FINAL REPORT

ANNUAL IDSTORICAL REPORT SUMMARY SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SWD PILOT REGIONAL IDSTORY PROJECT CALENDAR YEAR 2004

Gregory Graves, Ph.D. Peter Neushul, Ph.D. Graves & Neushul Historical Consultants 915 Camino Lindo Goleta, CA 93117

1O March 2008 2

Preface

This is the first annual historical report summary for the Southwestern Division

(SWD) of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The SWD pilot regional history project is part of the reorganization of the Corps of Engineers known as USACE 2012.

The new methodology, or "regionalization" of the annual historical reporting of the districts of the Southwestern Division has presented opportunities for new examination of their activities in a given year. The geographic boundaries of the Fort Worth, Galveston,

Little Rock and Tulsa districts are combined to give a regional view of the work and activities of the U.S. Army Corps Engineers in northern , , southern

Kansas, southern Missouri, portions of and New , and . Each of the four districts and the division submitted a report on its major activities for the calendar year 2004. Our task as historians has been to examine the submissions, and compile and refer to them in an overview, placing them in historical context using primary and secondary materials.

The Evolution of Regionalization

Regionalization is part of the continuing effort to streamline the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dating back to the 1960s and 1970s. In civil works, the Corps of Engineers had an amazing list of accomplishments by mid-century. Water resources developments included control projects nationwide, thousands of miles of inland waterways,

deepwater , and reservoirs that supplied much of the nation's drinking water and hydroelectric power. Other civil works missions included emergency management of

large-scale disasters and recreation services on Corps' projects. In military construction, 3 the second major Corps mission, the agency had built most of the Army and Air Force's installations in the U.S. and around the world, including posts, bases, training centers, arsenals, and recruiting facilities. By the late 1950s, the organization had grown to approximately 35,000 civilians and several hundred military officers in order to meet the nation's needs for big dams, water resources infrastructure, and defense. Those employees worked in 39 Corps districts, 11 division offices, and 6 laboratories across the nation and in and around Corps headquarters in Washington, D.C. This was the traditional U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, providing valued services to the nation and the armed forces through well-designed and engineered projects. 1

During the 1960s, challenges arose to the traditional Corps. The engineer- dominated organization made decisions based on engineering feasibility, and water resources economists began to question such decision-making and to demand multi- disciplinary participation in the process. 2 In addition, the burgeoning environmental movement began to attack Corps' water resources development planning as inadequate to address issues of environmental quality. On the military construction side of the Corps, the U.S. Army began to insert itself more into Corps of Engineers functions. During the

1970s, for example, the Office of the Chief of Engineers became HQUSACE

(Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), and the Corps became a Major Command

1 See John R. Ferrell, Big Dam Era: A Legislative and Institutional History ofthe Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program (Omaha, NB: Missouri River Division, U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, 1993), passim, for a discussion of the Corps mid-twentieth-century civil works program. 2 See Arthur Maass, Muddy Waters: Army Engineers and the Nation's Rivers (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1951), passim, for economic challenges to the Corps traditional engineering. 4

(MACOM) of the Army. Such efforts to bring the Corps of Engineers into the chain of command of the U.S. Army represented another challenge to the traditional Corps.3

Several events in the ensuing decades accelerated the pace for streamlining the traditional Corps, and set the stage for regionalization. Federal environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of

1972, placed new burdens on the Corps water resources planning process. For sixteen years beginning in 1970, Congress passed no major federal water resources legislation.

Actual construction of Corps water resources projects had all but halted, and this impasse continued well into the 1980s. In 1986, a bipartisan effort in Congress resulted in passage of the Water Resources Development Act of that year. The act provided funding for more than 300 projects that had been authorized, while de-authorizing hundreds that had low federal interest. In addition, WRDA-86 established new cost sharing requirements, especially increasing the local sponsor's share in flood control projects.

The act also provided for a major water resources bill every two years. For the Corps,

WRDA-86 meant extensive new work, but it also required much greater cooperation with local sponsors in water resources projects. 4

Another challenge to tradition came in the realm of the Corps project processes.

Private sector criticism of the Corps cited the lengthy studies, planning, and construction, and found redundancies throughout the process. Part of the streamlining process was the idea that the Corps needed to incorporate management techniques used by private

3 See Gregory Graves, Pursuing Excellence in Water Planning and Policy Analysis: A History ofthe U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources (Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1995), Chapter One, for an analysis of the economist and environmentalist challenge to the traditional Corps. 4 See Martin Reuss, Reshaping National Water Politics: The Emergence ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (lWRPolicy Study 91-PS-1, 1991), pp. 1-39. See also Graves, Pursuing Excellence in Water Planning and Policy Analysis, pp. 247-48. 5 engineering firms. Two individuals stand out in bringing Project Management to the

Corps. Robert Page, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, had come to the position from private enterprise in 1986. Along with securing the passage ofWRDA-86,

Page made it another goal to change the Corps' traditional "stovepipe approach" to planning, design, and construction, wherein project plans made their way back and forth through district, division, and headquarters branches. Instead, Page favored the less- cumbersome approach of Project Management, where one individual was the primary manager of a project from its beginnings to completion. The other individual was

Lieutenant General Henry Hatch, Chief of Engineers, from 1988 to 1991. Hatch too was committed to bringing Project Management to the civil works, military construction, and support activities throughout Corps field offices. Project Management was difficult to impose on the compartmentalized "stovepipe culture" of the Corps; yet it inexorably transformed the traditional way of bringing projects to completion. 5

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Corps of Engineers underwent its next step towards regionalization. A congressionally mandated initiative called Reorganization began as an overall drawdown of the U.S. Army. As part of that drawdown, Reorganization targeted some smaller Corps districts and rival division offices for closure. Immediately upon its announcement of 10 district and 5 division closures, Reorganization encountered political reality when Congress arose to denounce the plan. This included the new budget-cutting conservatives who, in some instances, blocked closure of offices in their political districts. Reorganization subsequently

5 William F. Willingham, A History ofthe North Central Division ofthe U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, (USACE NCD n.d.), p. 116. See also Donita Moorhus and Gregory Graves, "The Limits of Vision: A History of the Army Corps of Engineers, 1988-1992," unpublished ms, August 1998, Office of the ChiefofEngineers, Office of History, pp. 17-18. 6

dwindled to a few nominal changes; no districts were closed. Despite the economic

reality that several small districts had little civil works or military construction work load, politicians faced the dilemma of taking thousands of federal jobs away from small cities.

Political reality won, but the initiative placed the Corps into flux, and the organization remains so today.

Next came "Reinventing Government" initiated during the Bill Clinton

administration in the early 1990s. The idea was for organizations like the Corps of

Engineers to do more work with fewer personnel. With applied technology and better distribution of resources, fewer people could do the same amount or more work through increased productivity. Government payrolls would decline, technology would fill in the gap partly, and the rest could be done by non-duplication of services in field offices. In essence, this is the regionalization initiative now being implemented by the Corps of

Engineers. Regionalization is a part ofUSACE 2012, initiated under the tour of duty of

Lieutenant General Robert Flowers, Chief of Engineers from 2002 to 2005. Upon taking command, Flowers organized a team of Corps employees to study ways to improve the organization's efficiency. In 2003, he announced the launching ofUSACE 2012. The

October report came almost exactly two years after the 9/11 hijacking of four airliners and subsequent destruction of the New York World Trade Towers and damage to the

Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Subtitled Aligning the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers for

Success in the 2rt Century, USACE 2012 outlined strategies, procedures, and changes to be implemented over the next nine years. 6

6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USA CE 2012: Aligning the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers for Success in the 21st Century, p. i 7

Major imperatives in General Flowers' introduction include the following admonishments: "change or be changed"; "the Corps' internal processes take too long"; and "the nation's priorities have shifted with the global war on terrorism, homeland security, and Iraq."7 Flowers' implication was that unless the Corps initiated its own transformations, Congress would make them. Unless the Corps further streamlined its

"internal processes," it would lose relevancy. The Corps also needed to made quick adjustments to meet new Global War on Terror and Homeland Security needs or such tasks would fall to other agencies. The report distinguishes the Corps from other Defense

Department entities with a unique "objective organization design."8 Whereas most DoD agencies employ an approach of Doctrine, Organizations, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities, the Corps of Engineers, as a large public service engineering organization consisted mostly of civilian employees, needed a different model. The USACE 2012 Report defined this design for the Corps as the Seven S Model:

Stakeholder Values, Shared Values, Strategy, Style of Leadership, Skills, Systems, and

Structure. The purpose behind development of this model by the US ACE Learning

Advisory Board was, according to the report, to achieve "a greater understanding of the organization as a 'system. "'9

More specifically, the USACE 2012 initiative strives to bring about cultural change based on the broad concepts of: One Corps, Regional Business Centers, Regional

Integration Teams (RITs), and Communities of Practice (CoPs).' 0 The "One Corps" concept attempts to focus the missions of the overall organization without diminishing

7 Ibid., pp. i-ii. 8 Ibid., p. 2 9 Ibid., pp. 2-3 10"Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers Ushers in Corps New Era" in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Serving the Nation and the Armed Forces (Tampa, FL: Faircount Publishers, 2004) p. 31. 8 the decentralized framework among headquarters, divisions, districts, and other field offices. USACE 2012 is designed to increase public understanding of the Corps' major missions, like flood control, navigation, water supply, support for emergency services, as well as military construction, support for others, and the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

The Regional Business Centers concept gives new roles to Corps division offices as centers for missions and services for the agency. A member of the Senior Executive

Service heads each regional Integration Team, located at Corps headquarters. The teams integrate all programs and serve as advocates for regional issues in Washington.

Regarding Communities of Practice (CoP), the philosophy is that people who practice or share an interest in a major function of the Corps work organize around CoPs. Members of CoPs can come not only from the Corps but also from academia, other government agencies, and the general public. Each CoP is composed of a group leader, subject matter experts, and members within the Corps. CoPs "capture, share, and create information and knowledge within U.S. Army Corps of Engineers business lines and functional areas." 11 According to the USACE Community of Practice Policy of December 2004:

CoPs "are made up of individuals who practice and share an interest in a major functional area or business line. They extend throughout the Corps. The engine is learning and the

CoP is the history of that learning." 12 The concept was clearly aimed at the Corps' stovepipe approach to projects. "Any structure or procedure," the policy statement read,

11 Anny Corps of Engineers, "Communities of Practice," USACE Headquarters website http://eportal.usace.army.mil/eportal cops.htm (2006). See also Anny Corps of Engineers "USACE 2012, Aligning the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Success in the 21•t Century," USACE (October 2006), pp. 26-28. 12 USACE Draft Report, "Community of Practice (CoP) Policy," ER 25·1-8, 15 December 2004. 9

"that impedes community-wide communication or access has no place in a USACE

Community of Practice."13

Another manifestation of regionalization is the movement of selected functions out of the districts entirely. Within the SWD region, for example, district Public Affairs

Offices (PAO), ceased to publish monthly newsletters after 2004. Now each district public affairs office contributes to the regional, or Division, newsletter, The Pacesetter.

