots 

256 pulses of sound 60 times per second into the water below. The sound 

waves bounce off physical features 

on the river bottom, and the resulting echo is analyzed to confirm the 

depth. The survey team can create 

a three-dimensional representation 

of the river bottom with its modern 

sonar and global positioning satellite surveying equipment. Detailed 

surveys include up to 900 reference 

points per square foot, allowing reliable detection of objects as small as 

a softball.

Channel patrol surveys are performed every 2 weeks 

during a low-water event. The patrols survey the depth of 

the river at the center and at each boundary of the channel every 10 meters over several miles. These surveys are 

posted online each month, making them available to the 

river industry and other river stakeholders. More detailed 

surveys of particular stretches of the river are performed 

before and after dredging operations. Comprehensive surveys are done every 2 to 3 years over large stretches of the 

river to monitor the progress of river training structures. 

Using locks and dams, river training structures, and 

rock and sediment removal, USACE worked to maintain a 

safe and reliable navigation channel despite record drought 

conditions. As a result, no ships or barges were grounded 

within the channel of the Mississippi River. This was due 

to the dedicated work of the military and civilian USACE 

team members and their U.S. Coast Guard and river industry partners. 

Captain Collins is a U.S. Army Reserve engineer serving 

as a project engineer with the St. Louis District of USACE 

on an active duty for operational support tour. He holds 

master’s degrees in business administration and analytical 

chemistry from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. 

An excavator hauls rock from the bottom of the channel.
24 Engineer May–August 2013

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

ATP 3-34.22 Feb 09

FM 3-34 Aug 11

ATP 3-37.34 

(FM 5-103)

Survivability Operations Jun 85 This will be a full revision of FM 5-103, Survivability.

Status: To be published 1st quarter, FY 14.

Publication Revisions

Combat Engineering

ATP 3-34.20

(FM 3-34.210)

Explosive Hazard 

Operations

Mar 07 This will be a multi-Service, full revision of Field Manual (FM) 3-34.210, 

Explosive Hazards Operations.

Status: To be published 2d quarter, FY 14.

Engineer Operations—

Brigade Combat Team and 

Below

Engineer Operations 

This revision is pending Headquarters, Department of the Army, approval of 

the brigade engineer battalion.

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 14.

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update pdate

ATP 3-34.23

(ATTP 3-34.23)

Engineer Operations—

Echelons Above Brigade 

Combat Team

Jul 10 This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 14.

ATP 3-90.61 Brigade Special Troops 

Battalion

Dec 06 This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 14. (FM 3-90.61)

This manual contains the “box top” as our doctrinal framework; integrates 

the three engineer disciplines of combat, general, and geospatial 

engineering; and introduces the four lines of engineer support for decisive 

actions.

Status: To be published 3d quarter, fiscal year (FY) 2013.

ATP 3-90.4

(ATTP 3-90.4)

Combined Arms Mobility

Operations

Aug 11 Status: Anticipate a change document to convert the manual from Army 

Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (ATTP) 3-90.4 to Army Techniques 

Publication (ATP) 3-90.4 3d quarter, FY 14.

ATP 3-90.8

(FM 3-90)

(FM 5-102)

(FM 90-7)

Combined Arms 

Countermobility

Operations

Jul 01

Mar 85

Sep 94

This will be a full revision that includes the consolidation of FM 3-90, 

Tactics; FM 5-102, Countermobility; and FM 90-7, Combined Arms 

Obstacle Integration. This will be a multi-Service manual that discusses 

countermobility and combined arms obstacle integration and their 

relationship to the combined arms defense and warfighting functions with 

regard to wide area security.

Status: To be published 1st quarter, FY 14.

ATP 3-90.37

(FM 3-90.119)

Combined Arms 

Improvised Explosive 

Device Defeat Operations

Sep 07 This will be a multi-Service, full revision of FM 3-90.119, Combined Arms 

Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Operations.

Status: To be published 2d quarter, FY 14.
May–August 2013 Engineer 25

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

General Engineering

ATP 3-34.40

(FM 3-34.400)

General Engineering Dec 08 This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 2d quarter, FY 14.

ATP 3-37.10 Base Camps Apr 13

Notes: 

1. Current engineer publications can be downloaded from the Army Publishing Directorate Web site at <http://www.apd.army

.mil>. The manuals discussed in this article are currently under development and/or recently published. Drafts may be 

obtained during the staffing process by contacting the Engineer Doctrine Branch at commercial (573) 563-0003, DSN 676-0003, 

or <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.cdidcodddengdoc@mail.mil>. The development status of these manuals was current as 

of 15 May 2013.

2. Items in parentheses are publication numbers of current publications, which will be superseded by the new number at the 

top of the entry. Multiple numbers in parentheses indicate consolidation into one manual.

3. Currently, 28 of 30 Army doctrine publications/Army doctrine reference publications have been published. Every Army 

professional should have a basic knowledge of our fundamental principles since they rarely change quickly. They can be 

downloaded from the Army Publishing Directorate (APD) Web site at <http://www.apd.army.mil>.

ATP 3-34.81

(FM 3-34.170)

Engineer Reconnaissance Mar 08 This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 14.

Geospatial Engineering

ATP 3-34.80

(FM 3-34.230)

Geospatial Engineering Mar 08 This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 2d quarter, FY 14.

This is a multi-Service manual that is targeted for all branches (not a manual 

solely for the use of engineers). It is a compilation of tactics, techniques, and 

procedures found in doctrine, lessons learned, and reference material that 

provides an integrated, systematic approach to base camps.

This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 14.

ATP 3-34.5

(FM 3-100.4)

Environmental 

Considerations

Feb 10

ATP 3-34.45

(FM 3-34.480)

Power Generation/

Distribution

Apr 07 This manual will undergo review; renaming from FM 3-34.480, Engineer Prime 

Power Operations; and update as required. 

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 14.

“The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing 

to do. The hard part is doing it.” 

—General Norman Schwarzkopf
26 Engineer May–August 2013

When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

needs to repair a dam outlet, bulkhead, or other 

piece of infrastructure that is submerged in water, 

it faces an engineering challenge. The added variable

can make repairs more difficult, costly, and 

time-consuming. 

