1996 Military Customer Satisfaction Survey

2010 CIVIL WORKS PROGRAMS CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

July 2011 This report prepared by:

Linda Peterson, CECW Survey Manager US Army Engineer District, Mobile CESAM-PM-I 109 ST Joseph St Mobile, AL 36602 Phone (251) 694-3848

CONTENTS Page

Executive Summary ………………………………………………………... 1

Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Background ……………………………..…………………………..….. 3 1.2 Survey Methodology …………………..……………………………..... 4

Section 2: Results of 2010 Survey 2.1 Customer Demographics ……………………………………………… 5 2.2 Survey Items and Scales …………………………….……………...... 12 2.3 Customer Comments ……………………………….....…..………….. 15

Section 3: Comparison of Ratings by Customer Subgroups 3.1 Ratings by Respondent Classification……….…………..…...... … 19 3.2 Ratings by Business Line.………………….……….…………....…… 21 3.3 Ratings by Project Phase ………………….……………………...... 24 3.4 Ratings By Survey Year ………….……………………………...……. 26

Section 4: Summary ………….………………………..………...…….…... 29

Tables & Figures Table 1: Respondent Classification...... 6 Table 2: Primary Business Lines ……..…….……….……...……..……... 8 Table 3: ‘Other’ Business Lines..…….……….………...………....……… 8 Table 4: Project Phases ………………………....………………………... 9 Table 5: Corps Divisions..…………………..……...... ………...... 10 Table 6: Corps Districts…...... ………….. 11 Table 7: Survey Scales .………...... ………………....…….……...... 13 Table 8: Item Ratings …...………...... ……………………....….………. 14 Table 9: Item Comments ..………………..………..…………..…..……… 16 Table 10: Additional Comments ….....…..….....……….…………....….... 16 Table 11: Ratings by Business Line ……..……………...….……………. 22 Table 12: Ratings by Project Phase ….………….…...... 24 Table 13: Customers by Business Line & Year…...... 26 Table 14: Customers by MSC & Year…...... 26

Figure 1: Primary Business Line ….…………………………..………...... 7 Figure 2: Corps Divisions...... 10 Figure 3: Ratings by Respondent Classification ……..……………...….. 20 Figure 4: Ratings by Business Line ……………………………….….….. 23 Figure 5: Ratings by Project Phase ……………………………...………. 25 Figure 6: Ratings By Survey Year ………………………………..………. 27

CONTENTS cont' Page

APPENDIX

A: Survey Instrument ………………………………………….………….. A-1

B: Statistical Details Table B-1: Survey Items – Detailed Ratings……….………..………...... B-1 Table B-2: Item & Scale Scores by Respondent Classification………. B-2 Table B-3: Scale Scores by Business Line…...... B-3 Table B-4: Scale Scores by Phase …...………...... B-3 Table B-5: Customers by District by Year ………...... ……...…... B-4 Table B-6: Scale Scores by Survey Year …………...... ……..... B-5 Table B-7: Item Scores by Survey Year ………………...... ……..…... B-6

C : Customer Organizations & Projects C-1: Customer Organizations by District...... C-1 C-2: Project Names by District…………...... C-41

USACE Organization Symbols1

Division Division Name District District Name LRD Great Lakes/Ohio River LRB Buffalo LRC Chicago LRE Detroit LRH Huntington LRL Louisville LRN Nashville LRP Pittsburgh MVD Mississippi Valley MVK Vicksburg MVM Memphis MVN New Orleans MVP St Paul MVR Rock Island MVS St Louis NAD North Atlantic NAB Baltimore NAE New England NAN New York NAO Norfolk NAP Philadelphia NAU Europe NWD North West NWK Kansas City NWO Omaha NWP Portland NWS Seattle NWW Walla Walla POD Pacific Ocean POA Alaska POF Far East POH Honolulu POJ Japan SAD South Atlantic SAC Charleston SAJ Jacksonville SAM Mobile SAS Savannah SAW Wilmington SPD South Pacific SPA Albuquerque SPK Sacramento SPL Los Angeles SPN San Francisco SWD South West SWF Fort Worth SWG Galveston SWL Little Rock SWT Tulsa TAD Transatlantic TAG Gulf Region TAM Middle East TAN Afghanistan North TAS Afghanistan South

1 Organizations participating in 2010 Survey highlighted. iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The fifth annual Civil Works Programs Customer Satisfaction Survey has been completed. The CECW Survey population was expanded in 2010 to include stakeholder agencies in addition to ’traditional customers’. A total of 2,046 responses were received in the 2010 survey. The Corps-wide response rate was 66 percent.

Environmental customers comprise the largest proportion of the 2010 sample at 29 percent followed by Flood/Storm Damage Reduction (26%), Navigation customers (17%) and Water Quality/Supply (6%). The proportion of customers in each of the other service areas or business lines was five percent or less each. The majority of Corps Civil Works projects were distributed evenly among Construction (23%), O&M (22%) and Feasibility phase (21%). Thirteen percent were in Planning Engineering & Design (PE&D) and three percent in the Reconnaissance phase.

Civil Works customers include a wide variety of state and local agencies. Most are city and county governments and various governmental departments charged with the management of infrastructure relating to water resources. Navigation customers included local port authorities and waterway user groups. There were also state agencies charged with the management of natural resources and emergency response.

The scope of the Civil Works Program encompasses a variety of types of services. Thus, customers are asked to rate Corps district performance in general service areas such as quality of products and services, timeliness, cost, etc. The 24 survey items are grouped into one of eight scales: ‘Attitude’, ‘Products and Services’, ‘Corps Staff’, ‘Timely Service’, ‘Cost’, ‘Communication’, ‘Problem Solving’ and ‘Overall Satisfaction’. In addition a Composite Index score was calculated for each respondent.

All scale means this year were ‘Green’ (x> 4.00). The mean Composite score was 4.292. The highest rated area was Staff services at 4.46. The highest rated items were S9: ‘Technical Competency’ at 94% high ratings and S4: ‘Treats Me as an Important Team Member’ and S8: ‘Responsiveness at 92 percent high ratings each. The items that elicited the greatest proportion of low ratings were S14: ‘Cost of Services’ at 11% low ratings and S11: ‘Timely Services’ and S12: ‘Meets My Schedule’ at nine percent low ratings each. Three items are ‘bottom line’ indicators of customer satisfaction. They are S22: ‘Your Overall Level of Customer Satisfaction’, S23: ‘I Would Recommend the Corps’ and S24: ‘Would be Your Choice for Future Services’. These items received at least 80% satisfactory ratings while only four to five percent of customers provided low ratings.

Customers may provide comments on each service area as well as provide general comments concerning Corps services. The item ‘Responsiveness’ received the greatest number of positive comments (202 customers). ‘Overall Satisfaction’ (152 customers) and ‘Customer Focus’ (139 customers) also received a significant number of positive

2 Survey items are rate on a 5-point Likert scale.

comments. The items that received the largest number of negative comments were: ‘Responsiveness’ (202 customers), ‘Timely Service’ (156) and Cost of Services’ (138).

The most frequent positive general comments were ‘Compliments to individuals/staff’ (423 customers). A large number of positive comments (133) concerned the relationship between the customer and district staff (collaboration). Two issues consistently receive the greatest number of negative comments every year. They concerned the impact of ‘Federal funding/Funding process’ (107) and ‘Corps Policy/Requirements’ (106). A significant number stated that ‘Corps bureaucracy’ had a negative impact either on project cost, timeliness, district flexibility, or overall project execution. Almost all of the most prevalent comments have been ongoing concerns expressed year after year. New to this year is the increase in complaints regarding responsiveness and communication.

Comparative analyses were conducted to examine ratings by customer classification (traditional customer vs stakeholder), business line and project phase. Stakeholders and customers were equally well satisfied with one exception. Stakeholders were significantly more satisfied than customers in the area of Timeliness.

Comparisons of ratings by business lines revealed that Water Quality/Supply customers were consistently the most satisfied. ‘Emergency Mgmt’ and ‘Multiple Business Line’ customers the least satisfied. The implications of these results are very important since multiple business line customers are typically key customers who have significant financial impact and long standing relationships with the district. And both Emergency Management and Multiple project customers tend to be high profile and can affect public perceptions about the Corps. Likewise the customers whose projects were in PE&D and O&M phases were significantly more satisfied while those in Feasibility, Construction or Multiple phases were significantly less satisfied.

Analyses of trends in ratings found relatively few differences over the past four years. Customer satisfaction with USACE ‘Timeliness’ improved in 2010 compared to 2007 and 2008. There were three instances of significant differences among individual survey items. They were S11: Timely Service’ and S12 ‘Meeting My Schedule’ and S10: ‘Managing Projects & Programs Effectively’. In all three cases 2010 ratings had improved over 2007 and 2008 ratings.

Corporately Civil Works Program customers are largely satisfied with Corps’ services. Costs and timeliness are the two greatest sources of Civil Works customer dissatisfaction. These issues appear to be closely tied to customer dissatisfaction with Corps requirements and policies and Corps bureaucracy as well as the Federal funding process. Measures of staff services and relationship dynamics (collaboration) received the highest ratings. This illustrates the strong relationships that exist between Corps staff and their customers as does the number of compliments paid to Corps staff. USACE should corporately address internal policies and requirements as well as the funding process to the extent possible. The numbers of complaints on these issues has increased significantly since 2007. These are clearly systemic problems reaching across all districts and business lines.

§1. INTRODUCTION

§1.1 BACKGROUND

The basic definition of a Civil Works (CW) ‘customer’ is any organizational representative who participated in the planning or execution of a CW project within the targeted calendar year. These are external agents with whom Corps staff has had significant interaction who can potentially impact or influence the successful execution of a Corps CW project. This includes ‘traditional customers’ i.e., representatives of agencies that are direct recipients of Corps services who directly or indirectly provide a source of income for the District. In addition to traditional customers as defined below, the CECW Survey population was expanded in 2010 to include stakeholder agencies. The purpose for this modification is to address one of our Campaign Plan Objectives (2b) to improve collaboration among project participants. Stakeholder agencies are not direct recipients of Corps services but participate in the project execution process. Their staff interacts with Corps staff and participates in a significant degree in project planning, oversight and/or execution.

Traditional customers may include the following: a. All cost share sponsors & International or Inter-Agency Support (IIS) customers not included in Corps of Engineers Military Programs (CEMP) Survey, even in cases where the local cost-share is supported by in-kind services. b. Likely Sponsors for CW Reconnaissance for whom a reconnaissance study has been or is being undertaken. (Even though these sponsors may not provide actual funding, they are recipients of Corps’ services.) c. Sponsors for construction that received no Federal funding last year (the project is in the middle of construction). d. Miscellaneous General Investigations (GI) partners, Planning Assistance to States (PAS) and Floodplain Management Services (FPMS) partners, tribes. e. Likely Sponsors for not-yet-Appropriated Reconnaissance (i.e., project is authorized and we have ‘sufficient interaction’ with said customer).

Stakeholders to be included on the customer list may include: a. State or local environmental and natural resource management agencies ( e.g. state departments of natural resources, local water use agencies, Nature Conservancy etc) b. Federal regulatory agencies (e.g. USFWS, EPA) c. Navigation interests (e.g. user boards, port authorities) d. Local associations (e.g. Property owners associations, chambers of commerce etc).

The following should generally be excluded from the survey: a. Regulatory customers, i.e., Section 404 permit requestors (UNLESS they are a funding sponsor for a Federal participation project). b. Firms with recreation contracts on Corps project sites/dams

c. Recreation visitation customers. d. Congressional interests. e. USACE staff.

This report summarizes the results of the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Programs Directorate Customer Satisfaction Survey. HQUSACE is the coordinating office for the Corps' Civil Works Survey and has appointed Mobile District to manage the administration of the survey, perform statistical analysis and reporting of results. A memorandum from MG William Grisoli, Deputy Commanding General of Civil and Emergency Operations Directorate (CECW), was transmitted to all Major Subordinate Commands (MSCs) on 3 December 2010. The memo contained guidance for administration of the 2010 Survey within all districts having a CW mission. Districts were to complete administration of their customer survey by 22 February 2011. Each District was required to develop their customer list as a comprehensive enumeration of all organizations served by the district in 2010. Districts are responsible for integrating the survey process into ongoing management activities involving its customers. Individual components were encouraged to perform their own analyses and take action as necessary in response to customer feedback. Districts were asked publicize results among district and MSC staff Including the District report received from HQ, their analyses and summary of customer comments.

§1.2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Each District and MSC appointed an individual Customer Survey Manager (CSM) to act as primary point of contact to CECW for the execution of the survey. Each CSM is responsible for overseeing the administration of the survey within their organization. District CSMs are charged with monitoring the feedback provided by their customers to ensure reliability of the CECW database and to respond to any urgent issues surfaced by their customers. Districts were instructed to send each customer an e-mail invitation from their District commander containing a URL link to the survey and instructions on completing the survey. The staff was instructed to contact all non-respondents to encourage their participation so as to ensure a high response rate and minimize sampling error.

The 2010 survey instrument consists of two sections. Section one solicits customer demographic information (customer name, organization, project name and district evaluated). Section two contains 24 satisfaction questions in a structured response format in which customer satisfaction is measured on a 5-point Likert scale as follows: ‘Very Dissatisfied’ (1), ‘Dissatisfied’ (2), ‘Neutral’ (3), ‘Satisfied’ (4) and ‘Very Satisfied’ (5). A text field solicits customer comments in each service area. Items are grouped within eight categories of services or scales. The scales include ‘Attitude’, ‘Products and Services’, ‘Corps Staff’, ‘Timely Service’, ‘Cost and Affordability’, ‘Communication’, ‘Problem Solving’ and ‘Overall Satisfaction’. The survey also solicits general customer comments. A copy of the survey instrument may be viewed in Appendix A or by ‘CTRL- clicking’ on the following link: http://surveys.usace.army.mil/civilworks/.

§2. RESULTS OF 2010 SURVEY

§2.1 CUSTOMER DEMOGRAPHICS

The USACE Civil Works Program customer base included 3,011 customers; an aggregate 9% increase over last year. District population changes could be attributable to a number of factors. They include: 1) expansion/contraction in district CW program; 2) changes in the way the survey was administered (e.g.: inclusion of stakeholders, lower level and multiple staff vs agency head); or 3) the district population simply more accurately reflects the true population this year vs last. There was notable variability among district population sizes. Population sizes ranged from as few as N=15 for Albuquerque District to a high of N=236 for New Orleans District.

A total of 1,983 unique customers participated in the 2010 survey. Many customers have multiple projects within a district. A number of these elected to submit more than one survey response to evaluate projects separately. Hence the database used in these analyses contains 2046 records. This represents a 21 percent increase over last year’s sample size.

The number of unique customer responses was used to calculate response rates. The Corps-wide response rate was 66 percent for an estimated sampling error of 1.03 percent. Response rates varied among districts, ranging from 30% for Fort Worth District to as high as 100 percent for Albuquerque and Mobile districts. The average response rate was 65 percent for both larger and smaller districts (based on FY10 district program size).

The importance of the principle of obtaining an unbiased representative sample cannot be overstated. In order to increase the reliability of the data collected and corresponding confidence in the conclusions drawn, it is critical for districts to include their comprehensive CW customer population and to strive for as high a response rate as possible. The sampling error associated with a small sample taken from a small population can be surprisingly high, calling into question conclusions drawn from that data. At the corporate level we can have a great deal of confidence in our conclusions since our sampling error is extremely low. When the database is disaggregated into districts it is important to be cognizant of whether the district successfully obtained a representative sample of their customer base as indicated by their district sampling error. For example one district’s population size was 24. They received nine responses for a response rate of 38%. Their sampling error was 22%. Clearly conclusions must be drawn cautiously from this sample.

An important consideration every year is whether each district included their entire customer base in the survey. If their list of invitees was not complete, then the data obtained cannot be used to characterize the level of satisfaction of their entire customer population. This is particularly well illustrated with respect to the inclusion of stakeholders in this year’s survey. There were varying levels of compliance among districts with this new requirement. Some districts failed to include any stakeholders at

all while others were very thorough in identifying their stakeholder population.. The following table displays the classification of respondents as traditional customers versus stakeholders.

Table 1: Respondent Classification

Respondent Class # % Customer 1461 71.4 Stakeholder 576 28.2 Unknown 9 0.4 Total 2046 100

USACE Civil Works customers are categorized by their primary category of service aligned to the Civil Works Program business lines. CW business lines include: Emergency Management, Environmental, Flood/Storm Damage Reduction, Hydropower, Navigation, Recreation, Regulatory and Water Quality/Supply. A significant number of customers had multiple projects underway at their district. These customers could not be classified under a single business line. An additional category was created to accommodate the ‘Multiple Business line’ customers.

Environmental customers comprise the largest proportion of the 2010 sample at 29 percent followed by Flood/Storm Damage Reduction (26%), Navigation (17%) and Water Quality/Supply customers (6%). The proportion of customers in the other business lines was five percent or less each. The Other slice of the following pie chart shows ‘Regulatory’, ‘Hydropower’ and ‘Other’ collapsed as one category. Almost 33 percent of the 122 responses categorized outside of the official CECW business lines (‘Other’) had projects under the ‘Planning Assistance to States’ program. Specific project types for these customers are displayed in Table 3.

Figure 1: Primary Business Line

Table 2: Primary Business Lines

Business Line # % Emergency Mgmt 99 4.8 Environmental 600 29.3 Flood Control 524 25.6 Hydropower 23 1.1 Navigation 343 16.8 Recreation 104 5.1 Regulatory 9 0.4 Water Quality/Supply 112 5.5 Other 122 6 Multiple 99 4.8 Unknown 11 0.5 Total 2046 100.0

Table 3: ‘Other’ Business Lines

Business Line - Other # % Business Line - Other # % Aquatic Plant Control 1 0.8 Mitigation ACT 1 0.8 Streambank/Shoreline Stabilization 7 5.7 O&M Non-routine 2 1.6 Beneficial Uses of Dredge Material 1 0.8 Paper Industry Interest 1 0.8 Bridge Construction/Repair 2 1.6 PAS 40 32.8 CAP 2 1.6 Prep Engineering Report 1 0.8 Emergency Levee rehab 1 0.8 Public Access 1 0.8 Emergency Streambank/Shoreline 13 10.7 RE Services - road easement 1 0.8 Fish and Wildlife 2 1.6 Studies 1 0.8 Grant 8 6.6 Technical Assistance 1 0.8 Historical 1 0.8 Tribal Support/Collab 3 2.5 Hurricane Evacuation Study 2 1.6 Unknown 1 0.8 IIS 19 15.6 Wastewater Mgmt 1 0.8 Land-use 1 0.8 Watershed Mgmt/Study 7 5.7 Main-stem Levee Evaluation 1 0.8 Total 122 100.0

Project Managers were asked to identify the phase of their projects. The majority of Corps Civil Works projects were distributed evenly among Construction (23%), O&M (22%) and Feasibility phase (21%). Thirteen percent were in Planning, Engineering & Design (PE&D) and three percent in the Reconnaissance phase. The remainder were either ‘multiple project customers’ or their project did not conform to standard Corps Civil Works project phases.

Table 4: Project Phases

Project Phase # % Recon 58 2.8 Feasibility 424 20.7 PE&D 256 12.5 Construction 464 22.7 O&M 443 21.7 Multiple 180 8.8 Other/NA 209 10.2 Unknown 12 0.6 Total 2046 100

Civil Works customers are comprised of a wide variety of state and local agencies. City and county governments and various governmental departments charged with the management of infrastructure relating to water resources constitute the vast majority. For example, there were numerous departments of public works, water management districts, water and sewer authorities and departments of parks and recreation. Navigation customers included local port authorities and waterway user groups. There were also a number of state agencies charged with the management of natural resources and emergency response. A few districts included some Interagency International Support customers (IIS) such as Coast Guard and other federal agencies. A complete listing of specific customer organizations and project names is provided in Appendix C, Tables C-1 and C-2.

The survey included all Civil Works Districts. These districts work within the eight CONUS Corps Divisions. The districts within TransAtlantic Division did not participate as they do not have a Civil Works mission. The greatest proportion of responses was received from customers served by the Mississippi Valley Divisions (MVD) at 40%. Great Lakes-Ohio River (LRD) and Northwest Division (NWD) each had 16% of the sample. New Orleans District had the highest number of responses among districts at nine percent of the Corps-wide sample.

Figure 2: Corps Divisions

Table 5: Corps Divisions

Division # % Great Lakes / Ohio River (LRD) 318 15.5 Mississippi Valley (MVD) 821 40.1 North Atlantic (NAD) 117 5.7 North West (NWD) 320 15.6 Pacific Ocean (POD) 30 1.5 South Atlantic (SAD) 178 8.7 South Pacific (SPD) 160 7.8 South West (SWD) 102 5.0 Great Lakes / Ohio River (LRD) 2046 100.0

Table 6: Corps Districts

District # % District # % Buffalo 72 3.5 Omaha 97 4.7 Chicago 35 1.7 Portland 34 1.7 Detroit 79 3.9 Seattle 28 1.4 Huntington 43 2.1 Walla Walla 75 3.7 Louisville 28 1.4 Alaska 30 1.5 Nashville 24 1.2 Charleston 19 0.9 Pittsburgh 37 1.8 Jacksonville 64 3.1 Vicksburg 111 5.4 Mobile 45 2.2 Memphis 100 4.9 Savannah 27 1.3 New Orleans 191 9.3 Wilmington 23 1.1 St Paul 114 5.6 Albuquerque 15 0.7 Rock Island 145 7.1 Sacramento 63 3.1 St Louis 160 7.8 Los Angeles 56 2.7 Baltimore 22 1.1 San Francisco 26 1.3 New England 9 0.4 Fort Worth 24 1.2 New York 34 1.7 Galveston 46 2.2 Norfolk 37 1.8 Little Rock 19 0.9 Philadelphia 15 0.7 Tulsa 13 0.6 Kansas City 86 4.2 Total 2046 100.0

§2.2 SURVEY ITEMS AND SCALES

The Corp Civil Works Program encompasses a wide variety of types of projects. Civil Works projects include construction as well as O&M services. Environmental projects may range from habitat restoration to stormwater infrastructure improvement. Other Civil Works projects include municipal or regional water supply, hydropower, flood control and emergency management services.

Because of this wide range of services it is not possible to assess specific services in a comprehensive survey such as this. Instead customers are asked to rate Corps district performance in general service areas such as quality of products and services, timeliness, cost, communications, staff performance and problem solving. A number of these items assess the quality of collaboration between the customers and Corps staff.

There are 24 questionnaire items which measure general areas of customer satisfaction. Items are rated on a scale from 1-53. The items are grouped into eight scales: ‘Attitude’, ‘Products and Services’, ‘Corps Staff’, ‘Timely Service’, ‘Cost and Affordability’, ‘Communication’, ‘Problem Solving’ and ‘Overall Satisfaction’. The ‘Problem Solving’ scale was newly added to the 2007 survey. In addition a Composite Index score was calculated for each respondent. This value is a simple unweighted average of the 24 satisfaction indicators.

All data summary tables in this report show the number of valid responses for each survey item i.e., the percentage of responses of all participants who answered the question. Since customers can elect to skip survey items or select ‘NA’, the totals for each item summary may not be the same as the total number of survey participants.

The per-item response rate was very high, i.e., few customers left items blank. In fact, all but three items received at least a 91 percent response rate from the sample of 2,046 respondents. The exceptions to this were in the area of cost/financial services where 24-25% of customers did not provide ratings for these services. Over half of the items had a response rate of at least 95 percent.

All item and scale means can be evaluated based on the classification scheme:

Mean ≥ 4.00 Green 3.00≤Mean≤3.99 Amber Mean < 3.00 Red

All scale means this year were ‘Green’. The mean Composite score was very high at 4.29. The highest rated service area was Staff services at 4.46. The following table depicts mean scores for each customer satisfaction scale.

3 Items rated on a 5-point Likert scale where 1=Low and 5=High.

Table 7: Survey Scales

Survey Scales USACE Avg Attitude 4.39 Services 4.31 Staff 4.46 Timeliness 4.08 Cost 4.02 Communication 4.35 Problem Resolution 4.25 Overall 4.30 Composite Index 4.29

For purposes of the following discussion, response categories ‘1’ (‘Very Dissatisfied’) and ‘2’ (‘Dissatisfied’) will be collapsed together and referred to as the ‘Low’ category representing negative responses. Similarly, categories ‘4’ (‘Satisfied’) and ‘5’ (‘Very Satisfied’) will be collapsed and designated the ‘High’ category, representing positive responses. A score of ‘3’ labeled ‘Neutral’ in the survey may be interpreted as mid- range or noncommittal.

The majority of responses (64 percent or more) were positive for all survey questions. The services that received the highest proportion of positive ratings in this year’s survey were S9: ‘Technical Competency’ at 94% high ratings and S4: ‘Treats Me as an Important Team Member’ and S8: ‘Responsiveness at 92 percent high ratings each. The items that elicited the greatest proportion of low ratings were S14: ‘Cost of Services’ at 11% low ratings and S11: ‘Timely Services’ and S12: ‘Meets My Schedule’ at nine percent low ratings each. The first column beneath each response category represents the frequency or number of responses and the second column shows the percentage of valid responses4.

Three of the items in the survey serve as ‘bottom line’ indicators of customer satisfaction are Items S22: ‘Your Overall Level of Customer Satisfaction’, S23: ‘I Would Recommend the Corps’ and S24: ‘Would be Your Choice for Future Services’. These items received at least 80% satisfactory ratings while only four to five percent of customers provided low ratings. Notably, 15 percent of customers fell in the ‘Neutral’ category for S24: ‘Would Choose the Corps for Future Work’. These noncommittal customers represent a critical subgroup of customers that warrant attention. These customers may migrate to either the satisfied or dissatisfied category depending on their future experiences with the Corps organization serving them. Detailed responses to these indicators (before collapsing categories) are displayed in Table B-1 of Appendix B so extreme responses can be identified (‘Very Low’ or ‘Very High’).

4 If customers select NA or fail to rate an item, the number of valid responses will be less than the total number of respondents (2,046).

