1996 Military Customer Satisfaction Survey

Home , Chautauqua Creek, Crescent River (Georgia), Fort Koshkonong, Kawainui Marsh, Port of Port Arthur, Port of Victoria (Texas)

2009 CIVIL WORKS PROGRAMS CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

July 2010 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 …………..…………………….………..... 3

Section 2: Results of 2009 Survey 2.1 Customer Demographics …………………………………….... 4 2.2 Survey Items and Scales …………………………….……...... 9 2.3 Customer Comments ……………………………….....……….. 12

Section 3: Comparison of Ratings by Customer Subgroups 3.1 Ratings by Business Line.………………….………..…….…… 16 3.2 Ratings by Project Phase ………………….……….………….. 18 3.3 Ratings By Survey Year ………….…………………………….. 20

Section 4: Summary …………….…………………...……..…….… 22

List of Tables & Figures Table 1: Primary Business Lines ……..…….……….…………..... 6 Table 2: ‘Other’ Service Areas..…….……….………...…….…….. 6 Table 3: Project Phases ………………………………………..…... 7 Table 4: Corps Divisions..……………………...... ………...... 7 Table 5: Corps Districts…...... ………….. 8 Table 6: Satisfaction Scales .………...... ………………….…… 9 Table 7: Item Ratings …...………...... ……………………...…... 11 Table 8: Item Comments ..………………..……………..……….… 13 Table 9: Additional Comments …...... …..………….…………….... 13 Table 10: Ratings by Business Line ……..………………………... 17 Table 11: Ratings by Project Phase ….………….…...... 18 Table 12: Customers by Business Line & Year…...... 20 Table 13: Customers by MSC & Year…...... 20

Figure 1: Primary Business Line …..…………………………….... 5 Figure 2: Ratings by Service Area ……………………………..….. 17 Figure 3: Ratings by Project Phase ………………………….……. 19 Figure 4: Ratings By Survey Year …………………………..…….. 21

CONTENTS cont' Page #

APPENDIX

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

B: Statistical Details Table B-1: Survey Items – Details …………..………….………. B-1 Table B-2: Mean Scale Scores by Business Line...... B-2 Table B-3: Mean Scale Scores by Phase …...……...... B-2 Table B-4: Customers by District By Year ……………………… B-3 Table B-5: Mean Scale Scores by Survey Year ……………..… B-4 Table B-6: Mean Item Scores by Survey Year ………………… B-5

C: Customer Demographics C-1: Customer Organizations by District ...... C-1 C-2: Project Names by District ...... C-27

USACE Organization Symbols 1

Great Lakes/Ohio LRD 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

1 Organizations participating in 2009 Survey highlighted iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The fourth annual Civil Works Programs Customer Satisfaction Survey has been completed. A total of 1,614 customers participated in the 2009 survey. The Corps-wide response rate was 58.5 percent corresponding to an estimated sampling error of 1.3 percent.

Environmental customers comprise the largest proportion of the 2009 sample at 30 percent followed by Flood/Storm Damage Reduction (28%), Navigation customers (19%) and Water Quality/Supply (7%). The proportion of customers in each of the other service areas or business lines was well below ten percent. The majority of Corps Civil Works projects are in either Construction (25%) or O&M phase (22%). Nineteen percent were in Feasibility phase, 15% in PE&D and two percent in the Reconnaissance phase.

Civil Works customers are comprised of 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. 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 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.

The mean Composite score was very high at 4.29 on a scale from 1-52. The highest rated service scale was ‘Corps staff’ at 4.46. The services that received the highest proportion of positive ratings in this year’s survey were S9: ‘Technical Competency’ and ‘S2: ‘Listening to My Needs’ at 93 percent high ratings each and S4: ‘Treats Me as an Important Team Member’ at 92 percent high ratings. 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 10% low ratings each. Three items in the survey can be viewed as ‘bottom line’ indicators of customer satisfaction are Items ‘Your Overall Level of Customer Satisfaction’, ‘I Would Recommend the Corps’ and ‘The Corps Would be My Choice for Future Services’. These items received at least 81% satisfactory ratings while only four to five percent of customers provided low ratings.

The survey allows customers to provide comments on each service area as well as provide general comments concerning Corps services. The survey item that received the greatest number of positive comments was ‘Overall Satisfaction’ (148 customers). Two measures of relationship dynamics received a significant number of positive comments. They were ‘Responsiveness’ (146 customers) and ‘Customer Focus’ (106 customers). The three items that received the largest number of negative comments

2 Items rated on a 5-point Likert scale where 1=Low and 5=High. 1 concerned cost and timeliness: ‘Timely Service’ (153 customers), ‘Meets my Schedule’ (126), and Cost of Services’ (119). A similar pattern is seen in the ‘General Comments’ submitted by customers. The most frequent positive general comments were ‘Compliments to individuals/staff’ (381 customers). A large number of positive comments concerned the relationship between customer and district ‘(Great relationship/partnership’). There were also a significant number of positive comments discussing ‘Collaboration’. Many customers felt that they were included in the process. Surprisingly several customers also provided positive feedback on the survey itself and expressed gratitude for the opportunity to provide their feedback. The issue that received the greatest number of negative comments concerned the impact of ‘Federal funding’ (65). A total of 54 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 (41) complained about the ability of the Corps’ to control costs on Civil Works projects. The next most frequent negative comment concerned ‘staff continuity or turnover’. Other areas of services that received a number of negative comments were ‘Corps Policy/Requirements’, ‘Communications’ and ‘HQUSACE Support’.

Comparative analyses were conducted to examine ratings by business line and project phase. Statistically significant differences in ratings by business line were found for all but one of the eight satisfaction scales. There were no significant differences in ratings on Communication among business lines. Water Quality/Supply customers were consistently the most satisfied; FDR customers the least satisfied. Comparisons of ratings by phase found significant differences in Timeliness, Overall and Composite scales. Customers whose projects were in Construction and O&M phase were significantly more satisfied than those in Feasibility and PE&D phases.

An analysis of trends in ratings over the past four years showed few significant changes and those that were revealed were positive. Timeliness and Cost ratings in 2009 were significantly higher than 2006. There were four instances of significant differences among individual survey items. They included item S3: Reliability; S12: ‘Meets My Schedule’, S20: Timeliness in Addressing Problems’ and S22: Overall Satisfaction. In all cases there was an improvement over 2006 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 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. Corps managers seem to have clearly conveyed to customers the nature of the obstacles they face in their project execution. 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

This report summarizes the results of the Corps of Engineers Civil Works (CW) 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 Steve Stockton, (Acting) Chief CW Directorate, was transmitted to all Major Subordinate Commands (MSCs) in early December 2009. The memo contained guidance for administration of the 2009 Survey within all districts having a CW mission. Corps Districts were to complete administration of their customer survey by 19 January 2010. Each District was required to develop their customer list as a comprehensive enumeration of all organizations served by the district in 2009. 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.

§1.2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The survey guidance and memorandum from Mr. Stockton were posted on the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Programs Directorate (CECW) Homepage as well as the URL link to the survey. 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 district CSM is responsible for overseeing the administration of the survey within their organization. District CSMs are also 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 standardized 2009 Civil Works Programs Customer Survey instrument consists of two sections. The first section contains 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. 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 2009 SURVEY

§2.1 CUSTOMER DEMOGRAPHICS

The USACE Civil Works Program customer base included 2,758 customers; an aggregate 13% increase over last year. District population increases were attributable to either 1) expansion in district CW program; 2) changes in the way the survey was administered (e.g.: inclusion of lower level and multiple staff vs just 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=20 for Philadelphia and Tulsa Districts to a high of N=233 for New Orleans District.

A total of 1,614 customers participated in the 2009 survey. This represents an 11% increase over last year’s sample size; due to the aforementioned increased population sizes for some districts as well as notable increases in response rates for almost all districts. The Corps-wide response rate was 58.5 percent for an estimated sampling error of +/- 1.3 percent. Response rates varied among districts, ranging from 23% for Portland District to as high as 100 percent for four districts. The average response rate for larger districts was 64 percent; for smaller districts it was 65 percent.

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 unacceptably 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 we disaggregate the data into districts we must 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 47. They received 11 responses for a response rate of 23%. Their sampling error was 20%. Clearly conclusions must be drawn with caution from this sample. Another consideration is whether the district actually 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 base.

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. Fortunately, the proportion of non-responses for nearly all items was under nine percent. The exception was in the area of cost (items 13-15).

We categorize USACE Civil Works customers by their primary category of service. The service areas are 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. Environmental customers comprise the largest proportion of the 2009 sample at 30 4 percent followed by Flood/Storm Damage Reduction (28%), Navigation (19%) and Water Quality/Supply customers (7%). The proportion of customers in the other business lines was well below ten percent each. A number of customers had multiple projects underway so were classified under the ‘Multiple’ business line. Almost 40 percent of those categorized in the ‘Other’ business line had projects under the ‘Planning Assistance to States’ program. Table 1 shows customers by business line. Specific project types for the 58 ‘Other’ customers are displayed in Table 2.

Figure 1: Primary Business Line

Table 1: Primary Business Line

Business Line # % Emergency Mgmt 56 3.5 Environmental 477 29.6 Flood Control 445 27.6 Hydropower 13 0.8 Navigation 298 18.5 Recreation 57 3.5 Regulatory 3 0.2 Water Quality/Supply 120 7.4 Other 58 3.6 Multiple 84 5.2 Total 1611 100.0

Table 2: ‘Other’ Business Lines

Business - Other # % Bluff Stabilization 1 1.7 Bridge Air Draft Study 1 1.7 Bridge Structure Improvement 1 1.7 Corrosion Study 2 3.4 Debris Removal 1 1.7 Everglades Projects 2 3.4 Facility Construction 5 8.6 Facility Design 2 3.4 Human Resources Support 1 1.7 Hydraulic Modeling 1 1.7 Land use 1 1.7 Mine Land Reclamation 2 3.4 Planning Assistance to State 23 39.7 Platting 1 1.7 Policy and coordination 1 1.7 Public Safety 1 1.7 Real Estate 1 1.7 River Basin Studies 4 6.9 State Climate Change Subcabinet 1 1.7 Transportation 3 5.2 Watershed Project 3 5.2 Total 58 100

Project Managers were asked to identify the phase of their projects. The majority of Corps Civil Works projects are in either Construction (25%) or O&M phase (22%). Nineteen percent were in Feasibility phase, 15% in PE&D and two 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 3: Project Phase

Project Phase # % Recon 39 2.4 Feasibility 309 19.4 PE&D 244 15.3 Construction 404 25.3 O&M 349 21.9 Multiple 139 8.7 Other/NA 111 7 Total 1595 100

Civil Works customers are comprised of a wide variety of state and local agencies. The vast majority is city and county governments and various governmental departments charged with the management of infrastructure relating to water resources. 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 US Fish & Wildlife Service. 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. TransAtlantic Center, Afghanistan Division and the three Gulf Region Division districts 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 and Great Lakes/ Ohio River Divisions at 33% and 19% respectively. New Orleans District had the highest number of responses among districts at eleven percent of the Corps-wide sample.

Table 4: Corps Divisions

Division # % Great Lakes / Ohio River (LRD) 301 18.6 Mississippi Valley (MVD) 526 32.6 North Atlantic (NAD) 125 7.7 North West (NWD) 183 11.3 Pacific Ocean (POD) 38 2.4 South Atlantic (SAD) 185 11.5 South Pacific (SPD) 155 9.6 South West (SWD) 101 6.3 Total 1614 100.0

Table 5: Corps Districts

District # % District # % Alaska 26 1.6 New Orleans 133 8.2 Albuquerque 24 1.5 New York 42 2.6 Baltimore 17 1.1 Norfolk 43 2.7 Buffalo 43 2.7 Omaha 49 3.0 Charleston 20 1.2 Philadelphia 12 0.7 Chicago 38 2.4 Pittsburgh 35 2.2 Detroit 79 4.9 Portland 11 0.7 Fort Worth 37 2.3 Rock Island 97 6.0 Galveston 28 1.7 Sacramento 53 3.3 Honolulu 12 0.7 San Francisco 21 1.3 Huntington 46 2.9 Savannah 25 1.5 Jacksonville 72 4.5 Seattle 31 1.9 Kansas City 54 3.3 St. Louis 72 4.5 Little Rock 21 1.3 St. Paul 71 4.4 Los Angeles 57 3.5 Tulsa 15 0.9 Louisville 31 1.9 Vicksburg 53 3.3 Memphis 100 6.2 Walla Walla 38 2.4 Mobile 30 1.9 Wilmington 38 2.4 Nashville 29 1.8 Total 1614 100 New England 11 0.7

§2.2 SURVEY ITEMS AND SCALES

The scope of the Civil Works Program is very broad and encompasses a wide variety of types of services. 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 the wide range of types 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.

There are 24 questionnaire items which measure general areas of customer satisfaction. The items are grouped into one of 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.

The mean Composite score was very high at 4.29 on a scale from 1-53. All mean scores for the satisfaction scales were above 4.0. The highest rated service area was Staff services at 4.46. The following table depicts mean scores for each customer satisfaction scale.

Table 6: Satisfaction Scales

Item Scales Corps Avg Composite 4.29 Attitude 4.39 Services 4.30 Staff 4.46 Timeliness 4.02 Cost 4.03 Communication 4.35 Problem Resolution 4.28 Overall 4.30

3 Items rated on a 5-point Likert scale where 1=Low and 5=High. 9

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 per-item response rate was very high, i.e., few customers left items blank. In fact, all but three items received at least a 92 percent response from the sample of 1,614 respondents. The exceptions to this were in the area of cost/financial services where 20-21% of customers did not provide ratings for these services. Over half of the items had a response rate of at least 95 percent.