Ongoing repair work along the Point 

Pleasant Canal in New Jersey has been just 

that—a challenge—but with resourcefulness 

and innovation, the USACE Philadelphia 

District and its contractor completed the 

work.

The project involved repairing 8,900 feet 

of a steel bulkhead along the canal. Work 

began in 2010 after the Philadelphia District 

awarded a $4.1 million contract to a Minnesota firm with funds from the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The 

bulkhead repair project, completed in March 

2013, was the last remaining stimulus package work for the district. The USACE project 

manager said that the contractors were flexible and resourceful and that the quality of 

their work was impressive.

The canal, approximately 150 feet wide 

and 1.7 miles long, was constructed in 1925 

to connect the Manasquan River (about 1 mile from the 

ocean on the northern end), the Bay Head Harbor, and the 

Metedeconk River on the southern end. The canal is widely 

used by pleasure boaters, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the 

By Mr. Stephen Rochette

USACE Repairs Canal Bulkhead

With Innovative Project

A USACE project manager and an inspector discuss the desalination gear 

that will produce freshwater to wash the bulkhead. 
May–August 2013 Engineer 27

New Jersey State Police Marine Services Bureau. The steel 

bulkhead, installed between 1965 and 1972, retains the 

sides of the canal and protects the embankment. Bulkheads 

typically have a 50-year life. Sections of a bulkhead exposed 

to tide cycles are particularly vulnerable to rust and corrosion because of the daily exposure to seawater and oxygen. 

Inspections dating back to 1983 revealed minor corrosion, 

and USACE engineers began analyzing and studying methods to address the issue. 

“Through our test case, we found it was significantly 

cheaper to repair and coat the bulkhead rather than replace 

it,” said the chief of the Philadelphia District operations division. The team studying the matter estimated that repairs 

could save approximately $25 million over replacement. The 

hard part, however, was working out the engineering of the 

project. That kind of work had never been done in the United 

States, and district engineers hoped that the project would 

demonstrate to USACE and local private interests that the 

infrastructure could be rehabilitated at a cost savings.

The work to repair the bulkhead involved moving a barge 

carrying generators, sandblasting equipment, and a desalination station to produce freshwater to wash the steel onsite. The contractor began the process by maneuvering movable cofferdams (temporary watertight enclosures) against 

the bulkhead and pumping the area dry to expose the length 

of the steel bulkhead. Crews used a high-pressure wash to 

remove paint, rust, and marine growth and then checked the 

thickness of the steel with an ultrasonic thickness gauge. 

Wherever they found spots corroded by more than half of the original thickness, workers welded steel plates to the existing structure. After a round of sandblasting, the bulkhead 

was ready for a special coat of marine paint. Each stretch 

of bulkhead repair took several days before the contractors 

moved the cofferdams to other areas.

“Our contractor pioneered a number of different features 

along the way,” said a USACE project engineer, who noted 

that the bulkhead includes three different types of sheet pile, 

depending on when it was installed. Each type has different 

interlocking features, requiring the contractor to modify and 

adjust plans as the work progressed. Two unique aspects of 

the project included the use of the movable cofferdams and 

the application of a marine coat that could cure in wet conditions. These features reduced the time and cost of the work. 

Adapting to conditions on the ground was essential for 

the contractor. A construction manager for the firm pointed 

to the engineering challenges presented by the weather, 

tides, boaters, bridges, and the features of the steel bulkhead itself. A safety inspector with the firm said “[The project is] prestigious, and we’re all pretty proud to be involved 

with the work.”

The contract work repaired half of the bulkhead along 

the canal. Philadelphia District officials hope to repair the 

entire length of the bulkhead before deterioration requires 

the full replacement of the uncoated sections. 

Mr. Rochette is a public affairs specialist with the USACE 

Philadelphia District.

A barge serves as a staging area during bulkhead repairs 

along the Point Pleasant Canal.

Cofferdams allow a close examination of corrosion on the 

bulkheads.
28 Engineer May–August 2013

Recent world events have provided the opportunity 

for U.S. military forces to engage in operations that 

require cooperation and partnership with allied 

militaries. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

was established in 1948 with the members agreeing to a philosophy of collective defense. NATO member countries work 

to establish military and political interoperability. NATO 

defines interoperability as “. . . the ability for Allies to act 

together coherently, effectively, and efficiently to achieve 

tactical, operational, and strategic objectives.”1

 Interoperability is realized through exchange programs and multinational training exercises. Through the Military Personnel 

Exchange Program, the U.S. Army has furthered its relationship with the Canadian Army. (Further information 

on the program can be found in Army Regulation 614-10, 

Army Military Personnel Exchange Program With Military 

Services of Other Nations.

2

 The knowledge, information, 

and hands-on experience gained through exchanges allow 

militaries from both countries to share common doctrine and 

procedures and to communicate more effectively. The result 

is an effective application of the collective defense concept. 

The exchange program with Canada is composed of 

21 U.S. Army commissioned and noncommissioned officers 

(NCOs) who have been assigned to the Canadian Army. 

These officers and NCOs serve in leadership positions, as 

instructors, and as liaisons between U.S. and Canadian 

forces. The purpose of this article is to provide a baseline of 

knowledge to U.S. Army engineers who could work side by 

side with our Canadian allies in the future.

One of the exchange positions has been allotted to support interoperability between U.S. Army and Canadian 

Army engineers. The home of the Canadian Forces School 

of Military Engineering (CFSME), at Canadian Forces Base 

Gagetown, New Brunswick, conducts 85 courses that span 

all ranks and military engineering specialties. CFSME is 

the Canadian Forces center of excellence for engineer training and the home of the engineers. The U.S. exchange position is located in the CFSME tactics cell, which is responsible for training and mentoring Canadian Forces officers and 

NCOs. The exchange program requires that each exchange 

position have a reciprocal position with the host country. 

Currently, Canadian Army Captain Mathew Berry serves 

as the exchange officer at the U.S. Army Engineer School at 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, where he teaches, mentors, 

and trains junior officers attending the Engineer Basic Officer Leader Course.