Table 8: Item Ratings

Low Mid-range High Total Survey Items # % # % # % # % Attitude S1 Customer Focus 73 3.6 123 6.1 1833 90.3 2029 100.0 S2 Listening to My Needs 61 3.0 114 5.6 1853 91.4 2028 100.0 S3 Reliability 120 5.9 152 7.5 1756 86.6 2028 100.0 S4 Treats Me as Team Member 64 3.2 100 5.0 1852 91.9 2016 100.0 S5 Flexible to My Needs 94 4.7 198 9.9 1708 85.4 2000 100.0 Services S6 Quality Products 74 3.9 147 7.7 1695 88.5 1916 100.0 S7 Satisfying My Requirements 76 4.1 196 10.5 1598 85.5 1870 100.0 Staff S8 Responsiveness 68 3.3 98 4.8 1864 91.8 2030 100.0 S9 Technical Competency 29 1.4 101 5.0 1884 93.5 2014 100.0 S10 Managing Effectively 97 4.9 163 8.2 1724 86.9 1984 100.0 Timeliness S11 Timely Service 181 9.1 245 12.3 1568 78.6 1994 100.0 S12 Meets My Schedule 173 8.9 262 13.4 1518 77.7 1953 100.0 Cost S13 Financial Info 65 4.2 241 15.6 1242 80.2 1548 100.0 S14 Cost of Services 174 11.4 386 25.2 973 63.5 1533 100.0 S15 Focus on My Budget 97 6.2 280 18.0 1178 75.8 1555 100.0 Communication S16 Keeps Me Informed 84 4.2 166 8.2 1772 87.6 2022 100.0 S17 Corps' Documents 31 1.6 163 8.4 1758 90.1 1952 100.0 S18 Corps' Correspondence 35 1.8 169 8.5 1786 89.7 1990 100.0 Problem-Solving S19 Notifies Me of Problems 71 3.7 170 8.8 1682 87.5 1923 100.0 S20 Timely Addressing Problems 118 6.1 207 10.7 1609 83.2 1934 100.0 S21 Problem Resolution 114 5.9 221 11.4 1601 82.7 1936 100.0 Overall S22 Overall Satisfaction 85 4.2 157 7.8 1778 88.0 2020 100.0 S23 I Recommend the Corps 69 3.6 233 12.0 1632 84.4 1934 100.0 S24 My Choice for Future Work 88 4.7 285 15.3 1493 80.0 1866 100.0

Green: Greatest Proportion of High Ratings Red: Greatest Proportion of Low Ratings

§2.3 CUSTOMER COMMENTS

The survey instrument includes a blank ‘explanation’ field for each item. Customers can use this field to elaborate on their ratings. They were particularly encouraged to explain any low ratings (‘Dissatisfied’ or ‘Very Dissatisfied’). In addition customers had the opportunity to provide general comments or suggestions concerning Corps services at the end of the survey. All comments should be reviewed carefully for two reasons. First, survey participants rarely take the time to offer comments and when they do, they feel strongly about the issue they are addressing. And secondly, customers may provide very detailed and useful information on how Corps services can be improved.

An extremely large number of respondents (1283 or 63%) submitted comments; either regarding a survey item, general comments or both. Each respondent’s entire set of comments was evaluated for its overall tenor. Of the 1283 customers who provided comments almost one-half (712) provided overall favorable comments, 270 (21%) made negative comments and 240 (19%) customers’ comments contained mixed information (positive and negative statements). A small number of customer comments (63 customers) were neither positive nor negative but were informational in nature only (e.g. description of project details). The total number of comments exceeds 1283 as most customers mentioned several issues.

The survey item that received the greatest number of positive comments was ‘Responsiveness’ (202 customers). Two other items also received a significant number of positive comments. They were ‘Overall Satisfaction’ (152 customers) and ‘Customer Focus’ (139 customers). The three items that received the largest number of negative comments included: ‘Responsiveness’ (202 customers), ‘Timely Service’ (156) and Cost of Services’ (138).

The most frequent positive general comments were ‘Compliments to individuals/staff’ (423 customers). A large number of positive comments (133) concerned the relationship between the customer and district staff (e.g. ‘Great relationship/partnership’). There were also a significant number of positive comments regarding the professionalism of district staff.

Two issues consistently receive the greatest number of negative comments every year. They concerned the impact of ‘Federal funding/Funding process’ (107) and ‘Corps Policy/Requirements’ (106). Complaints regarding ‘Communication issues’ were provided by 62 customers; nearly double the number last year. A total of 60 customers stated that ‘Corps bureaucracy’ had a negative impact either on project cost, timeliness, district flexibility, or overall project execution. A significant number of customers (40) expressed concern over ‘staff continuity or turnover’. Almost all of the most prevalent comments have been ongoing concerns expressed year after year. New to this year is the increase in complaints regarding responsiveness and communication.

Table 9: Item Comments

Survey Item Positive Negative Total S1 Customer Focus 139 66 205 S2 Listening to My Needs 116 53 169 S3 Reliability 116 110 226 S4 Treats Me as Team Member 100 44 144 S5 Flexible to My Needs 120 80 200 S6 Quality Products 103 76 179 S7 Satisfying My Requirements 87 64 151 S8 Responsiveness 202 202 404 S9 Technical Competency 121 36 157 S10 Managing Effectively 103 101 204 S11 Timely Service 110 156 266 S12 Meets My Schedule 83 127 210 S13 Financial Info 68 61 129 S14 Cost of Services 56 138 194 S15 Focus on My Budget 63 78 141 S16 Keeps Me Informed 110 67 177 S17 Corps' Documents 74 54 128 S18 Corps' Correspondence 58 39 97 S19 Notifies Me of Problems 74 48 122 S20 Timeliness Addressing Problems 50 75 125 S21 Problem Resolution 72 86 158 S22 Overall Satisfaction 152 46 198 S23 I Recommend the Corps 65 61 126 S24 My Choice for Future Work 75 74 149

Table 10: Additional Comments

General Comments Positive Negative Total Staff Performance 423 3 426 Relationship / Partnership 133 8 141 Professionalism 66 1 67 Communications 38 62 100 Improvement in Services 33 2 35 Emergency Management 19 3 22 Project Progress 15 35 50 Navigation Services 13 12 25 Regulatory Services/ Permits 12 17 29 Planning Services 8 9 17 Operations Services 8 8 16 Reservoir / Water Level Mgmt 6 12 18 Dredging Services 6 6 12

General Comments Positive Negative Total Real Estate Services 6 3 9 Collaboration 6 2 8 Section 595 Program 6 0 6 Review Process 4 26 30 Inspections/ Site visits 3 16 19 Environmental Services 3 7 10 Construction Services 3 6 9 Maps 3 2 5 H&H 3 1 4 HQ Support 2 24 26 A/E (Contractor) Services 2 6 8 PDT Meetings / Teleconferences 2 4 6 PPA Model 2 4 6 Small Project Work 2 4 6 Proactive Response 2 3 5 Engineering Services 2 1 3 Section 594 Program 2 1 3 Dredge Material Disposal Process / Sites 2 0 2 Federal Funding / Process 1 107 108 Staff Continuity / Turnover 1 40 41 Workload Management 1 13 14 IT Services 1 5 6 Beach Nourishment Services 1 2 3 Section 1135 1 2 3 District Autonomy (sufficient) 1 1 2 Innovation 1 1 2 Section 206 Program 1 1 2 Watershed Mgmt 1 1 2 ERDC Services 1 0 1 Safety Focus 1 0 1 COE Bureaucracy - Impact on Project 0 60 60 Corps Policy / Requirements 0 106 106 Cost Control 0 32 32 Financial actions (Invoicing, reimbursement) 0 11 11 INTRA-Agency Coordination (w/in district) 0 9 9 Acronyms / Corps-speak 0 8 8 QAQC 0 8 8 Project Construction Authority 0 7 7 Congressional support 0 6 6 Contracting Process (esp Bidding) 0 5 5 Economic Analyses 0 5 5 District Support 0 4 4 Inter-Agency Coordination (Proj partners) 0 4 4 Legal Services 0 4 4 Sr Mgmt Support 0 4 4 Accountability 0 2 2 Cost Estimating 0 2 2

General Comments Positive Negative Total Project Scope (Changes/Development) 0 2 2 Studies 0 2 2 Design Services 0 1 1 District Cmdr Continuity 0 1 1 Geo-tech Services 0 1 1 Project Closeout / Punchlist Items 0 1 1 Tribal Issues 0 1 1 Water Supply Projects 0 1 1

§3.0 Comparison of Ratings by Customer Subgroups

Consistency in delivery of services is an important strategic goal. To assess the extent to which we accomplish this goal we should determine whether we provide quality services across various customer subgroups. These subgroup breakdowns include respondent classification (customer vs stakeholder), business lines and project phases. Comparative analyses were conducted to detect whether there were any specific customer subgroups that might be more or less satisfied than others so that management efforts may directly target the source of good or poor performance. These analyses can reveal any hidden pockets of very satisfied or dissatisfied customers that may be obscured in the aggregation of Corps-wide ratings.

§3.1 Ratings by Respondent Classification

The first analysis compares customer satisfaction ratings by respondent classification. Many district staff expressed that they expected to receive lower ratings from stakeholders than customers. This expectation was not supported by the data. Ratings for all items, scales and the Composite Index were examined. Statistically significant differences in ratings were found for only one of the eight satisfaction scales. Stakeholders were significantly more satisfied than customers in the area of Timeliness. These results are displayed in the following graph.

A comparison of item ratings revealed statistically significant differences in ratings for only one item. Stakeholders were significantly more satisfied than customers for Item 12: Meets My Schedule. A detailed table presenting mean ratings and sample sizes by Respondent class is located in Appendix B, Table B-2.

Figure 3: Ratings by Respondent Classification

§3.2 Ratings by Business Line

The next analysis compares customer satisfaction ratings by Corps Civil Works business lines. Originally there were eight business line categories plus an ‘Other’ and a ‘Multiple’ category. Since some business line categories contain relatively few customers it was necessary to combine categories to perform statistical comparisons. Hydropower, Regulatory and ‘Other’ were combined into one category designated ‘Other’. Hence, the categories for comparative analyses are: ‘Environmental’ (Env), ‘Flood Damage Reduction’ (FDR), ‘Navigation’ (Nav), ‘Recreation’ (Rec), ‘Water Quality/Supply’ (WQual), ‘Multiple Business Lines’ (Mult) and ‘Other’. Recall customers who selected ‘Other’ specified projects under the ‘Planning Assistance to States’ program or received atypical or specialized services.

Ratings for all scales and the Composite Index were examined. Statistically significant differences in ratings were found for all of the eight satisfaction scales. A clear pattern emerged in these comparisons as illustrated in the graphs below (Figure 4). Water Quality/Supply customers were consistently the most satisfied. ‘Emergency Mgmt’ and ‘Multiple Business Line’ customers were consistently the least satisfied. These findings are in contrast to last year where ‘Flood/Storm Damage customers were the least satisfied. The implications of these results are very important since multiple business line customers are typically key customers who have significant financial impact and long standing relationships with the district. And both Emergency Management and Multiple project customers tend to be high profile and can affect public perceptions about the Corps. Differences in ratings among customer groups were large enough to be statistically significant at α = .05. A detailed table presenting mean ratings and sample sizes by service area is located in Appendix Table B-2.

Table 11: Ratings by Business Line

Scale Statistically Significant Differences Attitude Env, FDR, Nav, Rec, WQual & Other > EM Env, Nav, WQual & Other > Multi WQual > Env, FDR, Nav & Other

Services Env, FDR, Nav, WQual & Other > Multi WQual > Env, FDR, Nav, Rec & Multi Other > Multi

Staff Nav > Multi WQual > EM, Env, FDR, Nav, Rec, Multi & Other

Timeliness Env, FDR, Nav, Rec, WQual & Other > Multi WQual > EM, Env, FDR & Nav

Cost Env, Nav, Rec, WQual & Other > Multi WQual & Other > EM, Env, FDR & Nav WQual > Rec

Communication Nav, WQual & Other > EM WQual > Env, FDR, Nav, Rec & Multi

Problem Solving Env, FDR & Other > EM & Multi Nav & Rec > Multi WQual > EM, Env, FDR, Nav, Rec, Multi & Other

Overall WQual, & Other > Multi WQual > FDR

Composite Nav, WQual & Other > EM Env, Nav, WQual, & Other > Multi WQual > Env, FDR, Nav, Rec & Other

Figure 4: Ratings by Business Line

§3.3 Ratings by Project Phase

Comparisons of mean scale scores by project phase were performed. to detect differences among phases and to determine whether any of these differences are statistically significant. Project phases included Reconnaissance, Feasibility, PE&D, Construction, O&M and ‘Multiple Phases’. Statistically significant differences in ratings were found for all scales: Customers whose projects were in PE&D and O&M phases were significantly more satisfied. Customers whose projects were in Feasibility, Construction or Multiple phases were significantly less satisfied. O&M customers are consistently among the most satisfied and Feasibility customers consistently among the least satisfied year to year. The findings regarding Multiple-project customers further support results of comparisons among business lines in the previous section regarding key district customers. Table B-3 in Appendix B displays mean subgroup scores and sample sizes.

Table 12: Ratings by Project Phase

Scale Statistically Significant Differences Attitude PE&D > Feas, Constr & Multi

Services PE&D > Recon, Feas, Constr & Multi O&M > Recon, Feas, Constr

Staff PE&D & O&M > Feas & Constr

Timeliness PE&D > Feas & Multi Constr > Feas

Cost PE&D > Feas & Multi Constr & O&M > Feas

Communication PE&D > Feas, Constr & Multi O&M > Feas & Constr

Problem Solving PE&D > Recon, Feas, Constr & Multi O&M > Feas, Constr & Multi

Overall PE&D > Feas O&M > Feas, Constr & Multi

Composite PE&D & O&M > Feas, Constr & Multi

Figure 5: Ratings by Project Phase

§3.4 Comparisons of Ratings by Year

The CECW Survey has been conducted since 2006. The current form of the survey has been in use since 2007. This year’s trend analyses assess the change in ratings from 2007 to 2010. Survey scales and individual items were examined. Tables 13 and 14 display the distribution of responses by business line and MSC for each year. The distribution of responses by district is shown in Appendix B, Table B-4.

Table 13: Customers by Business Line and Year

2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Business Line # % # % # % # % # % Emergency Mgmt 17 1.6 35 2.4 56 3.5 99 4.9 207 3.4 Environmental 303 28.6 338 23.3 477 29.6 600 29.5 1718 27.9 Flood Control 328 31.0 498 34.3 445 27.6 524 25.7 1795 29.2 Hydropower 16 1.5 19 1.3 13 0.8 23 1.1 71 1.2 Navigation 189 17.9 263 18.1 298 18.5 343 16.9 1093 17.8 Recreation 22 2.1 21 1.4 57 3.5 104 5.1 204 3.3 Regulatory 10 0.9 7 0.5 3 0.2 9 0.4 29 0.5 Water Qual/Supply 87 8.2 159 10.9 120 7.4 112 5.5 478 7.8 Other 86 8.1 64 4.4 58 3.6 122 6.0 330 5.4 Multiple 0 0.0 49 3.4 84 5.2 99 4.9 232 3.8 Total 1058 100.0 1453 100.0 1611 100.0 2035 100.0 6157 100.0

Table 14: Customers by MSC and Year

2007 2008 2009 2010 Total MSC # % # % # % # % # % LRD 238 22.5 225 15.4 301 18.6 318 15.5 1082 17.5 MVD 169 15.9 448 30.7 526 32.6 821 40.1 1964 31.8 NAD 94 8.9 127 8.7 125 7.7 117 5.7 463 7.5 NWD 120 11.3 129 8.8 183 11.3 320 15.6 752 12.2 POD 27 2.5 32 2.2 38 2.4 30 1.5 127 2.1 SAD 204 19.2 206 14.1 185 11.5 178 8.7 773 12.5 SPD 113 10.7 165 11.3 155 9.6 160 7.8 593 9.6 SWD 95 9.0 127 8.7 101 6.3 102 5.0 425 6.9 Total 1060 100.0 1459 100.0 1614 100.0 2046 100.0 6179 100.0

Analyses of trends in ratings found relatively few differences over the past four years. There was only one statistically significant difference in mean scale scores: Customer satisfaction with USACE ‘Timeliness’ improved in 2010 compared to 2007 and 2008. The graphic below displays scale comparisons. There were three instances of significant differences among individual survey items. It is not surprising that two of these S11: Timely Service’ and S12 ‘Meeting My Schedule’ forms the Timeliness scale. The third was S10: ‘Managing Projects & Programs Effectively’. In all three cases 2010 ratings had improved over 2007 and 2008 ratings. Tables B-4 and B-5 in Appendix B displays mean scale and item scores by survey year.

Figure 6: Ratings by Survey Year

§4. SUMMARY

This report summarizes the results of the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Programs Directorate Customer Satisfaction Survey. The CECW Survey population was expanded in 2010 to include stakeholder agencies in addition to ’traditional customers’. The purpose for this modification is to improve collaboration among all project participants. Stakeholder agencies are not direct recipients of Corps services but participate in the project execution process. Their staff interacts with Corps staff and participates to a significant degree in project planning, oversight and/or execution. There were varying levels of compliance with the new requirement to include stakeholders among districts. Some failed to include any stakeholders at all while others were very thorough in identifying their stakeholder population.

The standardized 2010 Civil Works Programs Customer Survey instrument consists of two sections. The first section solicits customer demographic information (customer name, organization, project name and district evaluated). Section two contains 24 satisfaction questions in a structured response format in which customer satisfaction is measured on a 5-point Likert scale as follows: ‘Very Dissatisfied’ (1), ‘Dissatisfied’ (2), ‘Neutral’ (3), ‘Satisfied’ (4) and ‘Very Satisfied’ (5). A blank explanation field solicits customer comments in each service area. Survey items are grouped within eight categories of services or scales. The scales include ‘Attitude’, ‘Products and Services’, ‘Corps Staff’, ‘Timely Service’, ‘Cost and Affordability’, ‘Communication’, ‘Problem Solving’ and ‘Overall Satisfaction’. The final portion of the survey solicits general customer comments.

The USACE Civil Works Program customer base included 3,011 customers; an aggregate 9% increase over last year. District population changes could be attributable to 1) expansion/contraction in district CW program; 2) changes in the way the survey was administered (e.g.: inclusion of stakeholders, lower level and multiple staff vs agency head); or 3) the district population simply more accurately reflects the true population this year vs last. There was notable variability among district population sizes. Population sizes ranged from as few as N=15 for Albuquerque District to a high of N=236 for New Orleans District.

The Corps-wide response rate was 66 percent based on the number of unique customer responses for an estimated sampling error of 1.03 percent. Response rates varied among districts, ranging from 30% for Fort Worth District to as high as 100 percent for two districts. The average response rate was 65 percent for both larger and smaller districts (based on FY10 district program size).

USACE Civil Works customers are categorized by their primary category of service aligned to the Civil Works Program business lines. They include: Emergency Management, Environmental, Flood/Storm Damage Reduction, Hydropower, Navigation, Recreation, Regulatory and Water Quality/Supply. A significant number of customers had multiple projects underway at their district. An additional category was created to accommodate the ‘Multiple Business line’ customers. Environmental customers comprise the largest proportion of the 2010 sample at 29 percent followed by Flood/Storm Damage Reduction (26%), Navigation (17%) and Water Quality/Supply customers (6%). The proportion of customers in the other business lines was five percent or less each.

The majority of Corps Civil Works projects were distributed evenly among Construction (23%), O&M (22%) and Feasibility phase (21%). Thirteen percent were in PE&D and three percent in the Reconnaissance phase. The remainder were either ‘multiple project customers’ or their project did not conform to standard Corps Civil Works project phases.

Civil Works customers are comprised of a wide variety of state and local agencies. City and county governments charged with the management of water resources and related infrastructure constitute the vast majority. For example, there were numerous departments of public works, water management districts, water and sewer authorities and departments of parks and recreation. Navigation customers included local port authorities and waterway user groups. There were also a number of state agencies charged with the management of natural resources and emergency response. A few districts included some Interagency International Support customers (IIS) such as Coast Guard and other federal agencies.

The survey included all Civil Works Districts. These districts work within the eight CONUS Corps Divisions. The greatest proportion of responses was received from customers served by the Mississippi Valley Divisions (MVD) at 40%. Great Lakes-Ohio River (LRD) and Northwest Division (NWD) each had 16% of the sample. New Orleans District had the highest number of responses among districts at nine percent of the Corps-wide sample.

The Corp Civil Works Program encompasses a wide variety of types of projects. Projects include construction as well as O&M services. Environmental projects may range from habitat restoration to stormwater infrastructure improvement. Other Civil Works projects include municipal or regional water supply, hydropower, flood control and emergency management services.

Because of this wide range of services customers are asked to rate Corps district performance in general service areas such as quality of products and services, timeliness, cost, communications, staff performance and problem solving. A number of these items assess the quality of collaboration between the customers and Corps staff.

There are 24 questionnaire items which measure general areas of customer satisfaction. Items are rated on a scale from 1-55. The items are grouped into eight scales: ‘Attitude’, ‘Products and Services’, ‘Corps Staff’, ‘Timely Service’, ‘Cost and Affordability’, ‘Communication’, ‘Problem Solving’ and ‘Overall Satisfaction’. In addition a Composite Index score was calculated for each respondent. This value is a simple unweighted average of the 24 satisfaction indicators.

All item and scale means can be evaluated based on the classification scheme:

Mean ≥ 4.00 Green 3.00≤Mean≤3.99 Amber Mean < 3.00 Red

All scale means this year were ‘Green’. The mean Composite score was very high at 4.29. The highest rated service area was Staff services at 4.46. Response categories ‘1’ (‘Very Dissatisfied’) and ‘2’ (‘Dissatisfied’) were collapsed and referred to as the ‘Low’ category representing negative responses. Similarly, categories ‘4’ (‘Satisfied’) and ‘5’ (‘Very Satisfied’) were collapsed and designated the ‘High’ category, representing positive responses. A score of ‘3’ labeled ‘Neutral’ in the survey may be interpreted as mid-range or noncommittal.

The majority of responses (64 percent or more) were positive for all survey questions. The services that received the highest proportion of high ratings in this year’s survey were S9: ‘Technical Competency’ at 94% high ratings and S4: ‘Treats Me as an Important Team Member’ and S8: ‘Responsiveness at 92 percent high ratings each. The items that elicited the greatest proportion of low ratings were S14: ‘Cost of Services’ at 11% low ratings and S11: ‘Timely Services’ and S12: ‘Meets My Schedule’ at nine percent low ratings each.

Three items in the survey serve as ‘bottom line’ indicators of customer satisfaction. They are Items S22: ‘Your Overall Level of Customer Satisfaction’, S23: ‘I Would Recommend the Corps’ and S24: ‘Would be Your Choice for Future Services’. These items received at least 80% satisfactory ratings while only four to five percent of

5 Items rated on a 5-point Likert scale where 1=Low and 5=High.

customers provided low ratings. Notably, 15 percent of customers fell in the ‘Neutral’ category for S24: ‘Would Choose the Corps for Future Work’. These noncommittal customers represent a critical subgroup of customers that warrant attention. These customers may migrate to either the satisfied or dissatisfied category depending on their future experiences with the Corps organization serving them.

The survey instrument includes a blank ‘explanation’ field for each item. Customers can use this field to elaborate on their ratings. They were encouraged to explain any low ratings (‘Dissatisfied’ or ‘Very Dissatisfied’). In addition customers had the opportunity to provide general comments or suggestions concerning Corps services at the end of the survey. All comments should be reviewed carefully for two reasons. First, survey participants rarely take the time to offer comments and when they do, they feel strongly about the issue they are addressing. And secondly, customers may provide very detailed and useful information on how Corps services can be improved.

A very large number of respondents (1283 or 63%) submitted comments; either regarding a survey item, general comments or both. Each respondent’s entire set of comments was evaluated for its overall tenor. Of the 1283 customers who provided comments almost one-half (712) provided overall favorable comments, 270 (21%) made negative comments and 240 (19%) customers’ comments contained mixed information (positive and negative statements). A small number of customer comments (63 customers) were neither positive nor negative but were informational in nature only (e.g. description of project details). The total number of comments exceeds 1283 as most customers mentioned several issues.

The survey items that received the greatest number of positive comments were ‘Responsiveness’ (202 customers), ‘Overall Satisfaction’ (152 customers) and ‘Customer Focus’ (139 customers). The three items that received the largest number of negative comments included: ‘Responsiveness’ (202 customers), ‘Timely Service’ (156) and Cost of Services’ (138).

The most frequent positive general comments were ‘Compliments to individuals/staff’ (423 customers). A large number of positive comments (133) concerned the relationship (collaboration) between the customer and district staff (e.g. ‘Great relationship/partnership’). There were also a significant number of positive comments regarding the professionalism of district staff.

Two issues consistently receive the greatest number of negative comments every year. They are the impact of ‘Federal funding/Funding process’ (107) and ‘Corps Policy/Requirements’ (106). Complaints regarding ‘Communication issues’ were provided by 62 customers; nearly double the number last year. A total of 60 customers stated that ‘Corps bureaucracy’ had a negative impact either on project cost, timeliness, district flexibility, or overall project execution. A significant number of customers (40) expressed concern over ‘staff continuity or turnover’. Almost all of the most prevalent comments have been ongoing concerns expressed year after year. New to this year is the increase in complaints regarding responsiveness and communication.

Consistency in delivery of services is an important strategic goal. To assess the extent to which we accomplish this goal we assess whether we provide quality services across various customer subgroups. These subgroup breakdowns include respondent classification (customer vs stakeholder), business lines and project phases. Comparative analyses were conducted to detect whether there were any specific customer subgroups that might be more or less satisfied than others so that management efforts may directly target the source of good or poor performance. These analyses can reveal any hidden pockets of very satisfied or dissatisfied customers that may be obscured in the aggregation of Corps-wide ratings.

The first analysis compares customer satisfaction ratings by respondent classification. Many district staff expressed that they expected to receive lower ratings from stakeholders than customers. This expectation was not supported by the data. Ratings for all items, scales and the Composite Index were examined. Statistically significant differences in ratings were found for only one of the eight satisfaction scales. Stakeholders were significantly more satisfied than customers in the area of Timeliness. A comparison of item ratings revealed statistically significant differences in ratings for only one item. Stakeholders were significantly more satisfied than customers for Item 12: Meets My Schedule.

The next subgroup analysis compares customer satisfaction ratings by Corps Civil Works business lines. Since some business line categories contain relatively few customers it was necessary to combine categories to perform statistical comparisons. Hydropower, Regulatory and ‘Other’ were combined into one category designated ‘Other’. Hence, the categories for comparative analyses were: ‘Environmental’ (Env), ‘Flood Damage Reduction’ (FDR), ‘Navigation’ (Nav), ‘Recreation’ (Rec), ‘Water Quality/Supply’ (WQual), ‘Multiple Business Lines’ (Mult) and ‘Other’.

Statistically significant differences in ratings were found for all of the eight satisfaction scales. Water Quality/Supply customers were consistently the most satisfied. ‘Emergency Mgmt’ and ‘Multiple Business Line’ customers the least satisfied. These findings are in contrast to last year where ‘Flood/Storm Damage customers were the least satisfied. The implications of these results are very important since multiple business line customers are typically key customers who have significant financial impact and long standing relationships with the district. And both Emergency Management and Multiple project customers tend to be high profile and can affect public perceptions about the Corps.