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’ and ‘S2: ‘Listening to My Needs’ at 93 percent high ratings each and S4: ‘Treats Me as an Important Team Member’ at 92 percent high ratings. 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 10% low ratings each. Ratings for the individual items that comprise each scale are shown in Table 7. 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 more critical items in the survey 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 81% satisfactory ratings while only four to five percent of customers provided low ratings. Note the relatively large proportion (14%) of customers who fall 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 (1,459). 10

Table 7: Item Ratings

Low Mid-range High Total Survey Items # % # % # % # % Attitude S1 Customer Focus 54 3.4 97 6.1 1446 90.5 1597 100.0 S2 Listening to My Needs 45 2.8 75 4.7 1479 92.5 1599 100.0 S3 Reliability 101 6.3 136 8.5 1358 85.1 1595 100.0 Treats Me as Team S4 Member 43 2.7 87 5.5 1457 91.8 1587 100.0 S5 Flexible to My Needs 79 5.0 154 9.7 1347 85.3 1580 100.0 Services S6 Quality Products 52 3.4 143 9.5 1313 87.1 1508 100.0 Satisfying My S7 Requirements 52 3.5 145 9.8 1285 86.7 1482 100.0 Staff S8 Responsiveness 54 3.4 82 5.1 1460 91.5 1596 100.0 S9 Technical Competency 27 1.7 81 5.1 1478 93.2 1586 100.0 S10 Managing Effectively 85 5.5 132 8.5 1342 86.1 1559 100.0 Timeliness S11 Timely Service 155 9.9 209 13.3 1205 76.8 1569 100.0 S12 Meets My Schedule 154 10.0 208 13.6 1173 76.4 1535 100.0 Cost S13 Financial Info 61 4.8 188 14.7 1026 80.5 1275 100.0 S14 Cost of Services 135 10.6 318 25.0 817 64.3 1270 100.0 S15 Focus on My Budget 64 5.0 208 16.2 1009 78.8 1281 100.0 Communication S16 Keeps Me Informed 64 4.0 131 8.2 1400 87.8 1595 100.0 S17 Corps' Documents 26 1.7 130 8.4 1388 89.9 1544 100.0 S18 Corps' Correspondence 29 1.8 139 8.8 1410 89.4 1578 100.0 Problem-Solving S19 Notifies Me of Problems 48 3.2 120 7.9 1344 88.9 1512 100.0 Timeliness Addressing S20 Problems 84 5.5 170 11.2 1265 83.3 1519 100.0 S21 Problem Resolution 77 5.1 163 10.8 1276 84.2 1516 100.0 Overall S22 Overall Satisfaction 65 4.1 115 7.2 1410 88.7 1590 100.0 S23 I Recommend the Corps 65 4.2 159 10.4 1311 85.4 1535 100.0 S24 My Choice for Future Work 75 5.0 211 14.2 1200 80.8 1486 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 used this field to elaborate on their ratings. The survey specifically asked customers to explain any low ratings (‘Dissatisfied’ or ‘Very Dissatisfied’). In addition they 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 fairly strongly about the issue they are addressing. And secondly, customers tend to provide very detailed and useful information on how Corps services can be improved.

An extremely large number of respondents (999 or 62%) submitted comments; either comments regarding a survey item, general comments or both. Each respondent’s entire set of comments was evaluated for its overall tenor. Of the 999 customers who provided comments almost one-half (601) provided overall favorable comments, 256 (26%) made negative comments and 96 (10%) customers’ comments contained mixed information (positive and negative statements). A small number of customer comments (46 customers) were neither positive nor negative but were informational in nature only (e.g. description of project details).

The survey item that received the greatest number of positive comments was ‘Overall Satisfaction’ (148 customers). Two measures of relationship dynamics received a significant number of positive comments. They were ‘Responsiveness’ (146 customers) and ‘Customer Focus’ (106 customers). The three items that received the largest number of negative comments concerned cost and timeliness: ‘Timely Service’ (153 customers), and ‘Meets my Schedule’ (126) and Cost of Services’ (119). A similar pattern is seen in the ‘General Comments’ submitted by customers.

The most frequent positive general comments were ‘Compliments to individuals/staff’ (381 customers). A large number of positive comments concerned the relationship between customer and district ‘(Great relationship/partnership’). There were also a significant number of positive comments discussing ‘Collaboration’. Surprisingly several customers also provided positive feedback on the survey itself and expressed gratitude for the opportunity to provide their feedback.

The issue that received the greatest number of negative comments concerned the impact of ‘Federal funding’ (65). A total of 54 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 (41) complained about the ability of the Corps’ to control costs on Civil Works projects. The next most frequent negative comment concerned ‘staff continuity or turnover’. Other areas of services that received a number of negative comments were ‘Corps Policy/Requirements’, ‘Communications’, and ‘HQUSACE Support’.

A summary of all comments is shown below. Note that the total number of comments exceeds 999 as most customers mentioned several issues.

Table 8: Item Comments

Survey Item Positive Negative Total S1 Customer Focus 106 56 162 S2 Listening to My Needs 91 39 130 S3 Reliability 66 107 173 S4 Treats Me as Team Member 83 29 112 S5 Flexible to My Needs 90 73 163 S6 Quality Products 88 60 148 S7 Satisfying My Requirements 61 54 115 S8 Responsiveness 146 62 208 S9 Technical Competency 86 42 128 S10 Managing Effectively 86 98 184 S11 Timely Service 67 153 220 S12 Meets My Schedule 54 126 180 S13 Financial Info 40 77 117 S14 Cost of Services 27 119 146 S15 Focus on My Budget 43 53 96 S16 Keeps Me Informed 94 56 150 S17 Corps' Documents 65 37 102 S18 Corps' Correspondence 43 29 72 S19 Notifies Me of Problems 71 26 97 S20 Timeliness Addressing Problems 46 56 102 S21 Problem Resolution 50 59 109 S22 Overall Satisfaction 148 48 196 S23 I Recommend the Corps 62 59 121 S24 My Choice for Future Work 80 66 146

Table 9: Additional Comments

Additional Comments Positive Negative Total Staff 381 2 383 Relationship / Partnership 138 16 154 Federal Funding / Process 3 65 68 Collaboration 42 18 60 COE Bureaucracy - Impact on Project 0 54 54 Communications 24 28 52 Cost Control 0 41 41 Staff Continuity / Turnover 2 37 39 Corps Policy / Requirements 1 36 37 Professionalism 28 2 30 Project Progress 11 18 29 Improvement in Services 26 0 26 HQ Support 1 24 25 Review Process 0 23 23 Feasibility Study Process 2 21 23 Dredging Services 16 7 23 Studies 3 18 21 Navigation Services 14 7 21 13

Additional Comments Positive Negative Total Workload Management 0 20 20 CECW Customer Survey 6 12 18 District Support 9 8 17 Planning Services 7 9 16 FDR Services 10 6 16 Emergency Management 15 1 16 Overhead charges 0 15 15 Regulatory Services/ Permits 4 11 15 Field Office Support 13 2 15 Cost Estimating 0 13 13 Financial actions (Invoicing, reimbursement) 0 13 13 Operations Services 10 3 13 Outreach / Public Involvement 11 2 13 Construction Services 6 6 12 Acronyms / Corps-speak 0 11 11 Status Reports 1 10 11 MSC Support 0 10 10 PCA issues 1 9 10 Communications in Writing 0 9 9 Economic Analyses 0 9 9 Small Project Work 0 9 9 INTRA-Agency Coordination (w/in district) 2 7 9 Transparency 2 7 9 Native American Interests 5 4 9 Environmental Services 7 2 9 Shore protection 1 7 8 Contracting Process (esp Bidding) 2 6 8 Proactive 4 3 7 A/E (Contractor) Services 3 3 6 Innovation 4 2 6 District Cmdr Continuity 2 3 5 Reservoir / Water Level Mgmt 2 3 5 Sr. Mgmt Support 3 2 5 Congressional support 0 4 4 Cost sharing issues 0 4 4 Design Services 0 4 4 QAQC 0 4 4 Real Estate Services 1 3 4 Section 206 Program 1 3 4 Inter-Agency Coordination (Proj partners) 0 3 3 Legal Services 0 3 3 PPA Model 0 3 3 Cultural resources 1 2 3 Section 1135 1 2 3 H&H 2 1 3 Project Closeout / Punchlist Items 2 1 3 Project Scope (Changes/Development) 2 1 3 Section 595 Program 3 0 3

Additional Comments Positive Negative Total Levee Certification 0 2 2 Risk Tolerance 0 2 2 Dr Checks 1 1 2 Maps 1 1 2 Ecosystem Restoration 2 0 2 Geo-tech Services 2 0 2 Lake Improvement Projects 2 0 2 Section 592 Program 2 0 2 Beach Fix' Model 0 1 1 Non-Local Contractors 0 1 1 OMB Involvement 0 1 1 Project Construction Authority 0 1 1 Reporting Software 0 1 1 Safety Focus 0 1 1 Salmon Recovery Activities 0 1 1 Beach Nourishment Services 1 0 1 Can-Do Attitude 1 0 1 Dredge Material Disposal Process / Sites 1 0 1 Master Planning 1 0 1 PAS Program 1 0 1 Section 14 1 0 1 Section 154 1 0 1 Section 569 1 0 1 Watershed Mgmt 1 0 1 Accountability 0 0 0

§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 all business lines and project phases. Several 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. This data provides managers a more in-depth context in which to evaluate customer ratings individually and in the aggregate.

§3.1 Ratings by Business Line

The first 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, Recreation and ‘Other’ were combined into one category designated ‘Other’. Hence, the final six categories for comparative analyses are: ‘Environmental’ (Env), ‘Flood Damage Reduction’ (FDR), ‘Navigation’ (Nav), ‘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 but one of the eight satisfaction scales. There were no significant differences in ratings on Communication among business lines. A clear pattern emerged in these comparisons as illustrated in the graphs below (Figure 2). Water Quality/Supply customers were consistently the most satisfied. FDR customers were consistently the least satisfied. Additionally these differences 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 10: Ratings by Business Line

Scale Statistically Significant Differences Attitude Env & WQual > FDR WQual > Env, Nav, Mult & Other Services Env & WQual > FDR WQual > Env, Nav, & Other Staff Env & WQual > FDR WQual > Env, Nav, Mult & Other Timeliness Env, Nav, WQual & Other > FDR WQual > Env, Nav, Mult & Other Cost Env & WQual > FDR WQual > Env, Nav, Mult & Other Communication None Problem Solving Env, WQual & Other > FDR WQual > Env, Nav & Mult Overall Env, Nav, WQual & Other > FDR WQual > Env, Nav, Mult & Other Composite Env, Nav, WQual & Other > FDR WQual > Env, Nav, Mult & Other

Figure 2: Ratings by Business Line 17

§3.2 Ratings by Project Phase

Comparisons of mean scale and index 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 and O&M. Statistically significant differences in ratings were found for three scales: ‘Timeliness’, ‘Construction’ and ‘Overall’. Customers whose projects were in Construction phase were significantly more satisfied than those in Feasibility phase. Customers whose projects were in Construction and O&M phases were significantly more satisfied than those in feasibility and PE&D phases. Table B-3 in Appendix B displays mean subgroup scores and sample sizes.

Table 11: Ratings by Project Phase

Scale Statistically Significant Differences Attitude None Services None Staff None Timeliness Constr & O&M > FEAS O&M > PE&D Cost None Communication None Problem Solving None Overall Constr & O&M > FEAS & PE&D Composite Constr > FEAS Constr & O&M > PE&D

** Other includes Emergency Mgmt, Hydropower, Rec, Reg, & Other Results sig at alpha=.05

Figure 3: Ratings by Project Phase

§3.3 Comparisons of Ratings by Year

The CECW Survey has been conducted for four years. The current analyses examined the change in ratings from 2006 to 2009. Survey scales and individual items were examined. The ‘Problem Solving’ scale was added in 2007 so no data is available for the 2006 period. Tables 12 and 13 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 12: Customers by Business Line and Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Business Line # % # % # % # % # % Emergency Mgmt 23 3.1 17 1.6 35 2.4 56 3.5 131 2.7 Environmental 132 17.5 303 28.6 338 23.3 477 29.6 1250 25.6 Flood Control 182 24.2 328 31.0 498 34.3 445 27.6 1453 29.8 Hydropower 11 1.5 16 1.5 19 1.3 13 0.8 59 1.2 Navigation 154 20.5 189 17.9 263 18.1 298 18.5 904 18.5 Recreation 14 1.9 22 2.1 21 1.4 57 3.5 114 2.3 Regulatory 34 4.5 10 0.9 7 0.5 3 0.2 54 1.1 Water Qual/Supply 88 11.7 87 8.2 159 10.9 120 7.4 454 9.3 Other 115 15.3 86 8.1 64 4.4 58 3.6 323 6.6 Multiple 0 0.0 0 0.0 49 3.4 84 5.2 133 2.7 Total 753 100.0 1058 100.0 1453 100.0 1611 100.0 4875 100.0

Table 13: Customers by MSC and Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 Total MSC # % # % # % # % # % LRD 113 15.0 238 22.5 225 15.4 301 18.6 877 17.9 MVD 108 14.3 169 15.9 448 30.7 526 32.6 1251 25.6 NAD 86 11.4 94 8.9 127 8.7 125 7.7 432 8.8 NWD 52 6.9 120 11.3 129 8.8 183 11.3 484 9.9 POD 33 4.4 27 2.5 32 2.2 38 2.4 130 2.7 SAD 164 21.8 204 19.2 206 14.1 185 11.5 759 15.5 SPD 105 13.9 113 10.7 165 11.3 155 9.6 538 11.0 SWD 92 12.2 95 9.0 127 8.7 101 6.3 415 8.5 Total 753 100.0 1060 100.0 1459 100.0 1614 100.0 4886 100.0

Relatively few differences were found over the past four years. There were two differences in mean scale scores: Timeliness and Cost where ratings in 2009 were significantly higher than 2006. The graphic below displays scale comparisons. There were four instances of significant differences among individual survey items. They included item S3: Reliability; S12: ‘Meets My Schedule’, S20: Timeliness in Addressing Problems’ and S22: Overall Satisfaction. In all cases there was an improvement over 2006 ratings. Tables B-4 and B-5 in Appendix B displays mean scale and item scores by survey year.

Figure 4: Ratings by Survey Year

§4. SUMMARY

A total of 1,614 customers participated in the 2009 survey. This represents an 11% increase over last year’s sample size. This is due to increased population sizes for some districts as well as notable increases in response rates for almost all districts. The Corps-wide response rate was 58.5% for an estimated sampling error of 1.3%. Response rates varied among districts, ranging from 23% for Portland District to as high as 100% for four districts. The average response rate for larger districts was 64%; for smaller districts it was 65%.