U.S. Army and Canadian Army doctrine and procedures 

are very similar compared to many of our allies around the 

world, as confirmed by joint exercises. However, there are 

minor differences in terminology for units and positions 

within engineer elements. Understanding these differences is a key to effective communication between U.S. and 

By Major Christopher W. Pierce
May–August 2013 Engineer 29

Canadian units. The following are some examples of differences between U.S. and Canadian terminology:The training required to become a qualified engineer 

officer in the Canadian Army takes longer than in the U.S. 

Army. Commissioning sources for the Canadians include 

the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario (equivalent to the U.S. Military Academy); direct-entry officer programs (similar to U.S. Army officer candidate schools); and 

a university (similar to the U.S. Reserve Officer Training 

Corps). Before starting their officer basic courses, Canadian Army engineer officers undergo preliminary training 

during the summers before graduation from their commissioning source. The typical engineer officer with no prior 

service arrives at the basic engineer officer course (BEOC) 

as a second lieutenant, with promotion to first lieutenant 

upon graduation. The BEOC is divided into two phases and 

is 3 months longer than the equivalent U.S. Army 6-month 

course. BEOC students may feel like they are “drinking from 

a fire hose” with all the information they receive. During 

BEOC, students spend up to 7 weeks in the field to complete three field training exercises. Unlike the U.S. Army 

officer who finds himself back in the classroom for one more 

course (Engineer Captains Career Course) before assuming company command, Canadian officers must graduate from six additional courses before becoming company 

A Badger armored engineer vehicle gathers concertina wire with its telescoping arm.

Squad

Platoon

Company

Battalion

Squad leader

Platoon leader

Platoon sergeant

Master sergeant

Command sergeant major

Company first sergeant

Company commander

U.S. Canada

Section

Troop

Squadron

Regiment

Section commander

Troop commander

Troop warrant officer

Master warrant officer

Chief warrant officer

Squadron sergeant major

Squadron commander
30 Engineer May–August 2013

commanders. They must also attend courses throughout 

their time as a captain, including—

■ Army junior officers staff qualification. 

■ Army tactical operations course.

■ Army operations course.

■ Engineer operations course. 

Senior captains and junior majors waiting to take squadron command attend the engineer squadron commander and 

combat team commander courses. The first week is spent 

on engineer-specific doctrine, followed by 3 weeks of combat team garrison instruction and then a 2-week field training exercise with students leading combat team elements 

through a hasty attack.

The leader development training for Canadian Army 

enlisted engineers is similar to training for U.S. Army NCOs. 

Before advancing to the position of troop warrant officer, 

Canadian NCOs attend an 8-week intermediate leadership 

program. The next key course in the glide path of a Canadian Army NCO is the advanced leadership program, a nonbranch-specific course that prepares master warrant officers 

to become staff NCOs and squadron sergeants major. The 

senior leadership program trains future chief warrant officers, and the senior appointment program develops them for 

leadership in the highest enlisted ranks within the Canadian Forces.

The concept and application of interoperability is not 

that difficult for Canadian and U.S. Army engineers. The 

similarities largely overshadow the differences, and the 

differences are overcome without difficulty. Most technical engineering doctrine 

is the same for both armies, and the minor 

differences are easily mastered. A few of 

the unique characteristics are:

■ Demolitions. The color of the detonation cord used by the two armies is

the first major difference, along with the

use of electric demolition sets and 

metric units of measurement by Canadian Army engineers.

■ Vehicles and equipment. Most of the 

Canadian Army engineers maneuver

in an engineer variant of the light

armored vehicle, which is similar to 

the U.S. Army engineer Stryker vehicle. The Canadians also have the Badger, an armored engineer vehicle, built

on a tank chassis, with a dozer blade

and a large excavating bucket on a 

telescoping arm. 

■ Culture. The Canadian Army engineer greeting or toast is Chimo (pronounced CHEE-mo). This expression 

is also often used as a closing on correspondence between engineers. The 

officer’s mess plays an important role in the Canadian 

Army. Every week at the close of business, all officers 

meet at the mess to share a drink and discuss the week. 

Although sometimes seen as “mandatory fun,” the mess 

provides a location to establish relationships and receive 

mentoring from senior leaders.

The goal of the U.S. Army engineers is to create a milieu 

in which coordination and cooperation with our closest 

neighbor is routine rather than the exception. To meet this 

goal and enhance the concept of collective defense, the U.S. 

military continues to work closely with the Canadians on 

military operations. This is accomplished through the Military Personnel Exchange Program and several joint exercises throughout the year. This close partnership enables 

effective interoperability, which allows us to fight any foe as 

a cohesive coalition force.

Endnotes:

1

“Interoperability: Connecting NATO Forces,” <http://

www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_84112.htm>, accessed 

on 22 April 2013.

2

Army Regulation 614-10, Army Military Personnel 

Exchange Program With Military Services of Other Nations, 

14 July 2011.

Major Pierce is an exchange instructor at CFSME. He is 

a graduate of the Engineer Basic Officer Leader Course and 

the Infantry Captains Career Course. He holds a bachelor’s 

degree in sociology from Southern Utah University.

The author debriefs a Canadian officer after evaluating his performance 

as a platoon leader during a field training exercise.
May–August 2013 Engineer 31

Project Management Professional (PMP®) certification is so important in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that it is a requirement for senior 

project managers who manage megaprojects (any project 

that has a budget of more than $300 million, that lasts for 

more than 3 years, and that requires an increased amount 

of coordination). The Engineer Regiment also encourages 

officers to obtain the certification. Department of the Army 

Pamphlet 600-3, Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management, advises officers to obtain 

PMP certification as part of self-development starting at the 

captain level.1

 In April 2013, the Army began tracking officers who have obtained the PMP certification by creating 

the W5 engineer skill identifier. The purpose of this article 

is to inform officers, noncommissioned officers, and Department of the Army civilians of the requirements for the PMP 

certification and provide tips on how to obtain it.

Phase 1: Requirements

According to the Project Management Institute (PMI®) 

Web site, <http://www.pmi.org>, the requirements 

.for certification are as follows—

■ For applicants with a bachelor’s degree. Within the 

last eight consecutive years, document at least 3 years of

unique project management experience, with 4,500 hours

of experience in leading and directing projects and

35 hours of project management education. 