Comparisons of scale scores by project phase were performed. Project phases included Reconnaissance, Feasibility, PE&D, Construction, O&M and ‘Multiple Phases’. Statistically significant differences in ratings were found for all scales: Customers whose projects were in PE&D and O&M phases were significantly more satisfied. Customers whose projects were in Feasibility, Construction or Multiple phases were significantly less satisfied. O&M customers are consistently among the most satisfied and Feasibility customers consistently among the least satisfied year to year. The findings regarding

Multiple-project customers further support results of comparisons among business lines in the previous section regarding key district customers

The CECW Survey has been conducted since 2006. The current form of the survey has been in use since 2007. This year’s trend analyses assess the change in ratings from 2007 to 2010. Survey scales and individual items were examined. Analyses of trends in ratings found relatively few differences over the past four years. There was only one statistically significant difference in scale scores: Customer satisfaction with USACE ‘Timeliness’ improved in 2010 compared to 2007 and 2008. There were three instances of significant differences among individual survey items. It is not surprising that two of these S11: Timely Service’ and S12 ‘Meeting My Schedule’ forms the Timeliness scale. The third was S10: ‘Managing Projects & Programs Effectively’. In all three cases 2010 ratings had improved over 2007 and 2008 ratings.

APPENDIX A

Survey Instrument

A-1

APPENDIX B

Statistical Details

Table B-1: Survey Items – Detailed Ratings

Survey Items Very Low Low Mid-range High Very High Total Attitude # % # % # % # % # % # % S1 Customer Focus 20 1.0 53 2.6 123 6.1 754 37.2 1079 53.2 2029 100.0 S2 Listening to My Needs 15 0.7 46 2.3 114 5.6 671 33.1 1182 58.3 2028 100.0 S3 Reliability 27 1.3 93 4.6 152 7.5 759 37.4 997 49.2 2028 100.0 S4 Treats Me as Team Member 17 0.8 47 2.3 100 5.0 568 28.2 1284 63.7 2016 100.0 S5 Flexible to My Needs 22 1.1 72 3.6 198 9.9 699 35.0 1009 50.5 2000 100.0 Services S6 Quality Products 17 0.9 57 3.0 147 7.7 731 38.2 964 50.3 1916 100.0 S7 Satisfying My Requirements 24 1.3 52 2.8 196 10.5 686 36.7 912 48.8 1870 100.0 Staff S8 Responsiveness 21 1.0 47 2.3 98 4.8 599 29.5 1265 62.3 2030 100.0 S9 Technical Competency 7 0.3 22 1.1 101 5.0 610 30.3 1274 63.3 2014 100.0 S10 Managing Effectively 19 1.0 78 3.9 163 8.2 706 35.6 1018 51.3 1984 100.0 Timeliness S11 Timely Service 45 2.3 136 6.8 245 12.3 756 37.9 812 40.7 1994 100.0 S12 Meets My Schedule 40 2.0 133 6.8 262 13.4 748 38.3 770 39.4 1953 100.0 Cost S13 Financial Info 23 1.5 42 2.7 241 15.6 601 38.8 641 41.4 1548 100.0 S14 Cost of Services 43 2.8 131 8.5 386 25.2 509 33.2 464 30.3 1533 100.0 S15 Focus on My Budget 37 2.4 60 3.9 280 18.0 569 36.6 609 39.2 1555 100.0 Communication S16 Keeps Me Informed 22 1.1 62 3.1 166 8.2 752 37.2 1020 50.4 2022 100.0 S17 Corps' Documents 8 0.4 23 1.2 163 8.4 807 41.3 951 48.7 1952 100.0 S18 Corps' Correspondence 6 0.3 29 1.5 169 8.5 828 41.6 958 48.1 1990 100.0 Problem-Solving S19 Notifies Me of Problems 19 1.0 52 2.7 170 8.8 695 36.1 987 51.3 1923 100.0 S20 Timeliness Addressing Problems 35 1.8 83 4.3 207 10.7 718 37.1 891 46.1 1934 100.0 S21 Problem Resolution 32 1.7 82 4.2 221 11.4 710 36.7 891 46.0 1936 100.0 Overall S22 Overall Satisfaction 17 0.8 68 3.4 157 7.8 726 35.9 1052 52.1 2020 100.0 S23 I Recommend the Corps 23 1.2 46 2.4 233 12.0 611 31.6 1021 52.8 1934 100.0 S24 My Choice for Future Work 31 1.7 57 3.1 285 15.3 580 31.1 913 48.9 1866 100.0

B-1

Table B-2: Item & Scale Scores by Respondent Classification

Item/Scale Customer Stakeholder N Mean N Mean S1 Customer Focus 1453 4.39 567 4.40 S2 Listening to My Needs 1449 4.48 570 4.43 S3 Reliability 1451 4.28 568 4.33 S4 Treats Me as Team Member 1443 4.52 564 4.51 S5 Flexible to My Needs 1436 4.31 555 4.28 S6 Quality Products 1367 4.33 540 4.38 S7 Satisfying My Requirements 1348 4.31 514 4.26 S8 Responsiveness 1450 4.51 571 4.48 S9 Technical Competency 1437 4.54 568 4.58 S10 Managing Effectively 1417 4.33 558 4.33 S11 Timely Service 1428 4.06 557 4.15 S12 Meets My Schedule 1402 4.04 542 4.15 S13 Financial Info 1179 4.17 361 4.16 S14 Cost of Services 1163 3.81 362 3.76 S15 Focus on My Budget 1194 4.08 353 4.02 S16 Keeps Me Informed 1441 4.35 572 4.30 S17 Corps' Documents 1399 4.39 544 4.32 S18 Corps' Correspondence 1423 4.37 558 4.34 S19 Notifies Me of Problems 1382 4.35 533 4.32 S20 Timely Addressing Problems 1384 4.23 541 4.20 S21 Problem Resolution 1386 4.23 541 4.18 S22 Overall Satisfaction 1448 4.34 563 4.38 S23 I Recommend the Corps 1402 4.32 523 4.35 S24 My Choice for Future Work 1368 4.22 489 4.25

Attitude 1458 4.39 575 4.39 Services 1388 4.32 547 4.32 Staff 1452 4.46 572 4.46 Timeliness 1432 4.05 560 4.15 Cost 1270 4.03 417 3.99 Communication 1445 4.36 572 4.32 Problem Solving 1409 4.27 556 4.23 Overall 1458 4.30 576 4.30 Composite 1460 4.30 576 4.30

Mean >= 4.00 Green 3.00<=Mean<=3.99 Amber Mean < 3.00 Red

Items in bold are statistically significant at α = .05.

B-2

Table B-3: Scale Scores by Business Line

Emerg Flood Water Scales Mgmt Environ Ctrl Nav Rec Qual Other Multiple Total Attitude Mean 4.15 4.40 4.37 4.42 4.35 4.64 4.45 4.25 4.39 N 99 597 524 342 104 112 154 99 2031 Services Mean 4.10 4.32 4.29 4.35 4.27 4.56 4.42 4.19 4.32 N 92 568 510 328 94 104 140 97 1933 Staff Mean 4.37 4.44 4.45 4.50 4.47 4.68 4.47 4.33 4.46 N 99 597 523 340 103 112 150 98 2022 Timeliness Mean 4.02 4.09 4.02 4.09 4.20 4.39 4.17 3.79 4.08 N 97 588 514 336 103 109 148 95 1990 Cost Mean 3.90 4.01 3.93 4.04 4.04 4.41 4.26 3.75 4.02 N 66 525 449 267 78 100 123 78 1686 Communication Mean 4.21 4.32 4.33 4.39 4.36 4.60 4.45 4.24 4.35 N 98 593 521 339 104 111 150 99 2015 Problem Solving Mean 4.04 4.25 4.22 4.31 4.26 4.57 4.34 4.01 4.26 N 94 572 511 335 103 109 144 95 1963 Overall Mean 4.21 4.32 4.25 4.33 4.29 4.46 4.37 4.19 4.30 N 99 597 524 343 104 112 154 99 2032 Composite Mean 4.15 4.29 4.26 4.34 4.30 4.56 4.38 4.12 4.30 N 99 599 524 343 104 112 154 99 2034

Table B-4: Scale Scores by Phase

Recon Feasibility PE&D Construction O&M Multiple Other/NA Total Attitude Mean 4.34 4.38 4.52 4.35 4.44 4.34 4.33 4.39 N 58 424.00 255 462 442 180 209 2030 Services Mean 4.12 4.24 4.48 4.29 4.40 4.27 4.28 4.32 N 52 407.00 244 444 416 173 196 1932 Staff Mean 4.48 4.41 4.54 4.43 4.53 4.42 4.44 4.46 N 57 423.00 255 460 439 180 207 2021 Timeliness Mean 4.06 3.91 4.23 4.06 4.22 3.97 4.10 4.08 N 56 418.00 251 455 431 175 203 1989 Cost Mean 4.01 3.87 4.17 4.07 4.09 3.93 4.01 4.02 N 43 379.00 221 421 316 157 148 1685 Communication Mean 4.32 4.31 4.46 4.32 4.42 4.31 4.30 4.35 N 58 420.00 253 457 440 180 206 2014 Problem Solving Mean 4.12 4.18 4.40 4.24 4.34 4.18 4.20 4.26 N 52 410.00 246 453 431 175 195 1962 Overall Mean 4.31 4.22 4.37 4.28 4.39 4.24 4.30 4.30 N 58 423.00 256 462 443 180 209 2031 Composite Mean 4.24 4.22 4.42 4.28 4.37 4.22 4.27 4.30 N 58 424.00 256 463 443 180 209 2033

Mean >= 4.00 Green 3.00<=Mean<=3.99 Amber Mean < 3.00 Red Items in bold are statistically significant at α = .05.

B-3

Table B-5: Customers by District by Year

2007 2008 2009 2010 Total District # % # % # % # % # % LRB 38 3.6 28 1.9 43 2.7 72 3.5 181 2.9 LRC 13 1.2 25 1.7 38 2.4 35 1.7 111 1.8 LRE 44 4.2 44 3.0 79 4.9 79 3.9 246 4.0 LRH 49 4.6 36 2.5 46 2.9 43 2.1 174 2.8 LRL 18 1.7 39 2.7 31 1.9 28 1.4 116 1.9 LRN 47 4.4 25 1.7 29 1.8 24 1.2 125 2.0 LRP 29 2.7 28 1.9 35 2.2 37 1.8 129 2.1 MVK 15 1.4 32 2.2 53 3.3 111 5.4 211 3.4 MVM 30 2.8 89 6.1 100 6.2 100 4.9 319 5.2 MVN 65 6.1 155 10.6 133 8.2 191 9.3 544 8.8 MVP 30 2.8 59 4.0 71 4.4 114 5.6 274 4.4 MVR 16 1.5 45 3.1 97 6.0 145 7.1 303 4.9 MVS 13 1.2 68 4.7 72 4.5 160 7.8 313 5.1 NAB 29 2.7 31 2.1 17 1.1 22 1.1 99 1.6 NAE 8 0.8 7 0.5 11 0.7 9 0.4 35 0.6 NAN 16 1.5 33 2.3 42 2.6 34 1.7 125 2.0 NAO 37 3.5 42 2.9 43 2.7 37 1.8 159 2.6 NAP 4 0.4 14 1.0 12 0.7 15 0.7 45 0.7 NWK 33 3.1 33 2.3 54 3.3 86 4.2 206 3.3 NWO 35 3.3 37 2.5 49 3.0 97 4.7 218 3.5 NWP 20 1.9 14 1.0 11 0.7 34 1.7 79 1.3 NWS 22 2.1 33 2.3 31 1.9 28 1.4 114 1.8 NWW 10 0.9 12 0.8 38 2.4 75 3.7 135 2.2 POA 16 1.5 19 1.3 26 1.6 30 1.5 91 1.5 POH 11 1.0 13 0.9 12 0.7 0 0.0 36 0.6 SAC 25 2.4 22 1.5 20 1.2 19 0.9 86 1.4 SAJ 17 1.6 79 5.4 72 4.5 64 3.1 232 3.8 SAM 43 4.1 38 2.6 30 1.9 45 2.2 156 2.5 SAS 35 3.3 21 1.4 25 1.5 27 1.3 108 1.7 SAW 84 7.9 46 3.2 38 2.4 23 1.1 191 3.1 SPA 16 1.5 13 0.9 24 1.5 15 0.7 68 1.1 SPK 35 3.3 64 4.4 53 3.3 63 3.1 215 3.5 SPL 43 4.1 57 3.9 57 3.5 56 2.7 213 3.4 SPN 19 1.8 31 2.1 21 1.3 26 1.3 97 1.6 SWF 27 2.5 53 3.6 37 2.3 24 1.2 141 2.3 SWG 30 2.8 25 1.7 28 1.7 46 2.2 129 2.1 SWL 22 2.1 28 1.9 21 1.3 19 0.9 90 1.5 SWT 16 1.5 21 1.4 15 0.9 13 0.6 65 1.1 Total 1060 100.0 1459 100.0 1614 100.0 2046 100.0 6179 100.0

B-4

Table B-6: Scale Scores by Survey Year

2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Mean n Mean n Mean n Mean n Mean n Attitude 4.38 1058 4.38 1455 4.39 1606 4.39 2042 4.38 6161 Services 4.29 1024 4.26 1390 4.30 1534 4.31 1944 4.30 5892 Staff 4.43 1055 4.43 1452 4.46 1603 4.46 2033 4.44 6143 Timeliness 3.94 1041 3.92 1429 4.01 1575 4.08 2001 4.00 6046 Cost 4.01 938 3.97 1275 4.02 1401 4.02 1695 4.01 5309 Communication 4.33 1053 4.32 1447 4.35 1600 4.35 2026 4.34 6126 Problem-Solving 4.22 1032 4.23 1411 4.28 1545 4.25 1974 4.25 5962 Overall 4.26 1051 4.25 1443 4.30 1596 4.30 2043 4.28 6133 Composite 4.26 1059 4.25 1455 4.29 1609 4.29 2045 4.28 6168

Mean >= 4.00 Green 3.00<=Mean<=3.99 Amber Mean < 3.00 Red

Items in bold are statistically significant at α = .05.

B-5

Table B-7: Item Scores by Survey Year6

2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Attitude S1 Customer Focus 4.36 1056 4.38 1450 4.40 1597 4.39 2029 4.38 6132 S2 Listening to My Needs 4.48 1055 4.47 1448 4.48 1599 4.46 2028 4.47 6130 S3 Reliability 4.23 1050 4.23 1445 4.28 1595 4.29 2028 4.26 6118 S4 Treats Me as Team Member 4.55 1046 4.54 1439 4.52 1587 4.52 2016 4.53 6088 Products & Services S5 Flexible to My Needs 4.29 1044 4.27 1432 4.30 1580 4.30 2000 4.29 6056 S6 Quality Products 4.28 1003 4.26 1375 4.31 1508 4.34 1916 4.30 5802 S7 Satisfying My Requirements 4.31 994 4.26 1347 4.30 1482 4.29 1870 4.29 5693 Corps Staff S8 Responsiveness 4.47 1049 4.49 1446 4.51 1596 4.50 2030 4.49 6121 S9 Technical Competency 4.56 1044 4.55 1442 4.56 1586 4.55 2014 4.55 6086 S10 Managing Effectively 4.24 1022 4.24 1410 4.32 1559 4.32 1984 4.29 5975 Timeliness S11 Timely Service 3.95 1036 3.94 1424 4.01 1569 4.08 1994 4.01 6023 S12 Meets My Schedule 3.94 1018 3.90 1399 4.00 1535 4.06 1953 3.99 5905 Cost & Affordability S13 Financial Info 4.12 885 4.09 1209 4.14 1275 4.16 1548 4.13 4917 S14 Cost of Services 3.80 873 3.75 1190 3.80 1270 3.80 1533 3.79 4866 S15 Focus on My Budget 4.10 873 4.05 1201 4.10 1281 4.06 1555 4.08 4910 Communication S16 Keeps Me Informed 4.30 1051 4.30 1436 4.34 1595 4.33 2022 4.32 6104 S17 Corps' Documents 4.34 1010 4.34 1397 4.37 1544 4.37 1952 4.36 5903 S18 Corps' Correspondence 4.34 1036 4.34 1424 4.36 1578 4.36 1990 4.35 6028 Problem-Solving S19 Notifies Me of Problems 4.32 1006 4.31 1379 4.37 1512 4.34 1923 4.34 5820 S20 Timely Addressing Problems 4.18 1007 4.17 1393 4.22 1519 4.21 1934 4.20 5853 S21 Problem Resolution 4.18 1013 4.20 1389 4.23 1516 4.21 1936 4.21 5854 Overall S22 Overall Satisfaction 4.30 1049 4.29 1439 4.35 1590 4.35 2020 4.33 6098 S23 I Recommend the Corps 4.30 1012 4.29 1396 4.33 1535 4.32 1934 4.31 5877 S24 My Choice for Future Work 4.21 981 4.18 1368 4.23 1486 4.23 1866 4.21 5701

Mean >= 4.00 Green 3.00<=Mean<=3.99 Amber Mean < 3.00 Red

6 Items in bold are statistically significant at α = .05. B-6

B-7

APPENDIX C

Customer Organizations & Projects

Table C-1: Customer Organizations by District

District Count Agency LRB 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Unknown 6 Unknown 7 Akron, City of 8 Akron, City of 9 ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 10 ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 11 Ashtabula City Port Authority 12 buffalo Niagara riverkeeper 13 Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper 14 Cattaraugus County Department of Public Works 15 City of Auburn, New York 16 City of Brunswick, Ohio 17 City of Buffalo, Department of Public Works 18 City of Cleveland, Office of the Mayor 19 City of Findlay 20 City of Fremont 21 City of Mentor on the Lake 22 City of Parma 23 City of Stow 24 City of Syracuse 25 City of Toledo 26 cleveland-cuyahoga county port authority 27 CT Consultants, Inc. 28 Cuyahoga County Planning Commission 29 DEC 30 Defiance County 31 Division of Wildlife 32 Erie County 33 Erie County DPW - Division of Highways 34 Finger Lakes Trail Conference 35 Geauga County Department of Water Resources 36 Hancock County, Ohio 37 Lake County Department of Utilities 38 Lake County Stormwater Management Department 39 Livingston County Chamber of Commerce 40 Livingston County Tourism 41 Lorain Port Authority 42 Madison Township 43 Monroe County Health Department 44 New York State Canal Corporation 45 New York State Office of the Attorney General Envi 46 Niagara County SWCD 47 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District 48 Northwest Ohio Flood Mitigation Partnership 49 Northwestern Water & Sewer District 50 ODNR

C-1

District Count Agency LRB 51 ODNR 52 ODNR Office of Coastal Management 53 Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority 54 Ohio Department of Natural Resources 55 Old Fort Niagara 56 Onondaga County 57 PA Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources 58 pa fish & boat commission 59 Portage County Water Resources Department 60 Presque Isle State Park - DCNR -Comm. of Pennsylvania 61 Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority 62 Town of Amherst 63 Town of Caneadea 64 Town Of Hume 65 Town of Newfane 66 U.S. Coast Guard 67 UT Presidents Commission on the River 68 Vermilion Port Authority 69 Village of Depew 70 Village of Ottawa 71 Village of Valley View 72 Village of Westfield LRC 1 Unknown 2 Chicago Botanic Garden 3 Chicago Department of Environment 4 Chicago Park District 5 City if Prospect Heights 6 City of Chicago Department of Transportation 7 CITY OF PORTAGE INDIANA 8 City of Portage, Indiana 9 City of Whiting 10 City of Whiting 11 ecwmd east chicago ind. 12 Experience Works, Inc. 13 Forest Preserve District of Cook County 14 Highland Fire Dept 15 IL Dept Natural Resources, Office of Water Resourc 16 IL Dept Natural Resources, Office of Water Resourc 17 Kindra Lake Towing, LP 18 Lafarge North America 19 Lake County Forest Preserve District 20 Lake County Stormwater Management Commission 21 LAKE COUNTY SURVEYOR^S OFFICE 22 LaPorte County Parks 23 McHenry County Conservation District 24 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 25 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 26 Michigan City Port Authority 27 North Shore Sanitary District 28 Northern Indiana Publice Service Company 29 Ogden Dunes, Town of (Indiana) 30 Openlands

C-2

District Count Agency LRC 31 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commissio 32 Town of Griffith Indiana 33 Village of Flossmoor 34 Village of Mount Prospect 35 Will County Land Use LRE 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Baudhuin Incorporated 6 Becher Hoppe Associates, Inc. 7 Brown Co. 8 City of Sault Ste. Marie 9 City of Ashland 10 City of Aurora 11 City of Battle Creek 12 City of Chisholm 13 City of Cloquet, MN 14 City of Duluth, MN 15 City of Elkhart 16 City of Flint 17 City of Fort Wayne, Indiana 18 City of Frankenmuth 19 City of Manistee 20 City of Negaunee 21 Cityu of Duluth 22 Cloverland Electric CO. 23 Cloverland Electric Cooperative 24 County of Saginaw MI. 25 Dock 63 INC. 26 Drummond Sanitary District No. 1 27 Duluth Seaway Port Authority 28 Fox River Navigational System Authority 29 FRENCHTOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP RESORT DISTRICT AUTHOR 30 Governmental Unit 31 Grand View Sanitary District #1 32 Great Lakes Fishery Commission 33 Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society 34 Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society 35 Holland Board of Public Works 36 Huron County Drain Commission 37 Indiana DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife 38 Leland Township, Leelanau County, Michigan 39 Les Cheneaux Islands Waterways Restoration 40 Macomb County Public Works 41 Macomb County Public Works 42 Macomb County Public Works 43 Madeline Sanitary District 44 Michigan Department of Natural Resources 45 Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 46 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 47 MN Dept. of Natural Resources

C-3

District Count Agency LRE 48 MN Sea Grant and Great Lakes Sea Grant Network 49 MSA Professional Services 50 MSA Professional Services 51 Natural Resources Research Institute, Univ. of MN 52 Northwestern Michigan College 53 Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner 54 Oneida Tribe 55 Ontonagon County EDC 56 Otsego Lake Association 57 Parkland Sanitary District 58 PIKE^S BAY SAINITARY DISTRICT 59 Port of Milwaukee 60 Port of Milwaukee 61 Port Sanilac Marina 62 Red Cliff Band of LSC 63 Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee 64 sargent docks and terminal, inc. 65 SEMCOG 66 Town of La Pointe 67 Town of Port Wing 68 Town of Russell 69 United States Steel Corporation - MN Ore Operation 70 Village of Lexington, Michigan 71 Village of Mount Pleasant 72 Village of Poplar 73 Village of Port Austin 74 Village of Sebewaing 75 Wayne County Department of Public Services/Environ 76 Western Lake Superior Sanitary District 77 wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 78 Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources 79 WWS LRH 1 Unknown 2 Boone County Public Service District 3 Buchanan County Board of Supervisors 4 City of Barberton 5 City of Belpre, Ohio 6 City of Charleston, WV 7 City of Gallipolis 8 City of Huntington 9 City of Louisville 10 City of Marysville 11 City of Parkersburg 12 Coshocton County Commissioners 13 Dickenson County Board of Supervisors 14 FAYETTE COUNTY ENGINEER^S OFFICE 15 Guyan Conservation District 16 Huntington District Waterways Association 17 Huntington Sanitary Board 18 Jackson County Development Authority 19 LINCOLN PSD 20 Lubeck Public Service District

C-4

District Count Agency LRH 21 McCreary County Water District 22 McDowell County Commission/McDowell County CIAD 23 Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District 24 Ohio Department of Natural Resources 25 Ohio Emergency Management Agency 26 Poca Sanitary Board 27 Pulaski County, Virginia 28 Stark County Sanitary Engineering Dept. 29 Town of Boone, NC 30 Town of Marlinton 31 Tuscarawas County 32 Upper Guyandotte Watershed Association 33 USFWS 34 VA Dept. of Emergency Management 35 Village of Dalton 36 Village of New Albany Ohio 37 Village of Williamsburg, Ohio 38 Wayne County Commission 39 West Virginia Department of Environmental Protecti 40 West Virginia Division of Highways 41 West Virginia Division of Natural Resources 42 West Virginia State Water Festival 43 WVDEP LRL 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 AEP River ops.com 4 Appalachian Regional Commission 5 Campbellsville University 6 City of Anderson,IN 7 City of Bardstown 8 City of Cincinnati, Stormwater Management Utility 9 City of Dayton 10 City of Evansville,Indiana 11 City of Harrisburg 12 City of Springfield 13 City of West Liberty 14 Clark State Community College District 15 Consolidated City of Indianapolis 16 crounse corporation 17 Deerfield Township 18 K-12 Education 19 Kentucky Division of Emergency Managment 20 Ky Cabinet for Economic Development 21 Louisville Metro Parks 22 LOUISVILLE MSD 23 Ohio River Greenway Commission 24 Ohio River Greenway Commission 25 Shelbyville Municipal Water and Sewer 26 Southbank Partners Inc. 27 U. S. Geological Survey 28 University of Dayton LRN 1 Unknown

C-5

District Count Agency LRN 2 Unknown 3 City of Asheville 4 City of Bristol TN 5 City of Chattanooga - Public Works Department 6 City of Clarksville 7 City of Clifton 8 City of Crossville 9 City of Guntersville 10 City of Hyden 11 City of Maryville 12 crounse corporation 13 Duck River Agency 14 Harlan County Fiscal Court 15 LENOWISCO 16 N.C. Division of Water Resources 17 Southeastern Power Administration 18 TDEC 19 Tennessee Department of Transportation 20 Tennessee River Valley Association 21 The Nature Conservancy 22 TN Department of Environment and Conservation 23 Town of Black Mountain 24 Town of Oakdale LRP 1 Unknown 2 Alpha Associates, Incorporated 3 Alpha Associates, Incorporated 4 Armstrong County Department of Planning and Develo 5 Bankson Engineers, Inc. 6 Bankson Engineers, Inc. 7 Borough of Lincoln 8 Chartiers Township 9 Chautauqua County 10 City of Jeannette 11 City of Niles, Ohio 12 City of Washington 13 Derry Township Municipal Authority 14 Domtar Paper Company- Johnsonburg Mill 15 Fayette Engineering Co., Inc. 16 Findlay Township Municipal Authority 17 Gannett Fleming, Inc. 18 Garvin Engineering & Municipal Management 19 Gateway Engineers on behalf of Chartiers Valley Di 20 GPD Group 21 Ingram Barge Company / and Member Waterways Assoc. 22 KLH Engineers, Inc. 23 KLH Engineers. Inc. 24 Mount Pleasant Township Municipal Authority 25 municipal authority of westmoreland county 26 NDS 27 Pleasant Hills Authority 28 Port of Pittsburgh Commission 29 Portage County Water Resources Department