USACE Civil Works customers are classified by their primary category of service aligned to the Civil Works Program business lines. Environmental customers comprise the largest proportion of the 2009 sample at 30 percent followed by Flood/Storm Damage Reduction (28%), Navigation (19%) and Water Quality/Supply customers (7%). The proportion of customers in the other business lines was well below ten percent each. A number of customers had multiple projects underway so were classified under the ‘Multiple’ business line. Almost 40 percent of those categorized in the ‘Other’ business line had projects under the ‘Planning Assistance to States’ program.

The majority of Corps Civil Works projects are in either Construction (25%) or O&M phase (22%). Nineteen percent were in Feasibility phase, 15% in PE&D and two 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.

The vast majority of Civil Works customers are comprised of city and county governments and various governmental departments charged with the management of infrastructure relating to water resources. 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 US Fish & Wildlife Service.

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 and Great Lakes/ Ohio River Divisions at 33% and 19% respectively. New Orleans District had the highest number of responses among districts at eight percent of the Corps-wide sample.

The CECW Survey consists of 24 questionnaire items which measure general areas of customer satisfaction. The items are grouped into one of 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.

The mean Composite score was very high at 4.29 on a scale from 1-55. The highest rated service area was Staff services at 4.46.

The majority of responses (64% 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’ and ‘S2: ‘Listening to My Needs’ at 93% high ratings each and S4: ‘Treats Me as an Important Team Member’ at 92% high ratings. 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 10% low ratings each.

The survey instrument includes a blank ‘explanation’ field for each item. Customers used this field to elaborate on their ratings. The survey specifically asked customers to explain any low ratings (‘Dissatisfied’ or ‘Very Dissatisfied’). In addition they 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 typically feel fairly strongly about the issue they are addressing. And secondly, customers tend to provide very detailed and useful information on how Corps services can be improved.

The survey item that received the greatest number of positive comments was ‘Overall Satisfaction’ (148 customers). Two measures of relationship dynamics received a significant number of positive comments. They were ‘Responsiveness’ (146 customers) and ‘Customer Focus’ (106 customers). The three items that received the largest number of negative comments concerned cost and timeliness: ‘Timely Service’ (153 customers), ‘Meets my Schedule’ (126) and Cost of Services’ (119). A similar pattern is seen in the ‘General Comments’ submitted by customers.

5 Items rated on a 5-point Likert scale where 1=Low and 5=High. 23

Consistency in delivery of services is an important strategic goal. Several 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.

The first analysis compares customer satisfaction ratings by Corps Civil Works business lines. The business lines which contain relatively few customers were combined for these analyses. Hydropower, Regulatory, Recreation, ‘and ‘Other’ were combined into one category designated ‘Other’. Hence the final categories were: ‘Environmental’ (Env), ‘Flood Damage Reduction’ (FDR), ‘Navigation’ (Nav), ‘Water Quality/Supply’ (WQual), ‘Multiple Business Lines’ (Mult) and ‘Other’.

Statistically significant differences in ratings were found for all but one of the eight satisfaction scales. There were no significant differences in ratings on Communication among business lines. A clear pattern emerged in these comparisons. Water Quality/Supply customers were consistently the most satisfied. FDR customers were consistently the least satisfied. Additionally these differences were large enough to be statistically significant at α = .05.

Comparisons of mean scale and index scores by project phase revealed statistically significant differences in ratings for three scales: ‘Timeliness’, ‘Construction’ and ‘Overall. Customers whose projects were in Construction and O&M phases were significantly more satisfied than those in Feasibility and PE&D phases.

An analysis of trends in ratings over the past four years showed relatively few significant changes over time and those that were revealed were positive. Timeliness and Cost ratings in 2009 were significantly higher than 2006. There were four instances of significant differences among individual survey items. They included item S3: Reliability; S12: ‘Meets My Schedule’, S20: Timeliness in Addressing Problems’ and S22: Overall Satisfaction. In all cases there was an improvement over 2006 ratings.

Civil Works Program customer ratings have been relatively stable or have increased since the survey was first launched in 2006. Corporately our data indicates that customers are largely satisfied with Corps’ services. Costs and timeliness are the two 24 greatest sources of Civil Works customer dissatisfaction. These issues appear to be closely tied to customer dissatisfaction with Corps requirements and policies and bureaucracy as well as the Federal funding process. Measures of staff services and relationship dynamics 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. A significant number of customers comment that they have a great deal of confidence in their district staff but that the districts are hamstrung by USACE policies and funding obstacles that undermine their project execution. Corps managers seem to have clearly conveyed to customers the nature of the obstacles they face in their project execution. USACE should corporately address internal policies and requirements as well as the funding process to the extent possible. The groundswell of opinion on these issues has increased significantly since 2007. These are clearly systemic problems reaching across all districts and business lines.

APPENDIX A

Survey Instrument

A-1

APPENDIX B

Statistical Details

Table B-1: Survey Items – Details

Survey Items Very Low Low Mid-range High Very High Total # % # % # % # % # % # % Attitude S1 Customer Focus 13 0.8 41 2.6 97 6.1 593 37.1 853 53.4 1597 100.0 S2 Listening to My Needs 13 0.8 32 2.0 75 4.7 540 33.8 939 58.7 1599 100.0 S3 Reliability 28 1.8 73 4.6 136 8.5 545 34.2 813 51.0 1595 100.0 S4 Treats Me as Team Member 14 0.9 29 1.8 87 5.5 443 27.9 1014 63.9 1587 100.0 S5 Flexible to My Needs 22 1.4 57 3.6 154 9.7 540 34.2 807 51.1 1580 100.0 Services S6 Quality Products 14 0.9 38 2.5 143 9.5 588 39.0 725 48.1 1508 100.0 S7 Satisfying My Requirements 12 0.8 40 2.7 145 9.8 584 39.4 701 47.3 1482 100.0 Staff S8 Responsiveness 14 0.9 40 2.5 82 5.1 449 28.1 1011 63.3 1596 100.0 S9 Technical Competency 6 0.4 21 1.3 81 5.1 451 28.4 1027 64.8 1586 100.0 S10 Managing Effectively 20 1.3 65 4.2 132 8.5 527 33.8 815 52.3 1559 100.0 Timeliness S11 Timely Service 41 2.6 114 7.3 209 13.3 629 40.1 576 36.7 1569 100.0 S12 Meets My Schedule 51 3.3 103 6.7 208 13.6 603 39.3 570 37.1 1535 100.0 Cost S13 Financial Info 15 1.2 46 3.6 188 14.7 525 41.2 501 39.3 1275 100.0 S14 Cost of Services 32 2.5 103 8.1 318 25.0 447 35.2 370 29.1 1270 100.0 S15 Focus on My Budget 19 1.5 45 3.5 208 16.2 521 40.7 488 38.1 1281 100.0 Communication S16 Keeps Me Informed 20 1.3 44 2.8 131 8.2 583 36.6 817 51.2 1595 100.0 S17 Corps' Documents 11 0.7 15 1.0 130 8.4 628 40.7 760 49.2 1544 100.0 S18 Corps' Correspondence 5 0.3 24 1.5 139 8.8 644 40.8 766 48.5 1578 100.0 Problem-Solving S19 Notifies Me of Problems 7 0.5 41 2.7 120 7.9 564 37.3 780 51.6 1512 100.0 Timeliness Addressing S20 Problems 15 1.0 69 4.5 170 11.2 572 37.7 693 45.6 1519 100.0 S21 Problem Resolution 16 1.1 61 4.0 163 10.8 588 38.8 688 45.4 1516 100.0 Overall S22 Overall Satisfaction 15 0.9 50 3.1 115 7.2 601 37.8 809 50.9 1590 100.0 S23 I Recommend the Corps 20 1.3 45 2.9 159 10.4 490 31.9 821 53.5 1535 100.0 S24 My Choice for Future Work 27 1.8 48 3.2 211 14.2 476 32.0 724 48.7 1486 100.0

B-1

Table B-2: Mean Scale Scores by Business Line

Flood WQual/ Scale Environ Ctrl Navigation Supply Other Multiple Total Attitude Mean 4.45 4.29 4.38 4.61 4.41 4.35 4.40 N 476 441 297 120 185 84 1603 Services Mean 4.34 4.21 4.31 4.51 4.32 4.33 4.31 N 458 428 280 108 174 83 1531 Staff Mean 4.49 4.38 4.44 4.70 4.48 4.39 4.46 N 475 442 296 120 184 83 1600 Timeliness Mean 4.08 3.82 4.03 4.37 4.05 3.99 4.01 N 464 436 291 119 180 82 1572 Cost Mean 4.06 3.94 3.99 4.38 4.00 3.92 4.03 N 429 402 236 110 152 69 1398 Communication Mean 4.35 4.29 4.35 4.51 4.40 4.39 4.35 N 475 441 294 120 183 84 1597 Problem-Solving Mean 4.32 4.16 4.26 4.53 4.36 4.22 4.28 N 454 432 287 113 176 80 1542 Overall Mean 4.34 4.17 4.33 4.54 4.34 4.23 4.30 N 473 439 295 119 183 84 1593 Composite Mean 4.33 4.19 4.29 4.53 4.33 4.26 4.30 N 477 442 297 120 186 84 1606

Table B-3: Mean Satisfaction Scores by Phase

Recon Feasibility PE&D Construction O&M Multiple Other/NA Total Attitude Mean 4.39 4.38 4.30 4.47 4.39 4.34 4.43 4.39 N 38 306 243 403 348 138 111 1587 Services Mean 4.39 4.28 4.18 4.35 4.32 4.30 4.38 4.30 N 35 295 228 388 326 135 108 1515 Staff Mean 4.54 4.44 4.36 4.50 4.50 4.40 4.45 4.46 N 38 305 244 402 348 137 110 1584 Timeliness Mean 4.14 3.87 3.95 4.06 4.13 3.96 3.93 4.01 N 36 302 240 398 334 135 111 1556 Cost Mean 4.11 3.98 3.94 4.11 4.04 3.88 4.07 4.02 N 33 278 221 379 258 120 95 1384 Communication Mean 4.31 4.33 4.26 4.41 4.36 4.31 4.43 4.35 N 39 304 243 401 347 138 110 1582 Problem-Solving Mean 4.36 4.24 4.20 4.33 4.29 4.23 4.32 4.27 N 32 289 237 393 335 135 106 1527 Overall Mean 4.41 4.22 4.17 4.38 4.37 4.23 4.30 4.30 N 38 305 242 401 343 137 111 1577 Composite Mean 4.31 4.25 4.20 4.36 4.33 4.24 4.32 4.29 N 39 306 244 403 349 138 111 1590

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-4: Customers by District by Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 Total District # % # % # % # % # % LRB 3 0.4 38 3.6 28 1.9 43 2.7 112 2.3 LRC 14 1.9 13 1.2 25 1.7 38 2.4 90 1.8 LRE 30 4.0 44 4.2 44 3.0 79 4.9 197 4.0 LRH 17 2.3 49 4.6 36 2.5 46 2.9 148 3.0 LRL 17 2.3 18 1.7 39 2.7 31 1.9 105 2.1 LRN 11 1.5 47 4.4 25 1.7 29 1.8 112 2.3 LRP 21 2.8 29 2.7 28 1.9 35 2.2 113 2.3 MVK 11 1.5 15 1.4 32 2.2 53 3.3 111 2.3 MVM 25 3.3 30 2.8 89 6.1 100 6.2 244 5.0 MVN 24 3.2 65 6.1 155 10.6 133 8.2 377 7.7 MVP 27 3.6 30 2.8 59 4.0 71 4.4 187 3.8 MVR 11 1.5 16 1.5 45 3.1 97 6.0 169 3.5 MVS 10 1.3 13 1.2 68 4.7 72 4.5 163 3.3 NAB 18 2.4 29 2.7 31 2.1 17 1.1 95 1.9 NAE 11 1.5 8 0.8 7 0.5 11 0.7 37 0.8 NAN 26 3.5 16 1.5 33 2.3 42 2.6 117 2.4 NAO 24 3.2 37 3.5 42 2.9 43 2.7 146 3.0 NAP 7 0.9 4 0.4 14 1.0 12 0.7 37 0.8 NWK 0 0.0 33 3.1 33 2.3 54 3.3 120 2.5 NWO 27 3.6 35 3.3 37 2.5 49 3.0 148 3.0 NWP 4 0.5 20 1.9 14 1.0 11 0.7 49 1.0 NWS 15 2.0 22 2.1 33 2.3 31 1.9 101 2.1 NWW 6 0.8 10 0.9 12 0.8 38 2.4 66 1.4 POA 21 2.8 16 1.5 19 1.3 26 1.6 82 1.7 POH 12 1.6 11 1.0 13 0.9 12 0.7 48 1.0 SAC 15 2.0 25 2.4 22 1.5 20 1.2 82 1.7 SAJ 24 3.2 17 1.6 79 5.4 72 4.5 192 3.9 SAM 27 3.6 43 4.1 38 2.6 30 1.9 138 2.8 SAS 17 2.3 35 3.3 21 1.4 25 1.5 98 2.0 SAW 81 10.8 84 7.9 46 3.2 38 2.4 249 5.1 SPA 13 1.7 16 1.5 13 0.9 24 1.5 66 1.4 SPK 31 4.1 35 3.3 64 4.4 53 3.3 183 3.4 SPL 27 3.6 43 4.1 57 3.9 57 3.5 184 3.8 SPN 34 4.5 19 1.8 31 2.1 21 1.3 105 2.1 SWF 32 4.2 27 2.5 53 3.6 37 2.3 149 3.0 SWG 36 4.8 30 2.8 25 1.7 28 1.7 119 2.4 SWL 18 2.4 22 2.1 28 1.9 21 1.3 89 1.8 SWT 6 0.8 16 1.5 21 1.4 15 0.9 58 1.2 Total 753 100.0 1060 100.0 1459 100.0 1614 100.0 4886 100.0

B-3

Table B-5: Mean Scale Scores by Survey Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Attitude Mean 4.33 4.38 4.38 4.39 4.38 N 751 1058 1455 1606 4870 Services Mean 4.27 4.29 4.26 4.30 4.28 N 714 1024 1390 1534 4662 Staff Mean 4.41 4.43 4.43 4.46 4.43 N 752 1055 1452 1603 4862 Timeliness Mean 3.90 3.94 3.92 4.01 3.95 N 742 1041 1429 1575 4787 Cost Mean 3.91 4.01 3.97 4.02 3.99 N 639 938 1275 1401 4253 Communication Mean 4.29 4.33 4.32 4.35 4.33 N 751 1053 1447 1600 4851 Problem-Solving Mean * 4.22 4.23 4.28 4.25 N 1032 1411 1545 3988 Overall Mean 4.20 4.26 4.25 4.30 4.26 N 749 1051 1443 1596 4839 Composite Mean 4.22 4.26 4.25 4.29 4.26 N 753 1059 1455 1609 4876

*Problem Solving scale added in 2007.