Annual historical reports are another example ofthis trend. Before the Pilot Project began in 2005, Corps districts handled their own history program requirements. Some

districts had historians, who gathered data, I conducted oral histories, and oversaw annual historical submissions from the sections, branches, and divisions. With history regionalized, oral histories and annual district historical submissions are coordinated through one contracting officer, who is responsible for directing contract historians. The contract historians conduct regional oral histories for the year based on recommendations from the district and division Public Affairs Officers, and write a regional overview based on the district and division annual historical submissions. 14

The Case for Regionalization: The Region of the American Southwest

Regional groupings of the states of the United States include a historical delineation of four states: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas that, until the late

20th century, are called the Southwest. Historically, this reflects the East Coast bias of demographers and the relatively sparse development of the states to the immediate west of Texas and Oklahoma. Those same groupings included all of the states west of the

13 Ibid. 14Authors discussion with John Lonnquest of the USACE Office of History and Judy Bullwinkle, Little Rock District Librarian, July 2005, Little Rock, Arkansas. 10

10oth Meridian as simply: The West. Two nominal examples of this alignment in the

Southwest are the old telephone company's designation of the region: Southwestern Bell, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division. Both of these organizations were headquartered in , Texas. Today's Southwestern Division includes the areas of operation of the Fort Worth, Galveston, Little Rock, and Tulsa

Districts. The civil works and military construction boundaries include all of Texas, northern Louisiana, all of Oklahoma, southern , southern Missouri, northern and northwestern Arkansas, and a portion of .

There are many commonalities in SWD that strengthen the case for a regional approach for the Corps of Engineers. Throughout this area of operations, there are more

Corps of Engineers water resources projects than anywhere else in the nation. No less than 90 Corps lakes dominate the region, and provide public benefits such as navigation, flood control, water supply, hydroelectric power, and recreation. 15 One 445-mile inland waterway, a 500-mile intercoastal waterway, and numerous inland and coastal ports integrate the waterborne commerce of the region, and connect them with other water transportation. SWD' s navigation works carry 500 million tons of goods annually through 1,458 miles of waterways. Texas alone ships oil, chemicals, and other materials to 3 4 states with an annual savings of $14. 52 per ton compared with other transportation loads. 16 SWD manages 22 shallow draft ports, 12 deep draft ports, and 22 lock

15 Division histories include Clayton D. Brown, The Southwestern Division: 50 Years of Service (Dallas, TX: Southwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986); and Gregory Graves and Peter Neushul, The History of the Southwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986-1994 (Dallas, TX: Southwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998). USACE, Serving the Nation, p. 163. 16 USACE Institute for Water Resources, "Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part II Waterways and Harbors Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System and Antilles," IWR-WCUS-04-2 (2004), pp. 73-75. Charles Dervarics, "Keeping More Efficient Trade Afloat: Corps Navigation Programs Are A Quiet But Proven Success Story,' in USACE, Serving the Nation, (2004), pp. 107-12. USACE Institute for Water 11 chambers. 17 The region is closely tied economically by petroleum development, agriculture, and manufacturing. Booming Southwestern urban areas from Little Rock to

Oklahoma City to share the same growth successes and similar challenges regarding floodplain management and water supplies. Eighteen SWD dams have hydroelectric power plants that produce electricity for 750,000 homes. 18 Wetlands, and the regulatory issues that arise from them, exist from the coast of Texas to the bayous of

Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. Providing clean water, a reliable infrastructure for growth, and a healthy living environment commonly challenge all the Corps districts of

SWD.

The SWD Region is also home to some of the nation's largest and most important military installations. All branches of the Department of Defense have facilities in the

Southwest, and the Corps of Engineers remains the principal agent for design, construction, operation, and maintenance of military facilities. Supporting the missions of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines, the districts of SWD have a varying and diverse workload that bolsters the concept of regional areas of expertise. Bases, posts, stations, and other military facilities have a commonality of problems and needs that a flexible approach to which the Corps of Engineers regional framework increasingly responds. SWD's military area of operations encompasses 443,700 square miles.

Altogether, the division's ten Army installations and eleven Air Force Bases account for almost one fifth of the nation's military activities. 19

Resources, "Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part II Waterways and Harbors Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System and Antilles," IWR-WCUS-04-2 (2004), pp. 73-75. 17 Charles Dervarics, "Keeping More Efficient Trade Afloat: Corps Navigation Programs Are A Quiet But Proven Success Story,' in USACE, Serving the Nation, (2004), pp. 107-12, 163. 18 Ibid., p. 162-163. 19 For a description of SWD's military boundaries, see the Southwestern Division website, http://www.swd.usace.army.mil/ (2008). See also USACE, Serving the Nation, p. 163. 12

Finally, a regional approach best responds to the changing needs that the nation has for the Corps of Engineers. Since the end of the Second World War, the nation's demand for water resources development has grown and increased in complexity. Public demands not only for flood control, but also for environmental quality and aesthetics have complicated the Corps civil works program. SWD's 90 lakes prevent 1.3 billion in average annual flood damage while providing 7.7 million acre feet of water supply storage. 20 With 11,400 miles of shoreline and 1, 172 recreation sites, the SWD region has the largest recreation program in the Corps. 21 And to meet the challenges of a plethora of contracting, information management, resource management, personnel, and emergency management challenges, the districts of the SWD region can benefit from a regional approach.

This summary of the Corps of Engineers and the region of the Southwest during the calendar year 2004 examines such activities on a regional basis. The summary begins with a profile of the four districts and a focus activity for 2004. Next, there is an overview of the region's contribution to fighting the Global War on Terror (GWOT), followed by regional civil works activities, and some of the most significant events of

2004. The next section examines military construction activities throughout the

Southwestern region, and includes the most salient work done on Army posts, Air Force bases, and additional work for the Department of Defense. The summary concludes with an overview of trends toward regionalization. Since the summary is essentially a brief

"snapshot" of one year in the region, all the projects, studies, regulatory actions, and

20 Ibid., p. 163. Southwestern Division website, http://www.swd.usace.army.mil/ (2008) 21 Ibid., 13 organizational changes of four district and one division office cannot possibly be explored or even mentioned.

District Biographies

Fort Worth District

Established in 1950 in the wake of disastrous flooding throughout , the Fort Worth District is responsible for water resources development across two thirds of Texas, covering an area of 410,000 square miles.22 The District has 25 multiple purpose water resources projects including the Dallas Floodway, Dallas Floodway

Extension, Joe Pool Lake, Lavon Lake, Lewisville Lake, Cooper Lake, and the San

Antonio Channel Improvement Project. The District also maintains three hydroelectric power plants. Flood control lakes prevent millions of dollars in flood damage annually and the District's 197 parks average more than 25 million visitors annually. 23 Fort Worth

District has one of the nation's largest military construction programs covering projects at

18 active Army and Air Force installations in Texas, New Mexico and Louisiana.

Supervision of design and construction at Army and Air Force installations encompasses facilities such as family housing, training and aircraft facilities, schools, child care centers, clinics and hospitals. Other significant projects include the Brooke Army

Medical Center at in , the Johnson Space Center near

Houston, the Large Blast/Thermal Simulator at White Sands Missile Range, New

22 See also Clayton D. Brown, Rivers, Rockets, and Readiness: Army Engineers in the Sunbelt (Fort Worth, TX: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979) and Lisa Mighetto and William F. Willingham, Service­ Tradition-Change, A History ofthe Fort Worth District, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers 1975-1999 (Fort Worth, TX: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000). 23 Ibid., pp. 162-63. See also http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/ (2008) 14

Mexico, the U.S. Postal Service Bulk Mail Facility in Dallas, the III Corps Headquarters at , support facilities for the Bl-B Bomber at Dyess AFB and the U.S. Army

Sergeants Major Academy at . 24

The Fort Worth District is designated as headquarters for the Reinvention Center for District Installation Support, providing responsive support to the changing needs of the Army. The district also assists Army and Air Force Reserve Center customers in

Louisiana and Texas, provides operation and maintenance support to installations in three states and leases facilities for military recruiting commands. Additionally, the district's

Homeowner's Assistance Program in Real Estate Division has recently been designated as the Corps' Regional Center of Expertise for the Central United States. Fort Worth's workload for Fiscal Year 2004 was approximately $7 5 5 million. 25 Work at Fort Hood exemplifies the important role of SWF in providing design and construction service to the

U.S. Army.

Continuing work at Fort Hood

Fort Hood is the largest active duty armored post in the United States, and is the only domestic post capable of supporting two full armored divisions. In addition to the

1st Cavalry Division and the 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood is also home for the

Headquarters Command III Corps, 3d Personnel Group, 3d Signal Brigade, 13th Corps

Support Command (COSCOM), 13th Finance Group, 89th Military Police Brigade, 504th

24 Ibid. See also U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Report of the Secretary of the Army on Civil Works Activities for FY 2004, pp. 38-4-38-30. For a description of work at Fort Bliss see Sam Masters, "Fort Bliss Replacement Center Prepares Civilians for Iraq," Engineer Update Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 1-2. 25 Ibid. 15

Military Intelligence Brigade, the 21st Cavalry Brigade (Air Combat), the Dental Activity

(DENTAC), the Medical Support Activity (MEDDAC), Army Operational Test

Command (AOTC) formerly TEXCOM, and various other units and tenant organizations.

In 2004, Fort Worth District completed the design for an Urban Assault Course at

Fort Hood and awarded a $2.8 million contract for construction of the project. The district also designed a new barracks complex and awarded a $4 7 million contract for construction. 26 Fort Worth District also participated in the Army's transformation from the Division Organization to the Modular Brigade Organization. This program called for design and building at numerous construction sites. Specific tasks included re-locatable barracks, vehicle maintenance facilities, and command facilities, to include the procurement and installation of the required re-locatable modules. Renovated buildings supported the requirement for additional command centers. The $100 million project was located on multiple sites across the installation in support of the 4th Infantry Division and the 1st Calvary Division. 27

Galveston District

Galveston District was established in 1880 and is headquartered at Galveston,

Texas. Its history coincides with the emergence of Galveston and Houston as major economic centers in the Southwest. Galveston's first major project was to build jetties to guarantee navigable waters at the of Galveston. After the great storm of 1900, which leveled the city and killed nearly 8, 000 people, Houston replaced Galveston as

26"Military Construction Program within the Fort Worth District: Fort Hood." 27 SWD 2004 historical submission, Military Construction. 16 economic center of eastern Texas. Galveston District deepened the Buffalo Bayou creating the , and effectively linking railroad commerce to the and beyond. As of2004, Galveston District maintains 28 ports throughout the

Texas Gulf Coast where almost 40 percent of the nation's oil is refined. In addition, the

Texas Gulf Coast is a center for petrochemical production. All of these industries rely upon Galveston District to maintain navigable waterways. Projects include operation and maintenance of the Houston Ship Channel and Gulf Channel, including the Intracoastal

Waterway (GIWW). About half of the district's annual budget is devoted to navigation maintenance of the GIWW, which links Texas commerce to the nation's inland waterway system. The is the third busiest port in the United States.28

The Galveston District's area of operations includes some of the fastest growing urban areas of the United States. Many of these areas are extremely flood prone. With major floor control works such as the Addicks and Barker reservoirs, Sims Bayou,

Buffalo Bayou, and Clear Creek, Galveston District prevents millions of dollars in flood damage annually. The District also has one of the largest and most diverse regulatory programs in the Corps of Engineers.