■ For applicants without a bachelor’s degree. Within

the last eight consecutive years, document at least 5 years 

of unique project management experience, with 7,500 

hours of experience in leading and directing projects

and 35 hours of project management education.

These requirements seem straightforward, but there 

may be confusion about what counts as project management 

experience. PMI defines a project as “. . . [A] temporary 

endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or 

result.”2

 Projects have beginning and end dates. Operations, 

on the other hand, are not projects. The ongoing work with 

operations produces repetitive products, services, or results 

within the unit’s existing procedures.

It is unlikely that all of an applicant’s time in the Army 

will count toward the project management experience 

requirement. The following are examples of projects (which 

count toward experience) and operations (which do not count 

toward experience):

■ Projects.


 USACE civil works.


 USACE military construction.


 Engineer vertical and horizontal construction work.


 .Unit deployment and redeployment planning and 

 execution.


 Unit dining-in and dining-out planning and execution.


 Quarterly or deployment training plan development.

■ Operations.


 Command maintenance.


 Status report preparation.


 Weekly unit meeting preparation.


 .Army training and leader development class

 preparation.

Phase II: Application Process

Good note-taking during past projects will help 

speed the PMP application process. Unlike the professional engineering license application, which 

requires applicants to obtain personal signatures to certify 

work history performed under a professional engineer, the 

PMP application does not require this. A good first step in 

the application process is to become a member of PMI for 

a fee of $139. The PMI membership includes a free download of the Project Management Body of Knowledge Guide 

(PMBOK®),

3

 which is needed to study for the exam. A paperback copy of the book can be purchased for about $45. The 

examination cost for members is $405, while nonmembers 

pay $555. 

The application is completed at <http://www.pmi.org

/en/Certification/Project-Management-Professional-PMP

.aspx>. Each project that is claimed as part of the applicant’s experience requires a list of the time spent leading 

and directing in the five project areas:

■ Initiating.

■ Planning.

■ Executing.

By Major Robert E. Dion, Jr.
 32 Engineer May–August 2013

■ Monitoring and controlling.

■ Closing.

The application requires names of contacts who can 

verify the applicant’s work, though signatures are not 

required unless the application is one of the few selected 

to be audited. The next requirement is a brief (550-

character) summary of the project tasks led and directed by 

the applicant. The PMBOK includes 47 project tasks, or processes, that are part of the five project management process 

groups. Studying these will allow the summaries to match 

PMI terminology.

For each month that an applicant worked on multiple, 

overlapping projects, only the time spent on one of those 

projects can be counted toward the 3- or 5-year project management experience requirement. The hours spent leading 

and directing both projects can be counted as part of the 

4,500- or 7,500-hour requirement, but remember to keep the 

total reasonable. Applicants who worked on two overlapping projects should not claim that they worked on each for 

40 hours per week. The resulting 80-hour week total would 

send a red flag and increase the likelihood of the application 

being audited. 

Meeting the 35 hours of project management education 

is an easy requirement for Army engineers. The Engineer 

Basic Officer Leader Course and Engineer Captains Career 

Course have time devoted to project management. The start 

and end dates of the course and the number of contact hours 

earned are required in order to receive credit. The entire 

time spent in the courses will not count, since all hours were 

not devoted to project management. Applicants should claim 

the appropriate number of hours for both courses.

PMI takes 3 to 5 days to review applications for completeness. If there are no errors, it is time to pay for the 

examination. Once the examination fees have been submitted, PMI notifies applicants whose applications have 

been selected for audit. In that case, proof of education, 

verification of project management experience from supervisors, and proof of project management education must be 

submitted to PMI within 90 days of notification.

Phase III: Examination Preparation

Though it is not necessary to memorize the PMBOK 

Guide, applicants should scan it to become familiar with the terminology and processes that PMI 

uses. The goal is to understand the processes involved in 

managing projects. The guide lists the five process groups, 

10 knowledge areas, and 47 processes of project management. Knowing which process group that a question is 

referring to and being familiar with the processes within 

that group will help answer many questions during the

examination.

A free online review course is available through Army 

eLearning. Access the course by logging on at <https://

usarmy.skillport.com>, go to Catalog, and then go to the link 

for the project management knowledge center. This leads to a 

Skillsoft® Web site that has many resources for project management. The review course is in the Roadmaps section of 

the Web page. Once there, go to Pursuing PMI Certification

and click on Project Management Professional. Currently, the 

course has 28 lessons that provide a good review for the exam. 

The estimated duration of the review course is 52 hours.

While studying for the examination, it is best to have the 

mind-set of working on a multimillion-dollar project with 

a team located around the world. The test is written from 

that perspective. Those who have worked only on shortterm, platoon-size projects could be at a disadvantage for 

the test since solutions at this level are often dealt with 

by speaking directly to a small team rather than devising 

a communications management plan that addresses the 

concerns of multiple stakeholders around the world. After 

completing the review course, applicants can take a 

An Army officer 

working on a USACE 

megaproject briefs 

senior leaders during a site visit.
May–August 2013 Engineer 33

practice test. The Skillsoft review course has a 200-question 

test. Applicants should score at least 80 percent to be ready 

for the examination.

Phase IV: Examination

The PMP examination is offered year-round at numerous test centers. The 200-question, multiple-choice, 

computer-based examination has a 4-hour time limit. 

Examination results are pass or fail and are posted immediately after the examination. Results in the five process 

groups tested are rated in one of three levels—

■ Proficient.

■ Moderately proficient.

■ Below proficient.

PMI does not publish the percentage of correct questions 

needed to pass the examination, but it is estimated to be 61 

to 70 percent.

Phase V: Credential Renewal

After passing the PMP examination, project managers 

must earn 60 professional development units (PDUs) 

.every 3 years to maintain the PMP credential. (The 

3-year period begins the day that the credential is awarded.) 

Half of the PDUs can be earned through self-directed learning, such as reading professional articles or books, watching 

videos, or even by having formal discussions with coworkers. Work as a project manager can earn five PDUs every 

12 months. The rest of the PDUs can be earned though continuing education courses. PMI members can earn PDUs by 

viewing a free, on-demand webinar. A section of the Skillsoft Web site, entitled Maintaining PMI Certification, also 

has classes that can be used to earn PDUs. The online PMP 

review course used for examination preparation can also be 

retaken for a total of 82 free PDUs.