C-6

District Count Agency LRP 30 Ross Township 31 The EADS ZGroup 32 Trumbull County Sanitary Engineers 33 Turtle Creek Borough Council 34 Upper Allegheny Joint Sanitary Authority 35 Widmer Engineering 36 Widmer Engineering Inc. 37 Widmer Engineering Inc. MVK 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Unknown 6 American Commercial Lines LLC 7 ANRC 8 Arkansas Department of Parks & Tourism 9 Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism 10 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 11 Arkansas red river commission 12 Arkansas State Parks 13 Arkansas Waterways Commission 14 Avoyelles Parish Police Jury 15 Avoyelles Wildlife Federation 16 Bayou Meto Water Management District 17 Bayou Meto Water Management District 18 Bayou Meto Water Management District 19 Bayou Meto Water Management District 20 Belle Island Properties LLC 21 Boeff Tensas Regional Water Irrigation District 22 Bossier Levee District 23 Catfish Point 24 Central Arkansas Water 25 Chicot-Desha Metropolitan Port Authority (Yellow B 26 City of Biloxi 27 City of Bryant 28 City of Columbus 29 City of Forest 30 City of Greenwood 31 City of Hattiesburg 32 City of Macon 33 City of McComb 34 City of Moss Point, MS 35 City of Natchez, MS 36 City of Olive Branch 37 City of Pascagoula 38 City of Port Gibson 39 City of Shreveport 40 City of Vicksburg 41 City of Vicksburg 42 City of Wiggins 43 Coahoma County Board of Supervisors 44 Coahoma County Board of Supervisors

C-7

District Count Agency MVK 45 Cook Coggin Engineers, Inc. 46 Culkin Water District 47 DeSoto County Economic Development Council 48 Digital Engineering/City of Waveland 49 DOC/NOAA/NWS/LMRFC 50 Employee Ingram Barge Co. 51 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 4 52 FEMA 53 Fifth La Levee District 54 Fifth La Levee District 55 Fifth La Levee District 56 Fifth Louisiana Levee District 57 Grenada Tourism Commission 58 Hiwanee Water Association 59 Jackson County Utility Authority 60 JANTRAN 61 LA Office of Coastal Protection Restoration 62 Lake Ouachita State Park 63 Lake Providence Port Commission 64 Marquette transportation bluegrass marine 65 MDEQ 66 Mid Arkansas Water Alliance 67 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 68 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 69 Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and 70 Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and 71 Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and 72 Mississippi Levee Board 73 Mississippi Levee Board 74 MS Lower Delta Partnership 75 National Weather Service 76 Neel-Schaffer, Inc. 77 Ouachita River Valley Association 78 Ouachita River Water District 79 Ozark hunting club 80 Parish of Caddo, Louisiana 81 Pearl River Basin Development District 82 Pearl River County 83 Pearl River Valley Water Supply District 84 Pearlington Water & Sewer District 85 Philadelphia Utilities 86 Port of Greenville 87 Rankin hinds flood control dist 88 Red River Levee District #1 89 Red River Valley Association 90 Red River Valley Association 91 Red River Valley Association 92 Red River Waterway Commission 93 Rosedale-Bolivar County Port Commission 94 Sharkey County Board of Supervisors 95 Shows, Dearman & Waits, Inc-Brooklyn Utility Distr 96 SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS LEVEE DISTRICT

C-8

District Count Agency MVK 97 Spring Bayou Restoration Team 98 Tate County Economic Development Foundation 99 Tensas Basin Levee District 100 Tensas Basin Levee District 101 The Oxford-Lafayette Co. Chamber of Commerce & EDF 102 Town of Richton 103 Tunica County Ms Soil & Water Conservation District 104 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 105 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 106 US Fish and Wildlife Service 107 Vicksburg Bridge Commission of Warren County 108 Waggoner Engineering, Inc. 109 West Rankin Utility Authority 110 Wildlife Technical Services, Inc. 111 YMD Joint Water Management District MVM 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 American River Transportation Company 4 ANRC 5 Arkansas Game & Fish Commission 6 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 7 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 8 Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission 9 Arkansas Natural Resources Commission 10 Arkansas Natural Resources Commission 11 Arkansas Waterways Commission 12 Bayou Meto Water Management District 13 Bayou Meto Water Management District 14 Bayou Meto Water Management District 15 Bayou Meto Water Mgt District 16 Bluegrass Marine 17 Buffalo island dd#9 18 Butler Snow 19 Cache River Bayou DeView Improvement District 20 City of Germantown 21 City of Hickman 22 City of Jonesboro 23 City of Jonesboro 24 City of Memphis, Division of Public Works 25 city of millington 26 City of Millington, TN 27 City of New Madrid 28 City of Osceola, Ark., 29 City of Paragould 30 DeSoto County Regional Utility Authority 31 DeSoto County Regional Utility Authority 32 Drainage District #16 of Mississippi Co. AR 33 Drainage District No. 7 of Poinsett County 34 DRAINAGE DITRICT NO. 7 35 Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 36 Dunklin Co Drainage Dist #2 37 DUNKLIN COUNTY

C-9

District Count Agency MVM 38 DutchTown Board of Trustees 39 Dyer Co. Fire/EMA 40 East Arkansas Enterprise Community (EAEC), Inc. 41 Elk Chute Drainage District 42 Forcum Lannom Contractor, LLC 43 Fulton County Board of Levee Commissioners 44 Fulton County Board of Levee Commissioners 45 Gibson County Highway Dept. 46 Great Rivers Partnership - TNC 47 Greater Memphis Chamber 48 Health Dept. 49 Hickman Fulton County Riverport Authority 50 Laconia Circle 51 Lake County Levee Board 52 Levee District #3 53 Levee District #3 of Mississippi County, MO 54 Levee District No. 3 55 Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee 56 Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee 57 Memphis and Shelby County Port Commission 58 Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and 59 Mississippi River Corridor - Tennessee, Inc. 60 Missouri Department of Conservation 61 Missouri Department of Conservation 62 Missouri Department of Natural Resources 63 National Audubon Society 64 NAVFAC Midwest PWD Mid-South 65 Neel-Schaffer 66 New Madrid County Port Authority 67 Northwest Tennessee RegionalPort Authority 68 NWTN Regional Port Authority 69 Osceola River Port 70 Pemiscot County Port Authority 71 Pickering Firm - Engineer for DeSoto County Region 72 Reelfoot Area Chamber / Northwest Tennessee Region 73 Riverfront Development Corporation 74 Riverfront Development Corporation 75 Roscopf and Roscopf, P.A. 76 see above 77 Shelby County Government 78 Shelby County Government & Chickasaw Basin Authori 79 Smith & Weiland, Surveyors and Engineers, Inc. 80 Southwestern Power Administration 81 St Francis Levee District of Missouri 82 ST JOHN^S LEVEE AND DRAINAGE BOARD 83 St. Francis Drainage Dist. of Clay & Greene Co. 84 St. Francis Levee District 85 St. Johns/New Madrid Floodway Project 86 ST.JOHN^S BAYOU BASIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, NEW MADR 87 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 88 The Little River Drainage District 89 Town of Collierville

C-10

District Count Agency MVM 90 U.S. Army Recruit Processing Center 91 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 92 University of Memphis - Civil Engineering 93 University of Memphis - Ground Water Institute 94 USFWS 95 Waggoner Engineering, Inc. 96 Weakley County Government 97 West Tennessee Basin Authority 98 White River Coalition 99 White River Irrigation District 100 WRID MVN 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Unknown 6 Unknown 7 Unknown 8 Unknown 9 Unknown 10 Acadia Parish Office of Homeland Security & Emerge 11 Amite River Basin Drainage and Water Consevation D 12 ARCADIS 13 Atchafalaya Basin Levee District 14 Atchafalaya Basin Levee District 15 Bar Pilots 16 Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program 17 Beauregard Parish Police Jury-Public Works Departm 18 Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans 19 Board of Commissioners Port of New Orleans 20 Brownfield Redevelopment Corp of Marshall 21 Bunge North America 22 C & C Metals, Inc. 23 Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 24 Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 25 Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 26 Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 27 Calcasieu River Waterway Harbor Safety Committee 28 Cameron LNG 29 Cameron Parish Police Jury 30 Cameron Parish Police Jury 31 Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana 32 CITGO Ppetroleum Corp. 33 City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge 34 City of Baton Rouge-Parish of East Baton Rouge Pla 35 City of Baton Rouge-Parish of East Baton Rouge Pla 36 City of Baton Rouge, Dept. of Public Works 37 City of Bogalusa/Public Works Department 38 City of Broussard 39 City of Carencro 40 City of Morgan City 41 City of Slidell, LA

C-11

District Count Agency MVN 42 CRESCENT RIVER PORT PILOTS^ ASSOCIATION 43 CWPPRA 44 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE 45 East Jefferson Levee District 46 EPPJ 47 False River Civic Association 48 Fifth La Levee District 49 Fifth Louisiana Levee District 50 GNOTS-RESERVE, INC. 51 Golding Barge Line, Inc 52 Governors Office of Homeland Security and Emergenc 53 Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission 54 Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association 55 Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association 56 Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association 57 GULF STATES MARITIME ASSOCIATION 58 Iberia Parish Government - Permit office 59 Iberville Parish Council 60 IMS Engineers 61 JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH POLICE JURY 62 Jefferson parish 63 Jefferson Parish 64 Jefferson Parish Environmental Affairs Dept. 65 JESCO Environmental & Geotechnical Services, Inc. 66 la house of rep 67 LA OCPR 68 LA OCPR 69 LA OCPR 70 LA OCPR 71 LA Office of Coastal Protection & Restoration 72 LA Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration 73 La. Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration 74 ladeq 75 Lafayette Consolidated Government 76 Lafayette Parish Bayou Vermilion District 77 Lafourche Basin Levee District 78 Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District 79 Lake Charles Pilots 80 Lake Pontchartran Basin Foundation 81 Livingston Parish 82 Livingston Parish Council 83 Livingston Parish Permit Department 84 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 85 Louisiana Department of Transportation and Develop 86 Louisiana Department of Transportation and Develop 87 Louisiana Hydroelectric 88 Louisiana Office of Coastal Protection and Restora 89 Louisiana Office of Coastal Protection and Restora 90 Louisiana Office of Coastal Protection and Restora 91 Louisiana Office of Coastal Protection and Restora 92 Luhr Bros., Inc 93 Marine Fueling Service, Inc

C-12

District Count Agency MVN 94 McDermott Inc. 95 Meyer & Associates, Inc./West Calcasieu Port 96 Mississippi River Maritime Association 97 MRMA 98 Municipality 99 National Audubon Society 100 National Park Service 101 National Park Service, Denver Service Center 102 New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Associati 103 NOAA 104 NOAA Restoration Center 105 NOAA/NMFS 106 OCPR 107 OCPR 108 OCPR 109 OCPR 110 OCPR 111 OCPR 112 Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration 113 OPCR 114 Orleans Levee district 115 Parish government 116 Parish of Ascension 117 Plaquemines Parish Government 118 Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal District 119 Pointe Coupee Parish Police Jury 120 Pointe Coupee Parish Police Jury 121 pontchartrain levee district 122 Pontchartrain Levee District 123 Pontchartrain Levee District 124 Pontchartrain Levee District 125 Pontchartrain Levee District 126 PONTCHARTRAIN LEVEE DISTRICT 127 PONTCHARTRAIN LEVEE DISTRICT 128 PONTCHARTRAIN LEVEE DISTRICT 129 PONTCHARTRAIN LEVEE DISTRICT 130 Port 131 Port of Mprgan City, LA 132 Port of New Orleans 133 PORT OF NEW ORLEANS 134 Randy Moertle and Associates, Inc. 135 Red River Valley Association 136 Red River Waterway Commission 137 Red River, Atchafalaya & Bayou Boeuf Levee Distric 138 Rellim Surface Managment, LLC 139 S Lafourche Levee District 140 S&WB of NO 141 Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 142 sewerage and water board 143 Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans Louisiana 144 Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - E 145 SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY WES

C-13

District Count Agency MVN 146 SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY WES 147 SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY WES 148 SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY WES 149 SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY WES 150 SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY WES 151 SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY WES 152 Southern University System 153 St Tammany Parish Engineering 154 St. Charles Parish, La. Government 155 St. Mary Levee District 156 St. Mary Parish Government Office of Emergency Pre 157 St. Tammany Parish Government 158 St. Tammany Parish Government Engineering Departme 159 State of Louisiana 160 Stream Companies 161 Tangipahoa Parish Government 162 Tangipahoa Parish Government 163 Teche-Vermilion Fresh Water District 164 terrebone levee and conservation district 165 Terrebonne Levee and Conservation District 166 Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government 167 Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government 168 Terrebonne Port Commission 169 tetra tech 170 The Port of Morgan City 171 TOWN OF BERWICK 172 Trunkline LNG 173 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 174 U., S. Fish and Wildlife Service 175 U.S. Coast Guard District 8 176 U.S. EPA - Region 6 177 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 178 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 179 U.S. Geological Survey 180 U.S. Geological Survey 181 US EPA 182 US. Dept of Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve 183 USCG 184 USCG Sector New Orleans 185 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 186 USEPA Region 6 187 Vermilion Parish Ofice of Homeland Sec. and Emerge 188 Vermilion Parish Police Jury 189 Vernon Parish Police Jury 190 Village of Grosse Tete 191 Wax Lake East Drainage District MVP 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Barnes County Emergency Management 6 Blue Earth County Highway Department

C-14

District Count Agency MVP 7 Bois Forte Band of Chippewa 8 Buffalo-Red River Watershed Dsitrict 9 Cass County North Dakota Government 10 Cass Rural Water District 11 Chisago County 12 City of Ada 13 City of Breckenridge 14 City of Brook Park 15 City of Crookston 16 City of Delano 17 City of Devils Lake 18 City of Fargo 19 City of Fargo 20 City of Fargo 21 City of Fargo North Dakota 22 City of Granite Falls 23 City of Hackensack 24 City of Montevideo 25 City of Moorhead 26 City of Moorhead, Minnesota 27 City of Riverton 28 City of Rochester 29 City of Roseau 30 City of Roseau 31 City Of St Croix Falls 32 City of St. Paul 33 City of Stillwater 34 City of Wahpeton 35 CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF^S OFFICE 36 Cooper Engineering 37 DHS/FEMA 38 Div. of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 39 DNR 40 EPA 41 FEMA 42 Garrison Kathio West Mille Lacs Lake Sanitary Dist 43 Garrison Kathio West Mille Lacs Lake Sanitray Dist 44 Gordon Sanitary District Number One 45 Hennepin County 46 Houston Engineering 47 IA DNR 48 International Water Institute 49 Kaposia Marine Services 50 Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe 51 Lower Minnesota River Watershed District 52 Mercer Sanitary District #1 53 Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd 54 Minneapolis Public Works 55 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 56 Minnesota Dept. of Transportation 57 Minnesota DNR 58 Minnesota DNR

C-15

District Count Agency MVP 59 Minnesota DNR 60 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 61 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 62 MN Board of Water and Soil Resources 63 MN DNR 64 MN HSEM 65 MnDNR 66 Moore Engineering, Inc. 67 Moore Engineering, Inc. 68 MPCA 69 MPCA 70 ND Dept of Health 71 ND Dept. of Health 72 ND State Water Commission 73 ND State Water Commission 74 NOAA/NWS Twin Cities, MN 75 North Dakota Game & Fish Department 76 North Dakota Game and Fish Department 77 North Dakota State Water Commission 78 North Dakota State Water Commission 79 North Dakota State Water Commission 80 North Prairie Rural Water District 81 Oakport Township 82 Oakport Township, Minnesota 83 Red River Basin Commission 84 Red River Watershed Management Board/Mn Dept. of N 85 Rodeberg & Berryman, Inc. - Consulting Engineers 86 Sherburne County 87 south bend township. blue earth county, mn. 88 Southeast Water Users District 89 State Historical Society of ND 90 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 91 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 92 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 93 Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish 94 Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish 95 Upper Mississippi Waterway Association 96 Upper River Services 97 Upper St. Croix Lake Sanitary District 98 US EPA Region 5 99 USCG 100 USDA NRCS 101 USDA-NRCS 102 USGS 103 Village of Butternut 104 Village of Butternut 105 Walsh County Emergency Management 106 WDNR 107 WDNR 108 Wi. Dept. of Natural Resources 109 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 110 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

C-16

District Count Agency MVP 111 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 112 Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources 113 Wisconsin Emergency Management 114 Wisconsin Emergency Managment MVR 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Unknown 6 Unknown 7 Unknown 8 Unknown 9 Unknown 10 Unknown 11 Unknown 12 Unknown 13 Unknown 14 Unknown 15 Alter Barge Line, Inc. 16 Alter Barge Line, Inc. 17 American River Transportation Company 18 ARTCo 19 Artco Fleeting Service 20 ARTCO Lemont 21 BASF Corporation / South River Industrial Levee Su 22 Boone County 23 CAMPBELL^S ISLAND FIRE PROTECTION & EMERGENCY DIST 24 Cedar County Secondary Roads 25 City of Cedar Rapids 26 City of Cedar Rapids 27 City of Cedar Rapids 28 City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa 29 City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa Public Works 30 City of Colfax 31 City of Davenport, Iowa 32 city of des moines 33 City of Des Moines 34 City of Des Moines Public Works 35 City of Dubuque 36 City of Dubuque, Engineering Department 37 City of East Moline 38 City of Eddyville 39 City of Eldon 40 City of Fort Dodge 41 City of Keokuk 42 City of Maquoketa 43 City of Moline 44 City of Moline 45 City of Moline 46 City of Muscatine 47 City of Ottumwa 48 City of Ottumwa

C-17

District Count Agency MVR 49 City of Ottumwa 50 City of Pekin 51 City of Perry, Iowa 52 City of Polk City 53 City of Rock Island 54 City of Rock Island 55 City of Rock Island Public Works 56 City of Rock Island, Illinois 57 City of Rockford 58 City of Rockford, Public Works Department 59 City of Savanna 60 City of Waterloo 61 City of Windom 62 clark co mo 63 DCEO 64 DELAWARE COUNTY SHERIFF^S OFFICE 65 East Peoria Drainage and Levee District 66 Eldon Fire & Rescue 67 FEMA 68 Florida Marine Transporters 69 Gooselake Township Road District 70 Goverment 71 Great Rivers Partnership - TNC 72 Green Bay Levee Drainage Distrct 73 gregory drainage district 74 Hanson Material Service 75 Heart of Illinois Regional Port District 76 Henderson County Illinois, Drainage District numbe 77 IA DNR 78 IDNR 79 IDNR Office of Water Resources 80 IDNR Office of Water Resources 81 IL Corn Growers Association 82 Il. Emergency Management Agency 83 Illinois Chamber of Commerce 84 Illinois Corn Growers Association 85 Illinois Department of Natural Resources 86 Illinois Department of Natural Resources 87 Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources 88 Illinois Farm Bureau 89 Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Ill 90 Illinois State Water Survey 91 Ingram Barge Company 92 Iowa County Government 93 Iowa Department of Natural Resources 94 Iowa Department of Natural Resources 95 Iowa Department of Natural Resources 96 Iowa Department of Natural Resources 97 Iowa Department of Natural Resources 98 Iowa Department of Transportation 99 Iowa Departmwent of Natural Resources 100 Iowa Dept of Agriculture and Land Stewardship

C-18

District Count Agency MVR 101 Iowa Dept. of Economic Development 102 Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources 103 Iowa DNR 104 Iowa Homeland Security and Emergemcy Management Di 105 jasper County EMA 106 Jones Co Emergency Management Agency 107 Jones County Conservation Board 108 Jones County Conservation Board 109 Kindra Lake Towing, LP 110 Kirby inland marine-- Riac co chairman 111 Lake Sinissippi Improvement District 112 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 113 Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources 114 Minnesota Dept. of Transportation 115 Missouri Department of Conservation 116 MN Dept of Natural Resources 117 MN DNR 118 Monroe County, Iowa 119 National Waterways Conference 120 olin fire dept 121 Oswegoland Park District 122 Polk County Emergency Management Agency 123 Rebuild Iowa Office 124 Shellrock River Watershed District 125 Sny Island Levee Drainage District 126 Tarr Farms Inc. 127 The Nature Conservancy 128 The Nature Conservancy 129 Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 130 Two Rivers Levee & Drainage Association 131 U.S. Geological Survey 132 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 133 Unniversity of Iowa 134 Unversity of Illinois--State Water Survey 135 Upper Mississippi, Illinois, & Missouri Rivers Ass 136 US EPA Region 5 137 US Fish and Wildlife Service 138 US Fish and Wildlife Service 139 US Fish and Wildlife Service 140 USDA-NRCS 141 USFWS 142 USGS UMESC 143 Village of Andalusia 144 Wapello County Emergency Management 145 WDNR MVS 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Unknown 6 Unknown 7 Unknown

C-19

District Count Agency MVS 8 Unknown 9 Unknown 10 Unknown 11 Unknown 12 Unknown 13 Unknown 14 Unknown 15 Unknown 16 Unknown 17 Unknown 18 Unknown 19 Unknown 20 AEP 21 Alberici Constructors 22 Alter Barge Line, Inc. 23 Alton Regional CVB 24 American Canoe Association 25 American Land Conservancy 26 BARRETT^S RESORT 27 Benton/West City Economic Development Corp 28 Big Muddy Adventures 29 Bluegrass Marine 30 Boatworks 31 BOISE BRULE LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT 32 C.A.S.T. for Kids Foundation 33 Cannon Water 34 CARPENTERS^ DIST COUNCIL OF ST LOUIS 35 Central Illinois Mountain Bicycling Association 36 Central Illinois Sportsmen for Outdoor Accessibili 37 Chaddock School 38 City of Belleville 39 City of Belleville, Illinois 40 City of Cape Girardeau, MO 41 City of Carlyle 42 City of Chesterfield 43 City of St. Charles 44 City of St. Peters 45 City of Valley Park MO 46 Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water Commission 47 Consolidated North County Levee District 48 Degognia/Fount Bluff 49 ducks unlimited 50 East-West Gateway Council of Governments 51 Experience Works 52 Festus -Crystal City Levee Commission 53 Franklin County Tourism Bureau 54 Gateway FS, Inc. 55 Gateway Off Road Cyclists 56 General Dacey Trail Committee 57 GREAT RIVERS LAND TRUST 58 Greater Shelbyville Chamber of Commerce 59 Hartwell Drainage and Levee District

C-20

District Count Agency MVS 60 Hillview Levee District 61 IDNR 62 IDNR 63 IDNR 64 IDNR 65 IL Corn Growers Association 66 IL Dept of Natural Resources 67 Ill Dept of Natural Resources 68 Illinois Department of Natural Resources 69 Illinois Trappers Association 70 INDIAN CREEK DEV. CORP 71 Ingram Barge Company 72 Ingram Barge Company 73 Juneau Associates, Inc., P.C. - City Engineer Gran 74 Kaskaskia Island Drainage and Levee District 75 Kaskaskia Regional Port District 76 Kaskaskia Watershed Association / Illinois Corn Ma 77 Keach Drainage & Levee District 78 Kirby 79 Kissinger Drainage and Levee District 80 Kuhs Drainage and Levee District 81 l-15 82 Lake shelbyville Development Association 83 Lake Volunteers Organization 84 Lake Wappapello State Park /MO Dept. of Natural Re 85 LANGE-STEGMANN CO. 86 Lange-Stegmann Company 87 Lewis and Clark Community College 88 Lewis and Clark Community College 89 Lewis and Clark State Historic Site 90 LUHR BROS.,INC 91 Madison County Government 92 Mark Twain Bassmasters 93 Mark Twain Lake Chamber of Commerce 94 Mark Twain Regional COG 95 Mark Twain State Park and State Historic Site 96 Metro East Park and Recreation District 97 Metro East Sanitary district 98 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 99 Mid-West Sea Kayak 100 Mid-West Sea Kayak 101 Middle Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge 102 Missouri Deartment of Conservation 103 Missouri Department of Conservation 104 Missouri Department of Conservation 105 Missouri Department of Conservation 106 Missouri Department of Natural Resources 107 Missouri State Parks 108 MODOT 109 Monarch-Chesterfield Levee District 110 MOULTRIE COUNTY SHERIFF^S OFFICE 111 MTL VERCC

C-21

District Count Agency MVS 112 MTLCOC 113 National Association of Retired Federal Employees 114 National Great Rivers Research and Education Cente 115 National Great Rivers Research and Education Cente 116 Northeast Missouri Electric Power Cooperative 117 Now working at Moberly Area Community Collete and 118 Nutwood Drainage and Levee District 119 Pike Grain Drainage and Levee District 120 Prairie Du Rocher Levee and Drainage District 121 Quincy Area Safety Council, Inc. 122 Ralls County Historical Society 123 Rend Lake Marina 124 Rend Lake Resort and Conference Center 125 Sandy Creek 126 Shelby County Community Service 127 Shelby County Soil adn Water Conservation District 128 Shelbyville, Illinois Police Department 129 Show Me Missouri Back Country Horsemen, NEMO Chapt 130 Sierra Club 131 Sny Island Levee Drainage District 132 Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District Co 133 Southwestern Power Administration 134 St. Louis Area Geocaching Organization (SLAGA) 135 St. Louis Canoe & Kayak Club 136 St. Louis Confluence Riverkeeper 137 st. louis harbor association 138 Sullivan Chamber & Economic Development 139 Sundowner Marina 140 The Carlyle Limited Partnership (dba) West Access 141 The Great Pumpkin Patch 142 The National Audubon Society 143 The Nature Conservancy 144 The Nature Institute 145 Tradewinds Marina 146 Tri City Commission 147 Tri-City Regional Port District 148 Tri-City Regional Port District 149 Upper River Services 150 US Fish and Wildlife Service 151 US Fish and Wildlife Service 152 USCG Auxiliary 153 USFWS 154 USFWS, Two Rivers NWR 155 Village of Glen Carbon 156 Village of Hartford 157 Waterways Council, Inc. 158 Wayne Fitzgerrell State Park 159 Winfield Levee District 160 Wood River Drainage and Levee District of Madison NAB 1 Unknown 2 Alexandria Borough/Porter Township Joint Sewer Aut 3 Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works