Air Liquide America Corporation, Et al v. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers:

In 2004, Galveston District successfully defended the Corps' historic power to have obstructions to waterways removed at the owners' expense. On January 30, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in , ruled in favor of

28 District histories include Lynn Alperin, Custodians ofthe Coast: History ofthe Engineers at Galveston (Galveston, TX: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977); Bonnie B. Pendergrass and Lee F. Pendergrass, In an Era ofLimits: A Galveston District History Update, 1976-1986 (Galveston, TX: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1990) 17 the Corps of Engineers on all counts in Air Liquide America Corporation, Et al. v. U.S.

Army Corps ofEngineers, Et al., a lawsuit to determine if the Corps of Engineers had the authority to enforce the Navigation Servitude to require pipeline companies to pay the cost of lowering pipelines crossing under the Houston Ship Channel to accommodate a deeper channel authorized by Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of

1996, (WRDA 96).29

Sixteen pipeline companies sued the Corps of Engineers and their non-federal sponsor, the Port of Houston Authority, claiming that under State Law and under the provisions ofWRDA 86, they had a right to compensation for the cost of lowering pipelines to facilitate the newly authorized 45 foot project. The Corps and the Port

Authority argued that WRDA 96, not WRDA 86, specifically authorized this project and the Limited Revaluation Report (LRR) prepared by the Galveston District for the project made it clear that this project was to be authorized using the federal Navigation Servitude to compel the owners of the pipelines to be responsible for 100 percent of the relocation costs. 30 The Court also ruled that the Corps acquired this power with the River and

Harbor Act of 1899 under the Constitutional power of the Commerce Clause and that any waiver of the Servitude had to be specifically exercised by Congress, and could not be implied. This historic decision saved the Port of Houston over $100 million. 31

Initiated by Galveston District's Real Estate Division, Air Liquide is one of the most significant decisions ever to reinforce the power of the Corps of Engineers to have obstructions in navigable waters removed at owners' expense even when the operation is facilitating a locally sponsored project. If full enforcement of the servitude is allowed for

29 SWG 2004 historical submission. 301bid. 31 Ibid. 18 all projects, both shallow and deep draft, it could save over $150 million in pipeline relocation costs in just three future projects in the Galveston District alone. Galveston

District pioneered the enforcement of the Navigation Servitude against pipelines in navigable waters in the early 1990s on the Taylor's Bayou Flood Control Project. 32 The

District continues to work for enforcement of servitude wherever it applies to non governmental structures such as oil pipelines where the companies are acting in a proprietary capacity. 33

Little Rock District

Little Rock District, established in 1881, serves southern Missouri and the state of

Arkansas. 34 The District oversees 12 multiple purpose lakes in the White, Arkansas, and

Little River basins. Little Rock District also operates and maintains 13 locks and dams on 308 miles of the McClellan-Kerr navigation system. The district also operates 7 hydroelectric plants that generated enough electricity to provide power for 300,000 households annually. 35 The Corps has many multiple purpose water resource projects within the district area of operations that provide navigation and flood control protection.

32 Ibid. 33 Rick Harrison to Peter Neushul, 1 January 2007. Harrison is Chief of Real Estate at the Galveston District. 34 See also Floyd M. Clay, A History ofthe Little Rock District (Little Rock, AR: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971), and Mary Yeater Rathburn, Castle on the Rock, 1881-1985: The history ofthe Little Rock District, US. Army Corps ofEngineers (Little Rock, AR: U.S. Army Engineer Corps of Engineers, 1990 and S. Charles Bolton, 25 Years Later: A History ofthe McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System in Arkansas (Little Rock, AR: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1995). 35 Serving the Nation, p. 165. See also http://www.swl.usace.army.mil/ 19

Lakes adjoining hydroelectric, navigation, and flood control projects provide significant recreational opportunities for the region.

Little Rock District military mission includes construction, real estate, environmental cleanup and other needs for the Army and Air Force. The District designs and builds facilities for Little Rock Air Force Base ranging from hangars to housing to operations centers. Little Rock District is the USACE center of expertise for design and construction of air traffic control towers for the Air Force's Air Education and Training

Command. At Pine Bluff Arsenal Little Rock began construction of an Explosive

Destruction Facility (EDF) that will destroy th~ arsenal's aging chemical munitions stockpile. Projects during 2004 include a 12,500 square-foot warehouse, access roads, parking, utilities, and a security fence. Once completed, the EDF will process the nearly

1,300 recovered chemical weapons now stored at Pine Bluff Arsenal.

Little Rock District manages thousands of acres of military lands including the

Arkansas National Guard's Fort Chaffee training facility. Other activities include oversight of leases for oil and gas drilling, farming, and utility rights-of-way. Military construction duties include work for the Army Reserve. 36 The most significant event in the Little Rock District for 2004 was the dedication of Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.

Dedication of Montgomery Point Lock and Dam

The first link in the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System connects the Mississippi River to Tulsa, Oklahoma via a nine-foot waterway. Montgomery Point

Lock and Dam relieved the problem oflow-water flows at the junction of the White and

Mississippi rivers, while also reducing the need for extensive dredging in times of

36 Ibid. 20 drought. 37 After completion of the McClellan-Kerr project in the 1970s, sufficient depths existed for barge traffic at the confluence with the Mississippi River. In time, however, the Mississippi River scoured the river bed, lowering its elevation near the confluence with the White River. In 1988, a severe drought in the Mississippi River Basin forced the

Corps to deploy six dredges to keep the channel open. Rather than continually dredging to ensure navigability, Congress directed the Corps to design and build Montgomery

Point Lock and Dam. 38

At the completion of the $262-million lock and dam project in 2004, the Little

Rock District held a dedication ceremony for the new facilities on July 16, 2004. The event included a ribbon-cutting ceremony, a signing ceremony between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Nature Conservancy, and tours of USS Razorback, a World-War-II- era submarine that was being towed from New Orleans to a permanent docking in North

Little Rock, Arkansas. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, John

Woodley, was keynote speaker, and state officials from Arkansas and Oklahoma, as well as SWD district commanders comprised some of the many dignitaries at the dedication. 39

The Montgomery Point project serves the northern sub-region of SWD in many ways. The project increases the reliability of a waterway that moved 13. l million tons of commodities worth more than $3 billion in 2004, and reduced the number of semi-trailer truckloads trips by more than 560,000. Saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions were not the only environmental benefits of the waterway improvement. The lock and dam serves to reduce maintenance dredging in this remote and environmentally

37 See Gregory Graves and Peter Neushul, The History of the Southwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986-1994, (Dallas, TX: USACE, Southwestern Division, 1998), pp. 41-42, for an expanded analysis of the history of Montgomery Point Lock and Dam. 38 Ibid. 39 SWL 2004 historical submission, "PPMD Annual Report, CY 2004." 21 sensitive area of Arkansas by 90 percent, thus reducing regular disruption of the natural ecosystem significantly. For these reasons, the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam project has earned the praise of public and private conservation organizations such as the Nature

Conservancy and the Sierra Club. 40

Both the Little Rock and Tulsa districts have benefited from completion of

Montgomery Point Lock and Dam. Elimination of the crucial bottleneck enabled barge traffic from Tulsa and Muskogee, Oklahoma, and the Fort Smith, Arkansas areas to become larger and more frequent.

Tulsa District

Established in 1939, the Tulsa District's beginnings coincide with an ambitious federal water resources development Initiative in Oklahoma, southern Kansas, and northern Texas. 41 In this era of big dams, Tulsa was centrally located as development of the Arkansas, Red, and White River Basins progressed. Tulsa's civil works mission is among the largest in the Corps and includes 33 multiple purpose lakes and five locks, dams, and reservoirs on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The primary purpose of the lakes is flood control. Ancillary resources administered by the

Tulsa District include recreation, water supply, hydropower, navigation, and fish and wildlife. The Port of Catoosa, at the head of the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, is

4°u. S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District, Project Update, "Montgomery Point L&D Nears Completion" (May 2004), p. 1. 41 William B. Settle, The Dawning: A New Day for the Southwest (Tulsa, OK: U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, 1975), Anne Patton, 50 Years Remembered: The First 50 Years ofthe Tulsa District, US. Army Corps ofEngineers (Tulsa, OK: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989). 22 the nation's most inland ice-free port. Tulsa District's eight hydroelectric facilities generate $52 million in annual power supply. Tulsa District oversees the largest recreation program in the Corps, with 230 parks and more than 6,000 campsites.

(Nationwide, the Corps of Engineers is second only to the National Park Service as a provider of recreation opportunities. )42

The Tulsa District's military construction boundaries include all of the state of

Oklahoma and part of western Texas. Tulsa engineering and construction mission includes service to Altus, Vance, and Tinker Air Force Bases in Oklahoma, and Sheppard

Air Force Base in Texas. Army facilities include in Lawton, Oklahoma, and the

McAlester (Oklahoma) Army Ammunition Depot.43 One of the district's most significant ongoing activities is the effort to control salinity in the upper reaches of the Red River.

Red River Chloride Control Project

In 2004, Tulsa District passed another milestone in the ongoing Arkansas-Red

River Basins Chloride Control Projects. First authorized in the Flood Control Acts of

1962, the projects' objectives continue to be reduction of downstream salinity levels of the Arkansas and Red rivers and their tributaries. The sources of those rivers lie above an ancient inland sea that existed during the Permian Age more than 220 million years ago.

Eventually receding and becoming isolated, the sea dried leaving a large layer of salt in the high southern Great Plains (present day western Texas, the Oklahoma panhandle, and parts of eastern New Mexico and southwestern Kansas). Underground springs pressured by the Rocky Mountains push water through the area, creating saltwater (brine), and

42 Serving the Nation, p. 165. See also http://www.swt.usace.army.mil/ 43 See http://www.swt.usace.army.mil/ 23 adding substantial saline content to the rivers as they flow southeasterly. 44 Studies conducted by the US Public Health Service during 1950s revealed fifteen natural sodium chloride sources that significantly compromised the water quality of these two major nvers: five on the Arkansas, and ten on the Red. 45

Following the Flood Control Act of 1962, the Corps through the Tulsa District constructed wells and ring dikes for data collection. In 1962, the District began construction of its first brine dam at Estelline Springs, Texas (designated as Area V).

