Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is published three times a 

year by the U.S. Army Engineer School and the MSCoE 

G-37 Publications, 464 MANSCEN Loop, Building 3201, 

Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8926. 

Periodicals postage is paid at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, 

and additional mailing offices.

Articles to be considered for publication are due

15 December, 15 April, and 15 August. Send submissions

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

dengdoc@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, 

464 MANSCEN Loop, Building 3201, Suite 2661, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8926. 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, 464 MANSCEN 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 address: <usarmy.leonardwood

.mscoe.mbx.cdidcodddengdoc@mail.mil>; Internet home

page: <http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/default.htm>.

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 Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 

979050, St. Louis, Missouri 63197-9000.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

RAYMOND T. ODIERNO

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

JOYCE E. MORROW

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

1211101

U.S. Army Engineer School

(573) 563-8080/DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

BG Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca

563-6192

<peter.deluca@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Barry K. Williams 

563-6192

<barry.williams@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY COMMANDANT

Mr. James R. Rowan

563-8080

<james.rowan@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Terrence W. Murphy

563-8060

<terrence.murphy@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER

CW5 Scott R. Owens

563-4088

<scott.owens@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Adam S. Roth 

563-8045

<adam.roth@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Rodney M. Graham 

563-8046

<rodney.m.graham@us.army.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Phillip M. Secrist

563-7116

<phillip.secrist@us.army.mil>

COMMANDER, 1ST ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Daniel S. Larsen

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<daniel.larsen@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

LTC Paul Huszar

563-4093

<paul.huszar@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Mr. Robert F. Danner

563-2845

<robert.f.danner@us.army.mil>

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

LTC Chris Barron 

563-8142

<chris.barron@us.army.mil>

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER

Mr. Jonathan D. Green

563-6199

<jonathan.d.green@us.army.mil>

ENGINEER DOCTRINE, MSCoE CDID, CODDD

LTC Sinlan Morrow

563-2717

<sinlan.morrow@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT ORGANIZATION

Mr. Don Wenzel

563-7264

<don.wenzel@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT MATERIEL

LTC Chris A. Parks

563-5055

<chris.parks1@us.army.mil>
E R

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Brigadier General 

Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Terrence W. Murphy

04 Show the Way

By Chief Warrant Officer Five

Scott R. Owens

10 Regimental Awards

22 Dedication

42 Engineer Doctrine Update

49 Past In Review–“The Engineer 

School of Application at Willets

Point 1866–1901”

By Mr. Gustav J. Person

Inside back cover

GPO Publication and Subscription Order Form

MANAGING EDITOR

Diane E. Eidson

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Phyllis E. Grayson

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca

FEATURES

05 ENFORCE 2012: Engineering for the Wars We Fight

By Colonel Adam S. Roth

08 ENFORCE 2012 Working Groups and Panels

By Mr. Michael A. Dascanio

11 Best Sapper 2012

By Mrs. Melissa K. Buckley

13 Sapper Leader Course History

 By Captain Joseph A. Cymerman and Major Kevin R. Golinghorst

16 With Honor and Success: Full Spectrum Joint Engineer Planning

in Support of Operation New Dawn

 By Brigadier General Scott F. (Rock) Donahue, Lieutenant Colonel 

Michael C. Gibson, Major James M. Rohrer, and Captain Jonathan 

M. Diaz

20 The Sidewinders: Most Versatile Team in the Desert

 By Major Gerald S. Law

23 Engineers Join in Project to Honor Vietnam Veterans

By Mr. Joseph Bonfiglio

24 USACE Doesn’t Play Shell Games With Turtle Protection

 By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

26 ENFORCE 2012 Photo Essay

28 The Extraordinary Career of Lieutenant General Frank A. Camm—

Three Tenets for Building Great Engineers

By Colonel Paul B. Olsen

32 Inspection Team Goes to New Heights

By Mr. George E. Stringham

34 Project Management in Afghanistan

By Captain Kathryn A. Werback

36 Development of Training Areas for a Multirole Bridge Company

By Captain Russell F. Calloway

38 Capacity Builders and Developers: A Case for Theater-Enabling 

Engagement Engineers in Security Cooperation Operations

By Colonel Bruce A. Estok

45 Linking the Three Legs of the Stool

By Major Robert R. Phillipson

48 U.S. Army Geospatial Center Provides Free Modeling and Simulation Terrain Databases

From U.S. Army Geospatial Center

Volume 42 PB 5-12-2 Headquarters, Department of the Army May–August 2012

NGINEE

U.S. ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

May–August 2012 Engineer 1

Front cover: ENFORCE 2012

Back cover: Best Sapper Competition 

2012 (Photos by Fort Leonard Wood 

Visual Information Center) 
2 Engineer May–August 2012

 

Clear the Way 

Brigadier General Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca

Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School

Thank you to everyone who helped 

make ENFORCE 2012 such a great 

event. The team superbly executed 

all of the usual competitive and celebratory events. We remembered our fallen, 

which is supremely important; but just as 

important, we accomplished a tremendous 

amount of work to advance the changes in 

the Regiment. It makes all the sacrifices 

of our Soldiers and their families meaningful and contributory to our regimental 

awareness, understanding, and readiness 

for current and future missions. We probably accomplished 3 to 4 months’ work in 

1 week across every aspect of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership 

and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) for our 

engineers. Essayons!

For those who could not attend or participate remotely 

in ENFORCE, many very useful and informative presentations are online at <https://www.us.army.mil/suite

/files/36000794>. The Regimental Update is also online 

at <https://www.blackboard.wood.army.mil/vids/BG_De

Luca/>. 

There are three main points to keep in focus: 

■ Swiss Army knife. Army engineers are the multipurpose

engineer tool the Army needs. We are not niche “specialists” in only one kind of military engineering.

■ The lodgment as key and decisive terrain for the 

Army. Nothing will happen if the engineers don’t deliver 

the right effects in a rapid manner to open lodgments

so that America can apply her combat power to achieve 

the objective.

■ Army engineers must be adaptable. Our people, especially those who arrive early in a lodgment, must be agile and able to perform with the people and tools at hand, 

earning the title Corpo de Genio, or “Corps of Geniuses.” 

It seems clear that the brigade engineer battalion will 

become a reality and that the operational environment 

will continue to evolve to a situation in which most of the 

U.S. Army will be located in the United States by 2017, 

a condition we have not seen since 1941. Therefore, we 

knew that it was time to review many 

aspects of our DOTMLPF as they relate 

to our echelon-above-brigade engineer 

force (still more than 73 percent of our 

total engineer force even after full implementation of one brigade engineer battalion per brigade combat team). This 

review is underway, and it is holistic. 

Some of the things we are looking at

include—

■ Type of forces needed.

■ Equipment training and certification.

■ Organizations and where to embed

them.

■ Optimal engineer staffs at division, corps, theater 

Army, and joint task force level.

■ Force mix.

■ School and home station training-range enablers.

We need and want your input for the redesign of the 

echelons-above-brigade engineer force. Take your experiences in the most recent two wars; look at history when we 

have faced similar challenges to the emerging operational 

environment; and send us notes, ideas, and articles for publication. We will use them. We have our own good ideas, 

which we will test and refine with the field, but we are always looking for more ways to help make the Regiment even 

better than it is. I hope that you can see the intent to include 

good ideas from all sources in the contents of this professional bulletin; in the openness displayed during visits around 

the world by the commandant, the regimental command sergeant major, and regimental chief warrant officer; and in 

our daily interactions with engineers in the field. 

We have an unusual and immediate opportunity to make 

some significant changes for the better in the current environment. There is a window of opportunity that will last 

18 months or so before we routinize our processes again. 

Let’s use this opportunity to incorporate all that we have 

learned and all that we foresee to make the military engineers of the U.S. Army the best engineers in our country 

and society and the best engineers in the history of warfare. 

Essayons!

“We have an unusual and immediate opportunity to make some 

significant changes for the better in the current environment.”
May–August 2012 Engineer 3

Lead the Way 

Command Sergeant Major Terrence W. Murphy

Regimental Command Sergeant Major

I

have been the U.S. Army Engineer 

School and Regimental Command 

Sergeant Major for a year now. I 

continue to be in awe of the things that 

our Soldiers in this great Engineer Regiment do every day. We recently completed 

ENFORCE 2012, and it was an extraordinary week of engineers coming together to 

get things done. This was a very robust week 

of working groups, formal and informal 

forums, and guest speaker engagements. 

The U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

of Excellence commanding general delivered an overview of Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri. The acting Chief of Engineers 

provided a State of the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers update, and the Engineer 

School commandant provided an overview of the Engineer 

Regimental campaign plan. Many attendees took advantage of the opportunity to conduct key leader engagements, 

and everyone raved about the keynote address by General 

David H. Petraeus (Retired), director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who spoke via video teleconference. 

There were many other forums, including geospatial 

and energy sessions and a few other plenary forums. The 

416th Theater Engineer Command executed its change of 

command ceremony, with Major General Paul E. Crandall 

relinquishing command to Brigadier General Charles D. 

Martin. That event took place just before the U.S. Army 

Reserve birthday celebration. 

Our week culminated with the Regimental Command 

Council, the Council of Warrant Officers, and the Regimental Ball. It was a great week of camaraderie and teamwork across the entire Engineer Regiment, from company, 

battalion, brigade, and higher. As is our tradition at the 

Regimental Ball, we presented Gold de Fleury Medals to 

General Petraeus and Colonel John M. Morgan (Retired) 

for exceptionally meritorious service and dedication to the 

Engineer Regiment. Mr. Morgan was at the ball to receive 

his medal. General Petraeus received his medal earlier, and 

his videotaped remarks were played at the Regimental Ball. 

My daughters Jessica and Christine and I were honored to 

receive the Essayons Medal for my late wife Rhonda. She 

received it posthumously for her faithful service in supporting Soldiers, military families, and the Engineer Regiment. 

We also executed the Best Sapper 

competition, a grueling event where expert Sappers from all across the Engineer Regiment came together to compete 

for the title. This year, 38 teams of two 

began the 72-hour competition, which 

tested the limits of their physical and 

mental abilities. The numerous events 

of the competition culminated with 

the “X-mile” run. Competitors finished 

at Gerlach Field by breaking through 

metal doors and running through a huge 

engineer castle. The first-place team 

consisted of Captain Michael P. Kendall 

and Staff Sergeant Frank E. Batts Jr., 

82d Airborne Division; the second-place 

team was Captain Thomas L. Hatfield 

and Captain Nassar G. Jabour, 54th Engineer Battalion; 

and third place was First Lieutenant Isaac Olsen and First 

Lieutenant Casey L. Williams, 307th Engineer Battalion. 

Congratulations to those teams for placing in the top three 

and to all of the teams who participated in this great event!

I want to highlight the upcoming 237th U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineer birthday celebration. The Engineer Regiment 

will celebrate with a regimental run, a regimental muster 

with a cake-cutting hosted by Brigadier General Peter A. 

(Duke) DeLuca and me, and an opportunity to win a commemorative Citadel Model 1911 .45-caliber semiautomatic 

Colt pistol honoring Wounded Warriors. The 1st Engineer 

Brigade will sponsor a regimental motorcycle ride at Fort 

Leonard Wood to raise money for the Army Engineer 

Association Wounded Warrior Fund.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was born on 16 June 

1775, when General George Washington appointed Colonel Richard Gridley as “Chief Engineer” of the Continental 

Army. A Corps of Engineers for the United States was authorized on 11 March 1779. Engineer Soldiers—then called 

Sappers and miners—played a significant role in the Revolutionary War. Most notably, Sappers were key in preparing 

the defense around strategic points such as Bunker Hill and 

in leading assaults through fortified enemy positions such 

as Redoubt No. 10 at the Battle of Yorktown. Please share 

the photos of your unit celebrations of the 237th birthday of 

this great regiment. Send photos to Mrs. Kristen L. Jenner 

at <kristen.l.jenner.civ@mail.mil>. 

“I continue to be in awe of the things that our Soldiers 

in this great Engineer Regiment do every day.”
4 Engineer May–August 2012

Chief Warrant Officer Five Scott R. Owens

Regimental Chief Warrant Officer 

Show the Way 

“The next few years will bring many changes as we reset 

the Engineer Regiment to provide the Army with the

capability it needs now and will need in the future. . . .”

I

t’s the week after ENFORCE 2012 

as I write this edition of Show the 

Way, and the excitement and residual energy from last week still linger in 

my thoughts. It was a fast-paced week 

filled with highly productive meetings, 

briefings, working groups, and social 

events. Just as important, we had a record turnout of warrant officers, which 

made it all the more fun. The room was 

filled for the Regimental Warrant Officer Council on 21 April, and we shared a 

lot of information with the group. I trust 

that everyone enjoyed the comradeship 

we shared and found the presentations 

valuable. My heartfelt thanks go out to 

all of you who were able to attend.

Last week, we kicked off the first Warrant Officer

Advanced Course for geospatial engineering technicians 

(military occupational specialty 125D) at Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri, with nine students. We also graduated 

the first expanded (26-week) Warrant Officer Basic Course 

for construction engineering technicians (military occupational specialty 120A), also with nine students. It’s great 

to see the 125D and 120A populations interacting with 

each other and with the commissioned and noncommissioned officer students while undergoing training here. 

Those bonds will only grow stronger over time.

Now that ENFORCE is over, we are focused on building upon the momentum that was started. Brigadier 

General Peter A. (Duke) DeLuca asked us to pass on that 

your presence at ENFORCE 2012 enabled us to cram

3 months of work into 1 week. Your participation helped 

lay the foundation for us to carry out the task of “Engineering for the Wars We Fight.” By the time you read this, 

we should have the concepts for engineer capabilities embedded where they need to be solidified. 

The next few years will bring many changes as we reset the Engineer Regiment to provide the Army with the

capability it needs now and will need in the future, so it is 

more important than ever to keep the 

communications lines open and active. 

The best way for us to do this is to use 

the following engineer warrant officer 

milBook sites:

■ <https://www.milsuite.mil/book

/groups/engineer-branch-junior

	 -warrant-officer-group>.

■ <https://www.milsuite.mil/book

/groups/senior-engineer-warrant

	 -officer-group>.

By using these forums, we can accomplish three main objectives:

■ Provide a venue to share ideas and

experiences while soliciting input 

from others. 

■ Serve as a historical record and effective platform for

newly accessed warrant officers to build on their 

knowledge and gain insights from the experiences of 

those who came before them. 

■ Decrease the duplicate e-mail chains that go around 

but don’t necessarily reach everyone who might benefit from the discussions. 

As a rule of thumb, if you are curious about something, 

then chances are that others will be curious as well. By 

collaborating on these sites, we can strengthen our engineer warrant officer cohort and get to know each other 

better. 

Finally, I’d like to pass my personal thanks to our 

outgoing Honorary Chief Warrant Officer of the Regiment, Chief Warrant Officer Four Arthur “Jim” Flinn 

(Retired). Jim closed out his tenure by giving a deeply moving presentation as the guest speaker for the 

ENFORCE prayer breakfast. He and his lovely wife 

Karen shared a great time with us at the Regimental 

Ball. Thank you, Jim!

Essayons et Faissons!
May–August 2012 Engineer 5

The Engineer Regimental Conference—ENFORCE—

for 2012 was truly a memorable experience, not 

only for celebrating the accomplishments of the 

Engineer Regiment while at war, but also for setting conditions across the Regiment for solving the toughest challenges that lie ahead as we move toward an uncertain 

future. This article will encapsulate many of the takeaways from the event, especially for those who were

unable to attend due to duty commitments worldwide. The theme of

the conference evoked the reality

that the next war we fight may not 

be the same as the last one, especially in an era of hybrid threats, 

area access/area denial challenges,

and the emergence of the newest 

dimension—cyberspace—as a possible battlefield.

Commandant Regimental 

Update

Brigadier General Peter A. 

(Duke) DeLuca, 94th commandant of the Engineer 

Regiment and U.S. Army Engineer 

School, set conditions for the conference by laying out the regimental 

campaign plan and areas of focus 

for the coming year. Two compelling facts make the regimental 

campaign plan an important document. First, it is fully nested within 

the Army campaign plan and the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence campaign plan, meaning that our objectives complement those of the Army. Second, considering 

the regimental campaign plan as a schoolhouse missionessential task list, we conduct an assessment of that list every 2 weeks during engineer roundtable discussions to ensure the validity of the tasks and to check progress toward 

the completion of established goals.

By Colonel Adam S. Roth

Major General Merdith W.B. (Bo) Temple, Colonel John M. Morgan (Retired), and 

Brigadier General Peter A. (Duke) Deluca
6 Engineer May–August 2012

Brigadier General DeLuca, explaining the role of the engineers within a larger context, said that we serve as the 

“Swiss Army knife of the Army.” The resilience, technical 

breadth and depth, and tactical competence we provide 

will be key attributes as we move forward, especially in an 

expeditionary Army with the preponderance of our forces 

based in the homeland. The flexibility that we provide to the 

maneuver commander to solve the most complex engineering challenges will be that much more critical as we move 

forward.

Operational Energy

Ms. Sharon E. Burke (Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs) and Mr. Richard Kidd (Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Energy and Partnerships) provided a unique discussion on the topic of energy and how 

it affects the Army strategically. They led an interactive 

forum that allowed the audience to pose questions about 

the impact of new construction, contingency basing, and 

the holistic approach to energy security as we move into a 

future of financial and energy constraints.

Spouse Program

Critical to the success of our Sappers are spouses and 

families. The 1st Engineer Brigade provides numerous venues for many Sapper spouses to see the things 

that engineers do and even experience them personally. 

Spouses had the opportunity at Training Area 244 to see 

many of the items of equipment that our force uses, to eat in 

a military dining facility, and to experience a room-clearing 

exercise. It served to give the spouses a better perspective on 

what their Sappers do and deepened their relationship with 

the Army that they serve in a different capacity.

Regimental Run

On the morning of

20 April, Brigadier General DeLuca and Major 

General Merdith W.B. (Bo) Temple, acting Chief of Engineers, led 

the Engineer Regiment on its annual run through Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri. For anyone who 

participated in the run, the emotions were unmistakable as we 

sounded the “rhythms of war” with 

our feet.

Reserve Components

The Army National Guard 

and the U.S. Army Reserve 

comprise more than 80 percent of the Engineer Regiment. 

Senior engineer leaders of both 

components led meetings during 

ENFORCE that helped to solidify the way ahead for their 

component contributions to the Army of 2020. Subject matter of the meetings included—

■ Hands-on career management.

■ Theater security cooperation planning.

■ Mobilization authorities and changes to the law.

■ Proposed changes to the echelons-above-brigade engineer force structure.