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

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

B-4

Table B-6: Mean Item Scores by Survey Year67

Survey Item 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total S1 Customer Focus Mean 4.31 4.36 4.38 4.40 4.37 N 725 1056 1450 1597 4828 S2 Listening to My Needs Mean 4.43 4.48 4.47 4.48 4.47 N 731 1055 1448 1599 4833 S3 Reliability Mean 4.16 4.23 4.23 4.28 4.24 N 719 1050 1445 1595 4809 S4 Treats Me as Team Member Mean 4.53 4.55 4.54 4.52 4.53 N 740 1046 1439 1587 4812 S5 Flexible to My Needs Mean 4.23 4.29 4.27 4.30 4.28 N 732 1044 1432 1580 4788 S6 Quality Products Mean 4.24 4.28 4.26 4.31 4.28 N 706 1003 1375 1508 4592 S7 Satisfying My Requirements Mean 4.32 4.31 4.26 4.30 4.29 N 689 994 1347 1482 4512 S8 Responsiveness Mean 4.45 4.47 4.49 4.51 4.48 N 749 1049 1446 1596 4840 S9 Technical Competency Mean 4.53 4.56 4.55 4.56 4.55 N 743 1044 1442 1586 4815 S10 Managing Effectively Mean 4.24 4.24 4.24 4.32 4.27 N 716 1022 1410 1559 4707 S11 Timely Service Mean 3.95 3.94 4.01 3.97 N 1036 1424 1569 4029 S12 Meets My Schedule Mean 3.80 3.94 3.90 4.00 3.92 N 716 1018 1399 1535 4668 S13 Financial Info Mean 4.04 4.12 4.09 4.14 4.11 N 573 885 1209 1275 3942 S14 Cost of Services Mean 3.68 3.80 3.75 3.80 3.77 N 597 873 1190 1270 3930 S15 Focus on My Budget Mean 4.00 4.10 4.05 4.10 4.07 N 580 873 1201 1281 3935 S16 Keeps Me Informed Mean 4.29 4.30 4.30 4.34 4.31 N 746 1051 1436 1595 4828 S17 Corps' Documents Mean 4.27 4.34 4.34 4.37 4.34 N 582 1010 1397 1544 4533 S18 Corps' Correspondence Mean 4.35 4.34 4.34 4.36 4.35 N 703 1036 1424 1578 4741 S19 Notifies Me of Problems Mean 4.30 4.32 4.31 4.37 4.33 N 717 1006 1379 1512 4614 S20 Timely Addressing Problems Mean 3.99 4.18 4.17 4.22 4.16 N 733 1007 1393 1519 4652

6 Items in bold are statistically significant at α = .05. 7 Item 11 changed & Problem Resolution (S21) added in 2007 Survey B-5

Survey Item 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total S21 Problem Resolution Mean 4.18 4.20 4.23 4.21 N 1013 1389 1516 3918 S22 Overall Satisfaction Mean 4.20 4.30 4.29 4.35 4.30 N 738 1049 1439 1590 4816 S23 I Recommend the Corps Mean 4.24 4.30 4.29 4.33 4.30 N 682 1012 1396 1535 4625 S24 My Choice for Future Work Mean 4.13 4.21 4.18 4.23 4.20 N 686 981 1368 1486 4521

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

B-6

APPENDIX C

Customer Organizations & Project List by District

Table C-1: Customer Organizations by District

District Count Agency # LRB 1 Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper 1 2 CBP 1 3 City of Buffalo, Department of Public Works 1 4 City of Elyria 1 5 City of Independence, Ohio, USA 1 6 City of Lorain 1 7 City of Painesville 1 8 City of Rochester New York 1 9 City of Stow 1 10 City of Syracuse 1 11 Cleveland City Planning Commission 1 12 Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority 1 13 Cuyahoga County Planning Commission 1 14 DCNR; Presque Isle State Park 1 15 DHS/ICE/DRO 1 16 Erie County, NY Department of Public Works Division 1 17 Finger Lakes Trail Conference 1 18 Lake County Department of Utilities 1 19 Livingston County Chamber of Commerce 1 20 Lorain Port Authority 1 21 Lucas County Commissioners 1 22 Monroe County 1 23 Northwest Ohio Flood Mitigation Partnership 1 24 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 1 25 NYS Department of Transportation 1 26 NYSDEC 2 27 Ohio Department of Natural Resources Floodplain Mgmt 1 28 Ohio Department of Natural Resources Office of Coa 1 29 Ohio Environmental Council 1 30 Onondaga County 1 31 Osborne Concrete & Stone 1 32 PA Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources 1 33 Pinney Dock & Transport LLC 1 34 Toledo Lucas County Port Authority 1 35 Town of Amherst 1 36 Town of Hamburg, New York 1 37 USDA NRCS 1 38 USDOE 1 39 USEPA 2 40 Village of Fredonia 1 41 Village of Valley View 1 LRC 1 Chicago Dept of Environment 2 2 Chicago Park District 2 3 City of Chicago Department of Transportation 1 4 city of Chicago Dept Zoning and Land Use Planning 1 5 City of Portage Indiana 1 6 City of Whiting 1 7 DNR 1 8 East Chicago Sanitary District, Wastewater Treatment 1 9 Forest Preserve District of Cook County 1

C-1

District Count Agency # 10 Forest Preserve District of Will Co. 1 11 Hammond Port Authority 1 12 IDEM 1 13 IL DNR Office of Water Resources 1 14 Illinois Department of Natural Resources 1 15 Illinois Dept of Natural Resources/Office of Water 1 16 Kenosha County, WI 1 17 Lafarge North America 1 18 Lake County Forest Preserve District 1 19 Lake County Stormwater Management Commission 2 20 Lake County Surveyor’s Office/Lake County Drainage 1 21 LaPorte County Parks Indiana 1 22 Little Calumet River Basin Development Commission 1 23 Michigan City Port Authority 1 24 MWRDGC 1 25 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commissio 1 26 The County of McHenry 1 27 The Wetlands Initiative 1 28 Town of Chesterton 1 29 Town of Griffith, Indiana 46319 1 30 Unspecified 3 31 Village of Mount Prospect 2 32 Will County 1 LRE 1 Becher Hoppe Associates, Inc. 1 2 Bell Sanitary District #1 1 3 Chamber of Commerce Grand Haven,Spring Lake, Ferr 1 4 City of Ashland, WI 1 5 City of Aurora 1 6 City of Bayfield 1 7 City of Biwabik 1 8 City of Chisholm 1 9 City of Cloquet, MN 1 10 City of Duluth 3 11 City of Flint 1 12 City of Fort Wayne, Indiana 2 13 City of Frankenmuth 1 14 City of Hurley 1 15 City of Ludington 1 16 City of Mackinac Island, Michigan 1 17 City of Manistee 1 18 City of Mount Clemens 1 19 City of Negaunee 1 20 City of Petoskey 1 21 City of Superior - Public Works 1 22 City of Washburn 1 23 Cooper Engineering 1 24 Dock 63 Inc 1 25 Duluth Seaway Port Authority 1 26 Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council 1 27 Fond du Lac Reservation 2 28 Fox River Navigational System Authority 1 29 Frenchtown Charter Township Resort District Author 1

C-2

District Count Agency # 30 Genesee County Drain Commissioners Office 1 31 Grand View Sanitary District 1 32 GrandBeachCouncil 1 33 Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute 1 34 Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society 1 35 Great Lakes Small Harbors Coalition 1 36 Holland Board of Public Works 1 37 Johnson & Anderson, Inc. 1 38 Leland Twp, Leelanau County, Michigan 1 39 Luedtke Engineering Company 1 40 Macomb County Public Works 1 41 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1 42 MN DNR 1 43 MN Pollution Control Agency 1 44 MN Sea Grant, University of Minnesota 1 45 MSA Professional Services 2 46 Natural Resources Research Institute 1 47 Ontonagon County Economic Development Corporation 1 48 Otsego Lake Association 1 49 Pike’s Bay Sanitary District 1 50 Port of Green Bay 1 51 Proctor Public Utilities 1 52 Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians 1 53 Roen Salvage Company 1 54 Saginaw County , MI 1 55 Saugatuck Township Office 1 56 Schoolcraft Township 1 57 St. Louis County Public Works Dept. 1 58 Strand Associates 1 59 Town of La Pointe/Madeline Sanitary District 1 60 Town of Port Wing 1 61 University of Minnesota Duluth Natural Resources R 1 62 University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute 1 63 Unspecified 2 64 USDA Forest Service 1 65 Village of Poplar Sewer Commission 1 66 Village of Port Austin 1 67 Village of Superior, WI 1 68 Western Lake Superior Sanitary District 1 69 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 4 70 WWMD (Waterford Waterway Management District) WI 1 LRH 1 Belpre City 1 2 Boone County PSD 1 3 City of Barberton 1 4 City of Charleston 1 5 City of Columbus OH 1 6 CIty of Gallipolis 1 7 City of Hillsboro 1 8 City of Hinton 1 9 City of Lancaste, OH 1 10 City of Marysville 1 11 City of Milton 1

C-3

District Count Agency # 12 City of Parkersburg 1 13 County of Pulaski 1 14 Dickenson County 1 15 Division of Culture and History 1 16 Eastern Kentucky PRIDE 1 17 Fayette County Engineers Office 1 18 Flatwoods-Canoe Run Public Service District 1 19 Kentucky Mountain Holiness Association 1 20 Lubeck Public Service District 1 21 Marathon Oil (& President of Huntington District 1 22 McDowell Co. Commission/ McDowell Co. CIAD 1 23 Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District 1 24 Oakvale Road Public Service District 1 25 Ohio Department of Natural Resources 2 26 Pike County Fiscal Court 1 27 Putnam Public Service District 1 28 Region 4 Planning and Development Council 1 29 Regional Intergovernmental Council 2 30 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 1 31 The City of Orrville, Orrville Utilities 1 32 Town of Boone, NC 1 33 Town of Grundy 1 34 Town of Marlinton 1 35 Unspecified 1 36 Upper Guyandotte Watershed Association 1 37 Utility Management Group, LLC 1 38 Village of Bloomingburg 1 39 Village of New Albany Ohio 1 40 Village of Williamsburg 1 41 Wayne County Commission 1 42 WV Division of Culture and History 1 43 WV Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Man 1 44 WVDEP 1 LRL 1 Brevoort Levee Conservancy District 1 2 City of Anderson, In 1 3 City of Bardstown 1 4 City of Cincinnati 1 5 City of Cincinnati - Stormwater Management Utility 1 6 City of Covington 1 7 City of Dayton, Ohio 3 8 City of Grayville 1 9 City of Indianapolis Department of Public Works/Ma 1 10 City of Richmond KY 1 11 City of Springfield 2 12 Clinton County Board of Commissioners 1 13 Community & Economic Development Assocaites, Inc. 1 14 Evansville Vanderburgh Levee Authority District 1 15 Gilll Township Levee Assn. 1 16 Indiana Department of Homeland Security 1 17 Indiana Department of Transportation 1 18 Jackson County Public Schools 1 19 Jeffersonville-Clarksville Flood Control 1

C-4

District Count Agency # 20 Local government 1 21 Louisville Metro Parks 1 22 MSD Louisville KY 1 23 New Albany Flood Control District 1 24 Ohio River Greenway Development Commission 2 25 Shelbyville Municipal Water & Sewer Commission 1 26 Southbank Partners Inc. 1 27 Village of Yellow Springs 1 LRN 1 LENOWISCO 1 2 City of Asheville 1 3 City of Clarksville 1 4 City of Clifton 1 5 City of Crossville 1 6 City of Cumberland, Kentucky 40823 1 7 City of Guntersville 1 8 Crounse corporation 1 9 Department for Local Government 1 10 Harlan County Fiscal Court 1 11 Hopkinsville-Christian County Planning Commission 1 12 Livingston County Fiscal Court 1 13 Lyon Co Fiscal Court 1 14 Metro Water Services 1 15 Multimodal Transportation Resources 1 16 Murfreesboro Parks and Recreation Department-City 1 17 North Carolina Division of Water Resources 1 18 Oakdale, TN 2 19 Southeastern Power Administration 1 20 Tennessee River Valley Association 1 21 Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority 1 22 TN Dept of Environment and Conservation 1 23 Town of Centerville 1 24 Unspecified 4 25 Virginia Dept. of Mines, Minerals and Energy 1 LRP 1 Alpha Associates, Incorporated 1 2 Armstrong County 1 3 Bankson Engineers, Inc. 2 4 Borough of Lincoln 1 5 City of Weston 1 6 City of Buckhannon 1 7 City of Cambridge 1 8 City of Jeannette 1 9 City of New Castle 1 10 City of Salamanca 1 11 Derry Township Municipal Authority 1 12 Fayette Engineering Company, Inc. 2 13 Gannett Fleming, Inc. 1 14 Garvin Engineering & Municipal Management 1 15 Gateway Engineers 1 16 GPD Group 1 17 Ingram Barge Company 1 18 KAG Engineering, Inc. 1 19 KLH Engineers, Inc. 1

