Transcript The Army Civil Works Program

US Army Corps
of Engineers R
Inland Navigation A National Perspective
Jim Walker
USACE, Headquarters
November 8, 2007
Navigation Program
•
•
•
•
•
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
Almost 1100 Congressionally
authorized and constructed navigation
projects
27 inland navigation systems
237 Navigation locks
Aging infrastructure
Funding
—Annual
Operation and Maintenance
—Non-routine Maintenance
Navigation Program
•
•
Reliable Inland River Systems
Lock Availability
—Scheduled
and Unscheduled Lock
Closures
•
Channel Availability
—Depth
and Width
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
Reliability – Navigation Locks
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
Navigation Lock Unavailability, 1991-2005
Total Hours Scheduled vs. Unscheduled without Ice
120,000
100,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
Scheduled
Unscheduled
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
0
19
Hours
80,000
Lock Reliability
•
•
•
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
Corps wide Navigation Lock condition
assessment
Prioritized list of maintenance needs
Reliability Goal
—Unscheduled
lock closures
—Five Year Development Plan: less than
20,000 hours of unscheduled closures
—FY09 pursue first year of incremental
improvement
Channel Availability - Coastal
•
•
•
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
Initial effort: Projects with greater than
10M tons per year
Establish Performance Standard
Determine channel availability trend
—FY
2005, 2006, 2007
—Five Year Development Plans
—FY 2009 Improvement Increment
Channel Availability - Coastal
•
•
•
•
Channel Cross
Section
Depth at Centerline
(CL)
Depth at Channel
Toe
Depth at Quarter
Points
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
CL
Qtr Pt
Qtr Pt
Toe
Toe
Advanced Maintenance
Allowable Overdepth
Channel Availability - Coastal
•
Level of Service Standard
—Full
project depth
—Half project width, 95% of the time
•
Channel availability trend
—FY
2005: 38%
—FY 2006: 35%
—FY 2009 – 2013: get to 95%
—FY 2009 Improvement Increment
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
Future Direction
RAMP
•
Risk Informed
•
Asset Management
•
Performance
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
RAMP
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
RISK Categories
•
•
•
•
•
•
Structural
Operational
Life Safety
Economic
Environmental
Security
RAMP
•
•
•
•
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
ASSET MANAGEMENT
Maintenance Management
Use for Repair, Rehab, Replace, Retire
decision
FEM is the Corps system
Deploying in 2008-09
RAMP
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
PERFORMANCE
•
•
•
Tonnage
Performance Standard
Funding
—Achieve
appropriate levels of risk
—Achieve level of performance
•
•
Report what we are able to accomplish with
the funds provided
Transparent process – stakeholders, public,
Congress
Future Direction
•
•
•
•
•
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
Method needs to be easy to explain
and understand
Administration – OMB Economists
Congress
American Public
America’s Infrastructure must become
a National priority
RAMP
•
•
•
•
OMB Feedback
Concur with the approach
Performance measure agreement
Data collection and reporting
underway
Improve OMB PART rating from
current ‘Results Not Demonstrated’
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
Where We Are
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
Nav Lock
High Performing Operation (HPO)
•
•
•
•
85% of Inland Navigation expended on
annual operation and maintenance
HPO to evaluate effectiveness and
efficiency
Performance Work Statement to be released
for public review and comment in Nov/Dec
www.navlockshpo.usace.army.mil/HPO_System.htm
Conclusion
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
The Bottom Lines
•
•
Investing in the Navigation system is
investing in economic development
America’s Infrastructure must become
a National priority