A way ahead was formed for future conferences that 

will seek to tie the efforts of both components into a single 

venue.

Also during ENFORCE, the 416th Theater Engineer 

Command—one of only two theater engineer commands 

in the Army—held a change-of-command ceremony. Major 

General Paul E. Crandall relinquished command to Brigadier General Charles D. Martin in a ceremony followed 

by the celebration of the 104th birthday of the U.S. Army 

Reserve. Both theater engineer commands have supported 

overseas contingency operations since 11 September 2001 

and continue to provide trained and ready Soldiers and 

units to the Army and the joint force.

Regimental Command Council

The Regimental Command Council, held at the Engineer Regimental Room, provided the venue for senior leaders—officers, warrant officers, and noncommissioned officers—from all three components to receive status 

briefings on the Engineer Regiment and provide feedback 

about the challenges that remain. Topics included—

■ Total Army Analysis process.

■ The role of the combat training center move to unified 

land operations.

The 1st Engineer Brigade provides numerous venues for Sapper spouses to see 

the things that engineers do and even experience them personally.
May–August 2012 Engineer 7

■ Engineer effects required for 

forcible-entry operations.

■ Future of route clearance.

The council consists of colonel 

level commanders and command 

sergeants major; theater engineer

commanders and command sergeants major; directors; Army

service component command engineers, their chief warrant officers, 

and noncommissioned officer counterparts; and others by invitation. 

A final topic at the council included Project Peach, the Operation Iraqi Freedom history project, 

which was briefed by Dr. David 

J. Ulbrich, U.S. Army Engineer 

School historian. The project will 

include a volume produced by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

another produced by the school. The key to accomplishing 

this task is participation by officers, warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and Soldiers from the Regular Army, 

Army National Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve; and retirees who report their insights into engineer contributions to 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Dr. Ulbrich can be contacted at 

<david.j.ulbrich.civ@mail.mil> or (573) 563-6365 to schedule a personal interview while memories are still vivid. 

Fallen Sapper Memorial

With the Army at war, the realities of combat have 

affected the Engineer Regiment. Many families 

of fallen Sappers attended special events during 

ENFORCE that may allow them to continue the healing process. Brigadier General DeLuca and Regimental Command 

Sergeant Major Terrence W. Murphy participated in a dinner for those families in the Regimental Room, followed by 

a memorial ceremony at the Fort Leonard Wood Memorial 

Chapel to honor Sappers who have fallen during the past 

year. The event culminated with a wreath-laying at the 

Engineer Memorial Grove. 

Chief ’s Address

Major General Temple addressed all participants 

on the future of the Engineer Regiment in an interactive session that covered many of the main 

challenges of the future, to include the engineer contribution to the Army of 2020, the role of the engineer in civilian 

infrastructure, and the role of technical competence in the 

engineer force of today and tomorrow. 

Keynote Speaker

The Engineer Regiment was honored to have General 

David H. Petraeus (Retired) as the keynote speaker.

General Petraeus, former commander of U.S. 

forces in Afghanistan who is now serving as the director for 

the Central Intelligence Agency, provided unique insights 

into how the threat environment will evolve, based on his 

rich military experience and his current duties. His interactive discussion, moderated by Brigadier General DeLuca, 

allowed the audience to ask probing questions about the 

threat challenges ahead and how the engineers will need to 

meet and solve those challenges to support national military 

objectives.

Regimental Ball

The Engineer Regimental Ball honored those who have 

contributed to the Engineer Regiment. Among those 

honored was Colonel John M. Morgan (Retired), who 

received the coveted Gold de Fleury Medal for a lifetime

of service. 

In Context

ENFORCE served to bring the Engineer Regiment together, but was only a waypoint on the long journey 

to the Army of 2020 and beyond. It is only with your 

support that the discussion remains alive, vibrant, and relevant. Engage in forums on the Engineer School Knowledge 

Network (ESKN), contribute to Engineer, participate in the 

numerous teleconferences that are held on a recurring basis, 

and above all—keep in touch. 

Colonel Roth serves as the Deputy Assistant Commandant 

(Army Reserve) at the U.S. Army Engineer School. Before his 

graduation from the U.S. Army War College, he served as 

the commanding officer of the 844th Engineer Battalion and 

deployed to Iraq as part of Task Force Sky. He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College and holds 

a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Boston 

University. 

Major General Temple addresses participants on the future of the Engineer

Regiment.
8 Engineer May–August 2012

ENFORCE 2012 working groups and panels were 

well-attended, content-rich events with powerful takeaways for everyone in the audience. Each 

working group and panel was led by experts in their fields 

and provided an opportunity for the Engineer Regiment to 

hear several knowledgeable people present information and 

discuss personal views. They were all great discussions that 

provided a better understanding of issues that are particularly relevant to engineering for the wars we fight. 

ENFORCE Working Groups

The overarching theme for the ENFORCE working groups was the Regimental Training Network. It is composed of all those involved with engineer 

training—Regular Army and Reserve Components—and includes individual and collective training. To address the many 

issues impacting the network, three working groups were

conducted. 

Group 1—Engineer Institutional Training Working 

Group (EITWG) and the One Army School System 

(OASS)

This group worked to ensure that engineers get the best 

institutional training possible. It addressed and resolved issues within the engineer training centers and regional training institutes for all three components and developed ways 

to implement the OASS. This effort improved the synchronization of the three engineer component school systems to 

help Soldiers attend the right class at the right time, regardless of component.

Discussion during the first part of this meeting centered 

on the EITWG and identified shortfalls in training resource

and support requirements for the Engineer Regiment’s Reserve Component. The working group included representatives from the Regular Army, Army National Guard, and 

U.S. Army Reserve. The working group identified issues in, 

and determined solutions for, distributed learning instruction. Solutions included extended help desk hours, improved 

enrollment procedures, and a reduction in student backlog. Other major areas of concern were schoolhouse issues 

such as equipping and program-of-instruction validation. 

These initiatives, although small, will create significant improvements for Reserve Component units and Soldiers once

implemented. 

Most of the group’s work was informational, providing 

knowledge about OASS and including a detailed briefing 

and discussion session with a spokesman from the Reserve 

Component Training Integration Directorate at U.S. Army 

Training and Doctrine Command. The technical engineer 

military occupational specialty (12T) was identified for 

possible OASS conversion; courses of action will be developed to make the 12T advanced and senior leader courses 

OASS-compliant. 

Group 2—Engineer Training Network

This working group examined current engineer training support to the Army force generation cycle. Engineer 

training focuses on planning horizons that require systems 

to be in place early to achieve assured and predictable access to Regular Army and Reserve Component units. The 

group worked to identify the mechanisms needed throughout the Army force generation cycle to provide support to all 

engineer units.

By Mr. Michael A. Dascanio
May–August 2012 Engineer 9

One important issue discussed was the synchronization 

of training opportunities for independent units. Major General Michael R. Eyre, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers deputy 

commanding general for Reserve Affairs, and Major General 

James H. Trogdon III, assistant adjutant general–Army, 

North Carolina National Guard, will cooperate to track 

training requirements and link with other units for missions 

such as disaster relief. Another area of concern identified 

is how to determine training gaps for the next war: Where 

were there gaps in past training? What is currently happening in theater? What should be trained for possible future 

conflicts? The consensus was that the Engineer Regiment 

should be involved in combat training center operations 

for hybrid-threat/decisive-action training feedback in order 

to keep abreast of what is being seen in theater. Finally, 

there is confusion across the spectrum about the training 

mission dates and needs of mobilizing units. Currently, missions often turn into individual tasks rather than unit tasks. 

Monthly videoteleconferences are planned to prevent this 

and to provide a discussion forum to ensure that mobilizing unit training mission dates and needs are adequately 

synchronized.

Group 3—Engineer Collective Home Station Training 

Enablers

The purpose of this working group was to develop solutions to ensure that engineer leaders and units are capable 

of planning, preparing, executing, and assessing training. 

It discussed current engineer collective and home station 

training, to include new equipment training, doctrine and 

tactics training, mobile training teams, and commanders 

sustainment training. It also investigated ways to better 

meld leader, battle staff, and individual training requirements into collective training events for the Engineer 

Regiment. 

This working group discussed several collective training 

issues that will be considered for inclusion in the regimental 

campaign plan. One was the desire for better information 

sharing. Engineer leaders want a centralized information 

site that pushes information to them. The recommendation 

to address this issue was to reconsider the current Web site 

design and capability to push information. Also, engineer 

leaders want engineer qualification training tables designed 

for construction/geospatial military occupational specialties. Many felt that the current Combined Arms Training 

Strategies—designed using the Department of the Armyapproved Army force generation templates—do not support 

the actual time available for training. This design will be 

reconsidered with the goal of improving usability.

ENFORCE Panels

This year’s ENFORCE panel discussions brought together experts from throughout the Engineer Regiment to discuss important subjects and offer their 

points of view. The panels were also followed by breakout 

sessions where participants further investigated the topic, 

determined solutions, and recommended changes to the 

regimental campaign plan. The panels viewed the plan 

through the prism of four topic areas:

■ Geospatial engineering.

■ Special operations forces (SOF) engineers.

■ Interagency and intergovernmental support to engineer 

efforts.

■ Joint and multinational engineers.

The panels determined where gaps required new decision 

points to support the topic areas or the revision of current 

decision points to accommodate those unique areas. 

Panel 1—Geospatial Engineering

This panel discussed the current state of geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) partnerships and identified issues that 

require further development or monitoring. It examined the 

current state of GEOINT capabilities and whether a gap 

in GEOINT support capabilities exists for global missions.

Finally, it identified actions and action officers assigned 

with deliverables. 

As a result of this discussion, it was decided to revise 

the memorandum of agreement between the U.S. Army 

Intelligence Center of Excellence and the U.S. Army Engineer School. The revision will recognize the successes that 

military intelligence and engineering have achieved in

GEOINT and address identified gaps in doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities. The gaps include—

■ Army Foundry Intelligence Training Program.

■ Iraq Reconstruction Operations Center collective

training.

■ Contingency operations.

■ Doctrine.

■ Engineer force structure redesign.

■ GEOINT collective tasks.

As a part of this initiative, a training support package based on Army Research Institute and combat training center studies for senior leader engagement about 

GEOINT capabilities and services will be developed. This 

will ensure that the importance of geospatial engineering as 

a cross-domain solution within the Department of Defense 

is recognized.

Panel 2—SOF Engineers

This panel articulated SOF requirements for engineer 

support and improved leader understanding of SOF engineers within the Engineer Regiment. Gaps were identified 

in force structure, training, and equipment. Recommendations to address theses gaps included—

■ The creation of a special operations engineer force at 

echelons above brigade, similar to the 249th Engineer 

Battalion (Prime Power).

(continued on page 15)
10 Engineer May–August 2012

Each year we recognize the best engineer company, 

platoon leader, warrant officer, noncommissioned 

officer, enlisted Soldier, and civilian employee in 

each component for outstanding contributions and service 

to our Regiment and the Army. Every engineer unit in the 

Regiment can submit the name and achievements of its 

best to compete in these distinguished award competitions. 

Only the finest engineer companies, Soldiers, and civilians are selected to receive these awards. They will carry, 

throughout their careers, the distinction and recognition of 

being the best and brightest of the Engineer Branch. Following are the results of the 2011 selection boards for the 

Itschner, Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly), 

Outstanding Engineer Warrant Officer, Engineer Soldier of 

the Year (Van Autreve), and Outstanding Civilian of the 

Year Awards and the Sturgis Medal.

Regular Army

Itschner Award: 643d Engineer Company, 84th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade, U.S. Army Pacific.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

First Lieutenant Brittany Clark, 535th Engineer Company, 54th Engineer Battalion, 18th Engineer Brigade, U.S. 

Army Europe.

Outstanding Engineer Warrant Officer Award: Chief 

Warrant Officer Two Weaver D. Prosper, 142d Survey and 

Design Detachment, 84th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade, U.S. Army Pacific.

Engineer Soldier of the Year (Van Autreve) Award: Specialist Devon C. Fox, Company A, 40th Engineer Battalion, 

170th Infantry Brigade, U.S. Army Europe.

Outstanding Civilian of the Year Award: Mr. Harry S. 

Hayduk, Company D, 35th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. 

Sturgis Medal: Sergeant First Class Robert E. McEntire, 

561st Engineer Company, 84th Engineer Battalion, 130th 

Engineer Brigade, U.S. Army Pacific.

Note. The Regular Army winning submissions can

be viewed at <https://www.us.army.mil/suite/files/367

69114> (a common access card is required).

Army National Guard

Itschner Award: 623d Engineer Company (Vertical); 

Nebraska Army National Guard; Wahoo, Nebraska.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award: 

First Lieutenant Brian C. Ross; 649th Engineer Company (Horizontal); California Army National Guard; Chico,

California.

Outstanding Engineer Warrant Officer Award: Chief 

Warrant Officer Two Robert E. Sexton; 1430th Engineer 

Company (Vertical); Michigan Army National Guard; Gladstone, Michigan.

Engineer Soldier of the Year (Van Autreve) Award: Specialist Ryan E. Lindberg; 817th Engineer Company (Sapper); North Dakota Army National Guard; Jamestown, 

North Dakota.

Sturgis Medal: Sergeant Pierre R. Laroussini, 231st 

Survey and Design Team; Mississippi Army National 

Guard; Gulfport, Mississippi.

U.S. Army Reserve

Itschner Award: 428th Engineer Company, 379th Engineer Battalion, 372d Engineer Brigade.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

Captain Marcus C. Eason, 672d Engineer Company, 

321st Engineer Battalion, 202d Maneuver Enhancement 

Brigade.

Outstanding Engineer Warrant Officer Award: Chief 

Warrant Officer Two Hermino Romero, 471st Engineer 

Company, 448th Engineer Battalion, 210th Regional Support Group.

Engineer Soldier of the Year (Van Autreve) Award: Specialist Patrick L. Griffith, 336th Engineer Company, 463d 

Engineer Battalion, 411th Engineer Brigade.

Outstanding Civilian of the Year Award: Mr. James R. 

Dervaes, 659th Engineer Company, 321st Engineer Battalion, 301st Maneuver Enhancement Brigade.

Sturgis Medal: Staff Sergeant Connie M. Cavanaugh, 

652d Engineer Company, 397th Engineer Battalion, 372d 

Engineer Brigade.

Regimental Awards
May–August 2012 Engineer 11

One competitor described the competition as smashing the 28-day Sapper Leader Course into 53 hours of grueling tasks spread across Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri. Now two Soldiers have proven

that they are the 2012 Best Sappers—

Captain Michael P. Kendall Jr. and 

Staff Sergeant Frank E. Batts, 82d 

Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North 

Carolina.

 Brigadier General Peter A. (Duke) 

DeLuca, U.S. Army Engineer School 

commandant, watched the competition kick off with 38 teams in the early 

hours of 19 April and was impressed as 

he cheered on the final 10 teams pushing through the finish line early on

21 April.

“Only the strong survive, and you 

are the strongest of the strong Sappers. You inspire us all with your 

mental toughness, physical resilience, 

strategizing and tactics, and your pure 

animal drive to survive and win on 

the battlefield. You guys are animals!” 

Brigadier General DeLuca said. 

Captain Thomas L. Hatfield and Captain Nassar G.

Jabour, 54th Engineer Battalion, Bamberg, Germany, 

placed second; and First Lieutenant Isaac Olsen and First 

Soldiers scramble to assemble an M2 .50-caliber machine gun.

By Mrs. Melissa K. Buckley
12 Engineer May–August 2012

Lieutenant Casey L. Williams, 307th Engineer Battalion, 

Fort Bragg, placed third.

Early in the morning of Day 1, competitors started with 

a nonstandard physical fitness test. Then the Sappers immediately continued on to 10 timed tasks, beginning with a 

helocast and swim. The rest of the day was spent navigating 

from one event to the next. From thermal breaching to casualty evacuation, the tasks were designed to push Sappers 

past their mental and physical breaking points, filtering the 

smartest and strongest Sappers to the next level of competition. Following this round of events, the contestants were 

cut down to the 30 top-scoring teams.

Throughout the first night, teams participated in a 

land navigation event, with the top 20 teams proceeding to 

Day 2—Sapper Stakes. These eight events tested the competitors on their combat engineer skills with tasks like fieldexpedient charges, in-stride breaching, and mountain operations. During the mountain operations event, Sappers had 

to evacuate a “casualty” down a 92-foot cliff—and this year 

they weren’t using a dummy. To add realism, a Soldier was 

strapped into the stretcher. To the surprise of the Sappers, 

the Fort Leonard Wood and Maneuver Support Center of 

Excellence Command Sergeant Major Robert J. Wells volunteered to be rigged in the stretcher. He didn’t think twice 

about his safety.

“They are some of the finest Soldiers in the U.S. Army. 

The two Sappers executed the litter rappel to standard and 

in excellent fashion. I told them we’re a metaphor—young 

leaders carrying an old Sapper off the field,” said Command 

Sergeant Major Wells.

This day wrapped up with a 16-mile ruck march, which 

cut the teams to 10. With little to no sleep going into the 

third and final morning of competition, the Sappers mustered their last bit of motivation to tackle the X-mile run, 

which included 10 more physically demanding challenges 

spread across an undisclosed number of miles. The winning team praised the instructors of the Sapper Leader 

Course.

“The Sapper Leader Course cadre that put this on are 

absolutely amazing. They are true professionals. They put in 

a lot of effort—it’s amazingly coordinated. They are the real 

heroes of this competition,” said Captain Kendall.

Mrs. Buckley writes for the Fort Leonard Wood newspaper, the Guidon.

Above: A Soldier times and scores other Soldiers as their 

water impulse charge explodes during the Sapper Stakes.

Left: Soldiers rally their strength to pull a vehicle during 

the final event, the X-mile run.
May–August 2012 Engineer 13

As deployments in the Middle East begin to subside 

after a decade of continuous combat operations, the 

.U.S. Army naturally is shifting its posture to prepare 

for future conflict. Strategically, this means taking a hard 

look at the force structure. However, it also means assessing aspects that used to be perfected in the daily Army grind 

but may have become rusty: counseling, evaluations, training management, command supply discipline, maintenance, 

and combined arms maneuver. While these areas will be

reemphasized again, there is one area of focus that remains 

relatively silent in this new conversation—unit histories. 

Consider the Sapper Leader 

Course and the impact it has 

had on the Engineer Regiment. 