C-22

District Count Agency NAB 4 City of Alexandria 5 City of Alexandria 6 Fairchance Borough 7 Fairfax County 8 Luzerne County Flood Protection Authority 9 Maryland Deprtment of Natural Resources 10 Maryland Port Administration 11 Metro. Washington Council ogf Governments 12 Montgomery County Department of Environmental Prot 13 National Pike Water Authority 14 Nicholson Borough Authority 15 NVRC 16 PRINCE GEORGE^S COUNTY GOVERNEMENT, DPW&T 17 PRINCE GEORGE^S COUNTY GOVERNMENT, MARYLAND 18 Somerset County Roads Department 19 ST. MARY^S COUNTY DPW&T 20 Susquehanna River Basin Commission 21 The Nature Conservancy 22 Wicomico County, MD Department of Public Works NAE 1 Unknown 2 City of Saco 3 City of Saco, Maine, Saco Bay Plan Implementation 4 City of Saco, Me 5 Littleton Water Dept and Littleton Clean Lakes Com 6 Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 7 NH Division of Ports & Harbors 8 RI Department of Environmental Management 9 The Nature Conservancy NAN 1 Borough of Middlesex 2 City of Burlington Vermont 3 City of Newark 4 County of Morris Dept of Public Works Division of 5 Delaware County Department of Watershed Affairs 6 Delaware County Dept. of Watershed Affairs 7 Green Brook Flood Control COmmission 8 Greene County Soil and Water Conservation District 9 Greenwich CT Dept. of Public Works 10 Lake Champlain Basin Program 11 New York City Department of Transportation 12 NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - BP&S - SS 13 New York City Office of Emergency Management 14 New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation 15 NJDEP 16 NJDEP 17 NJDEP 18 NYC Department of Environmental Protection 19 NYC DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION 20 NYC OEM 21 NYC Parks 22 NYC-DEP 23 NYS Dept. of Transportation 24 NYSDEC

C-23

District Count Agency NAN 25 Sea Bright Borough 26 T&M Associates, 11 Tindall Road, Middletown Townsh 27 The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 28 The Port Authority of NY & NJ 29 Township of Long Hill 30 Vermont Agency of natural Resources 31 Village of Asharroken, NY 32 Village of Stamford 33 Village of Tuckahoe 34 Village of West Hampton Dunes NAO 1 Unknown 2 Chesapeake Public Works/ Engineering 3 City of Charlottesville 4 City of Chesapeake 5 City of Chesapeake, Dept. of Public Works 6 City of Franklin 7 City of Hampton 8 City of Norfolk 9 City of Norfolk 10 City of Petersburg 11 City of Richmond Virginia Department of Public Uti 12 City of Virginia Beach 13 City of Virginia Beach 14 County of Accomack 15 Dominion 16 Great Dismal Swamp NWR 17 Mathews County, VA 18 MeadWestvaco 19 Middle Peninsula Chesapeake Bay Public Access Auth 20 NASA 21 National Park Service 22 National Park Service 23 Port of Richmond 24 Town of Chincoteague Inc. 25 Town of Tangier 26 U.S. Coast Guard 27 U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads 28 VA Dept of Emergency Management 29 Virginia Beach Public Works/Engineering 30 Virginia Beach Public Works/Engineering 31 Virginia Department of Transportation 32 Virginia Institute of Marine Science 33 Virginia Institute of Marine Science 34 Virginia Marine Resources Commmission 35 Virginia Maritime Association 36 Virginia Pilot Association 37 Virginia Port Authority NAP 1 Borough of Hatfield 2 Brownfield Redevelopment Solutions 3 Division of Parks and Recreation 4 DuPont Corporate Remediation Group 5 Mordecai Land Trust

C-24

District Count Agency NAP 6 New Castle Conservation Dist 7 NJ div. of fish and Wildlife 8 NJDEP 9 NJDEP 10 Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation 11 Philadelphia Regional Port Authority 12 Philadelphia Water Department 13 Philadelphia Water Department 14 Philadelphia Water Department 15 West Windsor Township - Engineering Division NWK 1 Unknown 2 Appanoose County Secondary Road Department 3 Chariton Valley RC&D/NRCS 4 City of Kansas City, Missouri 5 City of Kansas City, Missouri 6 City of Kansas City, Missouri 7 City of Kansas City, Missouri 8 City of Kansas City, Missouri 9 City of Kansas City, Missouri 10 City of Lawrence Parks and Recreation Department 11 City of Manhattan 12 City of Manhattan Kansas 13 City of Smithville, Missouri 14 City of St. Joseph, Missouri 15 City of St. Joseph, Missouri 16 City of Topeka 17 City of Topeka, Kansas 18 City of Warsaw 19 City Utilities of Springfield, MO 20 Clay & Bailey Mfg. Co. 21 Clay County Department of Parks, Recreation and Hi 22 Columbia Water and Light Department 23 DFMWR- 24 DFP Environmental Consulting,LLC 25 Fairfax Drainage District 26 Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission 27 Hall Engineering Company, President 28 Hermitage R-IV School District 29 Hickory County Health Department 30 Hillsdale Water Quality Project, Inc. 31 Iowa Department of Natural Resources 32 Iowa Department of Natural Resources 33 Iowa Department of Natural Resources 34 Iowa DNR 35 Iowa Tribe of KS & NE 36 Johnson County Stormwater Management Program 37 Kansas City Industrial Council 38 Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 39 Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 40 Kansas Dept. of Parks and Wildlife 41 Kansas Water Office 42 Kansas Wildlife & Parks

C-25

District Count Agency NWK 43 Kansas Wildlife and Parks 44 Kaw Valley Drainage District 45 KCBPU 46 KCMO Parks and Recreation 47 Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas 48 Kissick Construction Company, Inc. 49 Ks Dept. of Transportation (KDOT) 50 Lake Region RC&D 51 Livers Bronze Co. 52 Mid-America Regional Council 53 Missouri Department of Conservation 54 Missouri Department of Conservation 55 Missouri Department of Conservation 56 Missouri Department of Conservation 57 Missouri Department of Conservation 58 Missouri Department of Conservation 59 Missouri Department of Conservation 60 Missouri Department of Conservation 61 Missouri Department of Natural Resources 62 Missouri Department of Transportation 63 Missouri Dept of Natural Resources 64 Missouri River Dredgers Group 65 Missouri State Highway Patrol, Water Patrol Divisi 66 MO Department of Conservation 67 Monroe County, Iowa 68 Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 69 Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 70 North Kansas City Levee District 71 North Topeka Drainage District 72 NPS 73 Osage County Economic Development 74 Port Authority 75 Rathbun Regional Water Association 76 SD Dept of Environment and Natural Resources 77 South St. Joseph Levee District 78 Twin Valley Weed Management Area 79 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 80 Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City 81 US Fish and Wildlife Service 82 US Fish and Wildlife Service 83 USGS Missouri Water Science Center 84 WaterOne 85 Western Area Power Admiistration (USDOE) 86 WYOMING STATE ENGINEER^S OFFICE NWO 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Unknown 6 Boulder County Parks & Open Space 7 Boulder County Parks and Open Space 8 Bureau of Indian Affairs

C-26

District Count Agency NWO 9 Bureau of Reclamation 10 City of Boulder 11 City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks 12 City of Greeley 13 City of Jamestown 14 City of Lander 15 City of Lincoln, Ne, Public Works 16 City of Schuyler 17 City of Shenandoah 18 City of Sioux Falls 19 City of Watertown 20 city of Watertown, sd 21 Colorado Division of Water Resources 22 Colorado State Parks 23 Department of Emergency Services, State of North D 24 Department of Interior National Park Service 25 DHS/FEMA 26 Dodge County 27 Eastern Plains Economic Development Corporation 28 Emmons County Water Resource District 29 Farm levees etc and MRRIC 30 Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 31 Fort Berthold Landowners Organization 32 Fort Smith Water & Sewer District 33 Freinds of Lake Sakakawea 34 Great West Engineering 35 Harrison County SWCD 36 IDNR 37 Iowa Department of Natural Resources 38 Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources 39 Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Di 40 Izaak Walton League of America 41 James River Joint Water Board 42 James River Water Development District 43 Jamestown Parks and Recreation 44 Lake Kampeska Water District Project 45 LoMoCRM irrigation 46 Lower Nishna Botna River Task Force 47 Lower Platte North Natural Resources District 48 Lower Platte North NRD 49 Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance 50 Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project Board of Cont 51 McKenzie County Water Resource District 52 MHA Nation 53 Missiouri River Joint Water Board 54 Missouri Association of States and Tribes 55 modot 56 Montana Department of Environmental Quality 57 MRRIC 58 MTDES 59 National Park Service 60 ND State Water Commission

C-27

District Count Agency NWO 61 ND State Water Commission 62 ND State Water Commission 63 Nebraska Army National Guard 64 Nebraska Game & Parks Commission 65 NEMA 66 North Dakota Game and Fish Department 67 North Dakota Game and Fish Department 68 North Dakota State Water Commission 69 PAPIO-MISSOURI RIVER NATURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT 70 Papio-Missouri River NRD 71 Reclamation 72 Region 7 US EPA 73 SIMPCO 74 Sioux City 75 South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish & Parks 76 South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 77 St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group 78 State Line Water co-op 79 State of Colorado 80 State of Nebraska 81 Stutsman County 82 The Greenway Foundation 83 Town of Manhattan 84 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 85 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 86 Upper and Lower River Road Water and Sewer Distric 87 USDA Forest Service 88 WAPA 89 Watertown So Dak. in Codington County So Dak. 90 Western Area Power Administration 91 Western States Power Corporation 92 Williams Rural Water District 93 Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 94 Wyoming Homeland Security 95 Wyoming SHPO 96 WYOMING STATE ENGINEER^S OFFICE 97 Yellowstone River Conservation District Council NWP 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Bonneville Power Administration 4 Bonneville Power Administration - Federal Hydro Pr 5 Bonneville Power Administration- Fish and Wildlife 6 Bureau Of Reclamation 7 City of Eugene 8 City of Milwaukie 9 City of Portland Environmental Services 10 City of Vernonia 11 Columbia River Bar Pilots 12 Columbia River Pilots 13 Cowlitz County 14 FEMA 15 International Boundary and Water Commission

C-28

District Count Agency NWP 16 Metro 17 Mt Hood National Forest 18 Multnomah County 19 Multnomah County Drainage District #1 20 National Marine Fisheries Service 21 NMFS 22 Oregon Water Resources Department 23 Port of Garibaldi 24 Port of Portland 25 Port of Siuslaw 26 Sauvie Island Drainage Improvement Company 27 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 28 US EPA Region 10 29 US Forest Service 30 USDA Forest Service 31 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 32 Washington State Department of Ecology 33 West Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation District 34 Western Area Power Administration (USDOE) NWS 1 Benewah County 2 BIGFORK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT 3 Bitter Root Irrigation District 4 Butte Silver Bow Public Works Department 5 City of Everett Public Works 6 City of Hamilton, Montana 7 City of Kent 8 City of Renton 9 City of Renton 10 City of Whitefish, Montana 11 Daly Ditches Irrigation District 12 Essex County Water and Sewer District 13 Eureka Rural Development Partners 14 Ganite Reeder Water and Sewer District 15 Pierce County 16 Port of Everett 17 Port of Grays Harbor 18 Port of Grays Harbor 19 Port of Sunnyside 20 Seattle Public Utilities 21 SKAGIT CO. DIKE DIST # 12 22 Skagit County Dike District 17 23 South Fork Coeur d Alene River Sewer District 24 Town of Superior 25 Town of Whitehall 26 TPU - Tacoma Water 27 Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 28 Yakama Nation Wildlife Resource Management NWW 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Ada County 5 ADA COUNTY SHERIFF^S OFFICE

C-29

District Count Agency NWW 6 Ahsahka Water & Sewer Distric, Ahsahka, Idahot 7 Avista Corporation 8 Benton County Diking District #1 9 Bernert Barge Lines, Inc., Columbia River Towboat 10 BHS 11 Boise County 12 Boise River Flood Control Dsitrict #10 13 Bonneville Power Administration 14 Bureau of Reclamation 15 City of Ammon, ID 16 City of Bliss 17 City of Connell 18 City of Culdesac 19 City of Dayton 20 City of Emmett, Idaho 21 City of Filer 22 CITY OF GOODING 23 City of Greenleaf 24 City of Horseshoe Bend 25 City of Lava Hot Springs 26 City of Lewiston 27 City of Newdale 28 City of Orofino 29 City of Pomeroy 30 City of Richland 31 City of Richland 32 City of Soda Springs 33 City of Stites 34 City of Twin Falls 35 Clearwater County 36 Columbia County 37 Franklin County 38 ICE HARBOR MARINA LLC 39 Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security 40 Idaho Department of Fish and Game 41 Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation 42 Idaho Transporation Deptartment 43 Idaho Water Resource Board 44 Idaho Water Resource Board 45 Idaho water Resource Board & Department of Water R 46 Inland Power & Light Co 47 Juvenile Correction Center-Lewiston--Idaho Departm 48 Lindblad Expeditions 49 McNary Yacht Club 50 Northwest Grain Growers 51 Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 52 Pacific Northwest Waterways Association (PNWA) 53 PacifiCorp 54 Payette County Idaho 55 Payette County Road and Bridge 56 Port of Clarkston 57 Port of Clarkston

C-30

District Count Agency NWW 58 Port of Kennewick 59 Port of Whitman County 60 Potlatch Corporation 61 Teton County, Wyoming Government 62 The City of New Meadows 63 The Nature Conservancy 64 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 65 Umatilla County Emergency Management 66 University of Idaho 67 US Department of Homeland Security / NPPD / IP 68 USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest 69 WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife 70 WA Emergency Management Division 71 Walla Walla Yacht Club 72 Washington Grain Commission 73 Washington State Dept. of Transportation 74 Washington State Parks 75 Washington State University Athletics POA 1 Alaska Dept of Transportation & Public Facilities 2 Aleutians East Borough 3 City and Borough of Juneau 4 City and Borough of Sitka 5 City and Borough of Yakutat 6 City of Chignik 7 City of Dillingham 8 CITY OF HOMER^S PORT AND HARBOR 9 CITY OF HOMER^S PORT AND HARBOR 10 City of Kodiak 11 City of Port Lions 12 City of Savoonga 13 City of Seward 14 City of Seward 15 City of Unalaska 16 City of Valdez, Alaska 17 Coast Guard 18 Denali Commission 19 Fairbanks North Star Borough 20 Fairbanks North Star Borough - Community Planning 21 FNSB Park and Recreation 22 Kawerak, Inc. 23 Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority 24 Matanuska-Susitna Borough 25 Municipality of Anchorage / Port of Anchorage 26 Newtok traditional council 27 Ninilchik, Alaska 28 Port of Anchorage 29 Port of Nome 30 USFWS SAC 1 Unknown 2 Charleston Pilots 3 City of Folly Beach 4 City of Greenville

C-31

District Count Agency SAC 5 Horry County 6 Lake Marion Regional Water Agency 7 National Nuclear Security Administration 8 Patriots Point Development Authority 9 Santee Cooper 10 SC Dept of Natural Resources 11 SC Emergency Management 12 SCDNR 13 SCSPA 14 South Carolina State Ports Authority 15 South Carolina State Ports Authority 16 Town of Edisto Beach 17 U.S. Coast Guard 18 University of South Carolina 19 USCG SAJ 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Aguadilla Municipality 6 Broward Co. Environmental Protection and Growth Ma 7 Broward County 8 Canaveral Port Authority 9 City of Venice 10 City of Boca Raton 11 City of Cape Canaveral 12 City Of Delray Beach 13 City of Fernandina Beach 14 City of Jacksonville 15 City of Palm Bay 16 City of Sarasota 17 City of Tarpon Springs, Florida 18 Collier County (Florida) Board of County Commissio 19 County of Volusia 20 Department of the Interior 21 DNER-Water Resources Area 22 DOI 23 Florida Inland Navigation District 24 institute of puertorrican culture 25 Jacksonville Port Authority 26 Lee County Division of Natural Resources Managemen 27 Lee County Division of Natural Resources Managemen 28 Lee County Government 29 manatee county government 30 Manatee County government 31 Martin County BOCC 32 Miami-Dade County DERM 33 Miami-Dade County DERM 34 National Park Service 35 NPS 36 Osceola County 37 palm beach county

C-32

District Count Agency SAJ 38 Palm Beach County Environmental Resources Manageme 39 Pinellas County 40 Port Everglades 41 Port of Miami 42 Port of Palm Beach District 43 Puerto Rico Ports Authority 44 PWD Kings Bay 45 Sarasota County Government 46 SFWMD 47 SFWMD 48 South Floirda Water Management District 49 South Florida Water Management District 50 South Florida Water Management District 51 South Florida Water Management District 52 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MGMNT DISTRICT 53 St. Johns County 54 St. Johns River Water management District 55 St. Lucie County (Erosion District) 56 Tampa Port Authority 57 Taylor County Board of County Commissioners 58 Town of Palm Beach 59 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 60 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 61 U.S. Geological Survey 62 USDOC/NOAA 63 USGS Florida Water Science Center 64 WCIND SAM 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Alabama State Lands Division 4 Alabama State Port Authority 5 Bay County TDC 6 City of Atlanta 7 City of Bay St. Louis 8 City of Buford 9 City of Chattahoochee 10 City of Cumming 11 City of Destin 12 City of Gainesville 13 City of Gautier 14 City of Long Beach, MS 15 City of Ocean Springs 16 City of Pascagoula 17 City of Roswell 18 City of Tuscaloosa 19 Cobb County Water System 20 Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc. 21 DeKalb County Government 22 DeKalb County Public Works, Roads and Drainage Div 23 F.O.L.E. 24 Friends Of Lake Eufaula 25 Hall County Public Works Engineering Division

C-33

District Count Agency SAM 26 Hancock County Board of Supervisors 27 Hancock County Board of Supervisors 28 Hancock County Government 29 Harrison County 30 Lake Lanier Association 31 Long Beach Water Management District 32 Magnolia Marine Transport Company 33 Mississippi Department of Marine Resources 34 Mississippi State Port Authority 35 MS Dept. of Marine Resources 36 Office of Governor Haley Barbour 37 Port of Pascagoula 38 Seahaven Consulting 39 Southeastern Power Administration 40 The City of Moss Point, MS-Community Development D 41 The Tombigbee River Water Management District 42 Tri Rivers Waterway Development Assoc 43 Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association 44 wc bradley 45 West Point Lake Coalition SAS 1 BryanCounty Emergency Management 2 Camden Coutnty EMA 3 CEMA 4 Chatham Emergency Management Agency 5 City of North Augusta 6 City of Tybee Island 7 Duke Energy 8 FEMA Region IV 9 FEMA Region IV 10 Fort Pulaski National Monument 11 Franklin County Government 12 GADNR 13 Georgia Department of Transportation 14 Georgia Emergency Management Agency 15 Georgia Ports Authority 16 Georgia Ports Authority 17 Georgia Ports Authority 18 Georgia Ports Authority 19 Glynn County EMA 20 Liberty County Emergency Management 21 Oconee County, SC 22 S.C. Deaprtment of Natural Resources 23 Savannah Maritime Association 24 Savannah Pilot Ass. 25 Southeastern Power Administration 26 Stephens County 27 US Fish and Wildlife Service SAW 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Cape Fear Docking Pilots, Inc. 4 City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department 5 City of Roanoke

C-34

District Count Agency SAW 6 City of Winston-Salem 7 Dominion Generation 8 Jordan Hydroelectric Limited Partnership 9 National Weather Service , Wakefield, Va 10 NC Division of Water Resources 11 NCDENR-Division of Water Quality 12 NCDOT Ferry Division 13 North Carolina State Ports Authority 14 Southeastern Power Administration 15 Stanly County 16 Town of Beaufort 17 Town of Belhaven 18 town of holden beach 19 Town of Oak Island 20 Town of Surf City, NC 21 Town of Tarboro 22 Town of Wrightsville Beach 23 Village of Bald Head Island SPA 1 Acoma Water Office 2 Cibola County 3 City of Deming 4 City of Glenwood Springs 5 City of Jal 6 City of Las Cruces 7 City Of Las Cruces 8 County of El Paso 9 Dona Ana county Flood Commission 10 Navajo Department of Water Resources 11 Ohkay Owingeh 12 Pueblo de Cochiti 13 Pueblo de San Ildefonso 14 Pueblo of Santa Ana 15 Santa Clara Pueblo SPK 1 Unknown 2 Aqua Engineering Inc. 3 Bear River Water Conservancy District 4 Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 5 CA DWR 6 Calaveras County Department of Public Works 7 California Department of Water Resources 8 California Tahoe Conservancy 9 City of Blanding 10 City of Monticello 11 City of Pleasant Hill, Ca. 12 City of Reno 13 city of Santa Cruz 14 City of West Sacramento/WSAFCA 15 City of West Wendover 16 City of Yerington 17 Coalville City 18 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conser 19 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conser

C-35

District Count Agency SPK 20 Deweyville Town 21 Douglas County Sewer Improvement District No. 1 22 Duchesne County Water Conservancy District 23 Duchesne County Water Conservancy District 24 DWR 25 Ephraim City 26 Eureka City 27 Honeyville City, Utah 28 Horrocks Engineers Inc. 29 Incline Village General Improvement District 30 Johansen & Tuttle Engineerin 31 Jones & DeMille Engineering 32 Jones and DeMille Engineering 33 Jones and DeMille Engineering, Inc. 34 Kane County Water Conservancy District 35 Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District 36 Lake Tahoe Transportation & Water Quality Coalitio 37 Lander County 38 Local sponsors - Washoe County, NV 39 Lyon County Utilities 40 mona city 41 Nevada Division of State Lands 42 Placer County Department of Facility Services 43 Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation 44 Port of Stockton 45 Port of West Sacramento 46 Port of West Sacramento 47 Richmond City Corporation 48 Roosevelt City Corporation 49 SAFCA 50 San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency 51 San Juan County 52 Santa Clara Valley Water District 53 Stockton East Water District 54 Sustainable Community Advocates 55 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 56 Tamarisk Coalition 57 Tule River Association 58 Uintah County 59 Uintah County 60 Wasatch Civil Consulting Engineering 61 Washoe County Department of Water resources 62 Washoe County Department of Water Resources 63 Wide Hollow Water Conservency District SPL 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Unknown 6 BEACON 7 Boulder City, Nevada 8 Bucknam & Associates, Inc.

C-36

District Count Agency SPL 9 Cambria Community Services District 10 Castaic Lake Water Agency 11 city of encinitas 12 City of Flagstaff 13 City of Flagstaff 14 City of Flagstaff 15 City of Lancaster 16 City of Los Angeles 17 City of Mission Viejo 18 City of Morro Bay - Harbor Department 19 City of Oceanside 20 City of Phoenix 21 CITY OF PISMO BEACH 22 City of San Clemente 23 City of San Diego 24 city of santa barbara 25 City of Tempe - Community Development 26 City of Yucaipa 27 Clark County Regional Flood Control District 28 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works 29 County of Orange 30 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FLOOD CONTROL ENGINEERING 31 County of Santa Barbara 32 County of Ventura 33 Eastern Municipal Water District 34 Las Vegas Valley Water District 35 Long Beach 36 Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbo 37 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 38 Los Angeles County Flood Control District 39 Los Angeles County Flood Control District 40 Los Angeles County Flood Control District 41 Mission Springs Water District 42 Navajo Department of Water Resources 43 Pima County 44 Pima county Regional Flood Control District 45 Port of Long Beach 46 Port of Los Angeles 47 Port of Los Angeles 48 Port San Luis Harbor District 49 Public Works - Navajo County 50 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District 51 San Berndo County Flood Control District 52 Santa Cruz County, AZ 53 Town of Marana 54 Ventura County Public Works Agency 55 Ventura Port District 56 Virgin Valley Water District SPN 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservatio 4 California State Coastal Conservancy

C-37

District Count Agency SPN 5 City of Petaluma 6 City of San Rafael 7 City of Santa Cruz 8 Contra Costa County Public Works Department 9 Contra Costa Water District 10 County of Marin 11 County of Santa Cruz, Dept. of Public Works 12 Crescent City Harbor District 13 DERWA/EBMUD 14 Dublin San Ramon Services District 15 Humboldt County Resource Conservation District 16 Inland Power and Water Commission 17 Marin County Department of Public Works 18 Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation 19 Moss Landing Harbor District 20 Noyo Harbor District 21 Port of West Sacramento 22 Santa Clara Valley Water District 23 State Coastal Conservancy 24 USEPA 25 Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District 26 Weston Solutions SWF 1 Unknown 2 Brazos River Authority 3 City of Benbrook 4 City of Fort Worth 5 City of Grapevine 6 CITY OF LAREDO 7 City of Wharton 8 City of White Settlement 9 Customs and Border Protection 10 Drug Enforcement Administration 11 Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority 12 HNTB on behalf of the NTTA 13 NCTCOG 14 North Central Texas Council of Governments 15 Northeast Texas M.W.D. 16 Oncor 17 Palo Pinto County Municipal Water District No. 1 18 Red River Valley Association 19 San Antonio River Authority 20 Southwestern Power Administration 21 Texas Water Development Board 22 Trinity River Authority of Texas 23 Trinity River Vision 24 Upper Trinity Regional Water District SWG 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 4 Brazoria County Conservation & Reclamation Distric 5 Brazoria Drainage District # 4 6 Brownsville Navigation District/Port of Brownsvill

C-38

District Count Agency SWG 7 Brownsville Public Utilities Board 8 Calhoun Port Authority 9 Cedar Bayou Navigation District 10 Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District 11 Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District 12 City of Corpus Christi 13 City of Texas City 14 City of Wharton 15 Consultant 16 Environmental Protection Agency 17 galveston county 18 Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association 19 Harris County Flood Control District 20 Hidalgo County Drainage District #1 21 Jefferson County Drainage District No. 7 22 Lower Neches Valley Authority 23 Matagorda County Navigation District No. 1 24 NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 25 Orange County Navigation and Port District - dba P 26 Port Freeport (TX) 27 Port Isabel San Benito Navigation District 28 Port of Bay City 29 Port of Beaumont 30 Port of Galveston 31 Port of Harlingen Authority 32 Port of Port Arthur Navigation District 33 Port of Texas City 34 Surfrider Foundation 35 TCEQ 36 Texas Department of Transportation 37 Texas General Land Office 38 Texas Historical Commission 39 Texas Water Development Board 40 Texas Water Development Board 41 The Nature Conservancy 42 The Port of Houston Authority 43 TPWD 44 US EPA Region 6 45 Velasco Drainage District 46 Willacy County Navigation District SWL 1 Unknown 2 ANRC 3 Arkansas Game & Fish Commission 4 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 5 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 6 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 7 Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Departme 8 Batesville Wastewater Treatment Plant 9 City of Fort Smith Arkansas 10 Greene County, Missouri 11 Little Rock Parks and Recreation 12 MO Dept. of Natural Resources / WRC

C-39

District Count Agency SWL 13 Ozarks Rivers Heritage Foundation 14 Pulaski County Public Works 15 Southside Public Water Authority 16 Southwestern Power Administration 17 Texas Department of Transportation 18 Tulsa Port of Catoosa 19 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service SWT 1 City of Miami 2 City of Wichita falls Texas 3 JOHNSTON^S PORT 33 4 Kansas Water Office 5 North Texas Municipal Water District 6 Oklahoma Water Resources Board 7 Red River Authority of Texas 8 Red River Valley Association 9 Texas Water Development Board 10 Texas Water Development Board 11 Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority 12 Tulsa Port of Catoosa 13 Wichita County Water Improvement District No. 2