That dam was completed in 1963, virtually eliminating brine from Estelline Springs, and significantly reducing the salinity levels downstream on the Red River. With the subsequent Flood Control Acts of 1966 and 1970, Congress authorized structural control measures for eight to ten areas near the Red River. 46 The waters of the Red and Arkansas

River still did not meet Environmental Protection Agency standards for dissolved salts established during the early 1970s. Therefore, Congress directed the Corps of Engineers through its Tulsa District to continue to reduce dissolved salts through construction of brine-trapping dams, pumping stations, and pipelines. The Water Resources

Development Act of 1986 significantly expanded the Corps' efforts to reduce salts into the Red River basin. The act separated the Arkansas and Red River Chloride projects with separate authority under Section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966. This allowed Tulsa District to focus more on the Red River Basin. In 1987, the Corps completed Truscott Brine Dam on Bluff Creek, a tributary of the North Fork of the

Wichita River in Texas. This area, about sixty miles west of Wichita Falls, Texas,

44 Gregory Graves and Peter Neushul, The History of the Southwestern Division, 1986-1994 (Dallas, TX: USACE Southwestern Division, 1998). pp. 53-56. 45 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Report of the Secretary of the Army on Civil Works Activities for FY 2004, pp. 38-4-38-5. 46 Graves and Neushul, The History ofthe Southwestern Division, pp. 53-56. 24 contributed about 195 tons of salt daily to the Red River. The Truscott Brine Lake created by the dam combined with a low-flow inflatable dam, and a 23-mile pipeline to dramatically reduce salinity in the rivers to the east. 47 An independent scientific panel assigned by Congress during the late 1980s to evaluate the Truscott Brine system found it to be even more effective than Corps estimates, and recommended continuation of this important contribution to water quality in the Red River Basin. 48

In 2004, Areas VI, VII, IX, X, XI, XIII, and XIV of the Red River Basin Chloride

Control project passed important milestones toward significant salinity reduction. Area

VI is located on the Elm Fork of the Red River in Harmon County, Oklahoma. All of the other areas are located in Cottle County, Hall County, and King County, Texas. Each of these areas are on tributaries of the Wichita River which itself is a major tributary of the

Red River. The total estimated cost of this phase of the Red River Chloride Project is

$241.5 million. In May 1995, the Corps submitted a draft supplement to the Final

Environmental Impact Study (SPEIS). The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil

Works subsequently directed that the Corps undertake a reevaluation of the Wichita River

Basin part of the project. In March 2004, a Record of Decision (ROD) affirmed Corps plans for the Wichita River Basin phase, and work continued. 49

Global War on Terror

After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the Southwestern region gave significant support to the ensuing Global War on Terror (GWOT). Corps wide, 1,700 military and civilian employees deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq in support

47 Ibid. 48 lbid. 49 Report ofthe Secretary ofthe Army on Civil Works Activities for FY 2004, pp. 38-4-38-5. 25 of military operations. Corps personnel participated in an ongoing mission, unprecedented in size and scope, to assist in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and undertaking a similar mission in Afghanistan. Corps participation provided personnel with the necessary skills to meet worldwide mission requirements during a period of national emergency, mobilization, war, and military crisis. Army Engineers built garrisons for the Afghan National Army, overhauled the national hospital, built 50 police stations, and assisted the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in developing roads, schools, clinics, power generation and transmission, and water resources.so In Iraq, the Corps Gulf Region Division oversaw the reconstruction of all aspects oflraqi infrastructure.s1

SWD headquarters supported U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) in military contingency operations during Operation Enduring Freedom. In 2003, SWD was given an additional mission to provide a task force to restore Iraqi oil (TF-RIO) as part of

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Part of the mission was to extinguish oil fires started during the retreat of the Iraqi army. Afterwards, RIO deployed to repair pipe lines, pumping stations, storage facilities, and refineries, with the goal of resuming normal oil production in Iraq. Brigadier General Robert Crear, SWD's Commander when the Iraq oil mission was assigned in late January 2003, took command of TF-RIO and deployed with his advance team members to Camp Doha, Kuwait in February 2003. SWD's advance task force set up computer systems, processes, and infrastructure. Altogether, 250 USACE volunteers from all 8 Division and 28 Districts participated in TF-RIO. By the end of

so Robert B. Flowers, "The Chief's Engineer Day Message," in The 229th Engineer Day Ceremony, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District, Little Rock, AR: 2004, p. 1. 51 Richard Dowling, "Corps Activates New Division in Iraq," Engineer Update 28, no. 2, (February 2004), pp. 1-3. 26

2003, TF-RIO worked closely with the Iraqi Oil Ministry to overcome the challenges of sabotage and other obstacles in successfully restoring the Iraqi north and south oil companies. 52 In early 2004, TF-RIO was absorbed into the Corps' new Gulf Region

Division (GRD). 53

In 2004, twelve Fort Worth District personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to support the Gulf Region Division. 54 Fort Worth's architectural section provided support for the Base Development Team in Iraq. SWF personnel served on the

Restoration oflraqi Oil (RIO) RFP evaluation team that ultimately awarded a contract totaling two billion dollars. In Iraq, Fort Worth District supported a variety of projects including the Golbhar Bridge repair, Khandahar Hanger repair, a new fire station, and a new post office. 55

Galveston District also supported the Gulf Region Division. The District's

Engineering and Construction Division deployed a project manager and other personnel to the Gulf Region Division. The Little Rock District also deployed seven people to the

GRD, and designed a control tower renovation project. The Little Rock Engineering and

Construction Division continued to support the GRD by deploying eight employees to

Iraq and Afghanistan. There were also five employees supporting Base Development

Team Assignments, providing reach-back engineering support to the GRD. 56

The Tulsa District also provided significant support to TF-RIO and the Global

War on Terror in 2004. Fifty-one employees joined TF-RIO's Forward Engineer Support

52 Brigadier General Robert Crear, Operation RIO Update (Dec. 2003-Feb. 2004). Copies in historical submission. 53 In addition to Task Force Rio, the Corps also undertook Task Force Restore Iraqi Electricity (RIE). See Ed Evans, "Major Effort Restoring Iraq Electricity," Engineer Update 23, no. 2 (February 2004), pp. 1-5. 54 Richard Dowling, "GRD Has Historic Lineage," Engineer Update 28, no. 2 (February 2004), pp. 1-5. 55 SWF 2004 historical submission. 56 SWG 2004 historical submission, SWL 2004 historical submission, Steve Wright, "Historic Restore Iraqi Oil Mission Ends," Engineer Update 28, no. 8, (August 2004), pp. 1-2. 27

Team (FEST) at Camp Doha, Iraq. The FEST deployed engineers to provide infrastructure planning, engineering design and assessment, contract construction, real estate, and environmental engineering to meet both military and civil requirements.

Drawing from several of Tulsa District's divisions, including engineering and construction, contracting, resource management, and public affairs, the FEST made extensive use of district personnel during 2004. 57

Throughout the Southwestern region, Corps civilians volunteered to perform vital tasks in the Global War on Terror. From each District, and from the SWD office as well, civilian personnel served in war zones for all of 2004. Meanwhile, on the home front,

Districts responded to the challenge of maintaining ongoing civil works activities, military projects, and domestic emergency operations.

Civil Works Activities

Civil works includes some of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oldest and most traditional water resources missions: navigation, flood control, water supply, hydroelectric power generation, and shore protection. Added to civil works activities during the past few decades are environmental quality and restoration, and the modern regulatory program. The rapidly growing recreation and emergency management missions also fall under the umbrella of civil works. The following attempts to capture the most significant civil works activities in each district for brief analysis during calendar year 2004. After this analysis, we have listed programmatic and project management changes on a regional basis.

57 SWT 2004 historical submission. Steve Wright, "Historic Restore Iraqi Oil Mission Ends," Engineer Update 28, no. 8, (August 2004), pp. 1-2. Maria Or, "FESTs Touched Many Lives," Engineer Update 28, no. 8, (August 2004), pp. 1-4. 28

With three Districts, Galveston, Little Rock, and Tulsa, responsible for navigation

missions, the Southwestern Division maintains 1,458 miles of navigation channels

comprising deep draft and shallow draft ports and two inland waterway systems. New work improvements continue in the Houston Ship Channel and other Texas ports, as well

as the GIWW and the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River waterway. In 2004, the three

Districts with navigation missions expended approximately $93 million, and dredged

4lmillion cubic yards in combined maintenance and new work efforts. Navigation

statistics compiled by the Corps' Navigation Data Center in Alexandria, Virginia, report that four of the top ten ports in the United States are located in the Southwestern

Division. The Port of Houston is ranks as the third largest port in the country, with 185 million tons of cargo moved in 2004, according to data published in the Navigation Data

Center's Waterborne Commerce Statistics. 58

Flood Damage Reduction and Water Supply

The region's flood damage reduction mission seeks to prevent loss of life and

property through water control structures at eleven major river basins: Arkansas, White,

Canadian, Red, Sulphur, Neches, Sabine, Trinity, Brazos, Colorado, and Guadalupe. The

Southwestern Division manages 90 reservoirs and dams across four Districts and five

states. Projects run the spectrum from large dams with controlled spillways to

channelized rivers and bayous, detention basins, and floodwalls. The lakes created by

Corps dams provide 7.7 million acre feet of water annually for the region. On the Texas

coast, flood protection systems consist of seawalls, breakwaters, and pump stations to

58 For commerce statistics from the Corps Navigation Data Center see http://www.iwr.usace.anny.mil/ndc/index.htm (2008). 29 minimize damages from powerful hurricanes and tropical storms steaming into the Gulf of Mexico from the Atlantic Ocean.

An additional benefit of the flood damage reduction mission is the water supply to various entities in the region. Many of the 90 Corps lakes in the Southwestern region provide vast quantities of fresh water to municipalities, businesses, and residences. SWD lakes in fact provide 36 percent of the potable water in Texas, almost 36 percent in

Arkansas, 35 percent in Oklahoma, and 20 percent in Kansas. 59

Emergency Management

During 2004, the Southwestern Division provided extensive support for the Corps of Engineers emergency management mission, as the organization responded to hurricanes and nationwide. On August 13, 2004, Hurricane Charley, a Category

IV hurricane, made landfall in Florida, and blew over its southwest coast at speeds of up to 145 miles per hour. Charley, the strongest storm to hit Florida in over ten years, demolished mobile home parks and caused damage to tens of thousands of buildings.

Close on the heels of Charley, Hurricanes Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne also struck Florida.