Though the 169th Engineer Battalion1

 currently oversees the 

course, oversight has shifted 

from one unit to the next over 

the years since its inception in 

1985. Remarkably, though it is 

an important gem to the Engineer 

Regiment, the history of the Sapper Leader Course remains largely undocumented. The course has 

a rich group of former instructors 

who have served the Army well 

since the course started, including 

at least 43 senior noncommissioned officer (NCO) leaders2

 who 

continued to serve as master sergeants or command sergeants major. Yet not even the U.S. Army Engineer School 

history office or library has an inclusive publication pertaining to the Sapper Leader Course. One might find the history 

of the term “sapper” dating back to the 16th century, but will 

find nothing on the Sapper Leader Course. 

In its efforts to collect and produce the history of the 

course, the 169th Engineer Battalion initiated the Sapper 

Leader Course History Project in February 2012. The project consists of several steps. The first step—contacting former cadre members—is filling the gaps of the course’s 

segmented history. An e-mail survey of former instructors and noteworthy graduates is collecting 

administrative information and 

providing for cogent interviews 

at a later time. Sapper Leader 

Course instructors who would 

like to participate should go 

to <https://www.us.army.mil

/suite/page/668915>, or look for 

the Sapper Leader Course History Project on the Engineer 

School Knowledge Network on 

Army Knowledge Online. Second, 

the project focuses on creating systems to ensure the ongoing maintenance of Sapper history. The 

Web site and its accompanying 

By Captain Joseph A. Cymerman and Major Kevin R. Golinghorst
14 Engineer May–August 2012

database will store contact information, survey responses, 

and any digital donations or articles, pictures, and videos. 

Interviews with influential leaders from the Engineer Regiment conducted during the April 2012 ENFORCE conference (including one with Lieutenant General Robert B. 

Flowers [Retired], former Chief of Engineers and commanding general of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri) will be available on the Web site.

To date, more than 15 former Sapper instructors have 

contributed to the project. Four of them, including Command Sergeant Major Iokimo Falaniko (Retired), Command 

Sergeant Major Joseph T. Toth (Retired), Master Sergeant 

James R. Watnes (Retired), and Sergeant First Class William E. Rostad (Retired) shared their stories on camera at 

Fort Leonard Wood. The Sapper Leader Course History Project interviews with past and present instructors continue. 

Working with leaders of such high caliber has been a sincere

honor and a pleasure. 

The project also has uncovered articles and annual command histories documenting the early history of the course. 

In 1985, Captain Michael J. Grove, the officer in charge of 

the first Sapper class, wrote an article about the success and 

scope of the Sapper Leader Course from the perspective of 

a company commander roughing it next to his own platoon 

sergeants, platoon leaders, and team leaders.3 The effort 

also uncovered personal 1987 correspondence from Lieutenant General David E. Grange (Retired) to Secretary of the 

Army John O. Marsh, Jr., with an appraisal of the course. 

Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers (Retired) shares his experiences on camera during ENFORCE, 

contributing to the Sapper Leader Course History Project.

“One might find the history of the term

 ‘sapper’ dating back to the 16th century, but will 

find nothing on the Sapper Leader Course.”
May–August 2012 Engineer 15

U.S. Army Engineer School annual command histories also 

provide insight on issues and significant events between 

1989 and 1999. Eventually, the Web site will include videos, 

articles, and other products that tell the story of the Sapper 

Leader Course.

In today’s circumstances—a shrinking Army, tighter 

budgets, and increasing competition for talented officers and 

NCOs—there has never been a greater need to tell the story 

of the Sapper Leader Course. All Soldiers, especially engineers, know that the course is important, that it is tough, 

and that its impact on the Engineer Regiment and the Army 

has been immeasurable. Most Sappers might think that the 

course will last forever, but it’s notable that it almost didn’t 

make it through the early to mid-1990s amid constraints

like the Army faces today. Tough budgeting has always 

earned the course a serious look, and talented NCOs are becoming harder to find. Combat rotations naturally encourage NCOs to seek time with their families rather than seek 

special training like the Ranger or Pathfinder Schools, and 

engineer units may want to retain their best NCOs. Leaders across the Engineer Regiment should encourage their 

best NCOs to serve as Sapper Leader Course instructors, 

embracing the opportunity to increase the esteem of their 

own units by putting their best foot forward. 

Given the operational tempo of the past decade, there 

are sound reasons why annual command histories were not 

always a priority. Nevertheless, as the Army begins to reemphasize the importance of officer and NCO evaluations 

and stress the proper way to write recommendations for individual awards, perhaps we should consider reinstating the 

art of telling the stories of units as well. In this case, keep 

an eye open for the history of the Sapper Leader Course, the 

cutting edge of our country’s sword. 

Endnotes:

1

The 169th Engineer Battalion is arguably the most diverse training battalion in the Army, consisting of advanced 

individual training companies and detachments of divers, electricians, technical engineers, geospatial engineers, 

plumbers, firefighters, and carpenters.

2

Twelve command sergeants major, four sergeants major, and 27 first sergeants or master sergeants have been

documented so far by the Sapper Leader Course History 

Project.

3

Michael Grove, “A New Rope to Climb,” Engineer Professional Bulletin, Volume 15, No. 4, Winter 1985–1986, 

pp. 12–15.

Captain Cymerman graduated from the Sapper Leader 

Course in June 2010 and now attends the Engineer Captains 

Career Course at Fort Leonard Wood.

Major Golinghorst graduated from the Sapper Leader 

Course in June 1998 and now serves as the executive officer 

of the 169th Engineer Battalion.

■ Training that would place selected Soldiers in an SOF 

track.

■ The analysis of U.S. Navy; U.S. Air Force; and commercial, off-the-shelf equipment sets that meet SOF engineer 

requirements. 

Panel 3—Interagency and Intergovernmental Support to Engineer Efforts

This panel discussed defense support to civil authorities 

and included foreign humanitarian assistance case study 

discussions. The discussions improved the leader understanding of interagency and intergovernmental support to 

engineer efforts within the Engineer Regiment. The leading 

issue discussed during the breakout session was the need 

for a better knowledge of engineer capabilities among junior 

leaders. Students should become familiar with sister Service engineer capabilities, beginning in the Engineer Basic 

Officer Leader Course. In the Engineer Captains Career 

Course, leaders should have improved knowledge of sister 

Service engineer capabilities and a common understanding 

of other U.S. government agencies. They must also be able 

to apply an understanding of interagency organizations, 

roles, and functions. The group recommended leveraging 

existing courses from other agencies to meet these training

requirements.

Panel 4—Joint and Multinational Engineers

This panel was an open discussion among panel members 

who provided a short presentation on the top engineer priorities for their areas of concern. The breakout group from 

this panel recommended broadening the Army’s knowledge 

of the joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational (JIIM) process. Many attendees felt that operational 

personnel generally have little experience operating in a full 

JIIM environment. Also, as forward-deployed U.S. forces 

are drawn down, they do not have as much opportunity for 

short-term exchanges with partner nations. Thus, there is a 

need for increased JIIM assignments, internships, and fellowships to provide selected military and civilian leaders 

with a broadened knowledge of the culture, environment, 

and organizational processes of partner nations. 

Thanks to all who participated in this year’s ENFORCE 

working groups and panels. Participation was exceptional, 

and great feedback came in from the field. The engineer 

regimental headquarters will continue to work on and refine 

your recommendations as the regimental campaign plan 

moves forward. We encourage everyone to be active participants in further developments and to track our progress in 

achieving these objectives. 

Mr. Dascanio is the technical director of the U.S. Army 

Engineer School Directorate of Training and Leader

Development.

(“Working Groups,” continued from page 9)
16 Engineer May–August 2012

Prelude

After 7 years of violence, destruction, and civil unrest, 

the final chapter of the American military presence in

.Iraq was inscribed. On 1 September 2010, combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom transitioned 

to U.S. Forces–Iraq (USF-I) stability operations in support 

of Operation New Dawn (OND). The mission of the USF-I 

J7 (Engineer Directorate) now focused clearly on providing 

full spectrum joint engineer support to USF-I, the Department of State (DOS), and the emerging Office of Security 

Cooperation–Iraq (OSC-I).

In January 2011, the core of the USF-I headquarters 

transitioned from III U.S Corps to XVIII Airborne Corps, 

signifying a change in key staff leadership and a major shift 

in the USF-I battle rhythm. There was also a change in the 

joint plans and operations decision cycle aimed at achieving a greater level of staff integration and synchronization 

before seeking decisions from the USF-I commanding general. Using the operational framework of USF-I Operations 

Order 11-01, consisting of three lines of effort (LOEs) and 

their specified objectives, USF-I integrated numerous joint 

processes and established specific executive forums to ensure that future plans and current and future operations 

were synchronized across all warfighting functions and 

nested within the commander’s intent.

The forums rotated weekly and included a monthly joint 

assessment board to assess progress on campaign LOEs and 

objectives. A monthly operational synchronization board 

synchronized operational maneuver and addressed special 

topics to inform the USF-I senior leadership. The operational framework feeding the joint assessment board provided the basis for three of the four weekly commander’s 

update briefs. Each brief aligned with an LOE and its

objectives: 

■ LOE 1—Strengthen the Iraqi Security Force. 

■ LOE 2—Conduct transitions. 

■ LOE 3—Reposture the force. 

The J7 directly influenced the progress of some objectives and was principally responsible for achieving one—

the completion of base transition and facility construction. 

By Brigadier General Scott F. (Rock) Donahue, Lieutenant Colonel Michael C. Gibson, 

Major James M. Rohrer, and Captain Jonathan M. Diaz

“Start by doing what is necessary, then what is possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible.” 

—St. Francis of Assisi1
May–August 2012 Engineer 17

Comprehensive assessments were provided weekly to the 

USF-I commanding general.

The weekly joint plans and operations decision cycle ensured staff integration and synchronization during the planning process, with each successive venue providing greater 

refinement and guidance. The decision cycle began with the 

joint plans and operations group chaired by the USF-I deputy chief of staff, with deputy directors and select planners 

attending. Results were then presented as recommendations to the joint plans and operations council chaired by the 

USF-I deputy commanding general for operations and attended by other USF-I deputy commanding generals, staff 

directors, representatives from major subordinate commands, and coordinating and special staff members. Analysis, planning priorities, and course-of-action recommendations from the council were then presented for guidance and 

decision to the commanding general in two forums: 

■ The joint plans and operations “huddle” consisted of a 

small group that included the deputy commanding generals, the USF-I operations and plans officers, and—

depending on the topic—other directors.

■ The joint plans and operations board was chaired by the

commanding general with USF-I deputy commanding generals; directors; major subordinate commands;

and members of coordinating, special, and personal staffs

in attendance. 

With the arrival of a new director and the XVIII Airborne Corps engineer section in January 2011, the J7 developed a restated mission with clear purpose and intent; 

identified key tasks to meet evolving mission requirements 

and achieve the desired end state; reorganized internally 

to create a flatter, faster, and more transparent structure; 

and realigned its internal planning, decision, and execution 

cycles to meet the demands of the complex operational environment and to establish the means to transition to end of 

mission (T2EOM). 

Key Takeaways

The following key takeaways enabled the J7 to achieve 

its mission and set engineer-specific war termination 

conditions. 

A Clear Vision and Shared Operating Philosophy

This ensured full spectrum engineer support to USF-I 

stability operations and enabled the success of the DOS and 

OSC-I. A clear vision defined the means to enable an organization to effectively lead change and manage complexity. 

In January 2011, the USF-I J7 director assessed the USF-I 

commanding general’s intent, operational guidance, and top 

10 priorities, as well as the J7 organization and staff processes. To provide purpose and direction for the J7 staff, the 

director established the following key tasks:

■ Assure mobility and protect the force.

■ Develop Iraqi Security Force capability.

■ Provide base, environmental, and facilities support.

■ Provide general and geospatial engineering support.

■ Enable base transitions.

■ Reposture engineer forces.

From these six key tasks, 50 critical tasks were developed 

in the last 90 days of OND to ensure the completion, transfer, or transition of each critical task to the Government of 

Iraq; DOS; OSC-I; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

Middle East District–Iraq Area Office; U.S. Army Central; 

and U.S. Central Command. This process was known as the 

J7 T2EOM. In the last 60 days of OND, USF-I developed a 

conditions checklist to ensure that USF-I and each directorate identified tasks to enable war termination. The comprehensive assessment by J7 earlier in the year and the development of the T2EOM critical task list enabled immediate 

identification of the engineer conditions that supported 

the USF-I war termination conditions check. Through the 

execution of the critical tasks, the USF-I J7 displayed its 

commitment through partnership with Iraqi engineers, the 

DOS, and the newly formed OSC-I J7, thus enabling a more 

stable, secure, and self-reliant Iraq.

Dynamic Update of USF-I J7 Task Organization

This enabled effective, distributed mission command and 

ensured the unity of effort to meet emerging engineer requirements. In the year following the arrival of the XVIII 

Airborne Corps, the USF-I J7 revamped task organization twice to meet emerging requirements and support a 

distributed staff at seven USF-I mission command nodes. 

Besides a director cell for executive administration, 

“[A Clear Vision and Shared 

Operating Philosophy]

. . . ensured full spectrum engineer support to USF-I stability 

operations and enabled the

success of the DOS and

OSC-I. A clear vision defined 

the means to enable an organization to effectively lead change 

and manage complexity.” 
18 Engineer May–August 2012

communications, and logistics support, the USF-I J7 consisted of the following staff divisions (as of 1 January

2011): 

■ Operations, Plans, and Readiness Division.

■ Basing, Facilities, and Environmental Division.

■ Engineer Program Management Division.

Two functional components fell under the director’s cell 

and reported to the deputy director. The first was Team 

Muhandis, an Iraqi Army engineer advise, train, assist, and equip team. The second was an “enduring sites” 

element, recently established to manage the engineer requirements necessary to transition enduring sites to U.S. 

Mission–Iraq, which consists of the DOS and OSC-I. Over 

the next year, the USF-I J7 facilitated the monumental 

task of transitioning all remaining USF-I bases in the 

Iraq joint operations area (IJOA) while simultaneously 

supporting the USF-I commanding general’s intent and 

operational maneuver.

An increase in construction and basing support required 

shifting focus from the advise, train, assist, and equip mission to providing guidance to the enduring sites element. 

Consequently, USF-I J7 realigned Team Muhandis under 

the Operations, Plans, and Readiness Division and expanded the enduring sites element to an Enduring Sites Transition Division. It also established a theater construction 

fusion cell to synchronize and manage the growing complexity of completing construction requirements. The theater 

construction fusion cell tracked all theater construction to 

support T2EOM tasks.

As USF-I prepared for T2EOM, it was essential to reduce 

the size of its headquarters and distribute its mission command nodes to facilitate the flow of units out of the IJOA. 

The USF-I J7 shifted personnel to locations where their capabilities best supported the USF-I commanding general’s 

intent and operational maneuver. At the height of OND, the 

USF-I J7 geographically distributed to seven mission command nodes within the IJOA and Kuwait. 

Persistent Forecasting of Short- and 

Long-Term Requirements

This helped retain joint engineer critical capability, 

curtail units with diminishing capacity, and cancel unnecessary structure. In 2009, three engineer brigades 

were deployed to support operations in the IJOA. In the 

initial planning for OND, it was proposed to redeploy all 

engineer brigades to meet the USF-I force cap of 50,000, 

but one engineer brigade was retained to support the multiple engineer missions foreseen. Later, USF-I thinned to 

one theater engineer brigade (TEB) headquarters that 

provided full spectrum, joint engineer capabilities, all of 

which were in high demand during the transition and 

reposturing of USF-I. Specifically, construction program 

and project planning, design, execution, and quality assurance and control proved invaluable. Further, the TEB 

assumed the base mayoral role at the fourth largest base 

in Iraq and led the base transition process. Additionally, 

all echelon-above-division engineer units and assets were 

under the mission command of the TEB, enabling the 

successful completion of enduring site construction and 

base transitions. To ensure that appropriate capabilities 

remain during future base transitions and force reposturing, engineer planners should consider the following

assumptions:

■ Personnel turnover in the DOS and U.S. forces requires a 

well-defined process to maintain continuity in the plans

process to ensure that good ideas are not reintroduced

midway through the execution process. 

■ U.S. forces will expend a significant amount of staff energy and troop labor to enable DOS and OSC-I sites to 

achieve mission-capable status.

■ Force repositioning from smaller bases to larger bases 

and then out of theater often increases requirements at

bases. In some cases, requirements exceed the existing 

base capacity to support.

■ U.S. forces cannot plan to remain on a large base unless 

it is transferring to DOS/OSC-I, since temporary forces

must move off large bases in time to allow infrastructure

closure before transition.

■ Organizations have different limitations. The DOS

Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations is organized to

conduct long-term, secure facility design and construction. The Department of Defense specializes in expeditionary design and construction. Anticipate the requirement to support DOS building operations with expeditionary construction planning, design, and execution.

■ A joint staff-integrated vulnerability assessment on enduring DOS/OSC sites should be conducted early so that 

the results can be included in site master planning. 

In addition to the TEB, it was essential to retain lowdensity, high-demand engineer capabilities, since a variety of small engineer detachments were helpful in supporting enduring sites and enabling base transitions. As 

the basing footprint decreased, the need for power generation assessments and capability increased. Prime power 

teams conducted numerous assessments of enduring site 

power requirements and provided contract officer technical representative expertise to multiple power plants in 

the IJOA. In addition, forward engineer support teams–

advance provided civil, electrical, environmental, and 

mechanical engineering expertise and design capability to 

enduring sites and to the repostured units as bases transitioned. Facility engineer teams were similar in capability to the advance teams, but could execute small, quickturnaround construction projects. These low-density, 

high-demand units contributed immensely to theater construction efforts. 

Deliberate, Nested, Virtual Collaboration

This enabled and equipped theater engineers to coordinate and synchronize full spectrum, joint engineer plans 
May–August 2012 Engineer 19

and operations. In February 2011, the USF-I J7 hosted two

forums to synchronize engineer support throughout the 

IJOA. The first was the Engineer Plans and Operations 

Breeze, a virtual J7 battle rhythm event to review planning 

efforts and operations to support the USF-I decision cycle. 

The second was the Engineer Leaders Breeze, a weekly, virtual J7 battle rhythm event focused on sharing IJOA-wide 

engineer initiatives. It was attended by U.S. division engineers; the TEB commander; the USACE, Gulf Region District commander; and the USF-I J7 director. 

However, the implementation of the joint plans and operations decision cycle to the USF-I battle rhythm significantly increased the demand for engineer information and 

decisions. This required a single forum to synchronize engineer plans and operations and provide guidance to, and gain 

decisions from, the senior engineer in the IJOA. To fill this 

need, the USF-I J7 combined the Engineer Plans and Operations Breeze with the Engineer Leaders Breeze to form 

the Joint Engineer Plans and Operations Group (JEPOG). 