C-5

District Count Agency # 20 Mount Pleasant Township Municipal Authority 1 21 MS Consultants, Inc. 1 22 Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County 1 23 Noble County Commissioners 1 24 Noble County Water Authority 1 25 Port of Pittsburgh Commission 1 26 PWSA 1 27 The EADS Group 1 28 The Findlay Township Municipal Authority 1 29 Tri County Joint Municipal Authority 1 30 Trumbull County Sanitary Engineer 1 31 Warren Water Filtration Plant 1 32 Widmer Engineering Inc. 2 MVK 1 ANRC 1 2 Arkansas Game & Fish Commission 1 3 Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department 1 4 Bayou Metro Water Management District 3 5 Bossier Levee District 1 6 City of Biloxi 1 7 City of Bryant 1 8 City of Forest 1 9 City of Greenville 1 10 City of Hattiesburg 1 11 City of McComb 1 12 City of Natchez, Ms 1 13 City of Olive Branch 1 14 City of Pascagoula 1 15 City of Philadelphia, Ms 1 16 City of Vicksburg 1 17 City of Vicksburg 1 18 Coahoma County 1 19 Coldwater River Canoe and Kayak Trail 1 20 Dungan Engineering, P.A. 1 21 Fifth Louisiana Levee District 1 22 GOLDING BARGE LINE, INC 1 23 Jackson County Utility Authority 1 24 LA. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOPMENT 1 25 Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries 1 26 Luhr Bros., Inc 1 27 Madison County Wastewater Authority 1 28 Miss. Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks 1 29 Mississippi Levee Board 1 30 MS Dept. Wildlife Fish and Parks 1 31 Municipal 1 32 Neel-Schaffer, Inc. 2 33 Parish of Caddo 1 34 Pearl River County 1 35 Pearligton Water&Sewage 1 36 Pearlington Water and Sewer District 1 37 Philadelphia Utilities 1 38 Rankin Hinds Pearl River Flood and Drainage Control 1 39 Red River Valley Association 1

C-6

District Count Agency # 40 Red River Waterway Commission 1 41 Rosedale-Bolivar County Port Commission 1 42 Southeast Arkansas Levee District 2 43 Tensas Basin Levee District 1 44 Tunica County Soil & Water Conservation District 1 45 Unspecified 2 46 West Rankin Utility Authority 1 47 Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee Board 1 48 YMD Joint Water Management District 1 MVM 1 8-Mile Ditch Drainage Commission #5 1 2 ACL 1 3 American River Transportation Company 1 4 ANRC 1 5 Ark Natural Resources Comm 1 6 Arkansas Game & Fish Commisssion 2 7 Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission 1 8 Arkansas Natural Resources Commission 1 9 Arkansas Waterways Commission 1 10 Bayou Metro Water Management District 3 11 Big Lake Drainage District 1 12 City of Germantown 1 13 City of Cairo, Illinois Alexander County 1 14 City of Caruthersville 2 15 City of Germantown, Tennessee 2 16 City of Hickman 2 17 City of Mayfield, KY 1 18 City of Memphis 1 19 City of Osceola, Ark., 1 20 City of Paragould 1 21 Craighead County, Arkansas 1 22 Desoto County Greenways 1 23 DeSoto County Regional Utility Authority 3 24 Division of Public Works, City of memphis 1 25 Drainage District #16 Mississippi Co. AR 1 26 Drainage District 2 1 27 Drainage District No. 7 of Poinsett County 1 28 Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 1 29 Dunklin County 1 30 Dutchtown, Mo. 63745 1 31 DutchTownBoard of Trustees 1 32 East Arkansas Enterprise Community (EAEC), Inc. 1 33 Fayette County Government - TN 1 34 Fulton County Board of Levee Commissioners 1 35 Fulton County Levee Board 1 36 Greater Memphis Chamber 1 37 Hickman - Fulton County Riverport Authority 1 38 Laconia Circle Special Drainage District of Desha 1 39 Lake County Levee Boards 1 40 Levee District #3 of Mississippi County, MO 3 41 Marine Towing 1 42 Marquette Transportation 1 43 Memphis & Shelby County Port Commission 1

C-7

District Count Agency # 44 Memphis Center City Commission 1 45 Memphis MEPS 1 46 Mississippi County Government 1 47 Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and 1 48 Mississippi River Corridor - Tennessee 1 49 Missouri Department of Conservation 2 50 Missouri Department of Natural Resources 1 51 National Audubon Society 2 52 NAVFAC MIDWEST PWD MID-SOUTH 1 53 Northwest Tennessee Regional Port Authority 1 54 Osceola River Port 1 55 Pemiscot County Port Authority 1 56 Pickering, Inc. 1 57 Poinsett County AR DD# 7 1 58 Public Works Division 1 59 Riverfront Development Corporation 1 60 Shelby County 1 61 Shelby County and Chickasaw Basin Authority 1 62 Shelby County Gov. Health Dept. 1 63 Smith & Weiland, Surveyors and Engineers, Inc. 1 64 St Francis Drainage District of Clay & Greene Coun 1 65 St. Francis Drainage District of Clay and Green Co 1 66 St. Francis Levee District of MO 2 67 ST. JOHN^S BAYOU BASIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT 2 68 Tennessee Department of Transportation 1 69 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 1 70 THE LITTLE RIVER DRAINAGE DISTRICT 1 71 The Nature Conservancy 2 72 Town of Collierville 1 73 TWRA 2 74 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2 75 Waggoner Engineering, Inc. 1 76 Weakley County Government, Tennessee 1 77 West Tennessee River Basin Authority 1 78 White River Coalition 1 79 White River Drainage District 3 80 White River Levee Dist. & Vice Chm. Port Athority 1 81 WRID 1 MVN 1 Abbeville Harbor and Terminal District 1 2 Ascension Parish Government 2 3 Associated Branch Pilots 1 4 Atchafalaya Basin Levee District 3 5 Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans 1 6 Brownfield Redvelopment Corp of Marshall 1 7 Bunge North America 1 8 Cameron Parish Police Jury 2 9 Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana 1 10 CITGO Petroleum Corp. 1 11 City of Carencro 1 12 City of Hammond, LA 2 13 City of Morgan City 1 14 City of Slidell, LA 1

C-8

District Count Agency # 15 Ciyt of Lake Charles 1 16 Coast Guard 1 17 CPRA/OCPR 1 18 Crescent River Port Pilots’ Association 1 19 DOE, SPRPMO 1 20 DPW - Engineering Division 2 21 East Baton Rouge Parish Department of Public Works 2 22 East Baton Rouge Parish Planning Commission 1 23 East Jefferson Levee District 1 24 Enterprise Marine Services, LLC 1 25 Fifth Louisiana Levee District 2 26 Golding Barge Line 2 27 Grand Isle Port Commission 1 28 Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association 1 29 Gulf States Maritime Association 1 30 Ingram Barge 1 31 J Ray McDermott, Inc 1 32 Jefferson Davis Parish Police Jury 1 33 Jefferson Parish 1 34 JESCO Environmental & Geotechnical Services, Inc. 5 35 LA Dept. of Transportation & Development 5 36 LA Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration 2 37 La. Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration 1 38 Lafayette Consolidated Government 1 39 Lafourche Basin Levee District 2 40 Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal district 1 41 Lake Charles Pilots Association 1 42 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 1 43 Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 1 44 Louisiana Hydroelectric 1 45 Louisiana Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration 3 46 Louisiana River Pilots Association 1 47 Louisiana State Penitentiary 2 48 Luhr Bros. Inc. 2 49 Marine Fueling Service, Inc 1 50 Mississippi River Maritime Association 1 51 Moran Shipping Agencies 1 52 Morgan City Harbor & Terminal District (dba-The Po 2 53 New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association 1 54 NSA Agencies Inc. 1 55 Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration 5 56 Orleans Levee District 1 57 Parish of Ascension 1 58 Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel Co. 1 59 Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal District 1 60 Pontchartrain Levee District 4 61 Port Engineer for West Calcasieu Port 1 62 Red River Valley Association 1 63 Red River Waterway Commission - Local Sponsor 1 64 Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans 1 65 Shaw E&I representing Pontchartrain Levee District 1 66 Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - E 1

C-9

District Count Agency # 67 Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - W 2 68 St. Charles Parish 4 69 St. Mary Levee District 1 70 St. Mary Parish Government 1 71 State of Louisiana - Office of Coastal Protection 1 72 T. Baker Smith, Inc 1 73 TCEQ 1 74 Teche-Vermilion Fresh Water District 1 75 Terral River Service 1 76 Terrebonne Port Commission 3 77 Tetra Tech 1 78 Town of Berwick, LA 2 79 Trunkline LNG, Trunkline Gas, Sea Robin Pipeline 1 80 Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana 1 81 U.S. Coast Guard 1 82 U.S. EPA 2 83 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 84 Unspecified 6 85 USCG Civil Engineering Unit Miami 1 86 Vermilion Parish Police Jury 1 87 Wax Lake East Drainage District 1 88 West Feliciana Police Jury Office 1 MVP 1 Clay County Sheriff’s Office 1 2 Barnes County Emergency Management 1 3 Blue Earth County Public Works Department 1 4 Bois Forte Band of Chippewa 1 5 Breitung Township 1 6 Buffalo-Red River Watershed District 1 7 Cass County Emergency Management 1 8 Cass County North Dakota Government 1 9 Cass Rural Water District 1 10 Chisago County 1 11 City of Ada MN 1 12 City of Askov 1 13 City of Brook Park 1 14 City of Crookston 1 15 City of Dawson 1 16 City of Devils Lake 2 17 City of Fargo 4 18 City of Grand Forks 2 19 City of Granite Falls 1 20 City of Montevideo 1 21 City of Moorhead 1 22 City of Park Rapids 1 23 City of Roseau 1 24 City of Valley City 2 25 City of Wahpeton 2 26 Floan-Sanders, Inc 1 27 Garrison Kathio West Mille Lacs Lake Sanitary Dist 2 28 Hennepin County 1 29 International Water Institute 1 30 Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe 1

C-10

District Count Agency # 31 Lower Minnesota River Watershed District 1 32 Metropolitan Council, St. Paul, MN 1 33 Minneapolis CPED 1 34 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 5 35 Minnesota DNR Waters 1 36 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 1 37 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1 38 MN Dept. of Transportation 1 39 MN Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Man 1 40 Moore Engineering, Inc. 1 41 MPCA 1 42 North Dakota State Water Commission 3 43 Ransom County 1 44 Red River Basin Commission 1 45 Sherburne County Public Works 1 46 Southeast Water Users District 1 47 St. Paul Yacht Club 1 48 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 49 Unspecified 4 50 Upper St. Croix Lake Sanitary District 1 51 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Mississippi Ri 1 52 Village of Butternut 1 53 Village of Solon Springs 1 54 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1 MVR 1 Alter Barge Line, Inc, 2 2 American River Transportation Company 2 3 Burlington North Bottoms Levee District 1 4 City of Cascade 1 5 City of Cedar Rapids 2 6 City of Chicago 1 7 City of Des Moines 1 8 City of East Moline 1 9 city of Elkader 1 10 City of Evansdale 1 11 City of Kahoka 2 12 City of Keosauqua, Iowa 1 13 City of Marshalltown, Iowa 2 14 City of Moline 2 15 City of Muscatine, Iowa 1 16 City of Ottumwa 2 17 City of Pekin 1 18 City of Perry, Iowa 1 19 City of Rock Island, Illinois 2 20 City of Rockford 1 21 City of Rockford, Illinois, Public Works Department 1 22 City of Roland 1 23 City of Waterloo 1 24 East Peoria Drainage and Levee District 1 25 Green Island Levee District 1 26 Heart of Illinois Regional Port District 1 27 Illinois Corn Growers Association 1 28 Illinois Department of Natural Resources 2

C-11

District Count Agency # 29 Illinois Farm Bureau 1 30 Indian Grave Drainage District 2 31 Ingram Barge Company 1 32 Iowa American Water 1 33 Iowa Department of Agriculture 1 34 Iowa Department of Natural Resources 9 35 ISWS 1 36 Jones County Conservation Board 1 37 Lake Sinissippi Improvement District 1 38 Marion County Conservation Board 1 39 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 1 40 Missouri Department of Conservation 1 41 MN Dept of Natural Resources 2 42 MN Dept. of Transportation 1 43 Monroe County 1 44 National Corn Growers Association 1 45 Oswegoland Park District 1 46 Peoria Co. SWCD 1 47 RIAC 1 48 Rock Koshkonong Lake District 1 49 South Quincy Levee and Drainage District 1 50 Spoon River Project #1 Drainage & Levee District 2 51 Stanley Consultants 1 52 State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resource 1 53 Tarr Farms Inc. 1 54 The Nature Conservancy 2 55 Two Rivers Levee & Drainage Association 1 56 U.S. Dept of Homeland Security - FEMA 1 57 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 1 58 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4 59 U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Div 1 60 U.S.DOT Maritime Administration 1 61 University of Illinois--Illinois State Water Survey 1 62 University of Iowa 1 63 Unspecified 8 64 Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 1 65 USGS 1 66 Waterways Council, Inc. 1 MVS 1 City of St. Peters 1 2 American Land Conservancy 1 3 American River Transportation 1 4 Blackjack Marina Inc., Perry, MO 1 5 Boat Works 1 6 Boise Brule Levee And Drainage District 1 7 City of Cape Girardeau, MO 1 8 City of Alton, OH 1 9 City of Belleville Wastewater Division 1 10 City of Belleville, IL 1 11 City of Cape Girardeau, MO 2 12 City of Chesterfield 1 13 City of St. Louis 1 14 City of Valley Park 2

C-12

District Count Agency # 15 Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water Commission 1 16 Clear Creek Levee & Drainage District 1 17 Consolidated North County Levee District 1 18 Gateway Off Road Cyclists 1 19 Hannibal Career and Technical Center 1 20 Harbor Light Bay Landowners Association 1 21 Husch, Blackwell & Sanders 1 22 Illinois Department of Natural Resources 2 23 Indian Creek Marina 1 24 Ingram Barge Company 1 25 Kaskaskia Island Drainage and Levee 1 26 Kings Lake Drainage District 1 27 Kissinger Levee District 1 28 Kuhs Levee District 1 29 Lange-Stegmann Co 1 30 Madison County Government 2 31 Magnolia Marine Transport Company 1 32 Mark Twain Area Quail Unlimited Chapter 1 33 Mark Twain Regional COG 1 34 Metro East Sanitary District 1 35 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 1 36 Mississippi River Water Trail Assn. 1 37 Missouri Department of Conservation 2 38 Missouri Department of Natural Resources 1 39 MO Dept of Natural Resources - Div of State Parks 1 40 MTL Handicapped Hunts and Frank Russel Demo Area 1 41 National Audubon Society 1 42 NEMO River Valley Chapter, Show-Me MO Back Country 1 43 Nutwood Levee and Drainage District 1 44 Paris Lions Club 1 45 Pike Grain Drainage and Levee District 1 46 Prairie Du Pont Levee 1 47 Sandy Creek Drainage District 1 48 Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District Co 1 49 St. Louis Area Geocachers Association 1 50 St. Louis Development Corporation 1 51 teamriverrunner.org 1 52 Tri-City Commission & Mark Twain Lake Rodeo Assoc 1 53 Tri-City Regional Port District 1 54 Twin City Levee Commission 1 55 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 56 Unspecified 4 57 USDA NRCS 1 58 USFWS 2 59 Vandalia Levee and Drainage District 1 60 Village of Glen Carbon 1 61 Waterways Council, Inc. 1 62 Winfield Levee and Drainage District 1 63 Wood River Drainage and Levee District 1 NAB 1 Alexandria/Porter Joint Sewer Authority 1 2 Bloomsburg Area Joint Flood Control Authority 1 3 Borough of Clarks Summit 1