C-40

Table C-2: Project Names by District

Dist Count Project LRB 1 Arcola Creek Stream and Habitat Restoration Project 2 Ashtabula Harbor and lower river dredging 3 Ballville Dam Removal/Stream Restoration 4 Beach Nourishment at Presque Isle State Park, Erie 5 Blanchard River General Investigation Study & WLEB 6 Blanchard Watershed River Flood Reduction 7 CAP 14 GENESEE River bank erosion CANEADEA NY 8 CAP 14 OLD FT NIAGARA Seawall Erosion Survey 9 CAP 204 MAUMEE BAY REG. SED. MGT. 10 CAP 205 limestone creek 11 CAP 206 ONONDAGA CREEK, SYRACUSE; OLP; WATERSHED 12 CAP Cayuga Creek Zurbrick Rd Repair, Depew NY 13 CG 506 Conneaut Creek 14 CG OH ENV Auglaize River Sewer Project 15 CG OH ENV Bradenton & Parkhaven sanitary sewer 16 CG OH ENV BRUNSWICK Drainage Improvement 17 CG OH ENV East Bank Development Project 18 CG OH ENV Euclid Creek Sanitary Sewer Improvements 19 CG OH ENV McMackin Rd Waterline 20 CG OH ENV McMackin Road Water Line 21 CG OH ENV MENTOR ON THE LAKE SR 283 Reconstruction 22 CG OH ENV Rising sun Waterline Extension WL#904E 23 CG OH ENV STOW Allen/McCauley Water line 24 CG OH ENV Thompson Sewer Project 25 CG OH ENV Toledo CSO and Wastewater Project 5 26 CG OH ENV Toledo Waterways Initiative 27 CG OH ENV VILLAGE OF POLK 28 CG Springville Dam 29 Chautauqua Creek fish passage project 30 City of Fremont Water Pollution Control Center Pro 31 Cleveland dredged task force 32 CLEVELAND DREDGING TASK FORCE 33 CLEVELAND DREDGING TASK FORCE 34 Cleveland Harbor 35 Cold Creek project 36 Cuyahoga River - Bath Rd 37 Cuyahoga River Environmental Restoration 38 Cuyahoga River Preventative Flood Study 39 East Harbor State Park 40 Eighteen mile Creek AOC - Various 41 GI FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT 42 GI PAS Amherst - Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis 43 GI RAP MAUMEE RVR PHASE 2 44 GI WLEB WATERSHED FEAS. STUDY Blanchard River 45 Great Lakes Sediment Transportation Model 46 Harpersfield Dam Feasibility Study (Mike Greer) 47 Hopkins/Ransom Creek 48 L. Cuyahoga and Cuyahoga River Sec 206 Studies 49 Lorain Harbor Dredging - Dike Disposal Site 50 Mt Morris Dam

C-41

Dist Count Project LRB 51 MT MORRIS DAM 52 MT MORRIS DAM & VISITOR CTR 53 Multiple 54 Niagara river watershed planning 55 Olcott Harbor projects 56 OLP SEWER SEP GRANT 9Valley Drive Sewer Separation 57 Onondaga Dam Tribal Partnership 58 Onondaga Lake 59 Onondaga Lake Partnership 60 Owasco Lake Outlet Dam (State Dam) Rehabilitation 61 Presque Isle Shoreline Protection - Segmented Brea 62 SANDUSKY HARBOR DREDGING 63 Section 107 Study 64 Sheldon Marsh- 1135/227 65 Streetsboro Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation, Phases 2 & 66 Thatcher Brook Feasibility Flood Study 67 Toledo Harbor Dredging 68 U of Toledo Ottawa River RAP Maumee AOC 69 various 70 Vermilion River West Pier Structure Repair 71 WLEB Blanchard River, GI Feasibility Study 72 WRDA Appropriation/CG NYS Canal System LRC 1 Bailly Station Intake Feasability Study 2 Bubbly Creek Feasibility Study 3 Burnham Praire 506, Asian Carp Barrier, Spring Cre 4 Burns Small Boat Harbor 5 Burns Waterway Harbor Shoreline Damage Mitigation 6 Calumet River & Harbor 7 Chicago Botanic Garden Restoration Project 8 Chicago Shoreline Protection Project 9 Chicago Storm Damage Reduction Project 10 City of Whiting Lakefront Water and Sewer Project 11 Des Plaines Phase I 12 Des Plaines Phase II 13 Federal Title V - SCSEP 14 Fort Sheridan GLFER project 15 FPMS Will County 16 GLFER Section 506 Ft Sheridan Coastal Restoration, 17 Indiana Harbor & Canal 18 LAKE MICHIGAN INTERCEPTOR PROTECTION, HIGHLAND PAR 19 Lakefront and River Restoration 20 Levee 37 21 Levve 37 22 Little Cal River 23 McCook Reservoir 24 Michigan City Harbor & Trail Creek 25 Ranburn Woods 26 Red Mill Pond GLEFER 27 Section 125 Whiting Lakefront Project 28 Upper Des Plaines and Tributaries Phase 2 Feasibil 29 Upper Des Plaines River Feasibility Study Phase II 30 various

C-42

Dist Count Project LRC 31 Various 32 Various 33 Water System Automation, Village of Flossmoor, IL 34 Waukegan Harbor 35 Waukegan Harbor LRE 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 2010 Port Wing Wisconsin Wastewater Treatment Plan 4 Bay Port Harbor Dredging 5 Boardman River Dams Removal Project 6 City of Montreal Sewer Rehabilitation- Section 154 7 Clinton River AOC Projects 8 Cloquet Waterline Project 9 DETROIT BEACH FLOOD WALLS 10 Dredging of Harbor 11 Duluth - Superior DMMP 12 East Interceptor SSO - Phase I CIPP Reh 13 Elkhart & Christiana Fish Passage 14 Erie Pier - Duluth Harbor - Dredge Material 15 Erie Pier Dredged Material Beneficial Use Study 16 Establishment of a second municipal water well 17 Flood Plain 18 Fox River Locks 19 Frankenmuth Fish Passage Project 20 Frogtown Road - Town of Baileys Harbor 21 Gary-New Duluth Pump Station Rehabilitation 22 Grand Haven, MI - Maintenance Dredging & Earth Anc 23 Green Bay Harbor 24 Hamilton Dam/Flint River Flood Control 25 Harbor Dredging 26 Holland Harbor Dredge Placement Facility 27 Homer Lake 28 Hurley 29 Kalamazoo River Concrete Channel Project 30 KEARSLEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR 31 Kinnickinnic River Sediment Remediation Project 32 Lake Poygan Breakwall 33 Lake Restoration.....improve fish habitat 34 Lake St. Clair Protection and Restoration Project 35 Leland Harbor 36 Les Cheneaux Islands - Federal Channel Dredge 37 Little Lake Harbor, Lake Superior 38 Macomb County PAS GIS Project 39 Macomb County RAP GIS Project 40 Madeline Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment Pl 41 Manistee Harbor Section 111 Harbor Wave Study 42 Menomonee River 43 Milwaukee DMMP 44 Milwaukee DMMP 45 Multible 46 Negaunee, MI Section 219 47 North Branch Ecorse Creek Flood Risk Management St

C-43

Dist Count Project LRE 48 Northwest Area Project 49 Ontonagon County Harbor Dredging 50 Parkland Wastewater Collection System 51 Pike River Improvements--Phases 8 & 9 52 Port Sanilac Harbor Dredging Summer 2010 53 Raspberry River Culvert Replacement - Section 154 54 Red Run Bank Stabilization Project & SOCSDS Sewer 55 Saginaw River 56 Saint Joseph, MI Harbor Inner and Outer Dredging 57 SARP: Climate Change Adaptation: Infrastructure Va 58 Sea Lamprey Barrier Construction Program 59 Sebewaing Flood Control & Levy Restoration Project 60 Sebewaing River Flood Control Project 61 Section 154 62 Section 154 funding 63 St. Louis River AOC Sediment Assessment Project 64 ST. MARY^S RIVER 65 ST. MARYS RIVER HYDROPOWER PLANT 66 ST. MARYS RIVER HYDROPOWER PLANT 67 State Highway 13 Utilities expansion 68 Storm Sewer Upgrade 69 Theime Dr. Emergency Riverbank Protection, Fairfie 70 Trail Creek Sea Lamprey Barrier 71 Trailer Court Road Extension 72 Traverse City Harbor - NMC 73 Two Harbors and McQuade Small Craft Harbors 74 Upper Saginaw River DMDF 75 Various Section 206 projects (4) 76 Wastewater Renovation Project Phase III 77 Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction 78 Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction Poplar, Wi 79 Whitefish Point Harbor of Refuge LRH 1 47th Annual Water Fetival 2 7th Street West-Section & Staunton Ave-Section 14 3 Bluestone Dam - DSA 4 Bluestone Drift & Debri 5 Buchanan County Flood Proofing Project 6 Claytor Lake Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project 7 Coshocton County Fresno Wastewater System Project 8 culpepper area water system 9 Dickenson County Nonstructural Section 202 10 Dover DSA and Boliver DSA 11 E. Main and S. Mill Street Waterline and Sanitary 12 Greenup Design and Marmet Dam Rehab 13 GRIFFITHSVILLE WATER PROJECT 14 Grundy Section 202 - Non-Structural 15 Harris Riverfront Park Master Plan 16 Island Creek LPP 17 Louisville Infiltration & Inflow Improvements Proj 18 Marlboro Sanitary Sewer Project No. 563 19 Marlinton LPP 20 McDowell County Non-structural Flood Control Proje

C-44

Dist Count Project LRH 21 Minford-Scioto County, Ohio 22 Monday Creek 23 Multiple Projects/Muskingum River Basin 24 ORB Recon Study 25 Poca Wastewater Upgrade 26 Ravenswood Riverfront Project 27 Riverfront Park 28 Riverfront Park Project 29 Rose Run 30 Section 14 Streambank Protection Project 31 Spruce Street Water and Sewer Line Extension 32 Summit Road Waterline Project 33 Turtle Creek Waterline Extension 34 Upper Guyandotte Watershed Feasability Study 35 Upper Guyandotte Watershed Recon Study 36 Walker Lane Section 14 Emergency Streambank Protec 37 Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade, Phase I 38 Watauga 39 Water Treatment Plant 40 Wayne County Non-Structrual Flood Control Project 41 Wells L&D, Little Kanawha River, VW 42 Williamsburg Street Area Sewer Project 43 WV Statewide Flood Warning System, Section 205 LRL 1 Copeland Bridge, Breathitt County, KY 2 Duck Creek Local Flood Protection Project Phases I 3 Environmental Infrastructure Program 4 Evansville Slackwater Harbor Intermodal Facility 5 Evansville Vanderburgh Levee Authority District 6 Fairview Commons 7 Green River 8 Green River 9 I-64 Pipeline 10 Indianapolis CSO 205 Relocation 11 jeffersonville-clarksville flood control 12 Levee Certification- Harrisburg,IL. 13 Lily Drive Culvert 14 MILL CREEK FEASIBILITY STUDY 15 Ohio River Greenway 16 Ohio River Greenway - Public Access, Indiana 17 Olmsted Locks & Dam 18 Olmsted Locks & Dam 19 Pond Creek Watershed Shared Use Path and Ecologica 20 Raw Water Planning 21 River Site Certification study 22 Riverfront Commons 23 Springfield Airport Water & Sewer 24 Tyner Waste Water Project 25 UD 594 26 Various 27 West Liberty Sewer Improvements 28 White river flood protection LRN 1 Unknown

C-45

Dist Count Project LRN 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Unknown 6 Unknown 7 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration of Pistol Creek 8 Beaver Creek Bristol TN/VA Flood Damage Reduction 9 City of Cumberland 10 Clarksville Fairgrounds Park Reconstruction 11 Cumberland County Water Supply Project 12 Duck River Watershed Assessment 13 Gunters Landing Pier 14 Mud Lick Creek bank restoration 15 Regional Water Supply Planning 16 river transportation 17 Streambank Stabilization 18 Swannanoa Flood Project 19 Swannanoa River Watershed Section 205 20 Swannanoa Watershed Study and Public Dam Safety 21 TDEC Water Supply Studies 22 Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers 23 TN River Riprap Embankment - Chattanooga Golf & Co 24 Various LRP 1 CG - Chautauqua Lake, NY - Aquatic Plant Control 2 CG - OH Enviro Infra, Sec 594, Campbell Sewer 3 CG - OH Enviro Infra, Sec 594, Struthers South 4 CG - OH Enviro Infra, Sec 594, Windham Water 5 CG - OH Enviro Infras, Sec 594, Brookfield Center 6 CG - OH Envrio Infra, Sec 594, Youngstown Sewer 7 CG - Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, Sec 594, N 8 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Derry Twp Sewage 9 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Dry Tavern Sewage 10 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Dunbar Twp Sewer 11 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Freeport Sewer 12 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Gilpin Twp Water 13 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Kiski Twp Drainage 14 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Mt Pleasant Twp 15 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Pegasus Sewer Syst 16 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Perry Twp Sewer 17 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, River Ave Intercep 18 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Rt 18 Sewer 19 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Swan Plan 20 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Washington Twp 21 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Washington Twp, 22 CG - South Central PA, Sec 313, Westmoreland Sewer 23 CG - South Central PA, Sec. 313, Lower Ten Mile 24 CG - South Central, PA, Sec 313, Catfish Creek 25 CG - Three Rivers Wet Weather Sec 219, Findlay 26 CG-CAP - Sec 14 - Lick Run, South Park, PA 27 CG-CAP - Sec 14 - Lincoln Borough, Coursin Run, PA 28 Conner/Messenger Passive Acid Mine Drainage Treatm 29 Girtys Run & Pine Creek Watershed Studies

C-46

Dist Count Project LRP 30 Morgantown Airport Access Road 31 N/A 32 N/A 33 N/A 34 O&M - Yough River Lake Water Supply - Warren, OH 35 PL 84-99 Projects - Brush Creek Jeanette LFP 36 PL 84-99 Projects - Chartiers-Fulton, PA 37 PL 84-99 Projects - Saw Mill Run Turtle Creek LFP MVK 1 2010 experience 2 592 Sewer Reconstruction Project, Phase 1 and 2 3 AR Navigation Feasibility Study 4 Arkabutla Lake 5 Arkabutla Lake 6 ARKANSAS LEVEES - CHICOT, DESHA & LINCOLN 7 Bank protection 8 Bayou Meto Water Management Project 9 Bayou Meto Water Management Project 10 Bayou Meto, SE-AR(Boeuf-Tensas) 11 Belle Island 12 Bossier Parish Drainage Study / Red River Levee / 13 Bovina Tank Project 14 Brooklyn Sanitary Sewer Project 15 Camp Creek Interceptor 16 City of Biloxi 17 City of Columbus Section 592 18 City of Forest 19 City of Macon Wastewater treatment plant upgrade 20 City of McComb 592 21 City of Pascagoula 592 project 22 City of Port Gibson Section 592 23 Coahoma County 592 24 Coahoma County Section 592 25 Coldwater Study 26 Cross Lake Water 27 Cross Lake Water Supply Feasibility Study 28 Daisy State Park 29 DeGray Lake Resort State Park 30 DeGray Lake Water Supply 31 DeGray WSA 32 Enid Lake 33 FEMA Flood Map Modernization 34 Greenville Port 35 Greenwood Section 592 Project 36 Grenada Lake 37 Hiwanee Water System Improvements 38 J. Bennett Johnston Waterway 39 J. Bennett Johnston Waterway O&M 40 Jeff Davis Avenue and Gulfside Street Sewer Improv 41 Lake Ouachita 42 Lake Ouachita Reallocation 43 Lake Ouchita, Daisy, and DeGray State Parks; Arkan 44 Lake Providence Harbor

C-47

Dist Count Project MVK 45 Levee Enlargement & Berms Project 46 Lift Station Rehab 47 Lower MS River Museum - Relocation of Water line 48 Lower Pearl River Restoration Project 49 MAWA / Lake Ouachita 50 McKinney Bayou Feasibility Study 51 Millard WasteWater Treatment 52 Mitigation Lands 53 Mitigation Lands Project 54 MRL and Red River 55 MRL and Red River 56 MRL and Red River 57 MRL and Red River Backwater 58 MS River Channel Improvement 59 MS River Channel Improvement 60 MS River Channel Improvement 61 MS River Channel Improvement 62 MS River Channel Improvement 63 MS River Channel Improvement 64 MS River Channel Improvement 65 MS River Channel Improvement 66 MS River Channel Improvement 67 MS River Channel Improvement - Petrohawk Energy 68 Natchez Section 592 Project 69 New Orleans to Venice Levees 70 Numerous projects each year 71 Ouachita River 72 Ouachita River Basin 73 Ouachita River Basin 74 Ouachita, Greeson, Degray Lakes 75 pearl river 76 Pearlington County 592 77 Philadelphia Utilities Water Storage and Sewer Col 78 Planning and Project Management 79 Pumping Plant / Interpretive Center 80 Red River Levee Rehabilitation/Restoration 81 Red River navigation study 82 Red River Projects other than AR Navigation Feasib 83 Relocation of 30 Water Line, Water MainExten 84 Rosedale Port 85 Sardis Lake 86 Section 592 program 87 Several Projects 88 Sewer Project Extension and water well 89 Sewer system improvements 90 Silver Jackets 91 Silver Jackets 92 Silver Jackets 93 Silver Jackets 94 Silver Jackets / Dam Safety 95 Silver Jackets- Mississippi 96 South Delta Interpretive Center

C-48

Dist Count Project MVK 97 South Water Line Extension 98 Southeast Arkansas Feasibility Study 99 Southeast Arkansas Study 100 Southeast Arkansas Study 101 southwest Arkansas navigation 102 Spring Bayou Restoration Study 103 Spring Bayou Restoration Project 104 Spring Bayou, Louisiana, Feasibility Study 105 Steele Bayou Sedimentation Reduction Project 106 survey 107 Town of Summit, MS Section 592 Project 108 Tupelo South Green Street Drainage (Section 592 Ci 109 Warren County Port 110 West Rankin Utility Authority Section 592 Project 111 Yellow Bend Port MVM 1 Arkansas Field Office 2 Bayou Meto Pumping Plant 3 Bayou Meto Water Management Project 4 Bayou Meto Water Management Project 5 Bayou Meto Water Management Project 6 big creek levee/may 2010 flood/various 7 Big Creek Levee/May 2010 Flood/Various 8 Cache River 1135 9 Caruthersville Harbor Dredging 10 Caruthersville/Linwood (Mississippi River Channel) 11 Clearing buffalo ditch 12 DeSoto County Regional Sewer System 13 Desoto County Regional Utility Authority 14 DeSoto County Regional Wastewater Program 15 DRAINAGE DISTRICT #48 16 Dyer County Little Levee 17 Elk Chute South Levee Setback 18 Elvis Stahr Harbor Dredging 19 Flood Control 20 Grand Prairie Regional Demonstration Project 21 Grand Prairie, Bayou Meto 22 Gravel along MRL from Hickman to TN State Line 23 Harbor Wall Repair - Dolphin Construction 24 Helena Harbor Dredging & Levee Gravel Resurfacing 25 Hickman Bluff, KY Project 26 Horn Lake - Sanitary Sewer Master Plan 27 Human Resources Support 28 Jonesboro, Arkansas Master Drainage Plan 29 Jonesboro, Arkansas Master Drainage Plan 30 Keely Mill Rd. bridge over Rutherford Fork of Obio 31 Lateral D - Section 14 32 Levee and Structure 33 Levee Inspection / Certification 34 Levee Restoration at Naval Support Activity Mid-So 35 Linda Missouri Relief Wells 36 Little River Diversion Dutchtown, MO 37 LMRRA

C-49

Dist Count Project MVM 38 Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment 39 Lower Obion Ecosystem Restoration-Section 1135 Pro 40 Marine seismic survey 41 Memphis Harbor, McKellar Lake, Memphis Harbor DMMP 42 Memphis Metro Stormwater 43 Memphis Riverfront Development 44 Memphis Riverfront Development 45 MERGWS - ground water study 46 Mike Gaskill 47 Mississippi River 48 Mississippi River - Memphis District 49 Mississippi River Channel Improvement - Dike Const 50 Mississippi River Channel Improvement - Dike Const 51 Mississippi River Levee 52 MRL 53 MRL Maintenance 54 MRL Maintenance 55 New Madrid Riverfront improvements 56 Nonconnah Creek Greenbelt 57 Northwest Tennessee Regional Harbor / Port of Cate 58 Northwest Tennessee Regional Harbor, Tennessee 59 Northwest Tennessee Regional Harbor, Tennessee 60 Osceola Harbor Dredging (Maint) 61 Osceola River Port 62 Pallid Sturgeon, Channel Maintenance Program 63 PCA COE & DCRUA 64 PCA COE & DCRUA 65 Phillips County Rural Sewer Collection Project 66 Piggott Relief Wells 67 Port of Cates Landing 68 RESTORING AMERICA^S GREATEST RIVER (TM) 69 Same 70 Section 402 - Lower Mississippi River Resource Ass 71 Sewage, Drainage and Infrastructure 72 St. Francis Basin Project & MR&T 73 St. Francis Basin Project, MRT & MRL 74 St. Francis Levee 75 St. Francis Maintenance 76 St. Francis Maintenance 77 St. Francis Maintenance 78 ST. JOHN^S BAYOU 79 St. Johns Bayou 80 St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Closure Levee 81 Upper 15 Mile Bayou, St. Francis Basin 82 Various Wetland Projects on State Property 83 Various, including Bayou Meto and White River irri 84 Vice-President St Francis River of Clay & Greene C 85 West Tennessee Tributaries Project 86 White River Backwater 87 White River Basin Comprehensive Study 88 White River Comp 89 White River Comp & Lower Cache

C-50

Dist Count Project MVM 90 White River Comprehensive Plan 91 White River Comprehensive Study 92 White River Comprehensive Study 93 White River Navigation 94 White River Navigation Improvement Project 95 White River Navigation Study 96 Wolf River Project 97 Wolf River Restoration 98 Wolf River Restoration Project 99 Wolf River Restoration Project 100 WRID (Grand Prairie) MVN 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 404 Permitting 4 800 S. Washington Ave, Marshall, TX 5 ABFS 6 AMITE RIVER AND TRIBS, ECOSYSTEM FEASIBILITY 7 AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BAYOU MANCHAC 8 Ascension Parish Env Infrastructure 9 Atchafalaya Basin Construction 10 Atchafalaya Basin Construction 11 Atchafalaya Basin Flood System: EDR for Access Roa 12 Atchafalaya Basin Public Access - Lamar Hale 13 Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf & Black (10 14 ATCHAFALYA RIVER BERWICK W-123 &W-124 15 Bayou Sorrel Boat Landing 16 Bayous Bouef, Black and Chene 17 Beau Basin Coulee Drainage Project 18 Brownfields 19 Caernarvon 4th Supplemental 20 Calc River and Pass 21 Calc River and Pass 22 Calc River and Pass 23 Calcasieu River 24 Calcasieu River and Outer Bar 25 Calcasieu River and Pass 26 Calcasieu River Basin Study 27 Calcasieu River Waterway Lake Charles 28 Calcasieu Waterway & Industrial Canal - Port of La 29 Chitimacha Master Plan 30 Civil Works/Ecosystem Restoration 31 Coastal tidal stage, weather, and water quality ga 32 Comite River Diversion Canal 33 Comite River Diversion Canal 34 Conroe Texas Phase I 35 Corps Legal Division 36 Crew Boat Cut 37 CWPPRA 38 CWPPRA 39 CWPPRA 40 CWPPRA 41 CWPPRA

C-51

Dist Count Project MVN 42 CWPPRA 43 CWPPRA 44 CWPPRA 45 CWPPRA 46 CWPPRA 47 CWPPRA 48 CWPPRA 49 CWPPRA 50 CWPPRA 51 CWPPRA 52 CWPPRA 53 CWPPRA Program 54 CWPPRA Public Outreach 55 CWPPRA, Beneficial Use of Dredged Sediments, Other 56 CWPPRA, LCA White Ditch Diversion 57 Dept of Energy 58 Dept of Energy 59 Donaldsonville to the Gulf Feasability Study 60 Donaldsonville to the Gulf of Mexico 61 Dredging 62 Dredging of Baton Rouge Barge Canal 63 Dredging of the Mississippi River 64 EAST AND WEST BANKS OF THE PARISH HURRICANE PROTEC 65 East Baton Rouge Parish GIS 66 East Baton Rouge Parish GIS 67 Emergency Ops 68 false river 69 False River 70 False River, New Roads, La. 71 FPMS 72 FPMS 73 FPMS 74 FPMS 75 FPMS 76 FPMS 77 FPMS 78 FPMS 79 FPMS 80 FPMS 81 FPMS 82 FPMS 83 FPMS 84 FPMS 85 FPMS 86 FPMS 87 FPMS 88 FPMS 89 General Floodplain Management Efforts 90 Geographic Information System (GIS) 91 GIWW 92 GIWW 93 GIWW

C-52

Dist Count Project MVN 94 Gross Tete 95 HDSRRS 96 HNC 97 Houma Nav Channel 98 Houma Navigation Canal Deepening 99 HPL, St. Charles, North of Airline Highway 100 Hurricane Gustav 101 IHNC Lock 102 Inspection of Completed Works 103 Jean Lafitte National Park, Geo Crib 104 Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity 105 LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY HPL, WEST SHORE PR 106 Larose to Golden Meadow 107 LCA 108 LCA - Caillou Lake Landbridge 109 LCA - Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern T 110 LCA - Medium Diversion with Dedicated Dredging at 111 LCA - Point au Fer 112 LCA - Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restorati 113 LCA Amite River Diversion Canal Modification Proje 114 LCA Modification of Caernarvon Diversion 115 LCA Modification of Davis Pond Diversion 116 LCA Program 117 LCA Program 118 LCA, CIAP, LACPR, MR&T, etc. 119 Livingston Parish Monumentation Densification Proj 120 Lower Mississippi River 121 Lower Mississippi River Navigation Channel 122 LPV 123 LPV 124 LPV-04.1 Reach 1A, 1B and 2A 125 Medium Diversion at White Ditch 126 Miss Outlets to Venice 127 Miss. River Dredging 128 Mississippi River 129 Modification of Davis Pond 130 Morganza Forebay 131 Morganza Forebay 132 morganza to the gulf 133 Morganza to the Gulf 134 Morganza to the Gulf 135 MR Dredging 136 MRL 137 MS River Levees and Atchafalaya Basin Levees 138 N/A 139 New Orleans Harbor Dredging 140 NEW ORLEANS HARBOR DREDGING 141 Not Sure, we deal with many programs with Corps an 142 Old River 143 Old River Control 144 Old River Control 145 Old River Control