This was a theater-wide forum for engineer leaders, planners, and USF-I J7 staff to discuss current engineer operations and planning efforts and to receive guidance and assistance from the USF-I J7 director and staff. Nesting the 

JEPOG within the joint plans and operations decision cycle 

facilitated theater engineer synchronization by integrating 

subordinate engineer organizations in planning efforts and 

operations cycles and enabled collaboration before entering 

the USF-I decision cycle.

Each JEPOG focused on construction or assured mobility and began with an overview of USF-I planning priorities 

and specific J7 planning efforts. This was followed by the 

USF-I planning efforts and briefings entering the joint 

planning and operations decision cycle. Subsequently, 

USF-I J7 plans updated theater engineers on base transition dates and other engineer planning efforts and let subordinate engineer organizations provide input or identify 

friction points. Also, division engineers provided updates 

on route clearance, construction, and other special topics in 

their operational environments. The TEB provided updates 

on support to operational maneuver, construction projects, 

and bridging, while the USACE, Gulf Region District (and 

later, the USACE, Middle East District–Iraq Area Office) 

provided updates on its current construction program and 

ongoing projects. 

Further, the USF-I J7 divisions updated key battle 

rhythm events such as the large base transition board, the 

embassy support and enduring sites transition board, and a 

theater construction update. Finally, to ensure that an engineer common operational picture was presented accurately 

to the USF-I senior leadership, the commander’s update 

brief and OSC-I J7 transition update slides were presented

to identify issues and to correct slides and scripts. This 

agenda ensured that all engineer leaders and planners were 

aware of all aspects of full spectrum engineer operations in 

the IJOA.

Final Thoughts

Throughout 2011, the USF-I J7 directorate completed 

its full spectrum engineer mission in support of OND 

on time and to standard. Theater engineers were 

committed to finishing the first-rate work started nearly

9 years ago through inspired leadership, an enduring U.S.-

Iraqi engineer partnership, superior performance, and the 

indomitable spirit of a team of resilient, versatile, survivable, and partnered engineers.

Endnote:

1“SearchQuotes,” <http://www.searchquotes.com/quotes

/author/St_Francis_of_Assissi>, accessed on 31 May 2012.

Brigadier General Donahue serves as the deputy chief of 

staff, G-3/5/7, for the U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort 

Bragg, North Carolina. He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil 

engineering from Virginia Military Institute, a master’s degree in operations research from the Naval Postgraduate 

School, and a master’s degree in strategic studies from the 

U.S. Army War College. Brigadier General Donahue was the 

director of USF-I J7 during the last year of OND. 

Lieutenant Colonel Gibson serves as the professor of military science and department chair for the Marquette University Reserve Officer Training Corps in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He holds a bachelor’s degree in business management 

from Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio, and a master’s 

degree in business administration from Franklin University, 

Columbus, Ohio. He served as chief of plans for USF-I J7 

during the last year of OND.

Major Rohrer is the operations officer for the 30th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade, Fort Bragg. He holds 

a bachelor’s degree in geology from California State University, Northridge, and a master’s degree in geology from the 

University of Missouri–Rolla (now Missouri University of 

Science and Technology). He served as the USF-I J7 assistant chief of staff during the last year of OND.

Captain Diaz is the commander of the 133d Engineer Detachment, Construction Management Team, 20th Engineer 

Brigade, Fort Bragg. He holds a bachelor’s degree in political 

science from California State University–Fresno. He served 

as the USF-I J7 future operations, force management, and 

logistics plans officer during the last year of OND.
20 Engineer May–August 2012

By Major Gerald S. Law

Most Versatile Team

in the Desert

The lessons learned and trends published by the 

National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, California, are probably familiar to many readers, but 

the observer/coach trainer (O/CT) teams who develop and 

publish those lessons learned may not be so familiar. The 

teams coach, teach, and mentor units within a brigade combat team (BCT) as they conduct operations at the NTC. Of 

the numerous NTC operations group teams tasked with this 

mission, the Sidewinder Team is the most 

versatile. 

 Officially known as maneuver support 

trainers, the Sidewinder Team may not be 

the oldest in the desert, but the members 

include O/CTs versed in all warfighting 

functions. They provide overall O/CT coverage to brigade special troop battalions 

(BSTBs) and engineer, military police, 

and Stryker infantry battalions. 

History and Capabilities

Engineer trainers have been a 

part of the NTC since its beginning in 1982. Ten years later, 

engineer battalions arrived for training; 

and by 1993, the Sidewinder Team was 

born. Establishing the motto Qui Experit 

Succedit—“He Who Tries Succeeds”—the 

Sidewinder Team became the Army’s premier engineer trainer from 1993 to 2003. 

By 2004, most engineer battalions 

began transforming into BSTBs, which 

required the Sidewinder Team to transform. No longer focusing on engineer 

capabilities alone, the Sidewinders increased their skill sets and capabilities to 

coach, teach, and mentor the types of units within a BSTB, 

such as military intelligence companies, signal companies, 

military police platoons, sustainment platoons, and maintenance platoons. Based on the BCT commander’s guidance, 

the Sidewinder Team also trains the battalion command 

group and staff to assume multiple roles in theater, to include owning and controlling an area, providing enablers, or 

controlling brigade assets. 

The Sidewinders:

A Sidewinder O/CT advises a company executive officer and first sergeant 

about logistic operations.

Photo by Sergeant First Class Marlon Munoz
May–August 2012 Engineer 21

Current Requirements

Today, the Sidewinder Team primarily trains the organic BSTBs within BCTs. As the NTC maneuver support trainers, the Sidewinders provide the coaching, teaching, and mentoring needed to prepare BCTs for 

wide area security or combined arms maneuver operations. 

Furthermore, the Sidewinder Team trains the attached 

echelons-above-brigade assets, to include tactical explosive 

detection dog teams and explosive ordnance disposal teams. 

Training numerous military occupational specialties within 

the BSTB and training attached echelons above brigade contributes to the adaptive nature and versatile capabilities of 

the Sidewinder Team. 

Another reason that the Sidewinders are so versatile is 

their ability to provide overall O/CT coverage to a variety 

of units. Most of the teams at the NTC consistently provide 

O/CT coverage to a particular type of battalion. For example, 

the Bronco Team provides coverage to BCT headquarters; 

the Goldminer Team coaches, teaches, and mentors brigade 

support battalions; the Tarantula Team covers down on airborne or infantry battalions; the Cobra Team trains with 

cavalry squadrons; and the Scorpion Team provides coverage to infantry battalions. Only the Sidewinder Team provides coverage to BSTBs and engineer, military police, and 

Stryker infantry battalions.

Future Requirements

Future changes at the NTC will require the Sidewinders to become even more versatile. When the Army stands up its brigade engineer battalions, the Sidewinders will provide the O/CT coverage for them at NTC. 

Generally, a brigade engineer battalion will consist of two 

engineer companies; a signal company; a military intelligence company; a military police platoon; and a chemical, 

biological, radiological, and nuclear platoon. The two 

“As a member of this versatile team, you will have 

an opportunity to provide 

expertise and experience 

through coaching, teaching, and mentoring while 

growing professionally as 

an Army leader.” 

A Sidewinder engineer O/CT inspects the clearing line charge on an assault breacher vehicle before a 

live fire.

Photo by Sergeant First Class Edgar Vasquez
22 Engineer May–August 2012

engineer companies will provide vertical, horizontal, route 

clearance, and gap-crossing capabilities, which will require 

O/CTs with additional skill sets in vertical and horizontal 

construction techniques, including theater-of-operations 

construction, road repair, and bridging. 

In addition to continuing Operation Enduring Freedom 

predeployment mission rehearsal exercises, the NTC hosts 

BCTs to conduct contingency expeditionary-force, decisiveaction training rotations. These rotations will require a BCT 

to simultaneously conduct offensive, defensive, and stability 

operations in an environment that includes conventional, 

guerrilla, and criminal threats. For these rotations, O/CTs 

will expand their coaching, teaching, and mentoring techniques to the broader array of skills required in an environment that includes simultaneous combined arms maneuver 

and wide area security missions.

Team Member Advantages

An assignment as a Sidewinder at the NTC is very .rewarding professionally.

Join us in preparing Soldiers, 

.leaders, and units for Operation 

Enduring Freedom and for the wide 

range of contingency expeditionaryforce missions facing our Army in 

the future. As a member of this 

versatile team, you will have an opportunity to provide expertise and 

experience through coaching, teaching, and mentoring while growing 

professionally as an Army leader. 

Life is never boring and is always 

rewarding when serving on the most 

versatile team in the desert. To join 

the Sidewinder Team or obtain additional information on 

becoming an OC/T, see your U.S. Army Human Resources 

Command manager, visit the Web at <www.irwin.army

.mil>, or call (760) 380-5600. 

Major Law is the battalion executive officer for training 

for the Sidewinder Team, Operations Group, NTC, Fort Irwin. He holds an associate’s degree in welding engineering 

from Ricks College, Rexburg, Idaho; a bachelor’s degree in 

industrial engineering from Utah State University, Logan; a 

master’s degree in geology and geophysics from the University of Missouri–Rolla (now Missouri University of Science 

and Technology); and a master’s degree in military arts and 

sciences, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The author facilitates an after-action review for the staff of an infantry Stryker 

battalion.

Photo by Major Todd Polk

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.

Sergeant First Class Billy Albert Sutton 288th Engineer Company Houston, Mississippi 

Corporal Antonio C. Burnside Company A, 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, Fort Bragg, North Carolina

1st Brigade Combat Team 

Specialist Junot Mevs Legrand Cochilus 630th Engineer Company, 7th Engineer Battalion, Fort Drum, New York

10th Sustainment Brigade

Second Lieutenant David E. Rylander 630th Engineer Company, 7th Engineer Battalion, Fort Drum, New York

10th Sustainment Brigade

Staff Sergeant Alexander Povilaitis 57th Engineer Company, 14th Engineer Battalion Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington
May–August 2012 Engineer 23

Leaders from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) joined officials from the American Battle Monuments Commission, the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural 

Resources, and others to break ground for the 

new Vietnam Pavilions Project at the National 

Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, 

Hawaii, on 9 May.

“The Army Corps of Engineers (Honolulu 

District) has been serving our Nation for

107 years, since 1905. In that time, we’ve 

built a lot of projects in a lot of places across

the Pacific. I would argue today that none of 

those projects is more significant or will have 

a more enduring legacy than the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, which we constructed in the late 1940s and which first opened 

on July 19, 1949,” said Lieutenant Colonel 

Douglas B. Guttormsen, commander of USACE,

Honolulu District.

“Since then, we’ve had the solemn privilege to manage 

the construction of a number of renovations and upgrades 

to this monument and these hallowed grounds. We’re here 

today to break ground and bless our latest project to honor 

our Vietnam era veterans and their sacrifices,” he said.

“With the addition of these pavilions, we will appropriately honor the service and sacrifice of those who fought 

in Vietnam and, in particular, those commemorated in 

the memorial’s courts of the missing,” said Mr. Michael G. 

Conley, chief of staff for the American Battle Monuments

Commission.

According to Mr. Gene E. Castagnetti, director of the 

National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, “As a Vietnam 

veteran, I’d like to be the voice of those who can’t be here 

today. Over 3.5 million American men and women served 

in the Vietnam Campaign. Five hundred and forty-three 

thousand actually fought in country [at its peak]. Of that 

number, 300,000 were wounded and 58,000 were killed in 

action. This was an enormous sacrifice. . . . Today we honor 

those veterans, and today’s ceremony shows that they are 

not forgotten.”

The project entails constructing two new pavilions next 

to the two flag poles that flank the processional stairs of the 

Honolulu Memorial, one of 25 federal memorials maintained 

worldwide by the American Battle Monuments Commission. 

The design of the new pavilions will be compatible with the 

materials, features, and architectural style of the existing 

structures. One of the pavilions will include Vietnam War 

battle maps to complement the existing World War II and 

Korean War battle maps. The other pavilion will serve as an 

orientation center for the memorial.

In addition, the project will provide exterior illumination 

to the pavilions; repair or replace existing walkways, drainage, and landscaping that are affected by the construction; 

and improve handicap accessibility to the memorial and its 

facilities.

The Honolulu Memorial inside the cemetery grounds was 

built by USACE and dedicated in 1966 to honor those missing in action from the World War II Pacific Theater of Operations and the Korean War. It contains wall-mounted battle 

maps commemorating famous battles, such as the Battle of 

Midway. The memorial was expanded in 1980 to bear the 

names of 2,504 missing Service members from the Vietnam 

War, but battle maps from that war were not included. 

The Vietnam Pavilions Project is scheduled for completion in November 2012. 

Mr. Bonfiglio is the chief of public affairs for USACE, 

Honolulu District.

By Mr. Joseph Bonfiglio

Engineers Join in Project

to Honor Vietnam Veterans

Officials from USACE, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the American Battle Monuments Commission, and others break ground for the 

Vietnam Pavilions Project at the National Cemetery of the Pacific.

Photo by Mr. Joseph Bonfiglio
24 Engineer May–August 2012

Several years ago, a team of biologists with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), New York District, were performing environmental work along 

a New Jersey beach that had been newly restored by the 

Army engineers. An onlooker approached the team to report 

that he had seen a baby sea turtle in the water. Because 

it is an endangered species rarely seen on the shore in the 

Northeast, the biologists got very excited and began a vain 

search for it in the shallows where they had been working. 

At the end of the day, a team member saw something in the 

seaweeds close to shore. He parted the weeds and found a 

realistic, plastic baby turtle.

That episode may seem funny, but 

USACE takes the protection of endangered sea turtles and all marine life seriously, especially when performing beach 

replenishment projects. In the Northeast 

waters, there is a small risk that these 

projects can injure or kill sea turtles, 

including the most common endangered 

species in the region—the loggerhead 

and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. 

Every time USACE begins a beach 

replenishment project, it takes measures 

that comply with environmental policies 

established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to protect sea turtles. 

Recently, these measures were activated 

for the Monmouth Beach Replenishment 

Project in Monmouth County, New Jersey. In the fall of 2011, USACE began

the project in partnership with the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection and a dredging contractor. 

That area of the shoreline was in 

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

USACE Doesn’t Play Shell Games

With Turtle Protection

A ship crewman shows observers how to use a safety harness.

Photo courtesy Engineer Research and Development Center
May–August 2012 Engineer 25

serious need of sand replenishment. Without a 

beach, waves break directly on the seawall, resulting in a shoreline that is vulnerable to storms. 

A beach helps protect infrastructures and homes 

and will also stimulate the local economy by 

drawing visitors to area stores and restaurants. 

A beach is good for the environment and is essential for the reproduction of sea turtles, which are 

an integral part of the ecosystem.

To replenish sand on Monmouth Beach, 

USACE is dredging 800,000 cubic yards of 

sand from an area of the ocean 2 miles offshore. The hopper dredges in use are like

underwater vacuum cleaners that suck sand from 

the bottom of the ocean. The dredges then take 

the sand to the beach, where it is pumped onto 

the shoreline through a steel pipe and then graded to create a beach.

Unfortunately, the dredges can also take up marine 

life along with sand. Because of this, the NMFS developed 

policies that govern activities which might impact species 

under its protection. The New York District has been very 

successful in following the policies. Regulations require that 

USACE perform its dredging during the months of December through April, when sea turtles are not expected to be 

Photo courtesy Engineer Research and Development Center

An observer climbs down a ladder wearing the required 

hard hat, headlamp, steel-toed boots, safety vest, and 

gloves.

An observer cleans lumps of clay from the screen that strains 

dredged material.

Photo courtesy Engineer Research and Development Center

in the Northeast. If dredging must occur during the warmer 

months of May through November, measures must be taken 

to prevent harm to sea turtles. These measures include having NMFS-approved marine endangered species observers 

onboard the dredges around the clock.

The observers are trained and certified independent contractors who go out on the hopper dredges to observe and 

document any harm to sea turtles, whales, dolphins, or 

seals. The observers do this by monitoring the operations 

inside and outside the dredge. If they spot a marine animal 

swimming near the boat, they inform the crew so that the 

dredge can avoid it. If observers see a marine animal get 

injured, they halt the dredging operation, document the 

incident, and contact the proper authorities, including the 

USACE district, NMFS, and a wildlife rehabilitation facility. The observers submit daily reports to USACE, and the 

information is eventually entered into the USACE national 

sea turtle database. 

The NMFS sets strict limits for how many sea turtles can 

be “taken” during dredging procedures each year. If that 

limit is reached, dredging operations must cease. For the 

past 20 years, the New York District has been very successful in protecting sea turtles, with just one possible sea turtle mortality documented. USACE, New York District, has 

worked with the NMFS to develop dredging methods and 

equipment that minimize harm to sea turtles. An increased 

awareness of the plight of endangered sea turtles has also 

led to the creation of commercial fishing gear that is more 

“turtle friendly.” Because of these protective measures, sea 

turtle populations are showing signs of recovery and we may 

see more turtles in our waters. Although past experience 

shows that USACE activities in the Northeast are unlikely 

to affect sea turtles, engineers still go out of their way to protect the animals by continuously expanding their knowledge 

and improving their methods.

Dr. Castagna is a public affairs specialist for the New

York District of USACE. She can be reached at <joanne

.castagna@usace.army.mil>. Follow her on Twitter at <http://

twitter.com/writer4usacenyc>.
26 Engineer May–August 2012
May–August 2012 Engineer 27
28 Engineer May–August 2012

Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson, former commandant of the U.S. Army Engineer School, is fond of asking audiences to identify the most important 

piece of a picture puzzle. After allowing himself a smirk at 

the cautious pause that always ensues, he offers that the 

most important piece is the box top because every successful project needs a vision. I would like to think that when 

he was leading and refining our “Building Great Engineers” 

campaign plan, in his mind’s eye he saw the likeness of 

Lieutenant General Frank A. Camm as among the greatest 

engineers on that “box top.” 