Endnotes:

1

Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3, Commissioned 

Officer Professional Development and Career Management, 

1 February 2010.

2

A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge 

(PMBOK Guide), 5th Edition, Project Management Institute, 2013. 

3

Ibid.

Major Dion is a project officer with USACE, Sacramento 

District, Sacramento, California. He is a graduate of the U.S. 

Military Academy and holds master’s degrees in civil engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and engineering management from the University of Missouri–Rolla 

(now Missouri University of Science and Technology). He is 

a registered professional engineer in Missouri and a certified 

project management professional.

’

Engineer is a professional-development bulletin designed to provide a forum for exchanging information and ideas within the Army 

engineer community. We include articles by and about officers, enlisted 

Soldiers, warrant officers, Department of the Army civilian employees, 

and others. Writers may discuss training, current operations and exercises, doctrine, equipment, history, personal viewpoints, or other areas 

of general interest to engineers. Articles may share good ideas and 

lessons learned or explore better ways of doing things.

Articles should be concise, straightforward, and in the active voice. If

they contain attributable information or quotations not referenced in the

text, provide appropriate endnotes. Text length should not exceed 2,000 

words (about eight double-spaced pages). Shorter after action type

type articles and reviews of books on engineer topics are also welome.

Include photos (with captions) and/or line diagrams that illustrate 

information in the article. Please do not include illustrations or photos in the text; instead, send each of them as a separate file. Do not 

embed photos in Microsoft PowerPoint® or Word®. If illustrations are 

in PowerPoint, avoid the excessive use of color and shading. Save 

digital images at a resolution no lower than 200 dpi. Images copied 

from a Web site must be accompanied by copyright permission (see 

our photographer’s guide at <http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/

Photograph%20Illustration%20Guide.htm>).

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content of the article. Also include a short biography, including your full name, rank, current unit, job title, and education; your mailing address; a fax number; 

and a commercial daytime telephone number.

Articles submitted to Engineer must be accompanied by a written 

release by the author’s unit or activity security manager prior to publication. All information contained in the article must be unclassified, 

nonsensitive, and releasable to the public. Engineer is distributed to 

military units worldwide and is also available for sale by the Government Printing Office. As such, it is readily accessible to nongovernment 

and foreign individuals and organizations.

We cannot guarantee that we will publish all submitted articles, photographs, or illustrations. They are accepted for publication only after 

thorough review. If we plan to use your article in an upcoming issue, we 

will notify you. Therefore, it is important to keep us informed of changes 

in your e-mail address and telephone number. All articles accepted for 

publication are subject to grammatical and structural changes as well 

as editing for style.

Engineer is published three times a year: April (article deadline 

1 December), August (article deadline 1 April), and December (article 

deadline 1 August). Send submissions by e-mail to <usarmy.leonard

wood.mscoe.mbx.engineer@mail.mil> or on a CD in Microsoft Word, 

along with a double-spaced copy of the manuscript, to: Managing 

Editor, Engineer Professional Bulletin, 14010 MSCoE Loop, Building 

3201, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8702.

Note: Please indicate if your manuscript is being considered for 

publication elsewhere. Due to the limited space per issue, we usually 

do not print articles that have been accepted for publication in other 

Army venues.

Engineer Writer’ s guide
34 Engineer May–August 2013

Late in 2012, Brigadier General Peter A. (Duke) Deluca, commandant of the U.S. Army Engineer School, approved his 

“Engineer Commandant’s Reading List” as a program to promote professional development. The list includes a variety of 

books on history, politics, and culture that are appropriate for Soldiers and civilians in the Engineer Regiment. This book 

review section will be a feature in each issue of Engineer. Authors will summarize the content of the books on the reading 

list, and they will point out the key lessons to be learned from those books. Readers who wish to read a book and submit a 

review should contact Mr. Vincent Hodge, Engineer School historian, at <vincent.j.hodge.civ@mail.mil>. The reading list is 

located at <http://www.wood.army.mil/usaes/library/documents/ENGR_CMDT_READING_LIST_2012.pdf>.

Captains Courageous, by Rudyard Kipling, Dover Publications, 1999, ISBN-10: 0-486-40786-1/ISBN-13: 978-1-59194-

084-5

Captains Courageous is a classic, coming-of-age story 

set in the 19th century, when railroads were still forging 

paths across the United States and steamships had not 

yet replaced large sailing ships. The story follows Harvey, 

the spoiled only son of a millionaire railroad tycoon, as his 

life is irrevocably changed when he falls overboard from a 

transatlantic steamer en route to London and is rescued by 

a fishing boat. The trials Harvey faces and the obstacles he 

overcomes while aboard the ship shape him into a different person, much as military training changes those who 

undergo it. 

Harvey grew up neglected by a busy father and fussed 

over by a nervous, weak-willed mother, both of whom were 

overindulgent and let him conduct himself as he pleased. 

His mother, hoping that an education in Europe would help 

tame the unmanageable youth, sets sail with Harvey for 

London. Harvey makes such a nuisance of himself to the 

other passengers that the older men invite him to share a 

potent cigar, knowing that it will make him ill and rid them 

of his presence. The cigar amplifies Harvey’s seasickness to 

the point that he faints at the railing and rolls overboard 

into a heavy fog.

Luckily for the semiconscious Harvey, he is immediately 

dragged out of the water by a man in a fishing dory and 

brought aboard the fishing schooner We’re Here, owned by 

Captain Disko Troop. Waking up in this strange environment, Harvey demands to be returned to New York, only 

to find that the ship is on its way to the Outer Banks for 

the summer fishing season. Captain Troop refuses to believe 

Harvey’s fantastical tale of how much money his father has, 

thinking that the boy had hit his head during his fall and 

gone slightly mad. Captain Troop puts Harvey to work as 

a ship’s boy to earn his keep for the summer with a wage 

of $10.50 a month (this for a boy accustomed to having 

$200 a month for pocket money). Harvey tries to argue 

with the Captain and force him to turn around, but quickly 

realizes that he can’t bully anyone aboard to do what he 

wants. Harvey is incredulous, but sees that only Dan, the 

captain’s son and fellow ship’s boy, believes his story of being a 

millionaire’s son. 