Four hurricanes in a two-month period created havoc, and required a massive federal emergency response. 60

Fort Worth and Galveston Districts provided support for communities in Florida,

Alabama, and surrounding states impacted by Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and

Jeanne. For example, Fort Worth deployed 39 district personnel to Florida, , and to assist with hurricane operations. Fort Worth District also deployed

59 Serving the Nation, p. 163; see also Graves and Neushul, The History ofthe Southwestern Division, chapter three. 60 Anon, "Corps aids recovery effort after hurricanes," The Sand Castle 21(October2004), p. 1. 30

Regional Response Vehicle 06 to assist the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) with logistical operations in Florida. Corps personnel provided ice, water, power, temporary roof covering, and technical oversight of debris removal at locations hit hard by the hurricanes. 61 Galveston District deployed six project managers to Florida in support of Hurricane Disaster Emergency Operations. One of the more visible contributions of Corps Emergency Response and Recovery Operations (ERRO) in

Florida, was the roofing mission dubbed "Operation Blue Roof." In this support capacity, the Corps quickly hired contractors to install temporary blue roof covers on over 25,000 homes throughout Florida to prevent further storm damage. 62

Of all the hurricanes to hit the Gulf and Florida in 2004, Charley was the strongest. At times, Charley reached Category 4 strength, and wreaked havoc throughout

Central Florida. The Corps deployed the Southwestern Division Logistics Planning and

Response Team (LPRT) composed of Logistics team members-all volunteers-who were responsible for managing and providing quality oflife support to residents devastated by Hurricane Charley. The departure of the team was predicated upon receipt of a Deployment Request from the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and within 24 hours the deployment members were in Florida. These individuals were responsible for fulfilling their deployment agreement, securing storage, and ensuring the distribution of life-saving water and ice to victims of the hurricane. The specified budget for this project was provided by FEMA appropriations.

The LPRT members worked up to twelve hours a day, seven days a week to achieve the goals of Operation Hurricane Charley. This effort included maintenance of the

61 Ibid. 62 Lt. Col. Stan Heath, "Army helping with recovery after 4th hurricane," Fort Worth District Dispatch 1 (September 2004), pp. 2-4. 31 storage and distribution of water and ice, and the dispatch of available vehicles for waiting customers. LPRT members faced obstacles, including traveling 40-50 miles per day in severe weather, and enduring heat and humidity to reach the Logistics Support areas. Shortages in nearby accommodations resulted in the team being billeted away from the work area. Despite significant logistics problems, the LPRT team successfully oversaw the delivery of3,600,000 liters of water and 16,960,000 pounds of ice. 63

Emergency management in the Southwestern Division, as with all Corps divisions, was highly regionalized in 2004. The Corps relationship with the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) was in the midst of transformation during 2004, but this did not affect the response chain of command entirely. When FEMA requests assistance in a disaster, the Corps responds by designating local district as the lead agency in coordinating response to the emergency. The lead district then draws emergency management support from other districts as needed. That support comes regionally from nearby districts first, and, depending on the scope of the disaster, from the general Corps of Engineers.

Regulatory Activities

The Southwestern region has a diverse regulatory mission since its area of operation encompasses ecosystems, including tropical coastlines, coniferous forests, deciduous forests, alluvial and treeless plains, mountains, semi-arid lands, and millions of acres of wetlands. During 2004, the Southwestern Division completed 5,388 permit actions under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and

Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries

63 Ibid. 32

Act of 1972. Corps regulatory personnel worked closely with state and federal agencies to improve the permit review process and the service it provides to the public. Examples include an interagency effort to develop an eco-region based ecological assessment method as part of the Texas Environmental Resource Stewards (TERS) group, and a multidistrict meeting with Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to further refine the Section 401 water quality certification process in Texas. The Corps participated in interagency workgroups and other efforts to streamline the permit review process for transportation projects including training workshops for state Department of

Transportation personnel, development of a regional general permit for linear projects in

Texas, and participation in a concurrent review process for the proposed Interstate 69 highway in Texas. Meanwhile, SWD personnel conducted quality assurance reviews of the district regulatory programs in 2004. 64

Galveston District's regulatory staff issued more than 1,000 permits in 2004, as the regulatory program regionally attempted to balance economic progress with environmental issues. Galveston District personnel processed 2,826 Jurisdictional

Determinations, 232 Standard Permits, 151 Letters of Permission, 1,051 Nationwide or

General Permit, and 178 Unauthorized Activity actions. Major actions included the

Bayport Container Terminal Permit issued for the Port of Houston Authority's proposed container/cruise facility along Bayport Channel, in Harris County, Texas. The project is a major marine terminal complex on approximately 1,043 acres along the south side of the

Bayport Ship Channel. The planned Bayport Container Terminal includes facilities for docking, loading and unloading container and cruise ships; container storage areas; an

64 SWD 2004 historical submission, Regulatory Section. 33 intermodal yard; warehousing facilities; and properties available for light-industrial development. The project also improves access to the site for vehicles, trains, and ships. 65

At the , Galveston District issued a permit for the La Quinta

Container Terminal. The proposed container terminal will provide berthing for three post-Panamax ships (to large to navigate the Panama ) on 1, 114 acres along the proposed extension of the La Quinta Channel. Plans for the terminal include hydraulic dredging 1.25 million cubic yards of material from 29.5 acres of bay bottom, construction of a marginal wharf3,800 feet by 140 feet for berthing and unloading container ships, a container yard, an intermodal terminal, a road and rail access corridor, dredge material placement area, and other ancillary facilities. 66

At Freeport, Texas, Galveston District issued a permit for the first Liquid Natural

Gas (LNG) receiving and transportation facility on the Texas coast. The proposed

Freeport LNG Terminal consists of four primary components: a marine terminal and transfer station, a LNG storage and vaporization facility, a natural gas pipeline, and a 138 kV electric utility line. The proposed marine terminal is located at the convergence of the

Freeport Harbor Channel and the Gulflntracoastal Waterway (GIWW). The marine terminal includes a docking slip, maneuvering area, unloading dock, mooring and breasting dolphins, and two LNG transfer lines. Construction of the marine terminal involves expansion of an existing 16.3-acre docking slip and maneuvering area and relocation of the existing storm protection levee to accommodate large LNG ships.

65 SWG 2004 historical submission. 66 Ibid. 34

Expansion of the docking slip and maneuvering area requires dredging to-45 feet mean low tide. This will generate over 2.3 million cubic yards of dredge material. 67

In Arkansas and southern Missouri, the region's Little Rock District reviewed regulatory issues ranging from urban development to navigational obstructions. The district continued to review final plans and flood plain analysis for 1.4 miles of the

Branson Waterfront of Lake Taneycomo in Missouri. In Little Rock, Arkansas, the district was also reviewing a permit application for a major commercial development known as the "Shoppes." Working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), Little Rock's Regulatory Division explored alternatives to minimize wetland impacts and the potential loss of flood storage. The district also had two pending litigations: one regarding the right ofEchubby Lake Hunting Club to restrict boating access, and the other regarding a developer's plan to raise a crossing in the White

River to Landers Island for a development in eastern Arkansas. 68

For Tulsa and Fort Worth Districts, major regulatory issues in 2004 surrounded federal highway and transportation improvements, interpretations and decision regarding wetlands delineations, and hundreds of individual and municipal permits. Tulsa and Fort

Worth regulatory staff members met in anticipation of the planning and construction of an intermodal transportation corridor from the Mexican border to the Red River paralleling Interstate 3 5. Regulatory personnel sorted out the many permit challenges that such a project would entail. Meanwhile, the Tulsa District regulatory staff reviewed potential issues surrounding highway improvement to U.S. 412 near Tulsa's Port of

67 Ibid. 68 SWL 2004 historical submission, Regulatory Branch and the 2004 November Little Rock Project Update, p. 12. 35

Catoosa. 69 The regulatory program continued to expand its extensive regional communications among district and division staff personnel. With each new regulatory decision, each district drew upon the diverse expertise of individuals in Galveston, Fort

Worth, Little Rock, and Tulsa while also enlisting the support of division legal, real estate, and regulatory personnel. The regulatory function of the Corps is one that embraces a regional approach, particularly within the Southwestern Division.

Operations and Maintenance

All four SWD districts had extensive operations and maintenance functions in

2004. The regulatory program (above) is technically part of operations. Maintenance includes the work done to keep the many Corps public works functioning as designed or, in some cases, improved. To meet the challenge of maintaining hundreds of projects including thousands of miles of waterways, the Corps must constantly prepare reports and make requests to fund operation and maintenance. In 2004, this task was particularly difficult as the federal budget for civil works declined or remained static. 70 In Galveston

District, for example, annual maintenance included work on several segments of the Gulf

Intracoastal Waterway. During 2004, the District placed maintenance material on the eroding beach between High Island and Rollover Pass. Annual deposits of approximately

80,000 to 150,000 cubic yards of sand help maintain the beach profile and protect the

GIWW. 71 Other significant work areas were to maintain the Main Channel and Alternate

Route across Matagorda Bay. Dredging material is also placed on Sundown Island, and

69 SWT 2004 historical submission, regulatory branch. 70 See Report ofthe Secretary ofthe Army on Civil Works Activities for FY 2004 for a detailed breakdown of operations and maintenance expenditures for individual projects in SWD. 71 SWG 2004 historical submission, operations and maintenance. 36 provides an important nesting habitat for colonial water birds, such as the endangered brown pelican. Between Port O'Connor to San Antonio Bay dredging maintained the

GIWW with material beneficially placed on an eroding beach at Port O'Connor, Texas.

At Brazos Island Harbor dredging removed critical shoaling within the Brownsville Ship

Channel, and placed the material offshore to construct a beneficial feeder berm that provides material for beach enhancement.

Regional Operation and Maintenance also incorporated new, environmentally sensitive, methods of dust control at Corps placement areas. One technique used hay bales to capture blowing sand. The method has thus far provided excellent results at a low cost. Galveston District's design branch received the 2004 Coastal Partnership

Award from the Coastal America Partnership for the San Jacinto Marsh and Interpretative

Trail Restoration Project. The District also received a Chief of Engineers Special

Recognition Award (Environmental) for the design of the Neches River Saltwater

Barrier. 72

Tulsa District undertook a variety of operations and maintenance projects in

2004, including replacing the cooling water piping at Fort Gibson Dam. The District repaired, rehabilitated, and painted tainter gates at McClellan-Kerr Waterway Locks and

Dams 14, 17, and 18. The District also repaired the stilling basin at Elk City and rewound Generator Units 1 and 2 at the Denison Powerhouse of Lake . 73 The

Fort Worth District undertook similar tasks in 2004, including painting tainter gates at

Town Bluff, and renovating the powerhouse at Whitney Lake. 74

72 Ibid. 73 SWT, 2004 historical submission, operations and maintenance. 74 SWF, 2004 historical submission, civil works. 37

Little Rock District initiated a modernization project at Dam Site Park at Greers

Ferry Lake in 2004, with $2-million in Congressional aid. The complete modernization will cost an estimated $5.35-million. Dam Site Park has 259 camp sites, more than any other park in the Southwestern Division, and is among the most popular recreational areas Corps-wide. Little Rock District's improvement measures focused on infrastructure, including traffic flow, water and electrical services, boat ramps, parking lots, and improved camping pads. 75 Such operation and maintenance activities are crucial to keeping Corps of Engineers Projects functioning as designed. While regionalization of operations and maintenance contracts may have some efficient applications across districts, each district knows its facilities best and is best able to prioritize maintenance based on funding and workload.