C-13

District Count Agency # 4 Broad Top Township 1 5 Fairfax County 1 6 Luzerne County Flood Protection Authority 1 7 Maryland Port Administration 1 8 M-NCPPC; Montgomery County Department of Parks 1 9 National Park Service 1 10 Naval Research Laboratory 1 11 Prince George’s County Government, DPW&T 1 12 Somerset County Roads Department 1 13 Somerset County Sanitary District, Inc. 1 14 St. Mary’s County DPW&T 1 15 Susquehanna River Basin Commission 1 16 Unspecified 1 17 Wicomico County Department of Public Works 1 NAE 1 Boston Parks & Rec. 1 2 Bridgeport Port Authority 1 3 Maine DOT 1 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 1 5 Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 1 6 Pease Development Authority (A New Hampshire Agency 1 7 RI Department of Environmental Management 1 8 The Nature Conservancy 1 9 Town of Milford 1 10 Unspecified 2 NAN 1 Borough of Bound Brook 1 2 City of Burlington Vermont 1 3 City of Montpelier, Vermont 1 4 City of New Rochelle 1 5 City of New York - DEP- BP&S-SSE 1 6 City of New York, Dept of Parks & Recreation 1 7 City of Newark 1 8 Delaware County, New York 1 9 Green Brook Flood Control Commission 1 10 Greene County Soil and Water Conservation District 1 11 Greenwich CT Public Works 1 12 Lake Champlain Basin Program 1 13 Morris County Engineering Dept. 1 14 N J Department of Environmental Protection 5 15 New York City Department of Parks & Recreation 2 16 New York City Department of Transportation 1 17 New York State Department of Environmental Conserv 2 18 NJDEP - Bureau of Coastal Engineering 2 19 NYC Office of Emergency Management 2 20 NYS Dept. of Transportation 1 21 Sea Bright 1 22 Suffolk County 1 23 T&M Associates 1 24 The Land Conservancy of New Jersey 1 25 The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey 3 26 Town of Hempstead 1 27 Township of Little Falls NJ 1 28 Unspecified 1

C-14

District Count Agency # 29 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 1 30 Village of West Hampton Dunes 2 31 Westchester County Department of Planning 1 NAO 1 City of Chesapeake 2 2 City of Chesapeake, Public Works Engineering 1 3 City of Covington 1 4 City of Franklin 1 5 City of Fredericksburg 1 6 City of Hampton 1 7 City of Norfolk 1 8 City of Norfolk, Virginia; Department of Public Works 1 9 City of Richmond / Port of Richmond 1 10 City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities 2 11 City of Virginia Beach 6 12 City of Virginia Beach, VA Department of Public Works 1 13 Department of Public Works City of Chesapeake 1 14 Dominion Generation 1 15 Franklin Fire & Rescue 1 16 Isle of Wight County 1 17 Maryland Department of Natural Resources 1 18 Mathews County, VA 2 19 MeadWestvaco 1 20 National Weather Service 1 21 Norton’s Yacht Sales, Inc. 1 22 Port of Richmond / City of Richmond 1 23 Town of Smithfield, Virginia 1 24 Town of Tangier 1 25 U. S. Geological Survey 1 26 U.S. Coast Guard CEU Cleveland 1 27 Unspecified 1 28 US Coast Guard 1 29 Virginia Department of Emergency Management 1 30 Virginia Marine Resources Commission 2 31 Virginia Maritime Association 1 32 Virginia Pilot Association 1 33 Virginia Port Authority 1 34 VMI 1 NAP 1 Borough of Hatfield 1 2 BRS Inc for the City of Trenton 1 3 DE Division of Parks & Recreation 1 4 DE DNREC 1 5 DNREC 1 6 Dupont 1 7 Mordecai Land Trust 1 8 NJ Div. of Fish and Wildlife 1 9 NJDEP 1 10 Philadelphia Water Department 2 11 Unspecified 1 NWK 1 ARMY-Directorate of Family Morale and Recreation 1 2 Blue Township Fire-Rescue 1 3 City of Kansas City, Missouri 6 4 City of Lawrence Parks and Recreation Department 1

C-15

District Count Agency # 5 City of Manhattan 2 6 City of Platte City 1 7 City of St. Joseph, Missouri 2 8 City of Topeka, Kansas 2 9 City of Warsaw 2 10 City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri 1 11 Clay County 1 12 Clay County Parks, Recreation & Historic Sites 1 13 Clinton Elks Lodge #1034 1 14 Country Stampede, L.L.C. 1 15 Economic Development 1 16 Elwood- Gladden Drainage District 1 17 Fairfax Drainage District 1 18 Hermitage R-IV School District 1 19 Hickory County Health Department 1 20 Iowa Department of Natural Resources 1 21 Johnson County Storm Water Management Program 1 22 Kansas Department Wildlife and Parks 1 23 Kansas Department of Transportation(KDOT) 1 24 Kansas Forest Service 1 25 Kansas Water Office 1 26 Kansas Wildlife & Parks 2 27 Kaw Valley Drainage District of Wyandotte County, 1 28 Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas 1 29 Manhattan Convention & Visitors Bureau 1 30 Mid-America Regional Council 1 31 Missouri Department of Conservation 4 32 Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources 1 33 MODOT 1 34 North Kansas City Levee District 1 35 Port Authority of Kansas City 1 36 Rathbun Land and Water Alliance 1 37 Riley County 1 38 Riley County Fish and Game Association 1 39 Twin Valley Weed Management Area 1 40 Unspecified 1 41 West Central Missouri Community Action Agency 1 NWO 1 Bear Paw Development 3 2 Boulder County Parks & Open Space 1 3 Bynum/Teton County Water and Sewer District 1 4 City and County of Denver 1 5 City and County of Sheridan, Wyoming 1 6 City of Boulder 2 7 City of Bozeman 1 8 City of Fullerton 1 9 City of Greeley 1 10 City of Hamburg, Iowa 1 11 City of Helena, Montana 1 12 City of Miles City 1 13 City of Parshall, North Dakota 1 14 City of Shenandoah, IA 1 15 City of Sioux Falls 1

C-16

District Count Agency # 16 City of South Sioux City 1 17 Colorado State Parks and Outdoor Recreation 2 18 Crow Tribe of Indians 1 19 DOWL HKM for Northern Cheyenne Utility Commission 1 20 Fontenelle Nature Association 1 21 Fort Belknap Indian Community 1 22 Interstate Engineering, Inc. 1 23 Lower Platte North Natural Resources District 2 24 Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance 1 25 Lower Platte South Natural Resources District 2 26 McKenzie County Water Resource District 1 27 Mills County Secondary Roads Department 1 28 Missouri River Joint Water Board 2 29 Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District 3 30 Sioux City 1 31 Ten Mile-Pleasant Valley Subdivision 1 32 Three Affiliated Tribes 1 33 Town of Judith Gap 1 34 Town of Kevin 1 35 Town of Manhattan 1 36 Upper/Lower River Rd W&S District 1 37 USDA Forest Service 1 38 Wolf Creek W/S District 1 39 Yellowstone River Conservation District Council 2 NWP 1 Bonneville Power Administration 1 2 City of Medford 1 3 City of Portland 2 4 City of Prineville 1 5 Cowlitz County 1 6 Dept of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration 1 7 Multnomah County Drainage District #1 1 8 Oregon & Washington Sponsor Ports, 1 9 Oregon International Port of Coos Bay 1 10 Oregon Water Resources Department 1 NWS 1 Bigfork County Water & Sewer District 1 2 Bitter Root Irrigation District 1 3 Bonneville Power Administration 3 4 Butte-Silver Bow Public Works Department 1 5 City of Auburn 1 6 City of Bellingham 1 7 City of Bonners Ferry 1 8 City of Hamilton, Montana 1 9 Department of Ecology 1 10 Dunlap Towing Company 1 11 Granite-Reeder Water & Sewer District 1 12 Greater Woods Bay/Lake County Sewer District 1 13 Idaho Department of Fish and Game 1 14 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 1 15 Lincoln County EMA 1 16 Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks 1 17 NOAA Fisheries 1 18 Pend Oreille Basin Commission 1

C-17

District Count Agency # 19 Port of Bellingham 1 20 Port of Grays Harbor 1 21 Port of Skagit 1 22 Shoalwater Bay Tribe 1 23 Skagit County Dike District #17 1 24 Town of Philipsburg 1 25 Town of Superior 1 26 Town of Whitehall 1 27 Tulalip Tribes of Washington 1 28 Unspecified 1 29 West Bonner Water & Sewer District 1 NWW 1 Benton County Diking District #1 1 2 Bernert Barge Lines, Inc. 1 3 Bingham County 1 4 Boise River Flood Control District #10 1 5 CCT History/Archaeology 1 6 City of Ammon 1 7 City of Colfax Washington 1 8 City of Greenleaf 1 9 City of Lava Hot Springs 1 10 City of Lewiston 1 11 City of Moscow 1 12 City of Newdale 1 13 City of Richland, WA 1 14 City of Soda Springs 1 15 City of Walla Walla 1 16 Col River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 1 17 Columbia River Towboat Association 1 18 Flood Control District #9 1 19 Franklin County 1 20 Idaho Department of Fish and Game 1 21 Idaho Department of Lands 1 22 Idaho Department of Water Resources 1 23 Idaho Dept of Environmental Quality 1 24 Idaho Dept of Water Resources 1 25 Inland Power & Light Co 1 26 Lindblad Expeditions 1 27 Northwest Grain Growers 1 28 Pacific Northwest Waterways Association 1 29 Port of Columbia 1 30 Port of Lewiston 1 31 Teton County Idaho 1 32 US Fish and Wildlife Service 1 33 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 1 34 Walla Walla County 2 35 Walla Walla County Public Works 1 36 Walla Walla Yacht Club 1 37 Washington Grain Commission 1 POA 1 Alaska Homeland Security &; Emergency Management 1 2 City and Borough of Juneau 1 3 City of Chignik 1 4 City of McGrath 1

C-18

District Count Agency # 5 City of Nome 1 6 City of Seward 2 7 City of Unalaska 1 8 City of Valdez, Alaska 1 9 City of Whittier 1 10 Denali Commission 1 11 Fairbanks North Star Borough 2 12 Fairbanks North Star Borough Community Planning De 1 13 Federal Highway Administration 1 14 Haines Borough 1 15 Kivalina City Council 1 16 Native Village of Savoonga IRA Council 1 17 Newtok Traditional Council 1 18 Port and Harbor of Homer Alaska 1 19 Port of Anchorage 3 20 Port of Homer Alaska 1 21 Shishmaref Native Corporation 1 22 USCG 1 POH 1 City & County of Honolulu, Dept. of Env. Services, 1 2 City and County of Honolulu 1 3 County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works 1 4 County of Maui Department of Public Works 1 5 Department of Land and Natural Resources 1 6 Department of Port Administration, American Samoa 1 7 Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Department of L 1 8 Federal Highway Administration 1 9 Hawaii DOT Harbors Division 1 10 Maui County Planning Department 1 11 State Department of Land and Natural Resources 1 12 State of Hawaii - Commission on Water Resource Man 1 SAC 1 Army Strategic Logistics Activity Charleston 1 2 City of Folly Beach 1 3 City of North Myrtle Beach 1 4 Department of State 1 5 Horry County 2 6 Naval Engineering Support Unit 1 7 Naval Weapons Station Charleston 1 8 Orangeburg County 1 9 Richland County South Carolina Government 1 10 SC Emergency Management Division 1 11 South Carolina State Ports Authority 3 12 Technical Operations Engineering Services Infrastructure 1 13 Town of Edisto Beach 1 14 U.S. Department of Energy - National Nuclear Security 1 15 Unspecified 1 16 US DOE Savannah River 1 17 USCG Aids to Navigation Team Charleston 1 SAJ 1 Aguadilla Municipality 7 2 Brevard County 2 3 Broward County Natural Resources Planning and Mana 1 4 Canaveral Port Authority 1 5 City of Boca Raton 1

C-19

District Count Agency # 6 City of Cape Canaveral 1 7 City of Clearwater 1 8 City of Delray Beach 1 9 City of Fernandina Beach 1 10 City of Jacksonville, Florida 2 11 City of Miami 1 12 City of Tarpon Springs, Florida 1 13 City of Venice 1 14 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 1 15 County of Volusia 1 16 Department of Interior 1 17 Department of Natural and Environmental Resources 1 18 Everglades National Park/SFNRC 1 19 Flagler County 1 20 Florida Inland Navigation District 1 21 Institute of Puerto Rican Culture 1 22 Jacksonville Port Authority, Jacksonville, FL 3220 1 23 Lee County 1 24 Lee County Natural Resources Division 1 25 Manatee County Government 1 26 Marine Resources Council 1 27 Martin County BOCC 1 28 Miami-Dade County 1 29 Palm Beach County 1 Palm Beach County Environmental Resources 30 Management 1 31 Port Everglades 1 32 Port of Miami 1 33 Port of Palm Beach District 1 34 SFWMD 7 35 South Florida Water Management District 16 36 Southwest Florida Water Management District 1 37 St Johns County 1 38 St. Johns River Water Management District 1 39 SUBASE Kings Bay 1 40 Tampa Port Authority 1 41 Town of Palm Beach 1 42 Unspecified 1 43 West Coast Inland Navigation District 1 SAM 1 Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Res 1 2 Alabama State Port Authority 1 3 Bay County Tourist Development Council 1 4 Brown & Mitchell, Inc. 1 5 City of Atlanta 2 6 City of Buford 1 7 City of Cumming 1 8 City of Destin 1 9 City of Ocean Springs Public Works 1 10 City of Pascagoula 1 11 City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama 1 12 Cobb County Water System 1 13 CorroMetrics Services, Inc. 1 14 DeKalb County GA. roads & Drainage Division 1 C-20