I had the honor of meeting Lieutenant General Camm and his wife Arlene 

during the Chief of Engineer’s 2008 

holiday reception. In short order, I recognized that this humble officer’s career 

was nothing short of remarkable. During 

World War II, he fought in an engineer 

company as infantry during the Battle 

of Huertgen Forest and the Battle of the 

Bulge and led the first unit to cross the 

Rhine River with all its equipment—an 

accomplishment of which he was singularly proud.1

 Following the war, he led a 

nuclear weapons assembly team at Sandia Base, New Mexico, since the civilian 

engineers of the Manhattan Project had 

returned to industry and academia.2 During the Korean War, Lieutenant General 

Camm commanded the 2d Engineer Battalion. He returned to combat again during the Vietnam War, where he served as 

the project manager for the “McNamara 

Line,” an effort to create an extensive 

system of sophisticated electronic sensors 

along the demilitarized zone separating North and South 

Vietnam. Lieutenant General Camm also commanded the 

521st Engineer Group and the South Pacific Division of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mixed within these commands, he gained advanced degrees and held strategic planning and policy positions for the Department of the Army 

and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Following a military career that culminated with service 

as the deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Virginia, Lieutenant General Camm held a series of federal positions of 

By Colonel Paul B. Olsen

The Extraordinary Career

of Lieutenant General 

Frank A. Camm—

Three Tenets for Building 

Great Engineers

Norris Bradbury stands next to a partially assembled atomic bomb atop a test 

tower. LTG Camm worked for Bradbury as a Sandia Pioneer, 1946–1950.
May–August 2012 Engineer 29

even greater strategic responsibility, 

including senior aide to the director 

of the Central Intelligence Agency 

(CIA); associate director for plans 

and preparedness for the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency; 

and director of military applications 

for the Atomic Energy Commission. 

Upon retirement in 1981, he led pro 

bono projects, including the Herbert 

Hall Alumni Center at the U.S. Military Academy and The Fairfax, a retirement community in Alexandria, 

Virginia, for military officers and 

their families. 

Because I live near The Fairfax, I

would see Lieutenant General Camm

at the local supermarket, gas station, 

and other nearby stores. We struck 

up a friendship and enjoyed discussing Army engineering challenges—

past, present, and future. I was

personally and professionally saddened to read of his recent passing 

in the Washington Post.

3

 I have reflected on his extraordinary career

because I believe it contains three foundational tenets for 

building great engineers. 

Leadership Opportunities

Providing early leadership opportunities is clearly the

first tenet. Because Lieutenant General Camm was 

a decorated combat leader of three wars, I will not 

relate how combat experiences helped to forge him into one 

of our Nation’s greatest military engineers; regimental historians and his own memoirs do him far more justice than 

my pen ever could. Rather, I will argue that his Advanced 

Civil Schooling (ACS)—coupled with his master-apprentice 

opportunities—provided the less visible, but critical, foundation for his successful career. 

Lieutenant General Camm’s academic accomplishments 

were impressive. In addition to graduating from the U.S. 

Military Academy, the U.S Army Command and General 

Staff College, and the National War College, he earned master’s degrees in civil engineering from Harvard University 

and international relations from George Washington University. As his dossier suggests, those graduate degrees 

were critical enablers for future assignments. 

Funded Graduate School

I

n order to build great engineers today for tomorrow’s 

strategic assignments, the second foundational tenet is 

to make ACS the norm—not the exception—for senior 

company grade and junior field grade officers. We need not 

wait for the future to reap the dividends of ACS because 

skilled engineer leaders, capable of thinking on their feet, 

are essential during today’s simultaneous offensive, defensive, and stability operations. It is often said that a military 

trains for certainty and educates for uncertainty.4 Many 

recent battlefield and disaster relief successes attributed to 

our engineers are not merely a result of institutional training, but are a direct result of the insight that comes with 

advanced academic study. 

Critics argue that ACS requires an enormous investment of time; they hold a solid position, but this is nothing new. Just as it did during Lieutenant General Camm’s 

early years, today’s Army forges new leaders from the fires 

of combat and contingency operations. Despite operational 

demands, the Army provided Lieutenant General Camm 

with the ACS opportunities he would need to succeed in 

future strategic assignments. The argument for ACS is 

stronger because the education it provides aids critical 

thinking and seeds an individual’s mental agility, allowing 

the individual’s service to transcend military engineering 

and complement other aspects of national power.

“But in his view, there [were] limits,” according to Dr. 

Frank Camm Jr., the general’s son. According to Dr. Camm, 

“The Army wanted to send him back to school for a Ph.D. 

in nuclear engineering so that he could return and teach 

at West Point. He declined, saying he had joined the Army 

to be a Soldier, not a teacher.” I think Lieutenant General 

Camm truly believed in the merits of advanced education, 

but did not want to be pigeonholed as an instructor. I often 

sense that there is still some stigma attached to the pursuit 

of advanced degrees by officers even in today’s technologically adaptive Army.

LTG Camm’s C Company, 303d Engineer Battalion, constructed this footbridge 

across the Sieg River in 1945.
30 Engineer May–August 2012

I was disappointed during a recent briefing by our engineer branch chief to hear of his difficulties filling our regiment’s authorized ACS slots for graduate schooling. I hope 

this trend reverses because arming leaders in such fields as 

engineering, economics, and international relations would 

greatly improve counterinsurgency operations by ensuring 

that leaders understand the sociopolitical needs of indigenous populations. 

Master-Apprentice Assignments

As presented in tenet one, engineers learn to be leaders at lower echelons. However, engineers learn to .be critical thinkers from leaders at higher echelons. 

Thus, the third foundational tenet for building great engineers is to ensure that young leaders serve in high-echelon 

supporting positions. In doing so, the leaders would experience what the trades call the master-apprentice relationship, 

which results from working directly with a master of the 

trade. This dynamic could be put in place as part of engineer 

career progression. However, during the first 10 or so years 

of service, most engineers prefer to serve in lower echelon 

assignments—that is to say, to stay as close as possible to 

Sappers. While I have often heard this is a great personal 

assignment strategy, I have not observed that it is the case 

with many senior engineer leaders at the general officer and 

senior executive service levels. 

Consider again the career of Lieutenant General Camm. 

Following World War II, he left his wartime command to 

assume duties as one of the Sandia Pioneers5 (formerly the 

Manhattan Project), where he undoubtedly learned a thing 

or two about engineering from the leading nuclear engineers 

and physicists of the time. He then returned to command a 

battalion in Korea, followed by a Pentagon assignment writing war plans. He returned to command an engineer group, 

followed by a senior policy position at the Office of the Secretary of Defense. After this tour, he commanded an engineer 

division. This pattern repeated until his military retirement 

as the deputy commander of the U.S. Army Training and 

Doctrine Command. 

If Lieutenant General Camm’s career were plotted with 

Time along the x-axis and Echelon along the y-axis, the pattern may be best described as an elevating sine wave. One 

can observe a similar career pattern with CIA Director David H. Petraeus. When General Petraeus was not serving as 

low as operationally possible, he was on the staff of a “master” such as General John R. Galvin, General Gordon R. 

Sullivan, or General John M. Keane in an “apprentice” role. 

These master-apprentice opportunities groomed him well to 

serve as the CIA director.

The sine wave career pattern of General Petraeus and 

Lieutenant General Camm suggests that these officers refined their leadership skills through a hands-on approach 

by interacting with Soldiers at lower echelons and garnered 

intellectual skills through ACS and a master-apprentice approach by working directly for senior leaders at higher echelons. The Engineer Regiment could help build great engineer leaders, ensuring that as many as possible are provided 

a master-apprentice assignment opportunity within the first 

10 years of service. These master-apprentice opportunities 

need not be formal. In his memoirs, Lieutenant General 

Camm reflected on one example that provides a model which 

may apply for the Engineer Captains Career Course:

In April 1951, Major General Patrick Tansey pulled 

me from my class to be his officer aide-de-camp during 

a visit to the Far East and Alaska on behalf of the new 

Chief of Engineers, Major General [Samuel D.] Sturgis [Jr.]. Tied to Washington for congressional hearings in the spring of 1952, General Sturgis could not 

make the usual visit to overseas engineer units upon 

becoming Chief. Therefore, he asked his fellow engineer and good friend, General Tansey, who was about 

to retire from a logistics job, to go in his stead. Unable 

to obtain an officer aide in the Office of the Chief of 

Engineers, General Tansey declared that a student in 

the Engineer Advanced Course would learn more going with him than he would in class.6

The adoption of the master-apprentice strategy will require a realignment of our culture. It has been my experience that most rank-and-file officers view the positions of 

aide-de-camp, executive officer, and speechwriter to a general officer or senior executive as undesirable.7

 This is unfortunate, because an engineer leader in these positions becomes

Lieutenant General Camm and Major General Don T. Riley 

at the 2010 C Company, 249th Engineer Battalion, activation ceremony.
May–August 2012 Engineer 31

exposed to wicked problems and must internalize the complex actions of his or her senior leader and understand how 

these actions affect the total force. Lieutenant General 

Camm’s memoirs illustrate this point. Recalling one such 

conversation between Major General Tansey and Major General Arthur G. Trudeau, then commanding general of the 

25th Division fighting in Korea, he wrote, “Oh! How I wished 

for a tape recorder on which to retain this friendly and erudite discussion between two highly intelligent warriors!”8

The deliberate assignments of junior leaders to at least 

one high-echelon, or master-apprentice, assignment early 

in their careers will provide opportunities for invaluable 

engagement experiences such as those given to General

Petraeus, Lieutenant General Camm, and other great leaders. It will also help dispel some of the cultural myths and 

false stigma surrounding these assignments and make 

them more attractive to future leaders as developmental

assignments. 

 Changes Underway

I

believe that these three developmental tenets may help 

the Engineer Regiment build great engineers: leadership opportunities; funded graduate school; and upperechelon, master-apprentice assignments. Our regimental 

leaders have made many of these same observations, and 

positive changes are currently underway, from professional 

certification of Army engineer officers9 to the recent implementation of Green PagesSM, a professional Army engineering social networking site similar to LinkedIn®. However, 

the onus of this effort will always reside with the individual, 

for the most powerful tool any engineer carries is not his 

weapon, but his mind. All of these concepts were captured 

by Lieutenant General Thomas G. Bostick at the 2012 Black 

Engineer of the Year Awards Conference when he said, 

“[developing engineers] takes a significant amount of energy 

and people and time and money, but mostly it takes people 

with ingenuity and creativity and a willingness to chase 

their dreams, [to] chase their passion, and to help solve very 

difficult problems.”10

I last saw Lieutenant General Camm during the 2010 

activation ceremony of C Company, 249th Engineer Battalion. The unit fought heroically during the Battle of the 

Bulge in World War II, losing its commander in the fight. 

I felt that Lieutenant General Camm’s presence at the ceremony would add that measure of history to the ceremony 

that is so precious to our Regiment. But rather than relating stories of his time at the Bulge, the old engineer directed 

probing electrical engineering questions to the prime power 

production specialists and smiled with humility as he listened to their responses. His whole life, he remained intellectually humble and academically curious. I do not believe 

one finds these traits often these days, but they both seem 

commonplace among the great engineers with whom I have 

served. Lieutenant General Camm’s leadership, legacy, 

and vision live, while his spirit imbues our Regiment, now

and forever.

Author’s note: Lieutenant General Camm passed away 

peacefully on 17 January 2012 at The Fairfax with Arlene, 

his beloved wife of 64 years, at his side. Funeral services 

were held on 8 May 2012 at The Old Chapel, Fort Myer, 

Virginia, followed by interment at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors.

Endnotes:

1

Frank A. Camm, Lieutenant General (Retired), personal 

conversation with author, winter 2008.

2

“The Personal Memoirs of Frank A. Camm,” <http://

www.62vgd.de/78th/Frank_Camm/>, accessed on 24 February 2012.

3

“Frank A. Camm, Army Lieutenant General,” Washington Post, 6 February 2012, <http://www.washington

post.com/local/obituaries/frank-a-camm-army-lieutenant

-general/2012/02/06/gIQAvjfquQ_story.html>, accessed on

24 February 2012.

4

“U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Principles,” <http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/principles.asp>, 

accessed on 24 February 2012. 

5

James L. Abrahamson, “The Sandia Pioneers,” American Diplomacy, July 2002, <http://www.unc.edu/depts

/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_07-09/abrahamson_sandia

/abrahamson_sandia.html>, accessed on 24 February 2012.

6

“The Personal Memoirs of Frank A. Camm.” 

7

Many readers may agree that this concept is well-captured 

in the comic strip “Doctrine Man,” Thom Shanker, “Masked 

Military Man Is Superhero for Troops,” The New York Times, 

18 November 2010, <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19

/us/19pentagon.html>, accessed on 24 February 2012.

8

“The Personal Memoirs of Frank A. Camm.” 

9

Kelcey R. Shaw, “Professional Certification of Army 

Engineer Officers,” Engineer, September–December 2011, 

<http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/PDFs%20for%20

Sept-Dec%2011/Shaw.pdf>, accessed on 24 February 2012.

10Rob McIlvane, “Army Mentors Students on Track for 

Engineer Careers,” Army News Service, 19 February 2012, 

<http://www.army.mil/article/74157/Army_mentors

_students_on_track/_to_engineer_careers/>, accessed on

27 February 2012. 

Colonel Olsen commands the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. He is a registered engineer in the 

Commonwealth of Virginia and holds master’s degrees in 

civil engineering, business management, and national security studies. He previously commanded the 249th Engineer 

Battalion and was the commandant of the U.S. Army Prime 

Power School. 
32 Engineer May–August 2012

As U.S. infrastructure gets older, structural materials deteriorate due to weather, loads, and damage .through use. The ability to perform critical and detailed inspections of structures has become a high priority; 

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), St. Louis 

District, has a structural inspection team that does this in 

an unusual manner—via ropes. The St. Louis District has a 

large group of USACE structural engineers who are trained 

in rope access techniques to inspect hydraulic steel structures and bridges. Typical hydraulic steel structures in the 

St. Louis District are tainter, miter, and lift gates; culvert 

valves; and bulkheads.

In the past, it was difficult or impossible for structural 

engineers to inspect some portions of large steel or concrete 

structures because they could not get to the areas that required inspection. To get a floating plant or a crane to move 

inspectors to the required inspection positions on the structures was prohibitive because of the cost and was sometimes impossible to achieve. Eight years ago, two USACE 

structural engineers, both avid mountain climbers and accomplished structural steel designers, suggested that rope 

access techniques could provide safe access to inspect large 

steel structures. Since then, six more structural engineers 

from the St. Louis District have achieved their certification, 

bringing the total to eight personnel who are qualified to perform rope access inspections. There are only a few USACE 

districts that have engineers certified to conduct these types 

of inspections.

The structural inspection team performs rope access, 

rather than using more traditional methods like scaffolding, 

cradles, or equipment (scissor lifts, cherry pickers) for three 

primary reasons: it is safe, versatile, and economical.

First and foremost, it’s safe. A two-rope system is used, 

with one rope serving as the working line to support the 

worker and the other rope acting as a safety line to provide 

complete independent redundancy. This is similar to the 

way climbers ascend the steep rock faces of mountains, except they use a single line.

 The method is versatile, allowing the inspector the freedom and mobility to move around more easily than other 

methods. Regulations require inspectors to get “up close and 

personal” with structures. The rope access technique allows 

them to get close enough to look at critical areas closely, take 

pictures, and perform other inspection tasks they wouldn’t 

otherwise be able to do.

The rope system is also economical because it can be 

installed and dismantled quickly. This allows inspection 

teams to move from one portion of the job to the next more 

quickly than using other methods. By using the rope access 

technique, inspectors also minimize many of the mobilization and setup costs associated with the other methods.

By Mr. George E. Stringham
May–August 2012 Engineer 33

The team has not used their expertise to benefit the St. 

Louis District alone, though. They’ve also performed inspections for a four-span railroad bridge at the Holston Army 

Ammunition Plant in Kingsport, Tennessee; at tainter gates 

on dams in the Kansas City District; and at tainter gates on 

Missouri River dams for the Omaha District.

After the record-setting floods on the Missouri River in 

2011 and given the elevated pool levels that the dams withstood, the Northwestern Division and Omaha District of 

USACE were eager to have the six dams on the main stem 

of the river inspected as soon as possible. The St. Louis District rope access team was called on to perform this task, 

which primarily encompassed 95 gate structures at the six 

dams. The timeline to complete the work was tight, so they 

reached out to certified rope access technicians of the Philadelphia and New England Districts. Engineers from the St. 

A structural engineer and certified rope access technician from 

the St. Louis District prepares to 

inspect the top chords of the railroad truss at the Holston Army 

Ammunition Plant in Tennessee. 

Louis and Philadelphia Districts inspected the Garrison and 

Fort Randall Dams together. This established continuity between the two teams, making sure that they were addressing the same issues and noting discrepancies or concerns in 

a similar manner. The teams split up the remaining work, 

with the St. Louis District taking the Big Bend and Oahe 

Dams and the Philadelphia District taking the Gavins Point 

and Fort Peck Dams. A certified inspector from the New 

England District also assisted at Fort Peck. 

To the relief of the Northwestern Division and Omaha 

District, no major deficiencies were discovered on those 

main stem dams. The quick collection of data was critical, 

said a spokesman for the Northwestern Division. The floods 

were a record event and USACE needed to find out as soon 

as possible how the dams performed and how they would 

perform during the next flood season.

The St. Louis District team has 

expanded in the following significant areas:

■ Types of structures inspected.

■ Composition of the team.

■ Variety of customers served.

■ Use of partnering concepts with

other rope access-trained

districts. 

The team’s willingness to share 

the knowledge of this type of inspection, coupled with the willingness and planning to inspect new 

and larger types of structures, 

reflects the regional and national 

stature of this effort.

Mr. Stringham is a public affairs specialist with USACE, St. 

Technicians inspect one of four tainter gates on the Clarence Cannon Dam at Mark Louis District.

Twain Lake in Missouri.
34 Engineer May–August 2012

Have you ever wondered why the burn pit was located right next to the ammunition and fuel points? Or why the chow hall stood next to the wastewater 

storage area? When Soldiers arrive at their deployment site 

and settle in, there is little thought about how their living 

and working conditions came to be. The 243d Engineer Detachment (Construction Management Team [CMT]), 18th 

Engineer Brigade, is deeply involved in meeting the facility 

requirements of Soldiers, from identifying the basic living 

needs to providing quality assurance during construction. 

The detachment, based in Heidelberg, Germany, is currently deployed to Forward Operating Base Sharana, Afghanistan, with its organic parent unit, the 18th Engineer 

Brigade (Task Force Sword). The decisionmaking and project management processes are imperative in achieving the 

facility requirements.

For any new construction, such as a combat outpost or 

rebuild site where enemy action has rendered the old construction unusable, the requesting unit identifies the need 

for construction. Initial builds that are meant for short-term 

use may receive wooden tent decks for billeting, while sites 

meant for long-term use might receive hardstand billeting 

and work areas. Once the need is identified, an engineer 

work request is submitted to the higher headquarters. To 

facilitate quick processing of the work request, it should list 

specifics such as the number of Soldiers supported and the 

size, purpose, and location of the structure. Simply identifying a need for a “B-Hut” or a “SEA hut” is insufficient. These 

are simply types of buildings, with no specific size indicated.

