Table A1. Automation survey responses by district.
of Engineers cover letter from the Chief of the
Operations, Construction, and Readiness Divi-
Project
Project
sion in August 1991 to field elements throughout
Division/District
replies
Division/District
replies
the country. As the cover letter directed, each re-
LMVD
ORD
ceiving Operations Office was to distribute cop-
Memphis
1
Huntington
28
ies of the questionnaire to all lockmasters, dam
New Orleans
13
Louisville
19
operators, operators of other hydraulic struc-
St. Louis
5
Nashville
20
Vicksburg
NR
Pittsburgh
25
tures, and other pertinent personnel. No replies
MRD
SAD
were sought from the division level. Replies were
Kansas City
7
Charleston
NR
received through November 1991.
Omaha
7
Jacksonville
NR
NED
NR
Mobile
9
Survey response data
NAD
Savannah
3
Baltimore
NR
Wilmington
3
Considering only the 49 states exclusive of
New York
NR
SPD
Hawaii, and treating the New England Division
Norfolk
1
Los Angeles
5
as equivalent to an Engineer District, the survey
Philadelphia
4
Sacramento
2
brought replies from projects and elements with-
NCD
San Francisco
NR
in 28 districts. This is out of a possible total of 37
Buffalo
1
SWD
Chicago
1
Albuquerque
1
districts, for an overall reply rate of 76%.
Detroit
1
Fort Worth
7
From among the 28 responding districts, re-
Rock Island
17
Galveston
NR
plies to the survey were received from a total of
St. Paul
23
Little Rock
13
235 Corps water resources projects.* In some
NPD
Tulsa
5
cases more than one reply was received from a
Alaska
NR
Portland
6
single project. This usually involved replies from
Seattle
5
one or more of the following elements: lock and
Walla Walla
3
dam operations, hydroelectric generation, natu-
Note: The number of projects replying to the automation
ral resources management, mechanical mainte-
survey within each district is shown, grouped according to
nance, electrical maintenance, etc. When these
divisions. Also shown are the districts in which none of the
multiple replies were tallied, they were consid-
projects responded (NR).
ered as a single detailed reply from a single
project. Table A1 is provided to show both the
Survey findings
districts with responding projects and the num-
Considering the 94 responses from lock and
ber of projects responding from each.
dam navigation projects as the entire field for
Of the 235 projects that generated replies to
analysis with respect to the present study, the
the survey, 94 (or 40%) are lock and dam naviga-
following statistics summarize the results that
tion projects. This number (94) should be com-
were found:
pared with the 239 lock sites† owned and/or op-
74% (70 projects) have some form of automa-
erated by the Corps of Engineers, translating to a
tion of lock and dam operations already in
survey coverage of 39% of all U.S. lock and dam
place;
navigation facilities. This response rate is consid-
26% (24 projects) report that there are plans
ered quite satisfactory for providing a good over-
for new automation or additional automa-
view of present automation techniques in use at
tion at their projects;
navigation projects, as well as for gleaning opin-
65% (61 projects) provide suggestions for
ions from personnel at the operating level con-
new or additional automation at their pro-
cerning future automation directions.
jects, generally unrelated to any automation
that is currently planned.
Specific findings of the automation survey are
not enumerated here. The general findings of the
survey, along with the results of the several field
*A small number of what are termed "extraneous" replies
are not included in this 235 number. Extraneous replies came
visits to lock and dam projects (see App. B), are
from office personnel addressing needs such as office man-
principally expressed in the Matrix of Naviga-
agement systems, improved uses of Corpsmail or fax, or ad-
tion Project Automation Alternatives, which has
ministrative report transmission over computer networks.
been developed using these information sources.
Also in this category were replies from repair facility and
floating plant personnel concerned with floating plant sys-
The word "automation" was interpreted
tems such as pumps and alarms.
widely by the survey respondents. While the in-
† The U.S. Waterway System--Facts, USACE, November 1991.
18
Previous Page