C-53

Dist Count Project MVN 146 Old River Control 147 Old River Control 148 Old River Control 149 Old River Control / Completed Works 150 Old River Control Structure 151 OLD RIVER CONTROL STRUCTURE 152 Old River Lock 153 Permits 154 Project Management - Coastal Wetlands Planning Pro 155 Regulatory 156 Responding to Low Waer and Other WWM Issues 157 SELA 158 SELA 159 SELA 160 SELA 161 SELA Orleans 162 Small Diversion at Convent/Blind River 163 South White Lake Shoreline Protection (ME-22) Proj 164 Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control 165 Southwest Coastal 166 St. Charles UFC 167 ST. CHARLES URBAN FLOOD CNTROL STUDY 168 St. Mary Parish Emergency Measures during the 2010 169 Stone-Harrison Ravine Erosion Project 170 Supplemental EIS for Henderson WMU and for Recreat 171 Terrebonne Non-Federal Levee 172 US Coast Guard 173 USACE SELA W-14 174 various 175 Various 176 Various 177 Vermilion River CAP 206 Project 178 W912P8-10-D-0016 179 WBV PROJECT/ SURVEY ENGINEERING DIVISION ONLY 180 WBV PROJECT/ SURVEY OF CONSTRUCTION DIVISION ONLY 181 WBV PROJECT/ SURVEY EMERGENCY RESPONSE ONLY 182 WBV PROJECT/OVERALL EVALUATION 183 WBV PROJECT/SURVEY OPERATIONS DIVISION ONLY 184 WBV PROJECT/SURVEY PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION ONL 185 WBV PROJECT/SURVEY REAL ESTATE/LEAGA DIVISION ONLY 186 West Bank & Vicinity 187 West Barge Basin Expansion at West Calcasieu Port 188 West Closure Complex 189 West Closure Complex - Lake Salvador Marsh Creatio 190 West Shore Lake Pontchartrain, LA Hurricane Protec 191 West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity MVP 1 2010 Flood 2 Ada Mn section 205 3 Breckenridge Flood Control Project 4 Capoli Slough EMP 5 Casselton - Kindred Area Project 6 CEDAR LAKE, HALF MOON LAKE, CENTRAL WISCONSIN RIV

C-54

Dist Count Project MVP 7 City Embankment Raise 8 City of Brook Park Municipal Water System 9 City of St. Croix Falls POTW Expansion 10 City of St. Croix Falls, WI -- Wastewater Treatm 11 COE 205 Study - Ada, Minnesota. 12 Crookston Flood Control 13 Design of proposed two sewer extensions 14 Emergency Management - flood fights 15 EMP HREP, O&M 16 Environmental Management Program 17 Fargo - Moorhead Flood Risk Management Project 18 Fargo Moorhead Feasibility Study 19 Fargo Moorhead Flood Damage Risk Assessment Project 20 Fargo Moorhead Metro Flood Control Project 21 Fargo Moorhead Metro Study 22 Fargo-Moorhead Feasibility Study 23 Fargo-Moorhead Feasibility Study 24 Fargo-Moorhead Feasibility Study 25 Fargo-Moorhead Feasibility Study 26 Fargo-Moorhead Feasibility Study 27 Fargo-Moorhead Feasibility Study 28 Fargo-Moorhead Feasibility Study 29 Fargo-Moorhead Metro Feasibility Study 30 Fargo-Moorhead Metro Feasibility Study 31 Fargo-Moorhead Metro Feasibility Study 32 Fargo/Moorhead Flood 33 Flood Control - State of MN Projects 34 Flood Control, Red River of the North, Wahpeton St 35 Flood fight 2010 36 Flood fight 2010 37 Flood fight 2010 38 Flood Fight 2010 39 Flood Fight 2010 40 Flood Fight 2010 41 Flood Fight 2010 42 Floodplain Management 43 FM Metro Area Flood Risk Management 44 FM Metro Feasibility Study 45 Fort Abercrombie stablization 46 Garrison Kathio West Mille Lacs 47 Garrison Kathio West Mille Lacs Wastewaer Project 48 Glidden 49 Gordon Extenstion 50 Granite Falls Section 205 51 Hydrologic Networks and Monitoring 52 March Lake Restoration - Feasibility Study (Minnes 53 Mecer Section 154 54 Minnesota Rive 9-foot Navigation Project 55 Minnesota River Watershed Study 56 Minnesota River Watershed, Water Quality and Ecosy 57 Minnesota Silver Jackets 58 Minnewaukan Relocation / Section 22

C-55

Dist Count Project MVP 59 Miss. River EMP 60 Mississippi Rive 9-foot Navigation Project 61 Mississippi River 9-foot Navigation Channel 62 Mississippi River 9-foot Navigation Channel 63 Mississippi River 9-foot Navigation Channel 64 Mississippi River 9-foot Navigation Channel 65 Mississippi River 9-foot Navigation Channel 66 Mississippi River Shoreline Projects in Minneapolis 67 Mississippi Whitewater Park 68 Montevideo Flood Control Project 69 Montevideo Section 205 70 NE RIchland County Reservoir Improvements Project 71 NESP, RRF ( Navigation Comm.), UMWA all joint meet 72 O&M, EMP, NESP 73 Oakport Temporary Flood Protection - Spring 2010 74 Pool 6 Waterlevel Management 75 Pool 8 Islands, Phase III, EMP Project 76 Rapidan Dam - Blue Earth County 77 Red River and Devils Lake general 78 Red River Basin Feasibility Study 79 Red River Basin Mapping Initiative/Red River Water 80 Red River Diversion 81 Red River Flood 2010 82 Red River Hydraulics Study 83 Red River Mainstem Feasibility 84 Red River Valley Flood 2010 85 Red River Watershed Feasibility Study 86 Riverton Water Supply Improvements Project 87 Roseau East Diversion Flood Control Project 88 Roseau East Diversion Flood Control Project 89 Sanitary Sewer 90 Section 14 - Crow River Stabilization Project 91 Section 14 - Elk River / County Highway 35 92 Sheyenne Diversion Low Flow Channel Improvements 93 Silver Jackets, Fargo-Moorhead, MN River study, we 94 south bend twsp. levee repair 95 South Fork Zumbro River Flood Control Project 96 St. Croix Headwaters PMP 97 St. Paul Flood Control Project 98 Stillwater stage 3a 99 Sunrise River Watershed 100 Sunrise River Watershed Study 101 Surrey Transmission line 102 Tract 33 Water Treatment Building 103 UMR management/River Resources Forum 104 Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish 105 various 106 Various 107 Various - Red River and Devils Lake basin studies/ 108 Vermilion Infrastructure Project 109 wastewater & water project 110 Water Project

C-56

Dist Count Project MVP 111 Water Sewer Project 112 Well, water tower, and infrastructure improvement 113 Wild Rice River Feasibility Study 114 WWTP Remodel MVR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ? 19 2010 Flood 20 2010 Flood Activity - transporting of pumps to cou 21 2010 Floods Assistance 22 Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project 23 Birdland and Central Place Levees 24 birdland/central place levee reconstruction 25 Cedar Rapids Cedar River Feasibility Study 26 Cedar Rapids FM Project 27 Cedar River Feasibility Study 28 Cedar River Feasiblity Study 29 Cedar River Watershed 30 Clarence Cannon/Great River NWR 31 Clinton, IA Flood response 32 Coal Creek 33 Comprehensive Plan, Authorized in WRDA 99 34 Davenport FRM 35 Des Moines & Raccoon Rivers (Birdland/Central Plac 36 Des Moines Flood Area 37 Des Moines Flood Area - 38 DR 1930 - Flooding 39 Dubuque Iowa Local Flood Protection Project 40 East Moline Local Flood Protection Project 41 East Peoria Drainage and Levee District 42 Edwards River Streambank Protection Project 43 Emergency Flood Response, City of Clinton, IA 44 Emiquon East 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration 45 Emiquon NESP 46 EMP and NESP 47 EMP HREP and NESP 48 EMP- LTRMP

C-57

Dist Count Project MVR 49 EMP-LTRMP 50 EMP-LTRMP 51 EMP/NESP 52 EMP/NESP 53 Environmental Management Program 54 Environmental Management Program 55 Environmental Management Program - UMR 56 Field Survey Hydraulic and Modeling of the Rock an 57 Flood Control /Pumps 58 Flood Management System 59 Flood Recovery 60 Flood Recovery 61 Flood Recovery/Response 62 Flood Response 63 Flood Response 64 Flood Response 65 Flood Response 66 Flood Response 67 Flood Response and Assistance 68 Flood Wall, Iowa American Water Company 69 Flooding of 2010 70 Fort Dodge - Greenbelt 71 Fox River Sect 14 72 High River Crest/ Emergency Response 73 IA Silver Jackets 74 IA Silverjackets 75 IFRMT 76 Illinois Flood Risk Management Team 77 Illinois River 78 Illinois River Basin Ecosystem Restoration 79 Illinois River Basin Restoration 80 Illinois River Lock User - Towboat Operator 81 Illinois Waterway 82 Illinois Waterway 83 Illinois Waterway 84 Illinois Waterway Project 85 Iowa Floodplain Mapping Program 86 Iowa River H&H Study 87 Iowa Silver Jackets Flood Risk Management Team 88 Iowa-Cedar Interagency Team 89 Keith Creek Feasibility 90 Keith Creek Feasibility Study 91 Lake Koshkonong PAS 92 Levee repair 93 Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 94 Long Term Resource Monitoring Program/Environmenta 95 LTRMP 96 LTRMP 97 LTRMP 98 Mad Creek Levee Improvement Project 99 Maquoketa River Special Floodplain Study 100 Mississippi and Illinois River Projects

C-58

Dist Count Project MVR 101 Mississippi River / EMP&NESP 102 Mississippi River Project 103 Mississippi River Project 104 Mississippi River Project 105 Mississippi River Project 106 Mississippi River: EMP and NESP 107 Mississippi/Illinois Rivers Projects 108 Mon Maq Dam Flood Plain Management Services Study/ 109 multiple 110 multiple projects 111 Multiple Projects: IL 519, EMP 112 N/A 113 NESP 114 NESP/EMP 115 None 116 numerous 117 O&M Illinois and Mississippi Rivers 118 O&M Mississippi River Project 119 O&M, NESP, EMP 120 Odessa HREP, Dredging, Planning / EMP 121 Odessa Wildlife Area/ EMP 122 PAS - Mississippi Riverfront 123 PAS Alternatives Report Lake Sinissippi 124 Pekin Lake 125 Raccoon River Bank Stabilization at Perry 126 Regional Flood Risk Management 127 RI/Moline Water Interconnect Study & plus routine 128 Rock Island Levee 129 Section 14, Mazon Creek Whitetie Rd, Grundy County 130 Section 206 Clear Lake, IA (Ventura Marsh) 131 Shellrock River Watershed/Freeborn County Ecosyste 132 Silver Jackets, Iowa-Cedar Basin Study 133 Statewide Floodplain Mapping Project 134 tonnage statistics/ NESP 135 UMR EMP and NESP programs 136 unknown 137 Ventura Marsh 138 Ventura Marsh/Clear Lake, IA 206 Marsh Restoration 139 Water Interconnection Study (W/City of Rock Island 140 Water System Interconnections Improvements Study - 141 Waterloo Local Flood Control System 142 Waubonsie Creek Section 519 143 Whirlpool/Amana Manufacturing Division Flood Mitig 144 Whitebreast Creek Aquatic Habitat Restoration 145 Windom - DesMoines River Dam MVS 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Unknown 6 Unknown 7 Unknown

C-59

Dist Count Project MVS 8 Unknown 9 2008 Flood Recovery Repar of Hartwell Drainage and 10 Berm project 11 Big Muddy national Fish and Wildlife Refuge 12 Big River (St. Louis Riverfront) 13 Boating safety classes 14 Box Culvert near Chouteau Slough Road & West Chain 15 Calumet Creek Natural Area - Woodland Trail 16 Carlyle 17 Carlyle Lake 18 Carlyle Lake 19 Carlyle Lake Management 20 Carlyle Lake SFWA 21 Chesterfield Valley 22 Chuck Herron 23 Clarence Cannon Dam 24 Clarence Cannon/Great River NWR 25 Completed by Cynthia Wood per paper survey. 26 Completed by Cynthia Wood per paper survey. 27 Completed by Cynthia Wood per paper survey. 28 Confluence State Park restoration 29 Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebo 30 Cost Share Recreation at Mel Price 31 Degognia/Fount Bluff 32 DESIGN DEFICIENCY PROJECT 33 Designated Swimming Area. (Input by Cynthia Wood) 34 Eagle Park Sewer 35 Eagle Points trail, Phase 1 36 East St. Louis Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Dam 37 Elm Point Levee District 38 EMP Projects in Missouri Pool 26 (West Alton) 39 Environmental Planning Section - Mr. Brian Johnson 40 Erosion and sedimentation Study (Upper Kaskaskia R 41 Festus-Crystal City Levee/Pump Station Project 42 Foley Drainage District 43 General Dacey Trail at Lake Shelbyville 44 Glades, Godar, Reds Landing, Calhoun Pt, Swan Lake 45 Grand Tower Drainage and Levee District 46 H plan 47 Hillview Levee District 48 https://ppdscivil.usace.army.mil/surveys/civilwork 49 I-57 & Petroff Rd Interchange 50 IDIQ Tour Services 51 Improve Boat Ramp Safety/Accessibility for Handica 52 Industry Upper Management/Waterway 53 Industry Upper Management/Waterway 54 Joanna and Lick Creek Trails and trail heads 55 Kaskaskia Island D&LD 56 Kaskaskia Navigation 57 Kaskaskia Navigation Project 58 Keach Drainage and Levee District 59 Kings Lake Drainage and Levee District

C-60

Dist Count Project MVS 60 Kissinger D&LD 61 Kuhs LD 62 L-15 Levee 63 Lake Shelbyville 64 Lake Shelbyville 65 Lake Shelbyville 66 Lake Shelbyville 67 Lake Shelbyville 68 Lake Shelbyville 69 Lake Shelbyville 70 Lake Shelbyville 71 Lake Shelbyville 72 Lake Shelbyville Law Enforcement Services Cooperat 73 Lower, REG Works, L27 MR 74 Mark Twain C.A.S.T. Event 75 Mark Twain Disabled Hunt 76 Mark Twain Lake 77 Mark Twain Lake 78 MARK TWAIN LAKE 79 Mark Twain Lake (Clarence Cannon Dam) 80 Mark Twain Lake and Clarence Cannon Dam, MO 81 Mark Twain Lake and Clarence Cannon Dam, MO 82 Mark Twain Lake and Clarence Cannon Dam, MO 83 Mark Twain Lake and Clarence Cannon Dam, MO 84 Mark Twain Lake and Clarence Cannon Dam, MO 85 Mark Twain Lake and Clarence Cannon Dam, MO 86 Mark Twain Lake and Clarence Cannon Dam, MO 87 Mark Twain Lake and Clarence Cannon Dam, MO 88 Mark Twain Lake Deer Hunt for persons w/disabiliti 89 Mark Twain Lake Rodeo 90 McGee Creek Drainage and Levee District 91 Meeting of the Rivers Foundation/Wings of Spring/E 92 Melvin Price: Miter Gate Renovation 93 Metro East Levee Program 94 Midwest Open Geocaching Adventure (MOGA 2010) 95 Mississippi River Barge Trip and other collaborati 96 Mississippi River Between the Ohio and Missouri Ri 97 Mississippi River Floodwall REhab 98 Mississippi River Water Trail 99 Mississippi River Water Trail 100 Mississippi Water Trail 101 MO River Levee-L-15 102 Monarch Chesterfield Levee District Projects & Lev 103 multiple projects, topics and events 104 n/a 105 Navigation-Ecosystem Sustainability Program 106 NESP, Upper, Lower, Illinois WW, Mel Price, REG Wo 107 NESP, Upper, Lower, Illinois WW, Mel Price, REG Wo 108 NESP, Upper, Lower, Illinois WW, Mel Price, REG Wo 109 NESP, Upper, Lower, Illinois WW, Mel Price, REG Wo 110 NESP, Upper, Lower, Illinois WW, Mel Price, REG Wo 111 NESP, Upper, Lower, Illinois WW, Mel Price, REG Wo

C-61

Dist Count Project MVS 112 Numerous 113 Nutwood Drainage and Levee Dsitrict-Levee Raise 114 Outdoor Signs Bird House Painting 115 PIASA HARBOR 116 Pool 26 Forest Resources Survey 117 Portland Avenue Sewer Separation Project 118 Portland Avenue Storm Water Separation 119 Promotion of Rend Lake Tourism 120 Pump Station Update 121 Reconstruction 122 Recreation 123 Rend Lake 124 Rend Lake 125 Rend Lake 126 Rivers Project 127 Salt River Road (I-70 Reliever) Project 128 SCSEP_TitleV 129 Side Channel/Chute Modeling 130 Sny Island Levee Drainage District 131 Spunky Bottoms Section 1135 project 132 St. Louis Combined Sewer Overflows 133 Stakeholder Carlyle Lake 134 Ted Shanks 135 The Audubon Center at Riverlands 136 Three Rivers Project 137 tournaments 138 U.S. HWY 67, D-5 139 UMR-EMP, Ted Shanks CA 140 upgrading locks on the Upper MS and IL Rivers 141 Upper River 142 Upper River 143 Upper River, Lower River, and Illinois Waterway 144 Upper, Illinois WW 145 Upper, Lower 146 Upper, Lower, Illinois WW 147 Upper, Lower, Illinois WW 148 Upper, Lower, Illinois WW 149 Upper, Lower, Illinois WW 150 Upper, Lower, Illinois WW 151 Upper, Lower, Illinois WW 152 Valley Park MO flood protection project 153 Wappapello Lake 154 Wappapello Lake 155 Wappapello, MO 63966 156 Waste Water Pump Station and Force Main Improvemen 157 Wilkinson Island HREP 158 Winfield Levee District 159 Worked at Environmental Day at the Lake 160 Young Trappers Camp NAB 1 Anacostia Levee Project 2 Anacostia Restoration Plan, Northwest Branch, Grea 3 Atlantic Coast of Md Shoreline Protection

C-62

Dist Count Project NAB 4 Cameron Run Feasibility Study 5 CB Model, Anacostia Comp Restoration 6 DMMP, Poplar Is, Mid-Bay 7 Dredging (Somerset County), Smith Is WWTP 8 Four Mile Run and Cameron Run 9 Four Mile Run Feasibility Study 10 Four Mile Run Watershed 11 Greenbury Point Wetland Project 12 Inflow and Infiltration Study 13 Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment 14 New Alexandria, Cameron Run-Holmes Run 15 NPWA Projects 16 Reimbursement for Water Filter Project 17 Several Projects (Anacostis River and Western Bran 18 Sewer project 19 St. Jerome Creek Jetty Study 20 Various 21 Wicomico River Dredging 22 Wyoming Valley NAE 1 2 3 4 Camp Ellis 5 Connecticut River Watershed Study 6 Mill Pond Restoration and Diversity Improvements - 7 Saco Bay Plan Implementation Commission 8 Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach Shore Damage Mitig 9 Ten Mile River NAN 1 2010 New York Region Prime Power Survey - 249th Ba 2 Asharoken Seawall Rehabilitation 3 Bronx River Ecological Restoration 4 Byram River Feasibility Study 5 Coastal Storm Damage Reduction 6 Elders Marsh - West 7 Flood Reduction Projects 8 Green Brook Flood Control Project 9 Green Brook Sub Basin of Raritan River 10 Harbor Deepening Project 11 Hazard Mitigation for East River Bridges 12 Hudson-Raritan Ecosystem Restoration Study 13 HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, BOROUGH OF L 14 Jewett-Stevens Brook (St Albans Bay) Phase II Stud 15 Joseph G. Minish Park & Historic Area 16 Long Hill Floodwall 17 Multiple 18 multiple projects 19 NY Metro Evacuation Project 20 NYC Water Supply Security Upgrade 21 ORCHARD BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION 22 Orient Harbor Emergency Shoreline Protection 23 removal of Abandoned Oil Bollards 24 Shrewsbury River Flood Control Project

C-63

Dist Count Project NAN 25 Soundview Aquatic Restoration 26 Staten Island 27 Stormwater BMP Implementation Project and Riparian 28 The Precision Feeding and Forage Management Progra 29 various components of the Delaware County Action P 30 Village of Stamford WWTP Clarifier Project 31 Water Resources 32 West Hampton Dunes Interim Project 33 WRDA Section 542 Watershed Improvements - USACE 34 Yonkers Avenue Streambank Restoration Project NAO 1 Bath County Pumped Storage Power Station 2 Beach Nourishment & FEMA FIRM FIS & Mapping 3 Chesapeake Bay Oyster restoration 4 Chincoteague federal navigation channels 5 Chowan River Basin Project 6 City Point Bluff Stabilization (Phase II) 7 City Point Bluff Stabilization and Protection, Pha 8 Craney Island Eastward Expansion 9 Deep Creek Canal Bridge 10 Development of a Management Tool to Assess Bacteri 11 Dismal Swamp Canal 12 DWT Turing Basin Expansion Project 13 Elizabeth River & Lynnhaven River Environmental Re 14 Fishermans Cove Program Section 107 Navigation Pro 15 Indian River Watershed Study 16 Jordans Branch Section 22 Phase II Study 17 Launch Facilities Protection 18 Mathews County RSM; Put In Creek Study 19 Mathews County, VA Regional Sediment Management 20 Michael Briddell 21 Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration Projects 22 Norfolk District Water Resources Projects 23 Norfolk Harbor & Channels 24 Norfolk Harbor & Channels/Hampton Roads Drift Remo 25 Rudee Nav./Lynnhaven Nav./VA Beach HSDR/Sandbridge 26 Scuffletown Creek Living Shoreline 27 Section 216, Gathright Dam Study, JHLP Hydroelectr 28 Shallow Draft Dredging and Sediment Managment Plan 29 Storm Water Management Assistance 30 The Development of a Management Tool to Assess Bac 31 U.S. Coast Guard Integrated Support Center (PSBBD) 32 Va Hurricane Evacuation Study 33 VDOT MS4 Outfall Surveys 34 Waterway on the Coast of Virginia 35 Waterways Management (Hampton Roads Drift Removal) 36 Willoughby Spit and Vicinity, Norfolk, VA Hurrican 37 WOODSTOCK LAKE BMP^S NAP 1 Assunpink Creek Restoration Project 2 Chambers Works FUSRAP 3 Coastal Storm Damage Reduction 4 Cobbs Creek Fish Passage 5 Delaware River Main Stem Channel Deepening Project

C-64

Dist Count Project NAP 6 East Point & Mordecai Island Restoration 7 Fairmount Dam Fish Ladder Project 8 Grass Dale Ecosystem Restoration Grant 9 Grovers Mill Pond Rehabilitation 10 Hatfield Borough Sewer Collection Repair Project 11 Little Mill Creek, DE Channel Modification 12 Mordecai Island Coastal Wetlands Restoration 13 Philadelphia Shipyard Flood Control Project 14 Pond Creek Marsh Restoration 15 Tacony Creek Improvement Project NWK 1 Alternate MRRIC member 2 Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge 3 Blacksnake Creek (Section 205 project) 4 Blue River 5 Blue River Basin (Dodson) 6 Blue River Channel 7 Blue River Channel 8 Blue River Channel 53rd to 63rd Street 9 Brush Creek Basin Feasibility Study 10 Brush Creek Basin Study 11 Brush Creek Feasibility Study; Missouri River Degr 12 Chariton River Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Proje 13 Clinton Lake, City of Lawrence Outlet Park. 14 Columbia Bottom Missouri River Mitigation Project 15 Columbia Water Line - Hinkson Creek 16 Eastern Republican River Riparian Project 17 Eureka Creek 18 Fairfax Jersey Creek - Upper Unit 19 Feral Hog Invasive Species Mgmt 20 Golden Eagle 21 Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission 22 Handshake agreement levee trail system 23 Harlan Reservoir 24 Harry S. Truman Reservoir 25 Hillsdale 26 Kansas City Levees 27 Kansas Citys Levee 28 KC Riverfront Ecosystem Restoration 29 L-455 30 Lake Project Management - Specifically Rathbun Lak 31 Lake Rathbun 32 Lake Rathbun/Chariton River 33 Levee Feasibility Study & Eureka Valley Tributary 34 Management of the Missouri River--MRRIC 35 Marais des Cygnes Riparian Forestry Initiative 36 Melvern 37 Melvern Lake 38 Milford Lake Military Marina 39 Missouri River Dredgers EIS and Permit Decision 40 Missouri River Mitigation 41 Missouri River Recovery ( Kansas Mitigation Sites) 42 Mitigation ACT--MRRP

C-65

Dist Count Project NWK 43 Mitigation ACT-MRRP 44 MO River Mitigation 45 MRERP 46 MRERP 47 MRERP 48 MRERP 49 MRERP 50 MRLS L344 & R471-460 51 MRRIC 52 MRRIC 53 MRRIC Federal 54 MRRIC Stakeholder 55 North Kansas City Unit - Seven Levees Study 56 Northwest Missouri Regional Water Supply Project 57 NW Missouri Regional Water Supply Transmission Stu 58 PAS and Section 204 Sediment Mgmt 59 Pomme de Terre and Truman management lands 60 Pomme de Terre Lake 61 Pomona Lake Recreational Improvement 62 Rathbun 63 Rathbun Lake 64 Rathbun Lake 1135 65 Rathbun Lake North Shore Trail Project 66 Rathbun Lake Resort 67 Sect 14 Bridge 617 - J1S2194 Gentry B 68 Section 1135 Rathbun Reservoir Project 69 Shunganunga Creek Hydraulic Study 70 Smithville Lake 71 Smithville Lake 72 Soldier Creek Diversion Unit 73 SPFSIG 74 Stockton Lake 75 Stockton Lake 76 Stockton Lake 77 Stranger Creek 78 Swope Park 79 Swope Park Industrial Area Flood Damage Reduction 80 Topeka Local Flood Protection Project 81 Turkey Creek 82 Turkey Creek 83 Turkey Creek Flood Damage Mitigation 84 Various Projects 85 Various Projects 86 XC Trail / Fitness Trail NWO 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 2010 flood fight emergency 4 2010 MRAPS 5 2010 West Service Area Improvements/Expansion proj 6 Antelope Valley Flood Control Project 7 Beulah / Mercer County WRD Sec 22 8 Broadview Water System Improvements