After the work request is approved by the division engineer, it is sent to the engineer brigade, which publishes an 

order tasking the 243d Engineer Detachment (CMT) to provide program management and project overview and assigns 

an engineer unit to perform the construction.

As program managers, the 243d conducts mission analysis on the specific mission. Although we use the military

decisionmaking process, the factors we are concerned with 

are slightly different. We work with the mayor’s cell at the 

site of the proposed construction to understand the current 

and future composition of personnel and the specific operational requirements at the site. The calculations for billeting 

and other structural requirements are based on construction 

and base camp development standards in the U.S. Army 

Central Command “Sand Book” to ensure that the minimum 

military requirement is met. The minimum military requirement is a standard which ensures that construction capacity 

is maximized for the greatest number of personnel instead 

Project Management in Afghanistan

By Captain Kathryn A. Werback
May–August 2012 Engineer 35

of overbuilding one site while giving another site less than 

effective support. The Sand Book provides standards for living conditions based on the number of personnel at the site, 

such as the square footage of open-bay space that each person is entitled to and the size of the recreational facility that 

a site should have. Sand Book standards also enable the detachment to produce standard drawing sets. 

After the project manager identifies the Sand Book requirement for the project, the requesting unit is responsible 

for getting the project funding approved through the joint 

facilities utilization board. This board can contract materials for troop labor to construct, contract construction of the 

entire project, or contract partial construction through local 

national contractors. If necessary, this is the point at which 

the requesting unit submits a land acquisition request. The 

land acquisition request should be approved before construction starts, although time does not always allow this.

While the project is being funded, the project manager 

works with surveyors, designers, and technical master planners to understand and maximize the available space. Surveyors survey the current buildings to describe the current 

site layout, to include buildings and topography. The new 

build is plotted on this layout to ensure that everything fits 

and that the necessary standoff distances have been established. Once a site layout has been created, the project 

manager works with the requesting unit or the customer to 

ensure that all needs are being met. It is beneficial during 

this time for the project manager to conduct a site reconnaissance to fully understand the available working area. 

An additional benefit to this is the opportunity to meet the 

customer and discuss specific needs and issues.

The project manager also works with entities such as the 

appropriate prime power detachment and the Logistics Civilian Augmentation Program. At the start of the project, 

prime power engineers conduct an electrical load assessment of the current power supplies. They can identify additional power requirements and create plans to contract 

the installation of new power grids for large construction. If 

the construction site is contracted for operations and maintenance through the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, 

the contracted agency needs to be involved in the process 

early to perform inspections during construction so that the 

buildings can be added to the density list upon completion. 

Once the construction is added to the density list, it is the 

responsibility of the contracted agency to maintain it. 

An inspector from 

the CMT discusses 

design execution 

with the noncommissioned officer in 

charge of the site.

“Being able to provide the most complete site layout with 

accompanying construction directives to the engineer 

unit sets the construction mission up for success.”

(continued on page 41)
36 Engineer May–August 2012

I

n Field Manual 7-0, Training for Full Spectrum Operations, General Martin E. Dempsey stated, “Training 

has to be credible, relevant, and rigorous to make the 

scrimmage as hard as the game.”1 To make this a reality, 

units must have access to training areas that support their 

mission-essential task list to prepare for real-world missions. Many Army units face this challenge due to relocations caused by base realignment and closure actions and the 

buildup of brigade combat teams, which has overwhelmed 

limited training resources. Other units face the challenge 

because of special requirements associated with their 

mission-essential task list.

Facing Challenges

The 502d Multirole Bridge Company (MRBC) is one of 

five MRBCs in the Regular Army. The unit relocated 

from Hanau, Germany, to Fort Knox, Kentucky, in 

2008. Following the move, the unit deployed to Afghanistan 

to support Operation Enduring Freedom. The 502d MRBC 

was the first bridging company in theater and established 

the theater bridging infrastructure by conducting multiple 

bridging and rafting operations across Afghanistan. Following its redeployment in 2010, the unit reestablished its 

extensive training program, focusing on maintaining individual and collective gap-crossing training proficiencies. 

MRBCs are responsible for wet and dry gap crossings and 

have the equipment to complete these tasks, including dry 

support and improved ribbon bridges and bridge erection 

boats. The bridge crewmembers of an MRBC are responsible for the construction and dismantling of fixed bridges, 

which are semipermanent structures that provide lines of 

communication for units on the ground. The MRBC must 

be proficient on fixed bridges such as the Mabey-Johnson®, 

Acrow®, medium girder, and Bailey bridges. Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri, is currently the only installation able to 

support training on all mission-essential tasks of an MRBC, 

which include installing, anchoring, and inspecting float and 

fixed bridges.

Identifying Needs

When the 502d MRBC returned from Afghanistan, 

it became essential to establish training locations 

at Fort Knox. To meet this requirement, the 19th 

Engineer Battalion began coordinating with the Fort Knox 

Directorates of Public Works and Plans, Training, Mobilization, and Security and the post range division to develop 

wet and dry gap training sites. The search for training locations at Fort Knox came at an ideal time since the U.S. Army 

Armor School had begun moving from the installation to 

Fort Benning, Georgia, leaving numerous areas available. 

By Captain Russell F. Calloway
May–August 2012 Engineer 37

Identifying a Wet Gap Training Site

The search for a wet gap training site identified an 

old boat slip (known as Pilcher’s Landing) along the 

Ohio River. None of the organizations on Fort Knox 

had used the site for decades, and the slip would require a 

large amount of work to make it a sustainable training location. Fortunately, the 19th Engineer Battalion also has the 

15th Engineer Company (Horizontal) and the 72d Survey 

and Design Detachment. The battalion recognized that the 

construction of a new boat slip was an opportunity for highquality, multifunctional training and a chance to develop 

a training area specifically designed to fit the needs of the 

502d MRBC. The site would include an area large enough 

for combat bridge transporters to maneuver and a slip that 

could sustain constant abuse from the loading and unloading of bridge erection boats and the launching of improved 

ribbon bridge bays. The design chosen included the use of 

ArmorFlex® mats and geotextiles, demonstrating the desire 

of the 19th Engineer Battalion and Fort Knox to create a 

sustainable training area. Construction began in August 

2011 with the approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Louisville District. 

Identifying a Dry Gap Training Site

The Fort Knox range division also recommended a location for dry gap operations training. The site was originally part of an armor crewman training area. It 

required a significant amount of work before it would meet 

the commander’s intent, which included constructing a site 

that could handle the deployment of dry support bridges 

of various lengths and heights. The 19th Engineer battalion construction management and reconnaissance sections 

worked with the range division to develop a design that 

would meet this intent. The design would also be able to 

handle other fixed bridges, such as the medium girder and 

Bailey bridges. The result of the plan was a site valued at 

more than $400,000 and capable of deploying four dry support bridges simultaneously. Construction by contractors 

began in January 2012.

The 19th Engineer Battalion, working with agencies 

on Fort Knox, has established world-class bridge training 

areas for Regular Army and Reserve Component MRBCs. 

The training areas will help bridging companies prepare for

future missions. The 19th Engineer Battalion is now better 

prepared to complete assigned missions due to the efforts 

it took to design, build, and coordinate the development of 

bridging training facilities on Fort Knox.

Reference:

1Field Manual 7-0, Training for Full Spectrum Operations, 12 December 2008.

Captain Calloway graduated from the U.S. Military 

Academy at West Point in 2008 with a bachelor’s degree in 

civil engineering. He was the executive officer of the 502d 

MRBC and is now attending the Engineer Captains Career 

Course at Fort Leonard Wood. 

Dry support bridge
38 Engineer May–August 2012

Beyond the traditional World War II era functions of 

combat and general construction engineering supporting friendly forces described in the venerable 

tome Builders and Fighters,

1

 today’s U.S. Army engineers 

also must build capacity and foster development in other nations during war and peace. Army engineers can contribute 

significantly to the achievement of national security and foreign policy goals in the preconflict permissive environment 

of theater campaign plan (TCP) Phase 0 through foundational engagement activities such as security cooperation, 

partner capacity-building, and humanitarian assistance—

shaping regions to prevent conflict and promote U.S. interests without force.

To more broadly employ engineer forces requires the 

Army to eliminate an undocumented theater army (TA) 

mission command gap among existing echelons-abovebrigade (EAB) combat team engineer headquarters to best 

support geographic combatant commander and country team 

national security and foreign policy execution. Specifically, 

it should designate the EAB theater-enabling engagement 

engineer (TE3) headquarters responsible for, and empowered to, undertake the full breadth of Army engineer activities consistent with geographic combatant commander and

TA TCPs. TE3 headquarters would exercise mission command for Army engineer engagement rather than just serve 

as force providers. Assigned active theater engineer brigades in U.S. Army Pacific and U.S. Army Europe and a 

newly forming active brigade in U.S. Army Central, coupled 

with aligned reserve theater engineer commands (TECs) 

supporting U.S. Army South and U.S. Army Africa, meet 

the mark.2

 Geographic combatant commanders focus on normal 

and routine military and various interagency activities in 

Phase 0 to shape perceptions, influence behavior, and deter

conflict.3 Within the peacetime military engagement operational theme, Army engineers assist in shaping the security environment, maintaining presence, and fostering 

military-to-military cooperation.4 Key programmatic activities include exercise-related construction and forces for Joint 

Chiefs of Staff exercises, construction under humanitarian 

assistance, humanitarian civic assistance, civic action teams, 

global peace operations initiative authorities, and unit 

exchanges under the defense and military contacts program. 

Operations among all of these program areas routinely entail a 1- to 2-year, joint event life cycle at a level of complexity and detail best managed by a dedicated headquarters 

with planning and operational capabilities.5 Presently, engineer headquarters are involved with, but not fully responsible for, engineer engagement. With an ability to tangibly 

deliver, as measured by the lifespan of a structure and the 

activities it enables when compared to more fleeting engagements, engineers should be among the first units that the 

Army dedicates to this role. 

Current Situation

Assessing current doctrine and forces reveals an undocumented Army engineer mission command deficit .for TCP operations. EAB engineer headquarters are 

either missing at the TA level, or they are subordinate to the 

theater sustainment command (TSC). Their primary focus 

is internal and on missions assigned by higher headquarters. Their secondary focus is on the TCP and the support 

of external units. In either case, the deputy chief of staff, 

engineering (DCSENG), as the TA engineer coordinator, 

is the special staff element responsible for planning across 

multiple operational themes, arriving at force employment 

concepts and synchronizing the overall effort.6 Programming, planning, and coordinating engagement events to employ engineer units in support of the TCP typically requires 

considerable effort by DCSENG staffs, whether or not it is a 

specified mission-essential task.7 DCSENG staffs, however, 

are not resourced at the level for programmatic oversight 

and project planning for the number of events maximizing 

TCP engagement.

The EAB engineer command headquarters suitable for 

a TE3 role are the engineer brigade and the TEC. In fact, 

capacity-building is among five unified land operations

mission-essential tasks for both organizations, with the TEC 

emphasizing planning and the brigade emphasizing execution.8

 TECs possess the capability, but lack sufficient depth 

to support all TA headquarters peacetime, military engagements. While designed to command engineers at the EAB 

level across the spectrum of conflict, the Army’s two TECs 

(in the Reserve Component) do not directly align with any 

By Colonel Bruce A. Estok

Capacity Builders and Developers: Capacity Builders and Developers:

A Case for Theater-Enabling Engagement

Engineers in Security Cooperation Operations

A Case for Theater-Enabling Engagement

Engineers in Security Cooperation Operations
May–August 2012 Engineer 39

TA headquarters, do not have the capacity to support all 

TAs, and lack forward presence.9

Regular Army engineer brigades are well postured to provide TE3 support, particularly when assigned to a specific 

theater, as in the Pacific and Europe. Achieving this entails 

charging them with theater-wide engineer engagement missions. Army engineer and operations doctrine allows the 

streamlining of the engineer brigade reporting chain directly to the TA, but the TSC could serve as a suitable intermediate headquarters between the TA and the proposed 

TE3 brigade. A brigade-resourced technical plug similar to 

the premodular, five-person assistant division engineer cell 

(with communication among the brigade, DCSENG, and 

TSC) and the passing of the engineer engagement mandate 

from the TA through the TSC could posture this arrangement for success. It is also consistent with joint doctrine, 

which considers engineering a core logistic capability and 

creates vertical alignment with the geographic combatant 

commander joint staff logistics directorate, where logistics, 

engineering, and security assistance are nested. 

Challenges

Designating TE3s for each TA Phase 0 TCP entails 

a total Army approach acceptable in light of current and future force structure, management, and 

generation considerations. Making a decision on TE3 in 

2012 yields a glide slope toward the earliest implementation in 2015. Peacetime engagement missions can be developed and validated in the Joint Capability Requirements 

Manager System and then sourced through Global Force

Management.

Aligning the TECs for theater engagement enables the 

recently formed U.S. Army Africa and resource-challenged 

U.S. Army South. Each 244-person TEC can provide regionally focused planning support from among its full-time 

staff and Reserve Component training days to one TA’s 

peacetime engagement requirements, while also exercising 

training and readiness oversight over subordinate units and 

sustaining its own readiness for global contingencies. TEC 

responsibility for U.S. Army Africa and U.S. Army South 

is consistent with the emerging vision at U.S. Army Forces 

Command and the Office of the Chief of Army Reserve.10 

Technical support for program and project management details can be provided to the TEC headquarters by subordinate 

forward engineer support teams–main and forward engineer support teams–augmenting or by U.S. Army National 

Guard construction management sections, depending on the 

training needs of the units and Army force generation cycles. 

Additional challenges to employing the TECs and subordinate U.S. Army Reserve and National Guard brigades 

include the need to rework the State Partnership Program 

between the U.S. Army National Guard and partner nations 

and possible objections by the U.S. Army Reserve Command 

to aligning TECs with specific TA areas of responsibility. 

Doctrinally, the informal nature of an aligned relationship 

affords TECs the flexibility to balance regionally focused 

theater engagement activities with global responsibility inherent in their core mission to operate as the senior engineer 

headquarters in a theater of war.11

The risk of TECs being less ready for worldwide deployment is mitigated by committed Regular Army brigades in 

theaters where TECs are not resident. Preserving TECs 

solely for worldwide wartime theater employment is inefficient and inconsistent with the Quadrennial Defense Review priority objective to preserve the all-volunteer force by 

seamlessly integrating an operationally effective reserve.12, 13

When contingencies require a TEC, the assigned TE3 brigade develops the situation beyond Phase 0 and then transitions responsibility to the TEC as its early entry, functional, 

and mission command modules arrive in the time-phased 

force deployment flow.14 The TEC’s associated redirection 

from the prevent-and-deter activities of ongoing military 

engagement to pressing operational needs is a basic, forceplanning tenet.15, 16, 17

Three of the soon-to-be six Regular Army engineer brigades should be redesignated as “theater enabling” units. 

Also appropriate is formally tasking the brigades in Hawaii 

and Germany with the TE3 mission through their parent 

TSC and fully empowering them for the missions that they 

already partially perform. A third engineer brigade should 

be reassigned as the U.S. Army Central TE3 unit and stationed at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, near Shaw Air Force 

Base. Adding a new, nine-person construction management 

section and restationing a 14-person survey and design 

section from among the 12 in the active inventory is also

required.

The TE3 construct employs Regular Army engineer 

brigades consistent with their doctrinal and experiential 

“Army engineers can contribute significantly . . . 

through foundational engagement activities such as 

security cooperation, partner capacity-building, and 

humanitarian assistance—shaping regions to prevent 

conflict and promote U.S. interests without force.”
40 Engineer May–August 2012

capabilities in deployed operations. These headquarters can 

lead two to five subordinate units using up to two scalable 

deployable command posts. Their span of control is extremely relevant since the established Army force generation process, maturing brigade combat teams engineer battalion 

initiative, and an emerging U.S. Army Forces Command 

proposed modular force mission command plan adaptation may lead to more TCP engagement rotation missions 

by engineer units lacking a parent engineer brigade headquarters. The resident TE3 brigade, with a reduced training readiness authority role and an increased latent span of 

control owing to potential conversion of subordinate units 

into brigade engineer battalions, would be pivotal in setting 

conditions for the success of rotating units and maintaining consistent standards across the theater. Furthermore, 

TE3 formations also provide an operational node where U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers field force engineering assets can 

plug in to add technical depth. 

Implementation

The maturing engineer engagement program of U.S. 

Army Pacific illustrates linkages with national security and highlights a need for dedicated engineer 

theater-level headquarters leadership. The 412th TEC’s 2010 

transformation and recall of its Hawaii detachment stymied 

the U.S. Army Pacific’s desire for an aligned engineer command concurrent with the 130th Engineer Brigade’s return 

from combat deployment to its Pacific theater assignment 

in 2010. While not designated a TE3 unit, the brigade assumed a major TCP role by transitioning a series of engagements from planning to execution, providing the TSC with a 

small engineer plug to ensure engineer expertise on the staff 

and facilitate communication among the TSC, brigade, and

TA DCSENG and operations directorates.

Ten company equivalent, bilateral or multilateral events in 

2011 emerged from 2 years of collaboration between the U.S. 

Army Pacific DCSENG, the command’s security cooperation 

division, and U.S. Pacific Command program managers working with U.S. diplomatic missions. Partner nations vary from 

those with mutual defense treaties to others where the United 

States is vying with China for influence. A biannual field exercise with India—increasingly important geopolitically—added 

a combat engineer platoon to a troop list that included the 

largest Stryker deployment outside Iraq and Afghanistan 

during its last iteration.18 Two-thirds of the events were 

performed by the brigade units, and the balance by U.S. 

Army Reserve units. Events included school construction,

a 6-month civic assistance deployment, and the brigade’s

command post serving as a combined, joint, civil-military

operations task force headquarters leading coalition construction, training, medical, and veterinary missions.

While geographic combatant commander and TA staffs 

historically performed the majority of engagement program 

development with brigades responsible for execution, the robust modular brigade headquarters and an Army-wide “flattening” trajectory that will emanate from the new “Army 

operating concept” and related idea of “mission command” 

portend the TE3 era. Specifically, the Army operating concept includes “sustained engagement focused on developing partner capacity” as a TA level mission, while “mission 

command” relies on the “role of the commander in building 

teams with joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational partners” and emphasizes “pass[ing] resources 

and responsibility ‘to the edge’ ” while recognizing “that the 

best understanding comes from the bottom up.”19 The engineer brigade headquarters in a TE3 role represents one 

way to make the new doctrine operational and potentially 

achieve significant results at the low end of the spectrum

of conflict.