Having never before worked a day in his life, Harvey is 

determined to prove himself as a worthy shipmate and starts 

learning how to work and live aboard the ship. During his 

first shift on watch, he is impressed with the importance of 

the watchman’s responsibilities. He learns to listen to orders 

without question and to promptly obey them. He stumbles 

through his early education on his duties and the workings 

of the ship, but grows more accustomed to the lifestyle and 

graduates to learning navigation and keeping the tally book. 

He develops physical strength and agility and overcomes 

personal fear to climb into the crow’s nest to act as a lookout. 

Reviewed by Captain Robin C. Bruce
May–August 2013 Engineer 35

Harvey has pride in the calluses on his hands from handling 

fishing tackle, climbing ropes, rowing a dinghy, and cleaning 

and storing the fish. Gradually, he becomes accepted as part 

of the crew through his hard work and learned capability. 

His place is cemented by the survival of the ship and its crew 

through exhausting days, with tedium underscored by fear 

during vicious storms and a near miss with a steamer that 

obliterates a nearby fishing boat in a dense fog.

At the end of a successful and highly profitable voyage 

for the crew, the ship puts into port and Harvey sends a 

telegram to his parents to let them know that he is alive and 

well. His parents, thinking him dead for months, rush across 

the continent in their private railroad car to reclaim their 

son. Harvey continues his work with the We’re Here, representing the ship at the scales and ensuring that a correct 

tally of the cargo is completed. His parents arrive to find a 

completely different son from the one they had lost. Instead 

of an overindulged boy with an unearned sense of entitlement, Harvey is now a confident, respectful, and reliable 

young man with a sense of purpose, integrity, and loyalty. 

He has become a professional sailor. 

Harvey’s father tests this newfound professionalism by 

offering him two future paths: he can live off his father’s 

wealth and spend his time idly; or he can go to a university, 

graduate, and join one of his father’s many business ventures and earn his way to the top. To his father’s delight, 

Harvey considers his choices and chooses the latter, harder 

choice. Yanked from his life of privilege and thrust into a 

world of hard work, Harvey has learned the values that will 

make him successful throughout the rest of his life.

The transformation from ordinary citizen to competent 

professional that Harvey undergoes is similar to the way the 

Army creates leaders out of individuals from all walks of life. 

Officers and enlisted Soldiers start in a basic course, where 

they learn to be followers and to work as a team toward mission accomplishment. They learn a moral code and a set of 

values. They learn that if they want a reward—a pass, an 

award, or a promotion—they have to earn it, because nothing will be handed to them. This is a difficult lesson for 

some people to learn, since they live in a society of instant 

gratification.

The Army teaches the fundamentals of physical fitness; and through exercise and tasks such as the obstacle 

course, foot marches, and squad training exercises, Soldiers 

shape their bodies into the tools and weapons that they can 

become. Soldiers learn responsibility for themselves, their 

unit, and their equipment. They are given increasingly difficult tasks to complete, but having built confidence in themselves and their team through training, they know that they 

can accomplish any task. They have evolved from private 

citizens into professionals of arms and have laid the foundation for leadership.

Captains Courageous also illustrates the importance of 

on-the-job training. Classroom training is an important step 

in education, but nothing prepares a Soldier to perform his 

or her combat mission better than performing that same 

mission in peacetime. Horizontal construction engineers 

conduct equipment operator training while on construction 

sites. Vertical construction engineers ensure that Soldiers 

can perform the tasks necessary to be proficient in their 

military occupational specialty and usually cross-train Soldiers so that they can perform the tasks of another specialty 

when needed. Not only does this training reinforce and hone 

the skills that Soldiers learn in advanced individual training, it also gives Soldiers a sense of accomplishment as they 

make a tangible contribution toward the completion of the 

construction mission. 

Captain Bruce is attending the Engineer Captains Career 

Course at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He holds a bachelor’s degree in international relations from the University 

of Nebraska at Omaha and is pursuing master’s degrees in 

geological engineering through the Missouri University of 

Science and Technology, Rolla, and international relations 

through Troy University, Troy, Alabama.

“Captains Courageous . . . illustrates the importance of 

on-the-job training. Classroom training is an 

important step in education, but nothing prepares a 

Soldier to perform his or her combat mission better than 

performing that same mission in peacetime.”
36 Engineer May–August 2013

Aplatoon of 22 Soldiers from the 6th Engineer Battalion deployed on 28 October 2012 from Joint Base 

.Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, to the island of Pohnpei in the Federated States of Micronesia to renovate a hospital there. After more than 10 years of combat, humanitarian deployments such as this have been rare, but are 

considered extremely beneficial for the United States and 

the host nation. While short-term exercises such as Balikatan and Cobra Gold are valuable, long-term projects like 

the 6-month hospital renovation help Soldiers improve their

leadership and military occupational skills, while crosstraining with their peers and building a solid foundation 

with host nation citizens.

Soldiers from eight military occupational specialties—

including carpenters, electricians, plumbers, 

a heavy equipment operator, and a physician’s 

assistant—comprised the platoon. Experience levels 

varied from beginners to veterans with more than 

10 years of practical work in construction. Augmenting the platoon were 30 host nation workers whose 

construction experience also varied widely. Working 

side by side with local workers benefited the project 

and the Soldiers by doubling the platoon’s efficiency, 

fostering an environment for cultural exchange, 

and enabling the formulation of a partnership to be 

formed between the two countries.

The Pohnpei State Hospital was constructed in 

the 1970s by a Korean construction firm and had 

seen little maintenance, mostly due to the lack 

of funds. For years, the hospital had been in dire 

need of renovations. The 92,000-square-foot facility 

provides services for more than 30,000 citizens on 

Pohnpei and is the only public hospital on the island. 