C-66

Dist Count Project NWO 9 Cache La Poudre GI Study 10 Cumulative Impact Study 11 Design and Construction of Recreation Facilities a 12 Elbowoods Memorial Health Center 13 Emergency Advanced Measures - 2010 14 Emmons County Section 22 Flood Study 15 Flood Fight Emergency Operations 16 Flood Fight Emergency Operations 17 Flood Fight Emergency Operations 18 Flood Fight Emergency Operations 19 Flood Fight Emergency Operations 20 Flood Fight Emergency Operations 21 Flood Protection Project Big Sioux River and Skunk 22 Flooding 2010 23 Fort Peck river reach 24 Fort Smith Water Improvement Project 25 Fremont 205 Study 26 Goose Creek Cottonwood Pond Restoration 27 Hague Water Storage Project 28 HERON HAVEN WETLAND RESTORATION 29 Intake 30 INTAKE DIVERSION DAM MODIFICATION - LOWER YELLOWSO 31 Iowa Floodplain Mapping Program 32 James River ND, Reconnaissance Study 33 James River Reconnaissance study 34 James River, SD 35 Linton / Emmons County Sec 22 36 Lower Boulder Creek 37 Lower Boulder Creek Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration 38 Mahoney Creek Dam 39 Mahoney Creek Dam Project 40 Manhattan Water Project 41 Missouri National Recreactional River 42 Missouri River 43 Missouri River Mitigation/Recovery Project 44 Missouri River Recovery 45 Missouri River Recovery/Mitigation projects 46 Missouri River, Howard County, Missouri 47 mraps 48 MRAPS 49 MRAPS 50 MRAPS 51 MRAPS 52 MRAPS 53 MRAPS 54 MRAPS, Intake, MRBIR, MRRIC, MRERP, etc 55 MRRIC 56 MRRIC 57 MRRIC 58 MRRIC 59 MRRIC 60 MRRIC

C-67

Dist Count Project NWO 61 MRRIC 62 MRRIC 63 MRRIC 64 MRRIC 65 MRRIC 66 MRRIC Montana 67 MRRIC - Wildlife Division--Fisheries 68 MRRP & MRERP 69 N/A 70 Nishnabotna River Basin Study 71 None 72 North Baker Water & Sewer 73 North Dakopta Floods 74 PAS-IA-Nishnabotna Watershed 75 Perry Creek 76 Phase 4 Water and Sewer line project 77 Pipestem Dam/Jamestown Dam 78 Platte River Schuyler 79 Prison Farm, ND 80 Randolph, NE, Section 205 81 Schuyler Section 205 Study 82 Section 205 Fremont, NE 83 sioux river flood control 84 South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Planning 85 Southern Platte Valley 86 St. Mary Canal Project and MRRIC 87 Streambank Erosion - Jamestown 88 System 2 Phase 2 Improvement/Expansion Project 89 Tri-Willow Watershed 90 USDA Forest Service Mystic, SD 91 Various - Missouri River basin management 92 water issues 93 Watertown & Vicinity, SD 94 Western Sarpy Clear Creek Flood Reduction Project 95 Western Sarpy/Clear Creek Levee Project Nebraska 96 Yellowstone 97 Yellowstone River Corridor Comprehensive Study, MT NWP 1 Unknown 2 ?? There were several separate ones. Minto is one 3 abernathy 536 4 Anchorages Infrastructure Improvement 5 Beaver Creek Culverts 6 Columbia River M & O Dredging - Benson Beach 7 Direct PMA Funding 8 Eugene Delta Ponds Section 206 Restoration Project 9 GI PAS 10 Grand Coulee 11 Hydroelectric Pumped Storage Evaluation 12 Hydrologic Study and FIRM Map 13 HYDROPOWER MODERNIZATION INITIATIV 14 ICW 15 Inspection and Evaluation of Falcon and Amistad Hy

C-68

Dist Count Project NWP 16 Kellogg Creek Feasibility Study 17 MCR Dredging 18 MCR Project 19 Minto Fish Collection Facilty Rebuild 20 Missouri River Operations and Recovery 21 Mount St Helens Grade Building Structures, NF Tout 22 Mt. St. Helens 23 Mt. St. Helens Grade Building Structures Pilot Pro 24 Oaks Bottom Tidal Restoration 25 Oregon Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites: Mana 26 Sandy River Delta Dam Removal, Lower Columbia Rive 27 Sauvie Island/Dairy Creek channel restoration/Stur 28 SCADA Switch Yard 29 Section 536 30 St. Johns Landfill Section 14 Emergency Streambank 31 Tillamook Bay, Oregon 32 Timberline ARRA Projects 33 Willamette River - Coast Fork and Middle Fork FIS 34 Willamette River Basin Reservoir Study NWS 1 Big Hole River Dam and Pump House 2 BIGFORK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT WASTEWATER TREATMEN 3 Duwamish Green Ecosystem Restoration Project 4 Elizabeth Park Project 5 GNIP - O&M, Regulatory, DMMP 6 GNIP and LTMS - Planning and Project management 7 Green Duwamish River Ecosystem Restoration Upper S 8 Hedge Diversion Dam Replacement Project 9 Howard Hanson Dam - Additional Water Storage ProjeCT 10 UNION SLOUGH BRIDGE REMOVAL 11 Mapes Creek Daylighting and Stream Restoration 12 North Satus Drain Restoration 13 Phase 2 Sewer hook ups 14 PL8499 15 Puget Sound Shoreline Armoring Workgroup 16 Puyallup River General Investigation 17 S595 WHITEFISH WW IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - DESIGN --- 18 Section 205 Cedar River 19 Siphon one Phase one 20 SKAGIT DD12 LEVEE REHAB 21 Snohomish River Navigation Channel 22 St. Maries Levee System 23 Sunnyside Wetlands Ecosystem Restoration Project 24 Town of Eureka Water Improvement and Expansion 25 Town of Superior Water System Improvements Project 26 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements, Phase 1 27 Water system replacement 28 Whitehall Wastewater System Improvement Project NWW 1 Unknown 2 Unknown 3 Unknown 4 Unknown 5 Unknown

C-69

Dist Count Project NWW 6 Unknown 7 Unknown 8 Unknown 9 Unknown 10 Unknown 11 Unknown 12 Unknown 13 Unknown 14 3rd Ave relocation 15 Boise River General Investigations Study. 16 Boyer Park and Marina 17 Bridge Inspections 18 Channel Rehab Project (UNCLASSIFIED) 19 Chapman Levee 20 City of Richland Interior Drainage 21 City of Twin Falls Ecosystem Restoration (Auger Fa 22 Clarkston High Pressure Natural Gas Project 23 Clover Island Gateway and Lighthouse Project 24 Columbia / Snake River Navigation System 25 Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program 26 Dept. of the Army License No. W912EF-3-10-24 27 District-wide 28 Drinking Water Distribution 595 29 Dworshak Reservoir 30 Eagle Island Ecosystems Restoration Section 1135 S 31 Eastern Interceptor 32 Emergency Services 33 Emmett/Payette flood Levee 34 Esquatzel Coulee 35 Flood FIght Training 36 Gerald Grossnickle 37 Hat Rock State Park 38 Horseshoe Bend Levee 39 ICE HARBOR DAM 40 Jackson Hole Local Protection Project 41 Large Cap 42 Levee 43 Levy 44 Lost Creek Watershed Restoration 45 Lower Granite Lock and Dam - Wawawai Landing 46 Lucky Peak Dam - ITD Project Mores Creek Bridge (K 47 Lucky Peak 48 Lucky Peak 49 Lucky Peak (Boise RIver Wildlife Management Area) 50 Lucky Peak Mutual Aid Repeater 51 McNary Shoreline Management Plan 52 McNary Yacht Club 53 Numerous Projects 54 Pacific Northwest Regional Officer 55 Paradise Creek Ecosystem Restoration 56 Reach Interpretive Center 57 River Levels

C-70

Dist Count Project NWW 58 Sacajawea State Park 59 sewer project 60 Silver Jackets Flood Hazard Task Force 61 Snake River Corridor Enhancement & West Main Enhan 62 Soda Springs WasteWater Treatment Plant 63 SR 12/124 64 Storage Facility Lower Granite Dam 65 Touchet 66 Touchet River Dike System 67 Trail Crew 68 Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade 69 Wastewater Treatment Project 70 Wastewater Project 71 Water Improvement 72 Water Improvement Project 73 Wave Attenuator and Pump Out projects 74 Weiser Galloway Gap Analysis, Ecomonic Evaluation 75 Yakima Levee POA 1 Akutan Harbor, False Pass harbor, Sand Point Harbo 2 Alaska Regional Ports Study 3 Chignik Small Boat Harbor 4 Commission has several projects underway with USAC 5 Customer / Stakeholder Survey 6 Douglas Breakwater 7 East Harbor expansion 8 Emergency Bank Stabilization at the DIllingham Har 9 Harbor Rubble Removal 10 Homer Dredging 11 Hubbard Glacier Project 12 Isberg Recreation Area 13 Kiska, Amchitka, Attu ordnance cleanup 14 Knik Arm Bridge 15 Maintenance Dredging 16 Mat-Su Watershed Study 17 Navigation Improvements Sitka Harbor, Alaska Chann 18 newtok relocation effort 19 Ninilchik Harbor 20 Nome Harbor Dredging/Nome Nav Imp. Proj. - Bridge 21 POA Maintenance Dredging 22 Port Lions Technical Report 23 Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion Project 24 Savoonga Small Boat Harbor 25 Seward East Breakwater Extension 26 Seward Harbor & Lowell Creek 27 Tanana Lakes Recreation Area 28 Unalakleet erosion 29 Unalaska Navigation Improvements 30 Valdez Navigational Improvements SAC 1 2 2005 Mitigation Project for Folly Beach 3 Charleston Harbor 4 Charleston Harbor

C-71

Dist Count Project SAC 5 Charleston Harbor / AIWW 6 Dredging 7 Edisto Island Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction 8 Harbor Dredging 9 Lake Marion Regional Water Agency 10 Lake Marion Regional Water System 11 MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility 12 Reedy River Feasibility Study 13 Section 14 Rocky Branch Study 14 St. Stephen fish lift 15 USS Yorktown Cofferdam Study 16 Various 17 Various 18 Various 19 Wildlife and Freswater Fisheries Division SAJ 1 All Cost shared Projects with NFS 2 Banana River Estuary Restoration Project 3 Beach Renourishment 4 Big Cypress National Preserve 5 Big Fishweir Creek Restoration, Florida (206); CAP 6 Broward County Shore Protection Program 7 Caloosahatchee Oxbows Restoration 8 Canaveral Harbor, FL (CG), and Canaveral Harbor, F 9 CAP, ORSPP, JCSSP 10 CAP: Peanut Island Restoration 11 Central & Southern Florida Project for Flood Contr 12 CERP RECOVER 13 Delray Beach Renourishment Project 14 Duval County Shore Protection Project 15 Everglades 16 Everglades Ecosystem Restoration 17 Everglades Restoration 18 Florida Keys Water Quality Protection Program 19 Fort San Geronimo 20 Ft. Pierce SPP / St. Lucie County Feasibility 21 GIWW: Intercoastal WW Caloosahatchee River to Ance 22 Intracoastal Waterway 23 Keaton Beach Canal Dredging 24 Lake Worth Inlet 25 Lake Worth Inlet, FL Sand Transfer Plant 26 Lee County, Florida BEC 27 Lido Beach 28 Maintenance Dredging/Channel Cut Widening 29 Manatee County/Anna Maria Island shore protection 30 Martin County BEC, St. Lucie Inlet and O&M: Inlet 31 Miami Harbor Phase III Dredging Project 32 Miami River Dredging Project 33 Mile Point Feasibility Study, General Reevalution 34 Nassau County, Florida 35 North Boca Raton Beach Second Beach Renourishment 36 O&M Fort Myers Beach 37 O&M: Fernandina Harbor, FL

C-72

Dist Count Project SAJ 38 Overall Everglades Issues; Site 1 39 Ponce de Leon Inlet South Jetty Extension 40 Port Everglades Harbor Deepening and Widening Stud 41 Puerto Rico Projects 42 RECOVER, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Prog. 43 Rio El Ojo de Agua, Puerto Rico 44 San Juan Harbor Maintenance Dredging 45 Sarasota Bay 1135 PPA 46 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program 47 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program 48 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program 49 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program 50 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program 51 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program 52 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program 53 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program 54 South Florida Ecosystme Restoration Program 55 South Florida Restoration 56 Southeast Region and the Florida Keys National Mar 57 St Johns County Feasibility Study and St Johns Co. 58 Tarpon Springs Section 103 Project 59 Treasure Island / Long Key Nourishment 2010 60 Turkey Creek 61 Various Cooperative Cost-Share Projects 62 VARIOUS, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Progr 63 Venice Beach Renourishment 64 wares creek/cedar hammock flood protection project SAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 ACF Waterway 7 Alabama River Lakes 8 Allatoona, Buford, Carters, West Point, Walter Geo 9 Black Warrior Tombigbee 10 Canal 2/Canal 3 Improvement Coastal Restoration 11 Chattahoochee ecosystem restoration 12 City of Atlanta, River Intake Project 13 East Pass Dredging 14 Engineered Beach in Pascagoula 15 Facilities Maintenance Relocation 16 Flat Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project 17 Groundwater Well Production 18 Hancock County Streams Project 19 Hancock County Streams Project 20 Harrison County Beach Planting and Fence Project 21 ISIS 22 Lake Lanier 23 Lake Lanier, GA 24 Lake Seminole 25 Lake Sidney Lanier

C-73

Dist Count Project SAM 26 Mark Avenue Regional Stormwater Management Facilit 27 McDaniel Branch BMPs 28 Mobile 29 Mobile Bay Causeway Reconnaissance 30 Mobile Harbor 31 Ms. Coastal Imp. project Canal 2/3 Long Beach, Ms 32 MsCIP 33 MSCIP 34 MsCIP - Gautier Coastal Streams - Seacliffe Site 35 MSCIP (and others) 36 MsCIP- Moss Point Upper Bayou Casotte Project 37 Panama City Beaches, FL Shore Protection Project 38 Port of Pascagoula Navigation Project 39 Road Crossing Upgrades 40 Seawall 41 Seawall project 42 Shearwater Bridge 43 Walton County Federal Feasibility Study 44 West Fork Little River 45 West Point Lake SAS 1 Brunswick Harbor O&M 2 Cockspur Island Lighthouse 3 GA Hurricane Evacuation Study 4 GIS Mapping 5 Hartwell Lake Economic Analysis 6 Hartwell Lake Economic Impact Analysis 7 Hartwell, Richard B. Russell, and J. Strom Thurmon 8 Hazard Mitigation Projects 9 Hurricane Evacuation Restudy 10 Hurricane Evacuation Study 11 Hurricane Evacuation Study 12 Hurricane Evacuation Study 13 Hurricane Study 14 Hurricane Study: Chatham County Flood Hazard Repor 15 Keowee-Toxaway Project 16 Lake Hartwell Economic Impact 17 Multiple 18 Multiple Projects in Georgia 19 NA 20 New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam 21 Savannah Harbor 22 Savannah Harbor Expansion Project 23 Savannah Harbor Expansion Project 24 Savannah Harbor, Brunswick Harbor 25 Savannah River Basin Comprehensive Study 26 The Savannah Harbor Expansion Project 27 USACE,Savannah SAW 1 Albemarle to Hwy 200 2 Belhaven Harbor Breakwater 3 Brunswick Beaches/Sea Turtle Habitat 4 Brunswick County Beaches GRR 5 Bulkhead Channel dredging; Beaufort Harbor

C-74

Dist Count Project SAW 6 Cooperative Observation Program 7 Corps of Engineers Power Generation Marketing 8 Dredging of State Ferry Channels 9 John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir (216) 10 Jordan Hydroelectric Project 11 Little River Reservoir DEIS (Falls Dam) 12 Manteo 13 Multiple Water Resource Projects 14 Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project 15 Surf City North and Topsail Beach, North Carolina 16 Tarboro Flood Proofing Project 17 VDOT Outfall; survey phase 1 18 W. Kerr-Scott Reservoir 19 Water Quality Conditions Downstream of Dams 20 Wilmington Harbor 21 Wilmington Harbor Navigational Channel 22 Wilmington Harbor Project 23 Wrightsville Beach Shore Protection SPA 1 27th Street Bridge Protection 2 Cochiti Lake 3 Drainage Master Plan 4 Espanola General Investigation 5 Espanola Valley Feasibility Study and Tributary Is 6 Espanola Valley GI 7 Hatch 8 Jemez Mitigation and Rio Grande 1135 9 Section 1135 - Las Cruces Dam Environmental Restor 10 Southside Sewer and Water Improvement Project # 14 11 Sparks Arroyo 12 Tohjiilee Water Project (among others) 13 Water Rights 14 Water Storage Tank 15 West Mesa Industrial Park Wastewater System Improv SPK 1 1.5 million gallon culinary water tank 2 595 Culinary Water Improvements 3 Beaver Dam 4 Blanding Deep Well Project 5 Cedarview-Montwell Water 6 Cedarview/Montwell Culinary Water System Project 7 City of Yerington Water and Sewer System Project 8 Coalville City Sewer Project 9 Colorado River Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Resto 10 Contract #W91238-09-D-0030: Environmental Impact S 11 Cosegrove Creek Flood Mitigation Study 12 Dayton Valley Septic Tank Conversion Project 13 Delta Levees System Itegrity Program 14 Delta Study (Delta Islands and Levee Feasibility S 15 Deweyville Town Culinary Water Improvment Project 16 Douglas County Sewer improvements 17 Elwood Town Sewer System 18 Emery Town Water Improvements 19 Eureka City Utah Water and sewer project

C-75

Dist Count Project SPK 20 Farmington Dam - Conjuctive Use & Groundwater Rech 21 Folsom Modifications - Joint Federal Project 22 Grantsville Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade 23 GRAYSON / MURDERER^S CREEK FS 24 GRAYSON & MURDERER^S CREEKS FEASIBILITY STUDY 25 Heppner Phase 7 Water System Improvements 26 Highway 40 Pipeline Project 27 Honeyville City Culinary Water Improvement 28 Horseshoe Bend 29 IVGID Effluent Export Project 30 Jackson Flat Reservoir 31 Lake Davis Water Treatment Plant 32 Lake Tahoe Program Support 33 Lake Tahoe Restoration 34 Levee Evaluations and related DWR projects 35 Lower San Joaquin River Feasibility Study 36 Lower Walnut Creek GRR 37 M & S Water Storage Facility 38 mona city wastewater treatment plant 39 Monticello Culinary Water Improvements 40 Mount Pleasant Culinary Water Improvements 41 Muddy Creek Sedimentation Basin Project 42 Navajo Mountain Culinary Water 43 Placer County Subregional Wastewater Treament Proj 44 Prison Hill Water Tank #2 45 Relocation of Wastewater Treatment Ponds for Aust 46 Richmond City Wastewater Reclamation Project 47 Roosevelt 595 project 48 Rural Nevada Section 595 Program 49 Sacramento deep water ship channel maintenance 50 Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel 51 San Lorenzo River Flood Control Project 52 Section 108 agreements: Lake Tahoe Environmental I 53 Section 108 Program - Blackwood, Angora Fire, Aqua 54 Stockton Channel O&M 55 Success Dam Seismic Remediation Project 56 Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, California, Project fo 57 Truckee Meadows Flood Project 58 Truckee River Flood Project 59 VARIOUS 60 Water Reclamation Facility Upgrade Phase 2 61 West Sacramento 62 Whiterocks Pipeline 63 Wide Hollow Water Restoration Project SPL 1 Aliso Creek Mainstem 2 Arroyo Seco Feasibility Study 3 BORREGO SPRINGS CAP 205 STUDY 4 Cambria desalination project 5 Channel Deepening Project 6 Channel Dredging/ O&M 7 Cities of Norwalk and Inglewood Section 219(f) Pro 8 City Creek Erosion

C-76

Dist Count Project SPL 9 Desert Hot Springs 10 East San Pedro Bay Ecosystem Restoration Study 11 Easter Santa Clara Sub-basin Groundwater Study 12 English Creek Aquatic Restoration Project 13 Hansen Dam Youth Camp 14 Hemenway Wastewater Treatment Project 15 Little Colorado River Feasibility Study - Winslo 16 Main Channel Deepening 17 maintenance dredging main federal navigational cha 18 Marina Maintenance Dredging 19 Matilija Dam/Santa Clara River/Santa Paula Creek 20 Mesquite Arsenic Removal Project 21 Morro Bay Harbor Operations & Maintenance Dredging 22 Multiple 23 Multiple 24 No Information 25 No Information 26 No Information 27 Nogales Wash Flood Control Project 28 Numerous projects 29 Perris II Desalter Program 30 Phase 1B Recycled Water Improvement 31 PISMO BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT 32 Port of Long Beach Main Channel Deepening and Othe 33 Port San Luis 34 Rillito River Ecosystem Restoration Project 35 Rio de Flag 36 Rio de Flag 37 Rio De Flag 38 Rio Salado Environmental Restoration - Tempe Reach 39 San Clemente Shoreline Erosion Feasibility Study 40 San Diego River & Mission Bay Maintenance Dredging 41 San Luis Rey River Flood Control Project 42 Santa Ana River Mainstem Project 43 Santa Maria River Levee, Lower Mission Creek 44 Searchlight Water and Wastewater Systems Improveme 45 Sun Valley Watershed Feasibility Study 46 Templin Highway @ MM 3.8 47 Tres Rios del Norte Feasibility Study 48 Tres Rios Environmental Restoration Project 49 Tropican and Flamingo Washes 50 Tucson Drainage 51 Tujunga Wash Ecosystem Restoration (Section 1135) 52 Tuna Canyon Road 53 USACE Encinitas/Solana BeachShoreline Protection S 54 Ventura Harbor 55 Wilson Creek Feasibility Study 56 WRDA Section 520 Navajo Flood Plain Management SPN 1 Contra Costa Water District Section 219 Project 2 Corte Madera Creek Flood Control 3 Corte Madera Creek Unit IV and Las Gallinas Creek 4 Coyote Dam Raising Feasability Study

C-77

Dist Count Project SPN 5 Estudillo Canal Feasibility Study 6 Federal Channel Dredging 7 Hamilton Wetland Restoration 8 Hamilton Wetland Restoration, Napa River Salt Mars 9 Las Gallinas Creek Feasibility Cost Sharring Agree 10 maintenance dredging 11 n/a 12 N/A 13 Pajaro River Flood Risk Reduction Project 14 Petaluma Flood Control Project 15 Port of W. Sacramento; and Stockton Deep Water Shi 16 Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel 17 Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project 18 San Francisco Bay to Stockton Navigation Improveme 19 San Lorenzo River Flood Control Project 20 San Rafael Canal Dredging 21 San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Project 22 San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Pump Station R200A 23 Sonoma County Water Agency 24 Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project, Re 25 White SLough Flood Control Project 26 Wildcat Creek 1135 / Pinole Creek 1135 SWF 1 Benbrook Lake 2 Brazos River Basin Systems Assessment Interim Feas 3 Central City 4 CHACON CREEK 5 Cypress Valley Watershed and Sulphur River Basin S 6 Dallas Facility Center 7 Farmers Branch Flood Reduction 8 FERRELLS DAM - LAKE O^ THE PINES 9 Fort Worth Central City Project (Trinity River Vis 10 Guadalupe and San Antonio River Basins 11 Joe Pool Lake, Bardwell Reservoir, Narvarro Mills 12 Lake Palo Pinto Storage Restoration Project at Tur 13 Lake Ralph Hall 14 Lower Colorado River Authority Phase I City of Wha 15 Lower Colorado-Wharton/Onion 16 Many 17 NCTCOG/USACE Section 214 Agreement 18 PAS and TWAA projects 19 Stream Mitigation Banking Policy Development 20 Support for DEA Projects 21 Trinity Parkway Dallas Floodway Extension 22 Trinity Project 23 Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study 24 WHITNEY POWERHOUSE MAJOR REHAB; HYDROPOWER SWG 1 45 Ft project 2 55Ft Project 3 anything in the surf zone 4 Brazos Island Harbor 5 Brazos Island Harbor Feasibility Study 6 Cedar Bayou and Anahuac Channel Maintgenance Dredg

C-78

Dist Count Project SWG 7 Cedar Bayou Channel; Trinity River and Tributaries 8 Cedar Bayou Navigation Channel Improvement Project 9 Channel to Harlingen 10 Chocolate Bayou Dredging 11 Clear Creek 12 Corpus Christi Ship Channel 13 Federal projects 14 Galveston Harbor Channel Deepening 15 Galveston seawall and Texas city levee repair 16 GIWW 17 GIWW 18 GIWW Rollover Pass Beneficial Use of Dredged Mater 19 Half Moon Reef Restoration 20 Houston Ship Channel 21 Lower Colorado River Authority Phase I City of Wha 22 Maintenance Dredging, Palacios Boat Channel 23 Matagorda Ship Channel 24 Mouth of the Colorado Jetty Project 25 multiple 26 Multiple 27 Multiple Studies and Projects Under Construction 28 Neches River Saltwater Barrier 29 Numerous 30 PAS and TWAA projects 31 Port Arthur HFP FCCE rehab 32 Port Mansfield entrance channel 33 Port of Corpus Christi 34 Port Of Freeport removable panel elimination & Tid 35 Raymondville Drain 36 Resaca Restoration 37 Sabine Neches Waterway 38 Sabine-Neches Waterway 39 Section 106 Review and Compliance 40 Section B, Sabine River 41 Texas City 45 ft Project 42 Texas City Channel Deepening 43 Texas Environmental Infrastructure Program 44 various 45 Various 46 Various SWL 1 Arkansas Field Office 2 Big Dam Bridge 3 Bull Shoals Tailwater 1135 Project 4 Emergency Streambank Restoration, U.S. Highway 71 5 Fourche, Coleman and Rock Creek 6 Gala Creek 7 Grassy Lake 8 Greene County Groundwater Study 9 May Branch 10 McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System 11 Minimum Flow Implementation 12 MKARNS

C-79

Dist Count Project SWL 13 OZARK POWERHOUSE MAJOR REHAB; HYDROPOWER OPERATION 14 Section 14 & US Hwy 71 & Red River & #8 15 Section 14 Batesville Wastewater Treatment Plant 16 Southside Water, White River, Batesville, AR 17 Stone and Taney Counties Groundwater Project, Miss 18 Table Rock Lake 19 White River Minimum Flow Project SWT 1 Spavinaw and Eucha Lakes, Oklahoma Aquatic 2 Emergency Management 3 John Redmond Reservoir Feasibility 4 Lake Kemp 5 Lake Kemp 6 LOWER BOIS D^ARC CREEK RESERVOIR/ZEBRA MUSSELLS 7 McKarns Navigation 8 McKarns Navigation 9 Red River (Wichita River Portion) Chloride Control 10 Red River O&M Projects 11 Texoma Reallocation Study 12 Tulsa District in Oklahoma 13 TWAA, Planning Assistance to States

C-80

----This Page Intentionally Blank

C-81