District Count Agency # 15 Hall County Public Works, Engineering Division 1 16 Harrison County Sand Beach Authority 1 17 Lake Lanier Association 1 18 Mississippi Dept. of Marine Resources 1 19 Mississippi State Port Authority 1 20 MS Department of Marine Resources 1 21 Office of Governor Haley Barbour 1 22 Port of Pascagoula 1 23 Seahaven Consulting 1 24 Southeastern Power Administration 1 25 Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District 1 26 Tri Rivers Waterway Association 1 27 W.C. Bradley Co. 1 28 Warrior Tombigbee Waterway Association 1 29 West Point Lake Coalition 1 SAS 1 Anderson County 1 2 Anderson County (Gov’t) SC 1 3 Ben Hill County 1 4 Brunswick Harbor Pilots 1 5 CEMA 1 6 Chatham Emergency Management Agency 1 7 City of North Augusta 1 8 City of Savannah 1 9 City of Tybee Island 1 10 Duke Energy 1 11 FEMA Region IV 1 12 Fort Pulaski National Monument 1 13 Franklin County 1 14 GEMA 1 15 Georgia Department of Transportation 2 16 Georgia Emergency Management Agency 1 17 Georgia Ports Authority 2 18 Hart County GA BOC 1 19 Oconee County, SC 1 20 Savannah Maritime Assn. 1 21 Savannah Pilots Assn. River Pilot 1 22 Southeastern Power Administration 1 23 Stephens County 1 SAW 1 AIWA 1 2 Bald Head Island 1 3 Beaufort Town Docks 1 4 Cape Fear Docking Pilots, Inc 1 5 Carteret County 1 6 City of Concord North Carolina 1 7 City of Jacksonville 1 8 City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department 1 9 City of Roanoke 1 10 City of Winston-Salem 1 11 DENR 1 12 Dominion Virginia Power / North Carolina Power 1 13 N C Beach Inlet and Waterway Assn. 1 14 National Weather Service 1

C-21

District Count Agency # 15 NC Division of Emergency Management 1 16 NC Division of Water Resources 1 17 NC State Ports Authority 1 18 NCDENR-DWQ 1 19 NCDOT Ferry Division 1 20 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 1 21 Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) 1 22 Stanly County 1 23 Topsail Beach 1 24 Town of Beaufort 1 25 Town of Belhaven 1 26 Town of Carolina Beach 1 27 Town of Cary 1 28 Town of Caswell Beach 1 29 Town of Emerald Isle 1 30 Town of Holden Beach 1 31 Town of Kure Beach 1 32 Town of North Topsail Beach 1 33 Town of Oak Island 1 34 Town of Surf City 1 35 Town of Wrightsville Beach 1 36 Unspecified 2 37 W.V. Hydro, Inc. 1 SPA 1 Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Auth 3 2 City of Alamogordo 1 3 City of Deming 1 4 City of Jal 1 5 City of Las Cruces 1 6 City of Santa Fe 1 7 City of Santa Rosa 1 8 County Of El Paso 1 9 Ana County Flood Commission 1 10 Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 1 11 Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources 1 12 New Mexico State Parks 1 13 NMED and NMISC 1 14 Office of State Engineer/Interstate Stream Commission 1 15 Ohkay Owingeh 1 16 Pueblo de Cochiti 1 17 Pueblo de San Ildefonso 1 18 Pueblo of Acoma Water Office 1 19 Pueblo of Santa Ana 1 20 Santa Clara Pueblo 1 21 Village of Pecos 1 22 Village of Questa 1 SPK 1 Aqua Engineering 1 2 Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 1 3 Brigham City 1 4 Calaveras County Water District 1 5 California Department of Water Resources 1 6 Central Valley Flood Protection Board, CA 1 7 City of Bakersfield, Water Resources 1

C-22

District Count Agency # 8 City of Blanding 1 9 City of Folsom 1 10 City of Logan 1 11 City of Pleasant Hill, Ca. 1 12 City of Roseville Water Utility 1 13 City of Tehama 1 14 City of West Sacramento, WSAFCA 1 15 City of West Wendover 1 16 City of Yerington 1 17 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conser 1 18 Department of Water Resources, California 1 19 Deweyville Town 1 20 Douglas County Sewer Improvement District No. 1 2 21 DWR 1 22 Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 1 23 Hansen and Associates 1 24 Honeyville City, Utah 1 25 Incline Village General Improvement District 2 26 Johansen & Tuttle Engineering 1 27 Kane County Water Conservancy District 1 28 Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District 1 29 Lake County Watershed Protection District 1 30 Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition 1 31 Mona City, Utah 1 32 Napa County Flood Control and Conservation District 1 33 Placer County Public Works Department 1 34 Placer County Water Agency 1 35 Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation 1 36 Port of Stockton 1 37 Port of West Sacramento 2 38 Regional Water Authority 1 39 Richmond City (Utah) 1 40 Roosevelt City Corp 1 41 Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) 1 42 San Juan County, Utah 1 43 Santa Clara Valley Water District 1 44 State of Nevada - Division of State Lands 1 45 Stockton East Water District 1 46 Storey County Nevada 1 47 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region 1 48 Uintah County 1 49 Unspecified 3 50 Wasatch Civil Consulting Engineering 1 51 Wide Hollow Water Conservancy District 1 SPL 1 Beacon 1 2 Big Bear Municipal Water District 1 3 Borrego Water District 1 4 Boulder City 1 5 Bowen Collins and Associates Engineers 1 6 Bucknam & Associates, Inc. 1 7 Castaic Lake Water Agency 1 8 City of Encinitas 1

C-23

District Count Agency # 9 City of Flagstaff 3 10 City of Long Beach 3 11 City of Los Angeles 2 12 City of Morro Bay 1 13 City of Oceanside 2 14 City of Phoenix, Arizona 2 15 City of Pismo Beach 1 16 City of San Clemente 1 17 City of Santa Barbara 1 18 City of Solana Beach, California 1 19 City of Tempe - Community Development 1 20 Clark County Department of Public Works 1 21 Clark County Regional Flood Control District 1 22 Coachella Valley Water District 1 23 County of Los Angeles Dept. of Public Works 1 24 County of Orange 1 25 Department of Recreation and Parks City of Los Angeles 1 26 EMWD 1 27 Las Vegas Valley Water District 1 28 Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors 1 29 Los Angeles County Flood Control District 1 30 Navajo Department of Water Resources 1 31 Oxnard Harbor District 2 32 Pima County Regional Flood Control District 2 33 Pima County, Arizona 1 34 Port of Los Angeles 1 35 Port San Luis Harbor District 1 36 Recreation and Parks 1 37 Recreation/Parks Department 1 38 San Bernardino County Flood District 1 39 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District 1 40 Santa Cruz County 1 41 Town of Marana 1 42 Unspecified 3 43 Valencia Water Company 1 44 Ventura County 1 45 Ventura County Watershed Protection District 1 46 Ventura Port District 1 SPN 1 City of Pacifica 1 2 City of San Leandro 1 3 Crescent City Harbor District 1 4 East Bay Municipal Utility District 1 5 Humboldt County Resource Conservation District 1 6 Marin County Department of Public Works 1 7 Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation 1 8 Noyo Harbor District 1 9 Port of Redwood City 1 10 Port of San Francisco 2 11 Port of Stockton 1 12 Port of West Sacramento 1 13 San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 1 14 Santa Clara Valley Water District 3

C-24

District Count Agency # 15 Sonoma County Water Agency 1 16 State Coastal Conservancy 1 17 U S E P A 1 18 Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District 1 SWF 1 Bastrop County 1 2 Blackland Prairie Raptor Center 1 3 Bosque County 1 4 Brazos River Authority 2 5 CH2M HILL 1 6 City of Abilene 1 7 City of Austin 1 8 City of Benbrook 1 9 City of Fort Worth 1 10 City of Gainesville 1 11 City of Laredo 1 12 City of Lancaster 1 13 City of Meridian 1 14 City of San Marcos 1 15 City of Stephenville 1 16 City of Waco 1 17 City of Weatherford 1 18 City of Wharton, Texas 1 19 Drug Enforcement Administration 1 20 Lower Neches Valley Authority 1 21 North Central Texas Council of Governments 1 22 Northeast Texas Municipal Water District 1 23 Palo Pinto County Municipal Water District No. 1 1 24 Red River Valley Association 1 25 San Antonio Water System 2 26 Southwestern Power Administration 1 27 Texas Water Development Board 2 28 Travis County 1 29 Trinity River Vision Authority/Tarrant Regional Water 1 30 Unspecified 2 31 Upper Colorado River Authority 1 32 Upper Leon River MWD 1 33 Upper Trinity Regional Water District 1 SWG 1 Brazoria County Conservation and Reclamation District 1 2 Brownsville Navigation District 1 3 Calhoun Port Authority 1 4 Cedar Bayou Navigation District 1 5 Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District 1 6 City of Texas City 1 7 City of Wharton, Texas 1 8 Galveston County 1 9 Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association 1 10 Harris County Flood Control District 2 11 Hidalgo County Drainage District #1 12 Jefferson County Drainage District No. 7 1 13 Lower Neches Valley Authority 1 14 Matagorda County Navigation District No. 1 1 15 Port Freeport 1

C-25

District Count Agency # 16 Port Isabel San Benito Navigation District 1 17 Port Mansfield/Willacy County Navigation District 1 18 Port of Bay City Authority 1 19 Port of Corpus Christi Authority 1 20 Port of Orange 1 21 Port of Port Arthur Navigation District 1 22 Port of Texas City 1 23 Port of Victoria 1 24 Texas Department of Transportation 1 25 The Port of Harlingen Authority 1 26 The Port of Houston Authority 1 27 Velasdco Drainage District 1 SWL 1 ANRC 1 2 Arkansas Game & Fish Commission 3 3 Arkansas River Valley Regional Water 1 4 Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department 1 5 Arkansas Waterways Commission 1 6 Central Arkansas Water 1 7 City of Batesville 1 8 City Of Batesville Wastewater Treatment Plant 1 9 City of Fort Smith Arkansas 1 10 City of Tulsa-Rogers County Port Authority 1 11 Little Rock Parks and Recreation 1 12 Marion County Regional Water Department 1 13 Mid Arkansas Water Alliance 1 14 OK. Dept. of Transportation - Waterways Branch 1 15 Red River Valley Association 1 16 River Valley Regional Intermodal Facilities Author 1 17 Southwest Arkansas Water District 1 18 Southwestern Power Administration 1 19 Texas Department of Transportation 1 SWT 1 INCOG 1 2 City of Denison, Texas 1 3 City of Miami 1 4 City of Newton, Kansas 1 5 City of Tulsa-Rogers County Port Authority 1 6 City of Wichita 1 7 JOHNSTON^S PORT 33 1 8 Kansas Water Office 1 9 OK Dept. of Transportation - Waterways Branch 1 10 Oklahoma Water Resources Board 1 11 Red River Authority of Texas 1 12 Red River Valley Association 1 13 Texas Water Development Board 1 14 Unspecified 1 15 Wichita County Water Improvement District No.2 1

C-26

Table C-2: Project Names by District

District Count Project # LRB 1 Allen/McCauley Waterline (Stow Sanitary Sewer Ext) 1 2 Ashtabula Harbor 1 3 Athol Springs 1 4 Blanchard River Watershed Flood Project 1 5 Buffalo River Environmental Dredging 312 Program 1 6 Canadaway Creek Sewerline/Streambank Stabilization 1 7 CAP 205 Cuyahoga River Independence & Valley View 1 8 CG CAP 14 Hopkins Rd /Ransom Creek/Burdick Rd 1 9 CG CAP 205 Cuyahoga River, Valley View, OH 1 10 Chapel Rd Sanitary Sewer 1 11 Chautauqua Creek GLFER 1 12 Cleveland Harbor (multiple projects) 1 13 Cleveland Harbor Dredge Material Management Plan 1 14 Cooley Canal Harbor 1 15 Cuyahoga River Environmental Restoration Project 1 16 ECSO ICE BTV R&A 1 17 Elyria Water Treatment Plant - Water Intake 1 18 Fairport OH Harbor Dredging 1 19 Flood Plain Management 1 20 GI PAS Amherst H&H Project 1 21 GLFER Fish Passage System at Springville Dam 1 22 Great Lakes Habitat Initiative 1 23 Great Lakes Sediment Transportation Model 1 24 LaSalle Park & Black Rock Lock & Emerg Prep 1 25 Lorain Diked Disposal Site 1 26 Lorain DMMP & CDF 1 27 Mt Morris Dam- Multiple Projects 1 28 Mt Morris Dam recreation 1 29 Multiple 1 30 NYS Route 5/Athol Springs Shoreline Protection Pro 1 31 OLP CSO Grant 9 (sewer separation) 1 32 Onondaga Lake Partnership 2 33 Onondaga Lake Partnership/Sewer Separation Project 1 34 Painesville OH Sanitary Sewer Extensions 1 35 Port of Rochester Genesee River dredging 1 36 Presque Isle Annual Beach Nourishment 1 37 Presque Isle Beach Nourishment project, Presque Is 1 38 Toledo Maumee Bay & River Dredging 1 39 Wellesley Island Border Patrol Station/RampUp 6000 1 40 West Valley Demonstration Project 1 41 Western Lake Erie Basin 1 42 Western Lake Erie Basin Study 1 LRC 1 Bubbly Creek Feasibility Study 1 2 Burns Waterway Harbor Dredging 1 3 Cady Marsh Ditch Channel Improvements Contract: W9 1 4 Calumet Harbor & River 1 5 Chicago Shoreline Protection Project 1 6 Chicago Shoreline Storm Damage Reduction Project 1 7 City of Whiting, IN Sewer and Water System Upgrade 1 8 Des Plaines Phase 2 Study 1 9 Des Plaines River Phase 1 1 10 East Chicago Habitat Enhancement Demonstration Project 1 11 Eugene Field Park Wetland 1 12 Fort Sheridan Estuary Habitat Restoration Program 1 C-27