Recreation

The Southwestern Division has the largest recreation program in the Corps of

Engineers. In 2004, the districts of SWD managed more than 11,400 miles of shoreline, and 1, 172 recreation sites. 76 Recreation sites in the division include lodges, camp grounds, wilderness trails, boat launching ramps, day use sites, and marinas. There are

90 lakes in the Southwestern Division. Regionally, in 2004, the division focused on the issues of water safety and budget cuts for maintaining recreational facilities.

At Little Rock, for example, tight budgets forced the district to take action affecting 65 parks in Arkansas in 2004. Seven parks were closed completely while another closed with the exception of launching ramps. The length of visitor season was

75 SWL, Project Update, May 2004, p. 7. 76 Serving the Nation, p. 163. 38 reduced at several parks in order to concentrate funds on improvements. Ben

Butler, Little Rock District Engineer, remarked that the District would no longer try to keep all parks open "with most operating at a starvation rate. "77 Similar budget constraints faced Tulsa, Fort Worth, and Galveston Districts as well, forcing park closures, reduced usage hours, and limited services.

Beyond budget constraints, Corps recreation personnel faced huge administrative challenges. Each year, more people visit Corps recreational sites; and each year funding to manage the sites is inadequate. Federal responses include charging higher fees, passing more management responsibilities to private concessionaires, cutting back services, and closing facilities. Increased regional approaches to hiring, training, and resource allocation seem to be logical for recreation management.

No region of the Corps has greater recreation management challenges than the

Southwestern Division. Demand for recreation services at Corps facilities will undoubtedly increase as the Southwestern Region grows. The demands will also become more complex, as recreational vehicles, watercraft, and other technologies advance. The

Corps must also balance public demands to keep underused recreation sites open while meeting the staffing needs of some of the nations most intensely visited sites. The regional approach to training and staffing is an efficient method for meeting the challenge of managing the Corps largest recreation program.

Overall SWD Military Construction

77 SWL, Project Update, May 2004, p. 6. See also htto://www.hg.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/cf-stats.htm (2006) for general statistics on Corps recreation sites. 39

The Southwestern Division has one of the largest military construction programs in the Corps of Engineers. Expansive military districts in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana look to the local Corps of Engineer districts for design and construction of runways, barracks, hangers, firing range facilities, and a host of other needs. The majority of installations are over 50 years old, and require constant maintenance, improvement, and upgrading. Base civil engineers (the customers) turn to the Corps of

Engineers--with its regional project and program management approach--to provide efficient and cost effective design and construction results. The Division's 2004 Military

Construction Program consisted of 41 projects, totaling $449 .4 million. Of these,

Congress designated funds for thirty-six projects at $398.9 million. 78 Through the military construction program, SWD sought opportunities to work regionally and involve all the districts in military construction since there was great disparity among them in military workload. One example is planning through SWD to ensure that Little Rock

District was included in key planning meetings in fiscal year 2005. The Division assigned the Regional Access Control Point program lead to Little Rock. The Division assigned Galveston District to lead a major ($40-million) Army Reserve project in

Houston, and also gave Galveston a major role in the Formerly Used Defense Site

(FUDS) program. 79

Almost all military installations in the SWD area of operations trace their lineage to World War II or before. These bases required significant upgrading to meet the demands of a 21st century military establishment. The modernization process began in the late 1970s with the introduction of an all-volunteer Army. An all-volunteer military

78 SWD 2004 historical submission, Military Construction; in 2004, Fort Worth District had the largest military construction program, followed by Tulsa, Little Rock, and Galveston. 79 Ibid. 40 requires modem housing, recreation, and dining facilities that equal or exceed those available in the private sector. The new military demanded centers for fitness, shopping, entertainment and private concessionaires. Modem installations also required state of the art medical and dental facilities for both soldiers and their families. Moreover, career military personnel require accommodation for families posing new challenge in the design of housing and community planning on military bases. In 2004, all of theses requirements accelerated with the increased military spending the accompanied the

Global War on Terror and the ongoing Base Realignment and Closure program.

The following is an inventory of military installations served by SWD during

2004:

Fort Polk

Fort Polk, Louisiana, was established in 1941 and named in honor of the Right

Reverend Leonidas Polk, the first Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Louisiana, and a

Confederate general. Thousands of soldiers underwent basic training at Fort Polk during

World War II. The post reopened for the Korean War, and then closed. After the Berlin

Crisis, in 1961, Fort Polk was permanently reactivated as a center for infantry training.

In 1993, Fort Polk became the official home of the Joint Readiness Training Center

(JRTC), which relocated from Arkansas. Fort Polk is also home to the Warrior Brigade, which contains several combat support units. Medical, dental, and military police commands also support the installation. In 2004, the Fort Worth District designed a $34- million Aircraft Maintenance Hanger, an $8.5-million Alert Holding Area, a $1.4-million 41

Arms Storage Area, a $1.2-million Shoot House, and a $27-million Mission Training

Support Facility at Fort Polk. During 2004, Fort Polk began one of its biggest construction booms with plans for up to $300 million in improvements. 80

Fort Sam Houston

Fort Sam Houston, named for the first President of the Republic of Texas, is located in Southern Texas near San Antonio. The 3,300-acre army base is headquarters of the Fifth Army, home to the Army Medical Department, and is the training base for most Army medical programs, including most of the 68-series Military Occupational

Specialties and officer and warrant officer training courses for the Army Medical Corps,

Nurse Corps, Medical Services Corps and Medical Specialist Corps. Much of this training takes place at the Brooke Army Medical Center, one of the nation's top institutions for postgraduate medical education, medical training, and medical research.

Brooke was upgraded by the Corps during the 1980s and.1990s. Brooke is also home to the distinguished Army Burn Center operated by the United States Army Institute of

Surgical Research.

In 2004, the Corps completed three projects at Fort Sam Houston, including a

$2.2-million, 10,000-square-foot, General Instruction Building at , and a $5.8

-million, 32,000 square foot Veterinary Care Instruction Facility, that included office, instructional, veterinary care, and vivarium spaces. The Corps also built a $13.7-million

Army Reserves training building including a warehouse and equipment concentrations site and a maintenance shop. During 2004, the Harris Heights Housing Replacement program was completed. This included construction of 60 junior and senior

80 SWF 2004 historical submission, Military Construction. 42 noncommissioned officer dwelling units. Fort Worth District built replacement housing on a new site at a cost of $11 million. 81

White Sands Missile Range

Established in July 1945, White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), in New Mexico, is the largest military installation in the United States. Occupying a rectangular strip of land, 100 miles long and 40 miles wide, WSMR is the test site for practically every weapon system in the U.S. military arsenal. The site includes the Alamogordo Bombing range, where the first atomic bomb test took place in 1945. After World War II, Wernher von Braun and his team of German rocket scientists refined their V-2 missile technology at White Sands. Rockets tested at White Sands later formed the basis for the vehicles that carried astronauts to the moon. Consequently, Whites Sands is sometimes referred to as the "Birthplace of the Race to Space."82

In 2004, the Corps awarded a $14.6-million contract for revitalization of the military housing and completed a design for new neighborhood housing and also completed a Request for Proposal for $31 million of additional neighborhood housing.

Additional work included a design of a $1. 5-million Branch Fire Station, a project that was deferred before a construction contract was awarded. Fort Worth District also completed a design for a $33-million Electromagnetic Vulnerability Assessment Facility

81 Email from Ricky Hohlt to Peter Neushul, 5 January 2007. Hohlt is the Fort Worth District's Program Manager at Fort Sam Houston. See also Graves and Neushul, The History ofthe Southwestern Division, Chapter 2, for further details on the construction of Brooke Anny medical center. 82 See http://www.vivanewmexico.com/sw.wsmr.html (2008) for further data on White Sands Missile Range. Article is entitled "White Sands Missile Range." 43

(EMVAF). This two-story structure will contain two double radio :frequency shielded chambers. 83

Dyess Air Force Base

Dyess Air Force Base, located near the city of Abilene, Texas, was originally

Abilene Air Force Base until it was renamed on December 6, 1956, in honor of

Lieutenant Colonel William E. Dyess, a native of Albany, Texas. Dyess is home to the

7th Bomb Wing, a B-lB Lancer unit in the U.S. Air Force. Dyess AFB has nearly 200 facilities on base, plus 988 units of family housing, and encompasses 6, 117 acres of land.

The base has a total economic impact of nearly $3 10 million yearly on the local community. Many buildings at Dyess are over 50 years old, and the Corps is overseeing both new construction and rehabilitation of facilities. In 2004, the Corps awarded a contract for Phase 4 of a Family Housing Replacement program. The ongoing project called for building three and four-bedroom single-story units with two-car garages.

Designs for Phase 5 of the housing replacement project was completed in June 2004.

Dyess base commander Colonel Garrett Harencak noted that "we must always take care of the airmen and their families ... one of the most significant ways to do that is to provide first-rate facilities and housing."84 Upon his departure in 2006, Colonel Harencak remarked that "the current wave of construction at Dyess has had a huge positive impact on our quality of life . . . we have been very fortunate to have so much new construction

83 Email from Charles Matar to Peter Neuslml, 2 March 2007. Matar is Fort Worth District's Program Manger at White Sands Missile Range. See also http://goliath.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=l&referid=2750&item id=Ol99- 4917917 (2008) for Anon, "Fort Worth seeks contractor to build assessment facility for $25m to $50m," 26 October 2005. 84 Colonel Garrett Harancek, "Commander says goodbye to Team Dyess," 28 July 2006, text found at http://www.dyess.af.miVnews/story.asp?id=l23024229 44 at Dyess. "85

Goodfellow Air Force Base

Home to the , Goodfellow Air Force Base is a United States

Air Force training installation subordinate to Air Education & Training Command

(AETC). The base is named for Lieutenant John J. Goodfellow, Jr., of San Angelo,

Texas, a World War I observation pilot. Goodfellow's chief mission is to develop and deliver training in the cryptologic and general intelligence career fields for Air Force,

Army, Navy and Marine Corps personnel plus students from certain Allied countries and national agencies. Goodfellow also provides fire protection-training for multi-service personnel and special instruments training in support of the U.S. Atomic Energy

Detection System. Located on 1, 135 acres near the community of San

Angelo, Goodfellow's assets include more than 200 buildings on base, many of them accredited to hold and process sensitive compartmented information (SCI), plus an additional 200 units of leased housing near Lake Nasworthy. All told, an infrastructure in excess of $600 million and an annual operating budget of $66 million supports almost

15,000 active duty personnel, dependents, retirees and civilians while nearly 400 acres on the eastern side of the base remain available to attract and sustain new missions. 86

On July 1, 1993, the 17th Training Wing was activated on Goodfellow Air Force

Base. With the change in name came a marked diversification and increase in

Goodfellow's mission. Rounds One and Two of the base realignment and closure process

(BRAC) transferred special instruments training from and fire

85 Ibid. 86 SWF 2004 historical submission, military construction. 45 protection training from to Goodfellow. To support the increased training load, Goodfellow underwent extensive modernization and growth.