By First Lieutenant Nicole L. Thompson

Arctic Sappers Deploy 

to Pacific Island

A Soldier installs new cove base in a hospital office.
May–August 2013 Engineer 37

With a minimum wage of only $1.75 an hour, few of the local 

inhabitants can pay for health care at the three private clinics on the island, so the state hospital is the only health

facility they can access. 

Since the platoon would complete standard and nonstandard construction while mentoring and supervising 30 

local workers, predeployment training was essential for the

success of the project. Platoon leaders exercised creativity 

by seeking out civilian organizations to supplement training 

in the wood frame construction that is common in Alaska. 

The Soldiers worked with the Alaska Works Partnership 

and the Alaska Construction Academy, organizations that 

provide hands-on training to military members and veterans. The groups were thrilled to host two 40-hour blocks of 

instruction taught by qualified journeymen with more than 

30 years of construction experience. The 80 hours of training included drywall installation and repair, painting, and 

plumbing techniques. The knowledge gained during these 

classes created the opportunity for a smooth start to construction with minimal wasted materials. 

The catalyst for the hospital renovation project was the 

faulty roof. Although the precast concrete panels of the roof 

were in good shape, the joints had been leaking for more 

than 15 years. The extensive water damage to the interior 

of the buildings would have caused the hospital to be condemned if it had been in the United States. Pohnpei is one 

of the wettest places on the planet, receiving more than 

300 inches of rainfall annually. Therefore, a 5-foot, hairline 

crack could leak gallons of water into the hospital. Before 

any interior renovations could be completed, the structure 

had to be leak-free. The roof had three systems layered on 

top of each other: a tar-like base, an incomplete elastomeric 

coating, and corrugated tin supported by wooden purlins. 

The corrugated tin was installed in the early 2000s and had 

deteriorated. 

A new elastomeric roofing system, consisting of four coatings and a mesh fabric embedment, was commissioned for 

the hospital. This created a watertight seal on the hospital roof and lowered its surface temperature by more than 

40 degrees. On an island with an average daily temperature 

of 91 degrees, reducing the surface temperature significantly 

increased the energy efficiency of the hospital. It keeps the 

hospital cool and reduces its electrical and annual operating 

costs. Although the new roofing system was unfamiliar to 

the Soldiers and the local national workers, the installation 

process was simple.

During the initial assessment, the host nation government and hospital staff requested that the hospital get a 

face-lift. Because of the widespread water damage, the state 

hospital was seen as second class compared to the private 

clinics, even though it can provide a higher level of care. 

Most of the ceiling track was covered in rust, ceiling tiles 

were missing in about 15 percent of the hospital, and water 

damage was present in 80 percent of the hospital. There were 

six intermixed patterns of floor tile and areas where tiles 

were missing. Walls throughout the hospital were dented 

and scratched, with rotten drywall and metal studs in some 

places. As a remedy, the team installed 40,800 square feet of 

Above: A Soldier begins repairs on a section of 

delaminated concrete.

Left: As part of the partnership with the host nation, a 

Soldier shows a local worker how to install new lights.
38 Engineer May–August 2013

ceiling tile, 18,240 linear feet of ceiling track, 51,000 square 

feet of floor tile, 13,200 linear feet of cove base, and 10,000 

square feet of drywall. The platoon also applied paint to 

more than 120,000 square feet of the interior.

The original precast concrete structure was still serviceable, but multiple spalls and areas of delaminated concrete 

needed repairs. The damage to the concrete was likely 

caused by the corrosion of its embedded reinforcing rebar. 

The team repaired more than 760 cubic feet of damaged 

concrete. 

The electrical system was professionally installed 40 

years ago, but had not been properly maintained. Over the 

years, numerous additions had been installed, but none were 

up to code, thus posing safety concerns on the jobsite. The 

electricians had a challenging time figuring out the hospital 

wiring, because only about 10 percent of the circuit breakers were accurately labeled. Even using a circuit tracer, 

they had to spend at least twice as much time as initially 

estimated to identify the breakers correctly. In the end, the 

electricians ran more than 1,500 feet of wiring and installed 

320 receptacles, 55 switches, 215 light fixtures, 800 covers, 

25 exit signs, and 18 ceiling fans.

The plumbing had been similarly neglected since the 

hospital was constructed. Faulty plumbing, a lack of 

waste drainage, and leaking water lines closed 75 percent 

of the patient restrooms and 30 percent of the staff restrooms. Plumbing throughout the hospital was in such poor 

condition that 10 years ago, the hospital built three new 

bathroom additions connected to the patient wards rather 

than repair the existing fixtures. The 6th Engineer Battalion plumbers updated the system by installing 35 water 

closets, four urinals, 30 sinks, 65 faucet kits, five scrub 

sinks, and three showers. 

One of the biggest problems that the hospital faced was a 

lack of hot water. An Australian firm installed 30 solar water 

heaters on the roof 15 years ago. Each heater was attached 

to two solar panels and connected to a water source running into the hospital. The water heater tanks functioned, 

but the delivery system was failing for unknown reasons. 

Even after tracing the lines, the experienced 6th Engineer 

plumbers couldn’t find a cause for the failure. To remedy the 

problem, they installed nine tankless water heaters in critical areas of the hospital such as the operating room and the 

neonatal intensive care unit. 

Even though the Soldiers worked 12 to 15 hours per day,

5 to 7 days each week, they found time to enjoy the island. 

Soldiers joined intramural soccer and softball leagues; 

earned rescue diver certifications; and fished for tuna, barracuda, and mahi mahi. More than half the platoon spent time 

on the outer islands, hiking to local waterfalls, kayaking, 

and visiting historical sites such as Nan Madol (a 500-yearold city known as the “Venice of the Pacific”) and numerous 

Japanese bunkers from World War II. Local workers also 

took Soldiers on day trips around the island and invited 

them into their homes for meals. 

One of the platoon Soldiers actually knew where Pohnpei 

was before deploying for the mission: he was born on the 

island and grew up there. It was pure luck that he arrived in 

Alaska and was assigned to the platoon chosen to deploy to 

Micronesia. After experiencing a few months of cold weather 

in Alaska, he looked forward to spending the winter back 

home in the Pacific. As a native Pohnpei’n, he spoke the language and knew some of the host nation workers. He was 

promoted from private first class to specialist during the 

deployment, and his father pinned on his new rank during 

the ceremony. The project had a personal meaning to the 

Soldier, because he was born at the Pohnpei State Hospital, where his father currently receives dialysis treatments 

three times each week. 