Conclusion

Empowered TE3 headquarters have a role to play on 

the 21st century defense, diplomacy, and development 

team in shaping operations that prevent and deter conflict. As part of the TA, they provide an ability to build partner 

nation capacity by performing traditional construction tasks 

in support of, and in partnership with, local, regional, and national entities to support geographic combatant command national security and country team foreign policy execution. Despite suitable organizations, a heretofore undocumented gap 

exists since they lack a TA level mandate to exercise mission 

command for Army engineer engagement, rather than just provide forces to it. Making organization, mission, and resource 

decisions in 2012 puts Army EAB combat team engineers 

on a glide path to contribute substantially starting in 2015, 

as engineer combat operational tempo declines and civilian 

power growth portended in the Quadrennial Diplomacy 

and Defense Review increases. Ultimately, the proposed 

TE3 construct bridges an undocumented—but important—

engineer mission command gap, mobilizing latent modular 

control capability and capacity for theater-wide peacetime 

engagement. 

(This article was composed by Lieutenant Colonel Mark 

A. Winkler and Mr. James R. Rowan, from the U.S. Army 

Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. It is an 

abridged version of the original. For the full text, go to 

<https://www.us.army.mil/suite/doc/36715702>.)

Endnotes:

1

Barry W. Fowle, Builders and Fighters: U.S. Army Engineers in World War II, University Press of the Pacific, 

28 March 2005.

2Patrick M. Cronin and Brian M. Burton, “Beyond Borders: Developing Comprehensive National Security Policies 

to Address Complex Regional Challenges,” Center for a 

New American Security, Washington D.C., December 1991, 

p. 10.

3

While beyond the scope of this endeavor, the reality of 

time-phased force deployments dictates that TE3s will be 

the de facto theater-enabling engagement engineer headquarters beyond Phase 0 in many contingency response 

cases.
May–August 2012 Engineer 41

4

Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations, 17 September 

2006.

5

Army Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (ATTP) 

3-34.23, Engineer Operations–Echelons Above Brigade Combat Team, 8 July 2010, para. 4-14.

6

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “The Joint Training System: A Primer for Senior Leaders,” Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff Guide 3501, 31 July 2008.

7

Julian Smith, “Deputy Chief of Staff, Engineering

Mission-Essential Task List Review Back Brief,” U.S. Army

Pacific, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, 1 October 2010. 

8

ATTP 3-34.23, paras. 3-4, 4-2.

9

Bob Kaiser, “Engineer Directorate Mission-Essential 

Tasks,” U.S. Army Africa, Heidelberg, Germany, July 2010.

10U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center, “Approved Engineer [Theater Engineer Command] Brigade Full Spectrum Operations Mission-Essential Task List AMRB 10-01 

MANSCEN/ENGR-001 and -0022,” Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri, 2010.

11ATTP 3-34.23, paras. 3-4, 4-11.

12Michael Hoffman, “Officials Seek to Keep ‘Operational 

Reserve,’ ” Army Times, 17 November 2010.

13Field Manual 3-0, Operations, 27 February 2008.

14U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center, 2010.

15U.S. Department of Defense, “Quadrennial Defense Review Report,” p. 53.

16ATTP 3-34.23, para. A-2.

17U.S. Department of Defense, p. 44.

18Embassy of the United States, New Delhi-India, “U.S.–

Indian Army Exercise Yudh Abhyas Underway,” 19 October 

2009, <http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/pr101909.html>, 

accessed 31 May 2012.

19U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Pamphlet 

525-3-1, The Army Operating Concept: 2016-2028, 19 August 2010, pp. 14, 21. 

Colonel Estok commands the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District after a year as a National Security Fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government 

where the full version of this article was written. He served 

as engineer plans and operations chief for U.S. Army Pacific 

from 2008 to 2010 and as commander and district engineer 

for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District 

from 2006 to 2008. He holds a bachelor’s degree in aeronautical engineering from the U.S. Military Academy and a master’s degree in civil engineering from the Georgia Institute of 

Technology.

During the site layout approval process with the customer, the site design goes through a vetting process. The 

specific project determines who needs to vet it, but some of 

the more common venues are antiterrorism/force protection, 

communications, explosives safety (for ammunition handling or supply points), fire, and aviation (for airfields and 

helipads). This addresses topics ranging from the maximum 

occupancy of a bunker to the standoff distances required for 

air assets. Once the site plan has been vetted and the drawings for structures approved, the project manager will produce a construction directive for the constructing unit. This 

details the construction requirements and identifies who is 

responsible for each specific task. For example, the emplacement of concertina wire is not an engineer task; it is a basic 

Soldier task that can be completed by personnel other than 

engineers. Included in the construction directive are details 

for the construction, site layout, construction drawings, and 

inspection checklists. When published, the construction directive is distributed to the engineer brigade, the requesting 

unit (which is usually the customer), and any other units in 

the task force that might have an interest in the construction. This allows the person in charge on the ground to know 

exactly what is required to complete the mission.

During mission execution, the 243d conducts milestone 

quality assurance inspections that augment the inspections 

completed by the constructing unit to ensure that the project is being built to life, health, and safety standards. After every site visit and reconnaissance, the 243d Engineer 

Detachment (CMT) produces a memorandum that details 

what was seen, what was fixed, and any outstanding issues. 

This is also disseminated to the lowest level to ensure that 

lessons are learned, outstanding issues are addressed by the 

appropriate personnel, and all personnel involved receive 

project updates.

Upon completion, the customer signs a completion memorandum to inform all parties that the construction has been 

completed. The customers can then move in and begin operations, while the construction engineers move on to the 

next project.

The 243d Engineer Detachment (CMT) completed several 

significant missions at locations such as Combat Outposts 

Dashe Towp and Sayed Abad. The greatest lesson learned 

from those experiences was to attain open communication 

with the customer and mission-related experts at the earliest possible time. Being able to provide the most complete 

site layout with accompanying construction directives to the 

engineer unit sets the construction mission up for success.

Captain Werback is the 605th Engineer Detachment 

(CMT) public works officer, currently deployed in support of 

Operation Enduring Freedom. She is a graduate of the Engineer Captains Career Course and holds a bachelor’s degree 

in civil engineering from the University of California, Davis 

and a master’s degree in engineering management from Missouri University of Science and Technology at Rolla. 

(“Project Management,” continued from page 35)
42 Engineer May–August 2012

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 4th quarter, FY 12.

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 3d quarter, FY 13.

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 2d quarter, FY 13.

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 13.

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 13. (FM 3-90.61)

This engineer 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 revised 2d quarter, fiscal year (FY) 13.

ATP 3-90.4

(ATTP 3-90.4)

(FM 3-34.2) 

(FM 3-90.12)

Combined Arms Mobility

Operations

Aug 11 This was a full revision, to include the renaming and renumbering of FM 

3-34.2, Combined Arms Breaching Operations, and FM 3-90.12, Combined 

Arms Gap Crossing. Changes in the force structure have required adjustment 

of the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) associated with breaching 

and clearance operations. It redefines mobility operations and includes six 

primary mobility tasks.

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 1st quarter, FY 13.

ATP 3-90.8

(FM 3-90)

(FM 5-102)

(FM 90-7)

Combined Arms 

Countermobility

Operations

Mar 85 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 3d quarter, FY 13.
May–August 2012 Engineer 43

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 4th quarter, FY 13.

ATP 3-37.10 Base Camps New

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 5 June 2012.

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.

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 2d 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 1st quarter, FY 14.

This will be a multi-Service manual. It will be targeted for all branches (not an 

engineer manual solely for the use of engineers). It is a compilation of TTP 

found in doctrine, lessons learned, and reference material that provides an 

integrated systematic approach to base camps.

Status: To be published 1st quarter, FY13.

Combat Engineering (continued)

ATP 3-90.37

(FM 3-90.119)

(FMI 3-34.119)

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, and Field Manual 

Interim (FMI) 3-34.119, Improvised Explosive Device Defeat.

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

This manual will undergo review and update as required.

Status: To be published 3d quarter, FY 13.

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.
44 Engineer May–August 2012

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

In order to keep the field informed of the most current Doctrine 2015 updates, the commanding general of the U.S. Army Combined Arms 

Center has established a Web site <http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/Doctrine2015/index.asp> that contains the most recent developments.

There is also a milWiki standing operating procedure (SOP) portal <https://www.milsuite.mil/wiki/Portal:Standard _Operating_Procedures>

that provides a baseline for developing new SOPs. There are tabs for a tactical SOP and SOP examples. Soldiers are encouraged to use 

this site to download or upload unclassified SOP examples.

To clarify commonly misused terms, note the following:

Scheme of engineer support (formerly known as SOEO), is found in ATTP 5-0.1, Commander and Staff Officer Guide, dated 14 September 2011. This manual addresses the “how to” details for the exercise of mission command. It is holistic and lays out more than staff 

responsibilities, the military decisionmaking process, troop leading procedures, running estimates, plans, and orders. The Engineer Annex 

format and instructions are in Annex G and contain applicable appendices.

The phrase battlespace owner was rescinded in Army and joint doctrine 4 years ago since it was rarely used correctly. It became a 

synonym for area of operations, but was meant to be a much broader term. One cannot “own” battlespace, but can “own” an area of 

operations.

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) became synonymous with the technical methods of collection and caused many 

to overlook the importance of ground reconnaissance and human collection methods. Now, specific collection means (reconnaissance, 

surveillance, human intelligence, and so on) will be spelled out.

Information engagement. The correct term is inform and influence activities (IIA).

Information operations (IO). The Army supports joint IO, but does not recognize IO as a type of Army operation. Similar to ISR, the 

components of IO should be addressed as separate types of operations with different proponents and different staff sections responsible 

for them.

Kinetic/nonkinetic. The terms have been rescinded and replaced by lethal and nonlethal. Nonlethal effects can be kinetic, and nonkinetic 

effects can be lethal.

Command and control. This term has been rescinded and replaced with mission command. 

Full spectrum operations. This term has been replaced with unified land operations as the Army operational concept or by decisive 

action for combining defense, offense, stability, or defense support of civil authorities.

For questions about doctrinal information, contact the Engineer Doctrine Branch at <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.cdidcodddeng

doc@mail.mil>.

U.S. Army Engineer School History Office. This

office maintains a multimedia collection of historical materials on the Engineer School and the Engineer Regiment. The collection—which consists of more 

than 17,000 manuals, 21,000 photos, 800 videotapes, 

and three million pages of documents on engineer history—includes information on units, equipment, organizations, and operations that can support mission requirements and analysis efforts. The office is seeking 

to expand its holdings on engineer units and requests 

that copies of photographs, videos, or documents that are 

generated by units be sent to: History Office, U.S. Army 

Engineer School, 320 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 043, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473, or to <leon.usaeshistory

@conus.army.mil>. The History Office also maintains 

a milBook page at <https://www.kc.army.mil/book

/groups/engineer-historian> and a Web page at <http://

www.wood.army.mil/wood_cms/usaes/2332.shtml>.

Any questions should be directed to Dr. David Ulbrich 

at (573) 563-6365.
May–August 2012 Engineer 45

The Army does not do a good job of monitoring or controlling officer development. This has resulted in a desynchronization of institutional education, unit 

training, and self-development. The tool that should link 

these three legs of the stool—Department of the Army (DA) 

Form 67-9, Officer Evaluation Report (OER)2—does not possess the depth or structure to describe professional development. The regulations governing professional development 

have no teeth and so remain neglected. Raters and senior 

raters are not required to elaborate on how they developed 

the rated officer; the OER merely states the rated officer’s 

achievements. With downsizing on the horizon and debate 

on talent retention in full swing, I offer a possible method 

for developing solid performers and identifying those who 

are not. If we break down a rating into its key components, 

the rating process is not limited to an annual, concise verbal 

statement that sums up the rated officer. That may be the 

core outcome, but the peripheral tasks leading up to the rating are just as crucial. 

We can assess the performance and potential of the rated 

officer and the rater as well. In doing so, we can leverage the 

existing regulations, thereby further preparing junior officers for their upcoming schools and creating more quantifiable standards for promotion and course attendance. Principally, this solution seeks to link the first two branch-specific 

Officer Education System courses, ensuring that only qualified officers attend captains career courses and ascend to the 

rank of captain through the development and enforcement 

of the Officer Foundation Standards (OFS). The selection for 

these will require an OER that can illuminate professional 

development (guided and self-directed) and that accurately 

feeds the system. The way ahead is the creation of a “digital 

age” OER that tracks a rated officer’s professional development and illuminates the manner in which raters and senior 

raters helped develop their charges.

Soldiers must acquire the habits of lifelong learners. Army 

training, education, and experience domains require a holistic integration and clearly defined paths to achieve outcomes 

at each stage of a Soldier’s career.

—Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)

Pamphlet (Pam) 525-8-23

As a small group leader at the Engineer Captains Career 

Course (ECCC), I can poll students to discover how many 

have formal, professional development plans established 

and enforced by their rating chains. The result is usually 

less than 25 percent. As a result, few have any background 

in additional language training, despite current opportunities. Even fewer are well-read or able to write effectively. 

By Major Robert R. Phillipson

“No matter what the environment, if expectations are not clear, unambiguous, explicit, and inflexible, standards will always slip. At best it can be described as human nature. Over time, people begin 

to accept a slowly declining status quo as they slip into the comfort zone.”

—Chef Gordon Ramsay1
46 Engineer May–August 2012

While they may be courageous warriors, they lack intellectually broadening experience commensurate with their rank. 

They may have deployed, but they are not required to show 

competence in the English language. For the most part, the 

officers have not been required to perform any unit level 

tasks other than prepare for deployment, deploy, or return 

from deployment. 

This description is the polar opposite of where professional officers need to be to support Joint Force 2020. In 

a 3 April 2012 mission command white paper from General Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff 4 he states that trust is a key component of mission 

command. If there is a general sentiment that young officers lack many professional aspects, how can commanders trust those officers to the extent that General Dempsey 

expects them to? TRADOC Task Order IN1201825 contains an example of how far the Army has displaced the 

responsibility for the professional development that would 

enable the trust that commanders need. This order proposes to expand developmental responsibilities in captains 

career courses. It seeks courses of action to “address gaps 

in midgrade officer capabilities” by lengthening captains 

career courses or by adding distributed learning portions 

to them. Aside from expanding the institutional training 

as one of the recommended courses of action, the document 

also discusses the return of the old Combined Arms and 

Services Staff School. 

The perceived inability of officers to communicate effectively is one important gap in midgrade officer capabilities.

I would argue that any unit that is disappointed by a captain 

who cannot communicate effectively was let down by the officer’s previous unit, which failed for 3 years to teach and 

coach that captain on communication skills. Why should the 

Army create a completely new bureaucracy just to displace 

responsibility? The distrust of the abilities of young officers 

likely stems from a distrust in their development. From an 

institutional standpoint, the lack of development has made 

it increasingly difficult to teach many of the lessons required 

in the captains career course because so much time is spent 

teaching lessons that units and raters should have required. 

The U.S. Army Learning Concept for 20156 describes the 

core competencies required of the 21st century Soldier—

■ Character and accountability.

■ Comprehensive fitness.

■ Adaptability and initiative.

■ Lifelong learner (includes digital literacy).

■ Teamwork and collaboration.

■ Communication and engagement (oral, written,

negotiation).

■ Critical thinking and problem solving.

■ Cultural and joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and

multinational competence.

■ Tactical and technical competence (unified land 

operations-capable).7

The current OER only captures these competencies if the 

rater or senior rater is willing or able to articulate them to 

a selection board. Further, the promotion of a first lieutenant to captain using the “fully qualified” definition does not 

require the first lieutenant to complete any of the training 

or academic requirements that would support these competencies.8

 Block d of Part IV on the form asks the rater if 

the rated officer completed developmental tasks and if those 

tasks were recorded on DA Form 67-9-1a, Developmental 

Support Form.

9

 I challenge raters to reflect on that block and 

identify what tasks they are confirming when they sign their 

name to the OER. There are required tasks, but since there 

is no requirement to document anything beyond the rated officer’s duty performance, the Officer Education System then 

bears the sole responsibility for educating and assessing the 

bulk of administrative and knowledge-based tasks. This is 

not correct or sustainable. Schooling such as the Engineer 

Officer Basic Leadership Course (EOBLC) and ECCC teach 

theory, not administration. Administration is something 

that junior officers should learn by doing—at their units. 

By regulation, a large portion of this responsibility is shared 

with the rating chain of the company grade officer. 

Leaders can find a list of position requirements for career 

advancement in the regulations. However, finding a list of 

universal tasks that a junior officer must complete is becoming increasingly difficult. DA Pamphlet 350-58, Leader Development for America’s Army, states that OFS “provide the 

foundation for progressive and sequential training within 

the institutional pillar. OFS are linked to leader development through the efforts of school commandants.”10 Properly 

developed and enforced, the OFS can serve as requirements 

for promotion and for Officer Education System attendance. 

The standards bridge the gap between the basic and career 

“Having rated officers see their raters as more than just 

signature blocks will promote excellence. Rated officers 

may feel a higher degree of loyalty to the organization if 

raters are intimately involved in their future.”
May–August 2012 Engineer 47

courses. The menu of items required for advancement to 

captain should be prescriptive and should be in line with the 

21st century Soldier competencies. Some of the administrative tasks required for captains to understand include—

■ Conducting an inventory.

■ Conducting an investigation.

■ Reading a book and writing a review.

■ Writing an order.

■ Briefing an order.

■ Planning and supervising a range.

In addition, requiring distance course work and professional reading that reinforce EBOLC learning outcomes 

could open the door to concepts instructed at the ECCC and 

serve two purposes: reduce the time spent repeating EBOLC 

concepts and introduce the officer to thinking from the perspective of the next higher echelon. These OFS should be a 

direct result of a critical task selection board. At this board, 

responsibilities are directly assigned to the institution, to 

the unit, or to self-development. Formalizing responsibility 

is essential. With no oversight, professional development becomes a barstool with OES institutions as the only leg. 

 Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially. 

—Socrates11

Part IV of DA Form 67-9 is a series of blocks that express 

the professionalism of a rated officer through the selection 

of “yes” or “no” on 23 categories. I would like to see this section substituted with a section that links the Army Career 

Tracker (ACT) and some aspects of the Noncommissioned 

Officer Evaluation Report. The ACT is now online and is 

in use by the Noncommissioned Officer Corps. It has much 

more potential than what some may currently envision. Because it recognizes the user’s common access card certificates, ACT can pull personal data from multiple digital data 

sources. It allows the user to select raters and mentors who 

have informal overwatch of the user’s professional development. I propose formalizing the interfaces and linking them 

to the OER form. 