With new training facilities, dormitories, dining halls, a commissary, a youth center and a physical fitness center, Goodfellow entered its second half-century of operation as one of the most modem installations in the Air Force. In 2004, the Fort Worth District awarded a contract for a $1.8-million Fire Training Facility, and a new $18-million student dormitory. 87

Lackland Air Force Base

Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, provides basic military training for Air Force recruits. Lackland Air Force Base is home to the Inter-American Air

Forces Academy, the Defense Language Institute English Language Center, and Wilford

Hall Medical Center, the Air Force's largest medical facility. Originally known as the

San Antonio Aviation Cadet Center, Lackland Air Force Base emerged from a section of

Kelly Field in 1942. In 1948, the facility was named Lackland AFB after Brigadier

General Frank Lackland. In 2004, the Corps awarded contracts for a $21-million, 300- room Dormitory, a $35-million Pipeline Dormitory, and Dining Hall Facility. The

Pipeline Dormitory contract called for a 200-room, three-story dormitory that included training manager areas, laundries, a lobby, a lounge area, and storage space. 88

Laughlin Air Force Base

87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 46

Laughlin Air Force Base is located at Del Rio, Texas, 150 miles west of San

Antonio. The base is named for Lieutenant Jack T. Laughlin, the first Del Rio Army Air

Forces Casualty of World War II. Laughlin trained bomber pilots during World War II and shut down in 1945. The base reopened in 1962 as a center for Undergraduate Pilot

Training and remained in that capacity through the next 42 years. In 2004, the Corps designed a $5.3-million Air Craft Maintenance Shelter, and a $7.2-million Student

Officers Quarters at Laughlin. The Corps awarded contracts for both projects in 2004. 89

Randolph Air Force Base

Randolph Air Force Base opened in 1930, soon after the Air Corps Act of 1926 changed the Army Air Service into the Army Air Corps and led to expansion of the nation's air force capabilities. The base was named for William Millican Randolph, a native of Austin, who, during his nine-year flying career, made a significant contribution to the progress of aviation. Randolph AFB served as a pilot training center, and also housed the School of Aviation Medicine. Since 1972, Randolph served as home to the

12th Flying Training Wing. The 12th training wing is the only unit in the Air Force conducting both pilot instructor training and combat systems officer training.

In 2004, the Fort Worth District designed a 78,000 square foot Fitness Center at

Randolph Air Force Base. The new physical fitness facility provided base personnel a center for athletics, aerobic activities, and cardiovascular training as well as auxiliary administrative support. The facility has a main gymnasium with an elevated indoor running track along the perimeter, office space, exercise and weight rooms, cardiovascular rooms, racquetball courts, men's and women's locker rooms and a laundry

89 Ibid. 47 area. The design also included a Health and Wellness Center (HAWC) to provide proper education training for food preparation and overall health care. The Corps awarded a construction contract for the new center in September 2004. 90

Fort Sill

Major General Philip Sheridan selected the future of site of Fort Sill in 1869 during his campaign in Indian Territory to stop raids on border settlements in Kansas and

Texas. Sheridan commanded six cavalry regiments guided by legendary frontier scouts such as "Buffalo Bill" Cody, "Wild Bill" Hickok, Ben Clark, and Jack Stilwell. The 7th

Cavalry, 19th Kansas Volunteers, and 10th Cavalry (Buffalo Soldiers) rendezvoused at

"Camp Wichita," the present day site of Fort Sill. Sheridan later named Fort Sill in honor of his West Point classmate and friend, Brigadier General Joshua W. Sill, who died in the

Civil War. The first post commander was Brevet Major General Benjamin Grierson, and the first Indian agent was Colonel Albert Gallatin Boone, grandson of Daniel Boone. 91

Located near Lawton, Oklahoma, 85 miles southwest of , Fort Sill is the only active fort that dates to the Indian Wars. Fort Sill is home to the U.S. Army

Field Artillery and the Field Artillery School. In 2004, the Tulsa District awarded $22.4 million in contracts for a Directorate of Logistics Maintenance Facility (Phase 2), Family

Housing Replacement, Urban Assault Course, Vehicle Maintenance, and the Energy

Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) Geothermal Project. Completed projects included the Fort Sill Unit Movement and Design/Build of Starship Roofs. 92

90 Anon, "Guernsey Wins Air Force Design Award for Physical Fitness Facility," see http://www.chguemsey.com/press/2005/200512 l 4 _randolph.asp 91 Anon, "The History of Old Fort Sill," See http://sill-www.army.mil/pao/pahist.htm 92 SWT 2004 historical submission, Military Construction. 48

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant

Located six miles from the town of McAlester and 100 miles south of Tulsa,

Oklahoma, McAlester Army Ammunition Plant was originally commissioned as the

Naval Ammunition Depot McAlester on May 20, 1943 and began its first production of naval ordnance in September 1943. On October 1, 1977 the naval facility was transferred to the Army under the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition Act. Red River

Munitions Center (Red River, Texas) was transferred to MCAAP on October 1, 1999.

MCAAP is the source of nearly every non-nuclear bomb deployed by the U.S. 93 In 2004,

Tulsa District awarded a $1.8-million task order for repair and/or replacement of 10 facilities at McAlester Army Ammunition Plant.94

Altus Air Force Base

Construction of began in May 1942 in the fields of southwestern Oklahoma, at Altus, Oklahoma. Military aircraft arrived at the new base in

1943 and, over the next five decades, Altus evolved into the premier air mobility training location in the (USAF). As Altus moved into the twenty-first century, it continued to perform the basic mission started in 1943: providing a safe, comfortable location to train military personnel on the intricacies of operating multi- engine aircraft. In 2004, Tulsa District awarded a $1 million contract for modification of

93 Charles Fishman, "Boomtown, U.S.A.," Fast Company 59 (May 2002), p. 106. 94 SWT 2004 historical submission, Military Construction. 49

a building to accommodate a C-17 simulator. The project to Repair Airfield Pavements,

Phase 1, was completed in February 2004. 95

Sheppard Air Force Base

Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls, Texas, began as a World War II training center and was named for Senator Morris E. Sheppard, a former member of the

Senate Military Affairs Committee. Over the next fifty years, Sheppard continued to

serve as a training base becoming the most diversified facility in Air Education and

Training Command. The , the 80th Flying Training Wing, and the

882nd Medical Training Group conduct resident training at Sheppard that qualifies

students for careers ranging from pilot, aircraft maintenance, civil engineering,

communications, comptroller and transportation to a wide scope of medical specialties.

In 2004, the Tulsa District awarded a contract for a new $11.1-million Airfield

Operations Complex at Sheppard. Funding for the shared-cost facility came from all 13

Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training program nations. Colonel H. D. Polumbo,

Commander of the 801h Flying Training Wing at Sheppard, noted that "you cannot

measure how important [the new complex] is [as] Sheppard flies about 75,000 sorties a year." The complex includes a new 142-ft aircraft control tower. Other projects

completed during 2004 include the first of four 300-person student dormitories, a dining

facility, flight Simulator, and a health and wellness center.96

Tinker Air Force Base

95 SWT 2004 historical submission, Military Construction. 96 Mary Beth Hudson to Judy Bullwinkle, addition to SWT 2004 historical submission, Military Construction comments from Mona Wagner, 11 May 2007. 50

Tinker Air Force Base was named in honor of Major General Clarence L. Tinker of Pawhuska, Oklahoma. General Tinker lost his life while leading a flight ofLB-30

"Liberators" on a long-range strike against Japanese forces on Wake Island during the early months of World War II. Tinker Air Force Base was conceived in 1940 when a group of Oklahoma City civic leaders and businessmen learned that the War Department was considering the central United States as a location for a maintenance and supply depot. On April 8, 1941, Oklahoma City became the site for the depot; and the ensuing plant repaired B-24 and B-17 bombers, and fitted B-29s for combat throughout World

War II. Tinker continued to grow during the post-war years; and in 1999 the base was awarded the largest engine repair contract in the history of the Air Force, valued at $10.2 billion over 15 years. 97 In 2004, the Tulsa District awarded $20 million in contracts for

Phase I of the Building 3001 Revitalization Project, and an addition to the Reserve Civil

Engineering Facility. Completed projects included new Air Driven Accessories and an

Instrument Landing System (ILS).98

Vance Air Force Base

Vance Air Force Base is located five miles south of Enid, Oklahoma, and approximately 94 miles northwest of Oklahoma City. Vance is 1,307 feet above sea level and was built in 1941 as an Army Flying School. In keeping with the Air Force tradition of naming bases for deceased Air Force flyers, on July 9, 1949, the base was named after a local World War II hero and winner, Lieutenant Colonel Leon Robert

Vance, Jr. Over the next fifty years. Vance continued its mission of producing military

97 See "Tinker History," at http://www.tinker-af.org/history.htm 98 SWT 2004 historical submission, Military Construction. 51 pilots, while also including aircraft maintenance and civil engineering activities. In 2004, the Corps awarded a $15 million contract for a 2-Phase Design/Build Consolidated

Logistics Facility. In 2004, the Corps awarded a $15 million 2-Phase Design/Build contract for a Consolidated Logistics Facility. Completed 2004 projects include a T-IA

Aircraft Maintenance Hangar. 99

Little Rock Air Force Base

Construction of Little Rock Air Force Base began in 1953, after civic leaders purchased land near Jacksonville, Arkansas, and offered the location to the Air Force.

The base, opened to aircraft in 1955, was home to a steady stream of Air Force wings.

Little Rock is recognized as the home of Lockheed's C-130 Hercules transport aircraft and is the premiere training center for pilots flying the "Herks." In the 21st Century,

Little Rock Air Force Base is home to the newest Air Force cargo aircraft, the C-130J.

The new J model transport flies higher, faster and farther than previous C-130s. Little

Rock's 48th Airlift Squadron is the only active-duty squadron in the world. In 2004, The

Little Rock District oversaw a $75-million construction program with over half the budget devoted to construction of a new C-130J "bed-down." The project includes a new

C-130J Flight Simulator facility, a new two-bay hanger, and a maintenance training unit.

Completed projects include a $9-million fitness center that serves C-130 crews. 100

Pine Bluff Arsenal

99 SWT 2004 historical submission, Military Construction. 100 SWL "Project Update 2004," p. 7. 52

Pine Bluff Arsenal, the Department of Defense's premier chemical arsenal, is located 35 miles southeast of Little Rock, Arkansas on a 431-acre plot of land. Pine

Bluff was formed in December 1941, as a Chemical Warfare Arsenal that manufactured magnesium and thermite munitions, including incendiary grenades. Pine Bluff manufactured millions, of grenades, bombs, and shells all filled with chemical weapons.