The opportunity to work on a project of this magnitude 

was a unique experience for every member of the platoon. 

The Soldiers improved their military occupational skills and 

increased the quality of life for more than 30,000 citizens. 

The Soldiers made such a positive impact that four of the 

local workers took the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude 

Battery in hopes of joining the military. The renovated 

Pohnpei State Hospital has received accolades from U.S. 

Ambassador Dorothea Rosen and Governor John Esha.

First Lieutenant Thompson is a platoon leader with the 

6th Engineer Battalion. She was the officer in charge of the 

project and holds a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from 

the University of Minnesota.

One of the team plumbers prepares to install a sink in the 

emergency room.
May–August 2013 Engineer 39

The new Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

(MSCoE) Digital Training Facility (DTF), Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, offers professional military education students an enhanced educational experience. The 

DTF is a 62,000-square-foot, stand-alone, state-of-the-art 

educational facility with a focus on the use of Army common digital communication systems, gaming platforms, and 

constructive simulation exercises to educate and train the 

institutional force (U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command [TRADOC]) and the operational force (U.S. Army 

Forces Command [FORSCOM]) for the current operational 

environment. In addition, new technologies can be incorporated as they arise. 

Before the opening of the new DTF, digital training took 

place in the MSCoE Battle Simulation Center. A phased 

transfer of equipment and instructors began in September 

2012; and within a month, instruction was underway in the 

new DTF. By November 2012, the DTF was operating at full 

capability and all instruction that was previously conducted in 

the Battle Simulation Center was occurring in the DTF. More 

than 12,000 TRADOC and FORSCOM Soldiers were trained 

in the Battle Simulation Center and DTF during 2012, and 

it appears that the number will be exceeded for 2013. 

Planning for the DTF facility began in 2001. In 2004, an 

engineering firm presented the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with a 35 percent design plan. The funding necessary 

to proceed was received in 2008, and an architectural firm 

was hired to complete the initial part of the project. The 

Kansas City District, Northwestern Division, Corps of Engineers, supplied the project manager. The second part of the 

project—the actual construction—began in the fall of 2011.

The DTF supports the Army decision to embrace the 

use of digital platforms for the training and education of 

TRADOC and FORSCOM forces. These digital platforms, 

which are available in a variety of configurations, fall under 

the auspices of several program offices. The MSCoE DTF

supports—

■ Mission command instruction on common digital communication systems (such as Force XXI Battle Command 

Brigade and Below [FBCB2] with Joint Capabilities 

Release (JCR) software and Command Post of the Future 

[CPOF]) and on other digital systems (such as Tactical

Ground Reporting [TiGR]). Furthermore, unique applications such as the Joint Effects Module (JEM) and the 

Joint Warning and Reporting Network (JWARN) are 

integrated to support the education of U.S. Army

By Mr. Robert B. McFarland
40 Engineer May–August 2013

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear School

(USACBRNS) students.

■ Gaming instruction through the use of gaming products such as Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2)TM, UrbanSim, 

Enhanced Learning Environments With Creative Technologies (ELECT) Bilateral Negotiation Trainer (BiLAT), 

and Moral Combat. Each of these games is designed to 

help achieve a learning objective based on the needs of 

the Soldier student. Game selections are designed to

accommodate individual learners or collective groups. In 

some instances, instruction may progress from individuals to groups.

■ Constructive simulation exercises using capabilities for 

current and future simulations, with varying degrees of

support requirements depending on the type of simulation used—primarily low-overhead simulation/stimulation capability types such as the Army Low-Overhead 

Training Toolkit (ALOTT) and its suite of simulation

tools. The ALOTT is used in the following cases:

Q Major combat operations brigade and above command staff processes.

Q Major combat operations battalion and below command staff processes.

Q Defense support of civil authorities operations brigade and above command staff processes.

The DTF is equipped with—

■ Twenty 16-person tactical-operation centers.

■ Two 52-person FBCB2/constructive simulation 

laboratories.

■ Three gaming laboratories capable of accommodating 

145 people.

■ Three mission command system laboratories capable of 

accommodating 172 people.

■ Three after action rooms with

moveable walls (which provide a secure setting when

required), each capable of

accommodating 63 people, or

a total of 189 people.

■ One video teleconference 

room capable of accommodating 30 people.

■ Two dedicated server rooms

(one of which is secure).

■ Administrative space for 54

people.

■ Six hardstand external connection points for tactical

vehicles.

■ A storage area with a loading

dock.

The unique role of Fort Leonard Wood as an installation 

that supports the training and education of TRADOC and 

FORSCOM organizations and units through the use of virtual, constructive simulations and gaming devices provides 

the opportunity to create the integrated training environment that the Army envisions for the force. The MSCoE DTF 

offers common training tools for the institutional base and 

students attending professional military education courses 

and then facilitates the transition of those graduates who 

remain part of the operational force at Fort Leonard Wood 

into the home station environment, where they have the 

opportunity to use those tools.

The DTF is primarily designed for the MSCoE TRADOC 

mission, but has further potential as a training platform for 

other venues, limited only by the imagination and the white 

space on the training calendar. For example, the DTF could 

be used for functional and multifunctional unit command 

post exercises, homeland security exercises, joint training 

exercises, and other interagency exercises. As the Army 

continues to pursue a live, virtual, constructive simulation 

and gaming integrated training environment with which to 

train its forces, the MSCoE DTF—properly resourced and 

managed—brings that vision one step closer to reality.

Mr. McFarland is the education and training supervisor, Training Instruction Branch, Assistant Chief of Staff 

for Operations and Training (G-3), MSCoE. He is a retired 

Army infantry lieutenant colonel and former battalion commander. He holds a bachelor’s degree in wildlife resource 

management from Southwest Missouri State University (now 

Missouri State University) and master’s degrees in management from Webster University and in military arts and science from the School of Advanced Military Studies, Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas .

Soldiers receive instruction in the new, state-of-the-art DTF.

PIN: 103077