I would add a dashboard to the ACT that reflects the performance of the rated officer and includes a window that also 

portrays the officer’s administrative prowess. The ACT can 

track professional development and, in the case of this discussion, the OFS. Based on the rated officer’s certificates, 

which include specialty and rank, a menu displays the 

training or education required to advance to the next grade 

or course. This menu displays a red-amber-green status 

until requirements are satisfied and the officer’s promotion 

pushes them past those requirements. The block would ask 

if the officer has completed the OFS. The answer would be 

directly tied to promotion and/or captains career course attendance. The same window would allow senior raters to 

track the ability of raters to develop their subordinates. For 

example, if senior raters saw that most of the officers they 

rate were in “red” status after being in the unit for more 

than a year, they could determine if the raters were unable 

to develop the rated officers or if the rated officers were simply apathetic.

Another tool that could feed into the ACT and become 

a block in this section is the Multi-Source Assessment and 

Feedback (MSAF) tool.12 Users select a number of superiors, 

peers, and subordinates who will submit anonymous evaluations of the user. MSAF has the potential to develop an officer more than any other tool I have seen. If we ensure that 

the correct populations receive MSAF requests, the tool will 

provide an officer with a perspective that is not easily captured by the rater or senior rater. If the rater then exploits 

the traits exhibited by the officer and develops the deficiencies identified by the MSAF data, true counseling and professional development can take place. The rater would also be 

able to make informed recommendations to the senior rater 

about the rated officer’s short-term potential, leadership 

strengths, and best pairing with a noncommissioned officer 

counterpart. The OER must quantify how well officers challenge and develop subordinates and interact with peers. Subordinates and peers contribute to this more than the rater.

Having rated officers see their raters as more than just 

signature blocks will promote excellence. Rated officers may 

feel a higher degree of loyalty to the organization if raters 

are intimately involved in their future. On the other hand, 

if raters only interface with rated officers during the rating 

season, the amount of honest feedback they can give will be 

limited. General Omar Bradley reminds us “always to remember that an essential qualification of a good leader is 

the ability to recognize, select, and train junior leaders.”13

The timeframe between second lieutenant and captain is 

a factory whose final product is an ECCC graduate who is 

ready to serve competently. The culmination of EBOLC, unit 

training, and ECCC is an agile and adaptive leader who is 

able to lead tomorrow’s Engineer Regiment. For now, the 

way ahead is straightforward, but will require discussion 

and commitment to synchronize the different commands. 

EBOLC and ECCC should be analyzed to find the critical 

tasks that bridge the two courses, enabling enhanced learning at ECCC. This task list becomes the required professional development for ECCC attendance. To ensure that 

these tasks are tracked, a digital OER should be linked to 

the ACT. Finally, TRADOC, in collaboration with U.S. Army 

Forces Command and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, must 

create a menu of virtual courses to sustain or enhance existing knowledge. 

The Army is winding down from its current operational tempo and faces a future of budget and force structure 

cuts. An intellectually honest way to promote and retain talent starts with the basic interactions of the rated with the

rater. It continues with identifying, promoting, and using 

that talent in the best interests of the organization. Without 

a regulatory structure to require this interaction, it becomes 

“optional” at a critical time when the best officers must be 

identified, groomed, and retained. 
 48 Engineer May–August 2012

Endnotes:

1

Jason Moore, “3 Leadership Lessons from Chef Gordon Ramsay,” 25 January 2010, <http://newrulesofwork

.net/blog/2010/01/leadership-lessons-from-chef-gordon

-ramsay/>, accessed 08 March 2012.

2

DA Form 67-9, Officer Evaluation Report, October 2011.

3TRADOC Pam 525-8-2, The U.S. Army Learning Concept for 2015, 20 January 2011, p. 14.

4

Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Mission Command White Paper,” 

3 April 2012.

5

TRADOC Task Order IN120182, 18 January 2012.

6

TRADOC Pam 525-8-2, p. 18.

7

“Unified land operations” substituted for the rescinded 

term “full spectrum operations.”

8

Army Regulation 600-8-29, Officer Promotions, 25 February 2005, para. 1-36a(2).

9

DA Form 67-9-1a. Developmental Support Form, March 

2006.

10DA Pam 350-58, Leader Development for America’s 

Army, 13 October 1994, p. 17.

11IWISE, Wisdom On-Demand, <http://www.iwise.com

/ASHiz>, accessed on 8 March 2012.

12Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback, <http://msaf

.army.mil/LeadOn.aspx>, accessed on 8 March 2012.

13DA Pam 600-65, Leadership Statements and Quotes, 

1 November 1985, p. 3.

Major Phillipson serves on the staff of U.S. Forces–

Afghanistan. He holds an associate’s degree from the New 

Mexico Military Institute at Roswell; a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque; and a master’s degree in geological engineering from Missouri University of Science and Technology

at Rolla.

The U.S. Army Geospatial Center, Alexandria, Virginia, is now distributing modeling and simulation (M&S) terrain databases along with operational 

geospatial products on its Common Map Background Web 

site with the goal of providing a single repository for all geospatial products. There are 161 free, synthetic terrain databases that support live, virtual, and constructive simulations used in training, testing, and experimentation 

hosted on the site. The M&S terrain databases are available in multiple formats suitable for use in Joint SemiAutomated Forces, One Semi-Automated Forces, Virtual

Battle Space 2, and other Department of Defense simulations. Available terrain databases include selected U.S. 

Army training areas and areas of recent Army deployments.

The terrain databases are available at <https://agcwfs

.agc.army.mil/cmb_online/Default.aspx> for free downloading to Department of Defense users with common

From U.S. Army Geospatial Center

U.S. Army Geospatial Center 

Provides Free Modeling

and Simulation Terrain Databases

access cards. The graphical interface of the Common 

Map Background program is easy to use, and users can 

select M&S terrain databases using a simple map interface. The site also provides contact information to request 

new M&S terrain databases. Other M&S terrain database 

producers who wish to use the Common Map Background 

program to redistribute their databases should contact 

the U.S. Army Geospatial Center Geospatial Acquisition 

Support Directorate using the contact information on the 

Web site.

The U.S. Army Geospatial Center coordinates, integrates, 

and synchronizes geospatial information requirements and 

standards across the Army, develops and fields geospatial 

enterprise-enabled systems and capabilities to the Department of Defense, and provides direct geospatial support and 

products to warfighters. To learn more about the center, 

visit <www.agc.army.mil>.
The Engineer School of Application

at Willets Point

May–August 2012 Engineer 49

I

n 1866, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New 

York, was reorganized. The Corps of Engineers lost control of the facility; and the first nonengineer, Colonel 

Thomas Pitcher, 44th U.S. Infantry, was appointed as superintendent. Additionally, the Engineer Depot was moved 

from West Point to a new home at Willets Point, New York. 

When the Army of the Potomac was mustered out of service, the question arose of what to do with the U.S. Engineer 

Battalion, which had rendered distinguished service during 

the Civil War. At Willets Point, temporary buildings at the 

wartime Grant General Hospital were deemed suitable to 

provide immediate accommodations for the troops and their 

equipment and instruments. An independent engineer post 

was created under the direct control of the Chief of Engineers. Company A of the battalion was initially dispatched 

back to West Point and, later, to Willets Point in September 1867. Companies B, C, and D were stationed at Willets 

Point; while Company E was sent to 

Jefferson Barracks, Missouri, which 

would provide storage space for the 

accumulation of engineer property 

remaining after the discharge of the 

western armies. Subsequently, Company D was transferred in August 

1867 to Yerba Buena Island in California and Company E was restationed at 

West Point.1, 2

The installation at Willets Point 

occupied a 136-acre site in northern 

Queens County, on a peninsula jutting into Long Island Sound. The 

fortification, originally called the 

Fort at Willets Point, had been established in 1857 as a major component 

of the defense system of New York 

Harbor. The property had been originally purchased in 1829 by Charles 

Willets. The Willets family sold the 

property to the federal government 

in 1857 for $200,000. Its surviving—

although uncompleted—fortification 

displayed the features of the last phase 

of the “Third System” of coastal fortifications, an important 

period of American military construction. The surviving fortification at the north end of the peninsula was planned as 

the counterpoint to Fort Schuyler on Throggs Neck in Bronx 

County to guard the Long Island Sound entrance to the East 

River and New York Harbor. Although the fort, begun in 

1862, was never completed because of advances in weaponry 

during the Civil War, the post retained its importance as the 

site of advanced training for Army engineers and research 

in military technology and medicine. During the early years 

of the Civil War, a number of volunteer regiments—including the 15th New York Engineers—organized and mustered 

into federal service there. The 15th New York Engineers 

later served alongside the U.S. Engineer Battalion in the 

Army of the Potomac.3

In October 1866, Brigadier General Andrew A. Humphreys, the newly appointed Chief of Engineers, inspected 

By Mr. Gustav J. Person

1866-1901

Past in Review

An 1866 map of the Engineer School of Application at Willets Point
50 Engineer May–August 2012

Willets Point with a view toward stationing engineer troops 

and storing their equipment there. He appointed Major 

James C. Duane as commander of the post. However, Major 

Duane was in poor health so the principal work to be done 

was assigned to Major Henry L. Abbot. As a young lieutenant, he had assisted Brigadier General Humphreys during 

the extensive hydrographic study of the Mississippi River 

delta in the 1850s. While Major Duane functioned as post 

commander, Major Abbot took command of the U.S. Engineer Battalion on 1 June 1866, a position he maintained 

until October 1886. Under his supervision, the engineering 

skills of the troops were soon called upon to renovate the 

buildings, maintain their equipment, and inaugurate the 

Engineer School of Application.4

Humphreys began operating the school in the summer 

of 1867. Its purpose was to continue the training of West 

Point graduates who had been commissioned into the Corps 

of Engineers. The initial program was for 2 years, but it 

later expanded as a postgraduate course that included the 

writing and reading of professional papers on current 

engineering practices as well as classroom work. The 

school would also become the laboratory for the Corps 

where, with the assistance of officers and enlisted men, 

“any investigation requiring experimental research 

could be done.” All of the student-officers served with 

the companies of engineer troops at Willets Point.5

Founded by Major Duane and Major Abbot, the Essayons Club was composed of officers on the post and 

had a wide honorary membership. It met weekly on 

Monday evenings during the winter to discuss scientific subjects. Members prepared reports on a variety 

of technical and military topics and presented them 

for discussion. The scientific researches of the Essayons Club, plus a summer training program, constituted the Engineer School of Application in its embryonic 

stage. A total of 50 papers were presented and printed 

on the battalion press during the lifetime of the club. 

Major Duane presented the first paper on 28 January 1868 on experiments to develop the best pattern 

of ponton bridge train for the Army. As the technical 

work of the school increased, meetings were held at 

longer intervals and the club finally suspended operations in 1882.6, 7

The location of the post was well-suited for the practical instruction of the officers and troops in siege operations (including landmining, bridge construction, and 

military surveys of the surrounding country) to serve 

as a basis for the study of defensive lines. For example, 

during the winter of 1873, each officer was required to 

submit “a detailed project for a line of field works extending from Willets Point to Jamaica Bay, designed 

for the defense of Brooklyn against an anticipated sudden invasion by a well-equipped army of 100,000 men, 

landing on the east end of Long Island.” These projects were later forwarded to the Chief of Engineers for 

his review.8

A school for enlisted men was ordered by an Act of Congress on 28 July 1866. Attendance was voluntary and proved 

highly successful. Three departments were organized to 

teach mathematics, English grammar, French, Spanish, history, law, geography, and penmanship.9

Although the engineers at Willets Point concentrated on 

scientific research and learning engineering skills, troops 

were often dispatched on military duties outside Willets 

Point. Rifle shooting was an important part of their training. To counteract the notion that engineers could not fight, 

Major Abbot saw to it that much attention was given to 

marksmanship; and engineer troops often entered and won 

shooting matches held around the country. In 1869, one 

of the engineer Soldiers won the Army’s silver medal for 

shooting. In the first 13 years of the annual military shooting competitions at Creedmoor, a few miles south of Willets Point, engineers won 117 prizes. And in 1882, Sergeant 

Charles Barrett of Company B, competing in the prestigious, biannual Army and Navy Journal matches at Fort 

Major Henry L. Abbot in a photograph taken while serving

as the second commandant of the Engineer School of

Application
May–August 2012 Engineer 51

Leavenworth, Kansas, won the first-prize gold medal. Major 

Abbot stated in several of his annual reports that the reputation of the engineers was greatly enhanced by this shooting excellence.10, 11

In December 1869, the U.S. Engineer Battalion was ordered with other troops to Brooklyn, New York, to suppress 

numerous illicit distilleries near the Navy Yard. They performed a similar duty in November 1870. During the Great 

Railroad Strike of 1877, the battalion proceeded to Baltimore 

in July to relieve National Guard troops and then transferred to Philadelphia to assist in riot control. The bearing 

and discipline of the battalion were admirable throughout 

their service and received the highest commendation from 

Major General Winfield Scott Hancock, the commanding 

general of the Army’s Division of the East. The battalion 

formed part of the escorts at the funerals of famous Civil 

War officers Major General George H. Thomas and Admiral 

David G. Farragut and held the right of the line at the funeral of Major General George G. Meade, whom it had served in 

the Army of the Potomac.12

In June 1889, the battalion assisted in relief efforts after the Johnstown Flood in Pennsylvania. Ponton boats 

and bridging equipment were transported to the site by 

train to erect a 200-foot wagon bridge and another 320-foot 

bridge to provide supply and vehicular support for relief 

operations.13

The Engineer School of Application functioned unofficially as a graduate school until it was formally recognized 

by the Army in 1885. In that year, the school was officially 

recognized by the new Chief of Engineers, Brigadier General John Newton, and Secretary of War Robert T. Lincoln, 

who had visited the post in July 1884. Secretary Lincoln also 

immediately authorized the expansion of the U.S. Engineer 

Battalion from 200 to 450 officers and men. The school was 

divided into the following five departments:14

■ Submarine Mining concentrated on studies of electricity, internal and foreign systems of defensive torpedo

(mine) warfare, and modern explosives. Extensive research into these fields continued throughout the 1870s

and 1880s. The enlisted personnel at Willets Point were

also instructed in torpedo work. They were taught to

load the torpedoes, electrically charge the junction boxes,

make joints in the electric cables, and operate the telegraph used to fire the torpedoes.

“By 1889, because the word ‘Application’ in the school 

title was considered redundant, the name was changed 

to read ‘United States Engineer School.’ ”

The Officers Mess Hall and Club at Willets Point, built in 1887, was modeled after the stone library at West 

Point.
 52 Engineer May–August 2012

■ Military Engineering concentrated on operations of

armies in the field, seacoast defense, modern siege operations, and modern ordnance. 

■ Military Photography included all methods of map 

multiplications in the field and the use of the camera. 

After a long wait, funds were appropriated and a modern

photographic laboratory was completed and opened in

November 1882. 

■ Practical Astronomy included the best methods and

the use of instruments employed in important boundary

surveys. The existing facilities were small, and the instruments were obsolete. An adequate set of instruments

was loaned temporarily by Professor William H.C.

Bartlett from the U.S. Military Academy in 1868. They 

were replaced in 1879 by a new astronomical outfit and

observatory building, constructed almost wholly by the 

engineer Soldiers. The students undertook a study of the

aurora borealis in 1881, and one student discovered a 

new comet. Major Abbot observed that the discovery

of the comet brought much notice to the school and

its work. 

■ Civil Engineering undertook practical surveying, river 

and harbor improvements, and barometric hypsometry,

defined as the science of measuring heights with reference to sea level. 

The length of the course of study for officers was now set 

at 21⁄2 years. Examinations were held twice a year for the 

student-officers during their first, second, and final years. 

The examinations were carried out by the academic staff 

and the Board of Visitors. The Board of Engineers for Fortifications in New York, together with such other officers of 

the Corps of Engineers above the rank of major as were stationed in New York City, constituted the Board of Visitors. 

The board visited the school at least twice per year to make 

a thorough and detailed inspection of everything connected 

with it, submitting a report to the Secretary of War, through 

the Chief of Engineers.15, 16, 17

In the mid-1870s, Dr. Walter Reed served as post surgeon at Willets Point, where he began studies into advances

in military medicine. In the following decade, infantry, 

cavalry and, especially, artillery officers were assigned to 

Willets Point for training and familiarity with submarine

mining.18, 19

In 1886, Lieutenant Colonel Abbot completed his long 

and highly significant tour of duty as commandant of the 

Engineer School of Application. He had guided the school’s 

destiny and fixed its policies throughout the critical formative period and justly can be called the “Father of the 

Engineer School” in much the same way that Sylvanus 

Thayer is regarded as the “Father of the Military Academy.” Lieutenant Colonel Abbot was replaced by Lieutenant 

Colonel Cyrus B. Comstock.20, 21 By 1889, because the word 

“Application” in the school title was considered redundant, 

the name was changed to read “United States Engineer 

School.”22

In 1898, the United States went to war with Spain, and 

the students and faculty were ordered to duty with units 

preparing to take part in operations. The operation of the 

school was thus suspended on 4 April. The fortifications 

which made up a part of the physical plant of the fort were 

then occupied by artillery units for the duration of the war. 

Immediately after the end of hostilities, the school reopened 

at Willets Point until 3 September 1901, when it was officially transferred to Washington Barracks (now Fort McNair) in 

the District of Columbia.23

Endnotes:

1

Brevet Brigadier General Henry L. Abbot, “Early Days 

of the Engineer School of Application,” Occasional Papers, 

Engineer School of Application, Number 14, 1904, pp. 2–3.

2

Michael M. Harman, “The Formation of the Engineer 

School of Application and Its Early History, 1866–1898,” 

master’s thesis, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 5–6. 

3

Marjorie Pearson, “Fort Totten Historic District Designation Report,” New York City Landmarks Preservation 

Commission, New York, New York, June 1999, pp. 2, 11–14. 

4

Harman, pp. 17–18. 

5

Ibid., pp. 18–19. 

6

David M. Dunne, “The Engineer School—Past and 

Present,” The Military Engineer, Vol. XLI, Number 284, 

November–December 1949. 

7

Abbot, p. 9. 

8

Ibid., pp. 4, 10–11.

9

Ibid., p. 8. 

10Harman, pp. 34–35.

11Abbot, pp. 28–30. 

12Ibid., pp. 26–28.

13Harman, pp. 62–64. 

14Abbot, pp. 35–37. 

15Ibid., pp. 11–14, 17–21, 35–37. 

16Harman, pp. 30–31. 

17Department of War, “Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, to the Secretary of War for the 

Year 1883,” 1883. 

18Pearson, p. 27. 

19Harman, pp. 30, 60. 

20Ibid., p. 56. 

21Dunne, p. 412. 

22Ibid., p. 66. 

23Harman, pp. 66–67.

Mr. Person is the installation historian at Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in history 

from Queens College in New York City.