From 1953 to 1969, Pine Bluff also manufactured biological weapons. Presently, Pine

Bluffs mission is to stockpile 3,850 tons of chemical weapons until they are disposed of through the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program. In 2004, Little Rock District completed a 14,000 square foot Child Development Center, an addition to the Fire

Station, expanded storage at the Community Club, renovated the Golf Pro Shop, and implemented a plan for sign replacement and landscaping. 101

Hazardous, Toxic, Radiological Waste (HTRW)

The Corps of Engineers is deeply involved with several programs including

Hazardous, Toxic, Radiological Waste (HTRW), Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS),

Defense Environmental Restoration Programs (DERP), Base Realignment and Closure

(BRAC), and work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Southwestern

Division's involvement in these programs dates back to the early 1980s. In the wake of rapidly expanding environmental legislation, the Army directed the Corps to clean up 23 hazardous waste sites at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas. Under the provisions of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the region's Tulsa District built the

Corps' first landfill conforming to the specifications of that law. District personnel also

101 SWL 2004 historical submission, Military Construction. 53 oversaw the cleanup of pits containing heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and white phosphorus, and their deposition into the new lined landfill. 102

Because of its increasing expertise in environmental restoration, SWT became the third Corps of Engineers Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Waste (HTRW) Design

Center in 1989. Until then, Omaha and Kansas City provided such services nationwide.

Anticipating the movement toward regionalization in the Corps of Engineers, Tulsa served the five-state region of Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and New Mexico.

Tulsa District was responsible for technical support and project management of the

Installation Restoration Program (IRP) for the Army and Air Force within its military construction boundaries, the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program, and the

Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) for the Department of Energy. In addition,

SWT became executive manager for all 13 of the nation's Air Force Air Education and

Training Command (AETC) installations environmental restoration activities. 103

The Corps programs expanded through the 1990s and early 2000s. During 2004, SWD executed $38 million in HTRW programs evenly divided between Tulsa and Fort Worth

Districts. 104 Corps-wide, by 2004, the job of the organization's Environmental Division expanded to clean up waste and toxic materials and then restore sites as much as possible to natural conditions at a multitude of military and non-military sites around the nation and in foreign countries as well. The Corps also worked with the Environmental

102 Interview, Gregory Graves and Peter Neushul, with John Roberts, Deputy District Engineer for Project Management, (1April1999). Hereafter cited as Roberts interview. 103 Roberts interview. 104 SWD 2004 historical submission, programs management division. 54

Protection Agency (EPA) and federal agencies such as the Atomic Energy Commission

(AEC) to remediate other military sites throughout the nation. 105

In the SWD region during 2004, the Tulsa District's E&C HTRW Design Center provided extensive environmental support through a method called Performance Based

Contracting (PBC). Tulsa District awarded a $40-million-plus site closure PBC (fixed- price remediation with insurance) for the former Reese Center in Lubbock, Texas, in

August 2004. The Air Force Real Property (AFRP A) Agency Division C later selected

Tulsa District as its PBC service agent for Williams, Carswell, England, Bergstrom,

Eaker, Richards-Gebaur, Chanute, and Kelly Air Force Bases. The district also awarded the first PBC task order for Randolph Air Force Base. Environmental support also continued at Vance, Sheppard, and Little Rock Air Force Bases as well as many Army installations throughout the Southwestern Division.106 The HTRW Design Center provided environmental support to a Land Use Control Implementation Plan for Fort

Chaffee. This center's plan met Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program goals for timely property transfer. In May 2004, the Army transferred approximately 6,000 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Army. 107

Galveston District's environmental restoration work during 2004 included remediation on the World War II-era tin smelting plant called Tex Tin, which was placed on EPA' s Superfund list of most polluted sites during the 1990s. Work on a portion of the site advanced in 2004 when the contractor finished construction of breakwaters designed to halt erosion along the side. In April 2004, Galveston District

105 Ibid; see also Barbara Stahura, "The Corps Cleans Up: USACE's Role in Remediating Damaged Land," in Serving the Nation, pp. 122-27 for an overview of Corps military cleanups nationwide in 2004. 106 SWT 2004 historical submission, E&C Division. 107 Ibid. 55 sent a Field Level Agreement (FLA) to EPA' s Region 6 Director of Water Quality

Protection Division. Galveston District Regulatory Branch Policy Analysis Section and

EPA Region 6 Water Quality Protection Division in coordination with Texas Department of Transportation developed this agreement under the existing 1989 memorandum of agreement between the Army and EPA. The agreement streamlines the resolution of

Section 404 violations without compromise to agency authorities or the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States.108

The Fort Worth District's environmental restoration work included significant

Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) activity in Arlington, Texas. In May 2004, the district initiated field work on the task of removing ordnance from the former Five Points

Outlying Field. The 162-acre site was used as a practice take-off and landing field during

World War II, as well as a practice target bombing range. Pilots attempted to hit targets with MK-23 practice bombs. The bombs contained no high explosives, but did have a spotting charge. The two-phased project included identification through geophysical mapping of all the bombs, followed by their excavation later in the year. 109

In 2004, Little Rock District completed environmental restoration at Fort Chaffee in Sebastian County. The majority of Fort Chaffee's 64,250 acres were licensed to the

Arkansas Army National Guard in September 1997. The District oversaw dispensation of the remaining 7,012 acres through the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, concluding with the transfer of the 1-45 Highway Corridor. Fort Chaffee was the first

108 SWG 2004 historical submission. 109 "Corps of Engineers Initiates Ordnance Removal in Arlington," SWF News Release, 3 May 2004. 56

BRAC 05 installation to complete disposal actions and the first of all BRAC installations to receive "ready for reuse" certification from the Environmental Protection Agency. 110

Other Support Activities

Of the many functions of Corps of Engineers division and district offices, probably the most regionalized before the initiative of the early 2000s were Resource Management,

Information Management, Contracting, Safety, Equal Employment, and the Office of

Counsel. With Corps-wide technology changes such as the Corps of Engineers

Management Information System (COEMIS) in the 1980s, and the Corps of Engineers

Financial Management System (CEFMS) in the 1990s, the organization's accounting and financial management systems have been standardized to a degree that, in many ways, goes beyond regionalization to centralization. Project and Program Management software and hardware have also taken information management to new levels of standardization. There appears to have already been a trend toward regionalization through the 1990s and the early 2000s in the contracting functions of SWD; an example being the Fort Worth District's handling of contracts for the division office in Dallas.

There was also already a great deal of regional communication between the division and district offices of counsel. In many ways, these support activity functions anticipated regional trends years before regionalization was a formal initiative.

Summary Conclusion:

The preceding annual regional historical report provides a snapshot of the Corps of Engineers Southwestern Region during calendar year 2004. A regional historical no SWL, Project Update (May 2004), p. 9 and SWL 2004 Historical Submission, Real Estate Division. 57 perspective provides insight into the network of four vital Corps districts and their relationship with Southwestern Division headquarters. Together, these entities oversee the water resources and military construction needs of a vast and diverse region of the

United States. Included in this diverse region are wide arrays of ecosystems including tropical coastlines with complex riverine, estuarine, and benthic communities. The region is home to extensive pine, cypress, and hardwood forests, as well as alluvial and treeless plains. This area of operations also encompasses a panoply of semi-arid, mountainous, and wetland terrains--all of which pose a unrelenting challenge to the engineer. Rich in natural resources, the region produces and processes much of the nation's energy, while also providing vast quantities of food, lumber, and minerals.

The nearly 40-million people who live and work in the Southwestern region rely upon the expertise of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for water resources development services, including flood protection, water supply, hydroelectric power, transportation, disaster relief, and recreation. The Corps of Engineers supplies the region with vital infrastructure without which the quality of life and productivity of the Southwest would not be possible. At the same time, the Corps serves the nation by maintaining, improving, and expanding numerous installations for the Armed Services. These posts and bases employ thousands of people, often providing the economic foundation for entire towns. The four districts of the Southwestern Division share these service responsibilities and at the same time support other regions across the United States and around the world. The Southwestern Region's expertise, in 2004, met a spectrum of challenges, including national economic infrastructure management, natural disaster responses, and an expanding role in the Global War on Terror. 58

With a regional focus on activities during calendar year 2004 this report captures the key elements of regionalization by the Corps of Engineers in the Southwest, and reflects the goals of USACE 2012. In many aspects of Corps operations, regionalization is a significant step toward the network model that characterizes the 21st century operational philosophy outlined in the USACE 2012 report. This historical snapshot of the Southwestern region in 2004 is an important data point in assessing the current and potential value of regional approaches to Corps business. In many instances, as the

Southwestern region moves toward regionalization, the organization improves its ability to ensure maintenance and improvement of the technical skills and competence vital to the nation's infrastructure. In some instances, however, it appears that the traditional full-service, district-level approach is more effective. Subsequent annual historical reports will provide a cumulative assessment of regionalization in the Southwest based upon this benchmark report for 2004.

Bibliographic Essay

Any review of a single year in the history of a Corps division or district must draw upon the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Report of the Secretary of the Army on

Civil Works Activities for FY 2004. This document describes the expenditures on individual projects and provides a brief description of the activity. This historical summary augments the Annual Report using historical reports and submissions from 59 districts within the Southwestern Division. These include memoranda, newsletters, news releases, and succinct historical reports from branches within each district and the division. In 2004, the Army produced a new Corps-wide publication entitled Serving the

Nation and the Armed Forces produced by the Faircount Company that provides aggregate statistics for districts, divisions, and the general Corps. In some instances correspondence with project managers, particularly with regard toward military construction, provided insight into the details on ongoing military programs at the vast number of installations in the Southwestern Division. Corps, Division, and District web sites are now supplanting print media. Consequently, current and historical data is often only available in electronic format. In some instances, private web sites from Corps contractors also provide valuable data on military construction. For regionalization,

USACE 2012: Aligning the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers for Success in the 21 91 Century is the defining document. The evolution of regionalization, however, is discussed in several publications including Martin Reuss' Reshaping National Water Politics: The

Emergence of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (1989) and Gregory Graves,

Pursuing Excellence in Water Planning and Policy Analysis: A History of the Institute for

Water Resources (1995).

To understand the Southwestern Division in 2004 one must account for the wealth of history the came before. This is encompassed in Division and District histories that define the complex and vital events that brought the Southwestern Region to 2004 and are found in the footnotes above. The preceding history and reference materials are a component for use in the continued chronicling of historical events in the Southwestern

Division. 60

Appendix

Commanders and Changes of Command

Colonel John R. Minahan served as Commander of Fort Worth District in 2004. 111 Colonel (P) Jeffrey J. Dorko became Commander and Division Engineer, Southwestern Division, headquartered in Dallas, Texas, on June 21, 2004. Colonel Steven P. Haustein assumed command of Galveston District in August 2004. 112 Colonel Wally Z. Walters assumed command of Little Rock District July 2004. 113 Colonel Miroslav Kurka took command of the Tulsa District in June 2004. 114

111 Fort Worth District 2004 historical submission. 112 Anon, "Haustein Gains Command," 12 The Sand Castle (November 2004), p. 1. 113 Anon, Change of Command July 23, 2004 USACE: Little Rock District (2004), pp. 2-3. 114 Anon, "New Commander to Take Over District," Tulsa District News Release, 21 June 2004.