District Count Project # 13 Grand Calumet River Feasibility Study 2 14 Hofmann Dam 206 1 15 Indian Ridge Marsh 1 16 Indian Ridge Marsh (and other projects in the Calumet) 1 17 Levee 37 2 18 Little Calumet 1 19 Lockport Prairie Ecosystem Restoration 1 20 McCook and Thornton Composite Reservoirs 1 21 Observation Wells 1 22 OMMA Deer Grove, OMMA Tinely, Spring Creek, McMaho 1 23 Online Flood Control 1 24 Porter Ave Sewer Relining Project 1 25 Ranburn Woods Flood Relief 1 26 Red Mill GLFER 1 27 Squaw Creek 206 1 28 Unspecified 5 29 Upper Des Plaines and Tributaries Phase 2 Feasibility 1 30 Upper Des Plaines Watershed Advisory Committee and 1 31 Varies 1 32 Wolf Lake Environmental Restoration Project 1 LRE 1 4th Street Reconstruction 1 2 Advance Measure Flood Protection Detroit Beach 1 3 Arthur Street Boat Launch 1 4 Aurora Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase III 1 5 Bayfield Sewer and Water Rehabilitation - Phase II 1 6 Black River Harbor (UP) dredging 1 7 Chisholm Water and Sewer Replacement Project W56M 1 8 CIPP Rehabilitation of Sanitary Sewers & East Inte 1 9 City of Montreal Municipal Well and Potable Water 1 10 Cliff & Ridge Street Sanitary Sewer 1 11 Clinton River Dredging 1 12 Clinton River Watershed AOC 1 13 Danielson Pump House Water Treatment Plant 1 14 Danielson Water Treatment Plan 1 15 Dredging of Ludington Harbor 1 16 Duluth - Superior Corrosion Study 1 17 Duluth - Superior DMMP 1 18 Duluth- Superior harbor channel maintenance dredging 1 19 East Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Overflow Structure 1 20 Fairfield Ditch Section 205, Thieme Drive Riverbank 1 21 Flint River Corridor - Chevy in the Hole 1 22 Force Main Replacement 1 23 Fox River Locks 1 24 Fox River Project 1 25 Frankenmuth Fish Passage 1 26 FY09 Maintenance Dredging, Frankfort Harbor, Michigan 1 27 Grand Haven Outer Harbor Project 1 28 Grand Traverse, MI 1 29 Grand View Sanitary 1 30 Grand View Sanitary District 1 31 Green Bay Dredging 1 32 Green Bay Harbor DMMP 1 33 Hearding Island Dredge Project, Duluth, MN 1 34 Holland Dredge Site Soil Removal Project 1 35 Hurley Water Treatment Plant/ Hurley Industrial Park 1 36 HWY 2 Utility Improvements; Beaser Stormwater & Dr 1 C-28

District Count Project # 37 Kearsley Creek Interceptor 1 38 KK River Sediment Remediation and Restoration Project 1 39 Lake Poygan Breakwall 1 40 Lake Superior Waterline Disconnections 1 41 Leland Harbor Maintenance Dredging 1 42 Lift Station No. 6 and others 1 43 Little Lake dredging 1 44 Mackinac Island, Michigan Harbor Breakwall 1 45 Maintenance - Project 154 1 46 McQuade Small Craft Harbor 1 47 Midway Park Sanitary Sewer 1 48 Mine Land Reclamation 2 49 Monroe Harbor, MI 1 50 Multi-Project Partnership Efforts 1 51 NewBuffalo 1 52 Northern Wisconsin Infrastructure 2 53 Ontonagon County Harbor Dredging 1 54 OPERATION MUCK (Ecosystem Restoration) Fox River 1 55 Otsego Lake Restoration 1 56 Petoskey Breakwater Reconstruction 1 57 Port Austin Harbor, MI Walkway Repair 1 58 Port Wing Wisconsin Wastewater Treatment Facility 1 59 Saint Joseph Inner and Outer Harbor Dredging 1 60 SARP Climate Change Impacts, Duluth/Toledo Harbors 1 61 Saugatuck Breakwater Repair 1 62 Small Harbor Maintenance Projects 1 63 St. Louis River Sediment Assessment 1 64 STH 13 Water and Sewer Extension 1 65 Storm Sewer Construction 1 66 Storm Sewer Upgrades/Wastewater Treatment Plant Up 1 67 The Kinnickinnic River Environmental Restoration/S 1 68 Thieme Dr. Emergency Streambank Protections 1 69 Town Sewer Upgrade - Port Wing Sec. 154 1 70 Trailer Court Road Expansion Project (sanitary sew 1 71 Ugstad Road Water System Improvement Project 1 72 Unspecified 1 73 Upper Saginaw River DMDF & River Dredging project 1 74 USACE/MPCA Partnership Agreement to Perform Sediment 1 75 UV Disinfection of Wastewater 1 76 Village of Poplar Wastewater Treatment Plant Mod 1 77 WLSSD Gary New-Duluth Wastewater Treatment Pumping 1 LRH 1 2007 Spruce Street Water and Sewer Project 1 2 531 Program 1 3 Bloomingburg Wastewater Treatment Project 1 4 Boone County Turtle Creek 1 5 Catholic Hill-Little Buffalo Sewer Project 1 6 City of Charleston 1 7 City of Hillsboro Environmental Infrastructure Imp 1 8 Civitan Riverfront Expansion 1 9 Claytor Lake Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project 1 10 Culpepper area water system 1 11 Design & Construction Assistance for the City of O 1 12 DSA Bluestone 1 13 Fifth Avenue Dam - Lower Olentangy Watershed Ecosystem 1 14 General Jenkin’s Home 1 15 Grundy Floodproofing Project 1 C-29

District Count Project # 16 Guyandotte River Flood Study 1 17 Hocking River (Monday Creek) 1 18 Jenkins Plantation 1 19 Jenkins Plantation - RC Byrd Project 1 20 Kilsyth Sewer Extension/Plant Upgrade 1 21 Marlinton LPP 1 22 McDowell County Section 202 Non-structural Flood C 1 23 Mercer/Summers Phase IVA Water Project 1 24 Mountain Water District 1 25 Mt. Carmel School Waste Water Improvement Project 1 26 Multiple Projects within Muskingum Basin 1 27 North Putnam Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade 1 28 Pike County Tribs 1 29 Riverfront Park 1 30 Rose Run Restoration Project 1 31 Section 594 Hamden 1 32 Southfork of New River - Phase II 1 33 Summit Road/Glenn St Water Transmission Main 1 34 Town of Poca Sanitary Sewer Improvements 1 35 Tug River Non-Structural Flood Control 1 36 Turtle Creek 1 37 Unspecified 6 38 Upper Hocking Water Pollution Control Project 1 39 Variety of projects 1 40 Walker Lane Emergency Streambank Protection Project 1 41 Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Phase I 1 LRL 1 Chavies Wastewater Project 1 2 City of Radcliff Floodplain mapping 1 3 Clinton Massie / Clarksville Sewer Project 1 4 Dayton, Northeast Quad 1 5 Duck Creek Local Flood Protection Project 1 6 Evansviklke Vanderburgh Levee Authority District 1 7 Fairview Commons Infrastructure 1 8 Gre-Yellow Springs Connector Roadway 1 9 Levee System Evaluation 1 10 New Albany Local Flood Protection Project 1 11 Ohio River Greenway 1 12 Ohio River Greenway Public Access - Indiana 1 13 Pond Creek Flood Control 1 14 Pond Creek Planning Assistance 1 15 Raw Water Study / City of Bardstown 1 16 Riverfront Commons 1 17 Shelby Co. I-64 Pipeline study 1 18 Silver Jackets and Mitigation Clearances 1 19 Springfield Airport Water and Sewer 1 20 Springfield Hospital Water and Sewer 1 21 SR 358 bank protection 1 22 Tech Town 1 23 Tyner Elementary Wetland Project 1 24 Unspecified 5 25 Wabash River 1 26 White River Indianapolis North, Flood Damage Reduc 1 27 White river levee protection project 1 LRN 1 Clarksville Marina at Fairgrounds Park 1 2 Cumberland River Eco Restoration 1 3 Flood Project 1 C-30

District Count Project # 4 Guntersville Landing Project 1 5 KY/L and CHI/L 2 6 Lake Barkley (several completed and ongoing project 1 7 Meadowpark Dam EIS 1 8 Mill Creek 1 9 Mill Creek/Metro Center/JPP 1135 1 10 Mud Lick Creek 2 11 Murfree/Oaklands/Black Fox/Nick-a-jack Wetlands Pr 1 12 North Fork Powell River Ecosystem Restoration Proj 1 13 Phase 3 Waterway Study 1 14 Pinhook Creek 1 15 Powell River 1 16 River Study 1 17 Section 202 2 18 South Fork Dry Dam 1 19 Streambank Stabilization 1 20 Study 1 21 Swannanoa Flood Reduction Project, Biltmore Village 1 22 Swannanoa Watershed Study 1 23 Tennessee River Operations 1 24 Unspecified 3 LRP 1 Backwash Treatment Facility 1 2 Bentleyville Storm Water Project 1 3 Borough of Point Marion, PA Water System Improvement 1 4 Bronze Heights Sewer Project and/or State Route 28 1 5 Brookfield Center Phase II & III, Little Squaw Cre 1 6 Brush Creek Channel Improvement Project 1 7 Campbell Industrial Park Sanitary Sewer System Pro 1 8 County of Armstrong/Kiskiminetas Township - Jackson 1 9 Coursin Run Stream stabilization 1 10 Elrama Sewerage Project 1 11 Front Ave riverbank stabilization 1 12 German Township Public Sewage Project 1 13 Gilpin Township Water System Improvements 1 14 I-77 Sanitary Sewer Extension 1 15 Jacks Run 1 16 James Fulton Flood Control Project 1 17 Lower Ten Mile Joint Sewer Authority - Phase II Pr 1 18 Mosquito Creek Water Supply 1 19 Mun. Authority of Twp. of Washington, Fayette County 1 20 Neshannock Creek Section 14 Project 1 21 NEX Alexandria 1 22 North Lt, Union, GT Township Mt Independence 1 23 Pegasus 1 24 Perry Township Municipal Authority Phase II Sewer 1 25 Phase II & III Jawbone Run Sanitary Sewer Upgrade. 1 26 Phase IIA Water Line 1 27 South Struthers Interceptor Sewer 1 28 SR 285 1 29 Stream Bank Protection - Weston, WV 1 30 Swan Plan Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project 1 31 The Mun. Authority of the Township of Washington, 1 32 Unspecified 2 33 Upper Sewickley Creek Sewage Treatment 1 34 Youghiogheny River Lake Water Supply 1 MVK 1 All Red River Projects: GI, CG & O&M 1 C-31

District Count Project # 2 Bayou Metro Water Management District 3 3 Beatties Bluff Phase II 1 4 Bovina Elevated Tank 1 5 Coldwater River / McKinney Bayou Feasibility Study 1 6 DeGray Water Storage Agreement 1 7 DeSoto Greenways 1 8 Highway 237 Embankment in Sulphur River Floodplain 1 9 J. Bennett Johnston Waterway 1 10 McComb Stormwater Drainage Improvements 1 11 Mitigation Projects - Lake George, Sky Lake, Musca 1 12 multiple 1 13 N/A 3 14 North Natchez Surface Water Drainage 592 Project 1 15 Ouachita-Red 1 16 Pearl River County Mississippi Board of Supervisor 1 17 Pearlington Water&Sewage 1 18 Philadelphia Utilities Section 592 1 19 PROGRAMMING OFFICE 1 20 Quiver Sunflower River Water Supply 1 21 Red River below Denison Dam and Bayou Bodcau and T 1 22 Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study 1 23 Second Well for Pearlington Water and Sewer District 1 24 Section 592 Program 4 25 Sewer rehabilitation 1 26 Southeast Arkansas Study 1 27 Southern Jackson County Wholesale Water Supply 1 28 Unspecified 13 29 Utility District 1 30 waste water improvements 1 31 Wastewater Force Main Replacement 1 32 Wastewater Piping Replacement and Treatment Plant 1 33 Water tank for utilities 1 34 Wholesale Water Supply 1 MVM 1 Bayou Metro Water Management District 3 2 C.I.- Barfield Bend (Const & Maint) /MRL 1 3 City Infrastructure 1 4 Coldwater River and Arkabutla Lake 1 5 Commerce Relief Well Ditches 1 6 DeSoto County Regional Sewer System 1 7 DeSoto County Regional Utility Authority 2 8 DeSoto County Regional Wastewater Program 1 9 EAEC Small Towns and Communities Infrastructure In 1 10 Elvis Stahr Harbor Dredging 2 11 Floodwall Project 1 12 Francis Bland Floodway Ditch 1 13 Grand Prairie 2 14 Grand Prairie Area Demonstration Project 2 15 Grand Prairie Irrigation Project 1 16 Harbor dredging 1 17 Hickman Bluff Project 1 18 Human Resources Support 1 19 Joe Sanner Harvey 1 20 Lake # 9 Pumping Station, Island # 8 Relief Well 2 21 Lateral D - Section 14 Project 3 22 Levee 1 23 Levee Inspection 1 C-32

District Count Project # 24 Levee Inspection and Certification 1 25 Levee Road Resurfacing 1 26 Little River Diversion Dutchtown, MO 1 27 LMRRA 2 28 Lower Cache 1 29 Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment 1 30 Lower Obion Ecosystem Restoration Project 1 31 Memphis Harbor Project 1 32 Memphis Metro 1 33 Memphis Metro Stormwater 2 34 Mississippi River and Levees 1 35 Mississippi River Channel Improvement 3 36 Mississippi River Channel Improvement 1 37 Mississippi River Channel Improvement - Dike Const 2 38 Mississippi River Corridor - Tennessee 1 39 Mississippi River Levee 2 40 MRL Maintenance 3 41 Multiple projects in Desoto County - Johnson Creek 1 42 Navigation Study 1 43 Nonconnah Creek Greenbelt 1 44 Northwest Tennessee Harbor 1 45 Obion River 1135 1 46 Operation and Maintenance 1 47 Osceola Harbor Dredging (Maint) 1 48 Osceola River Port 1 49 PAS-Mud Island Land Use Plan 1 50 Payneway Dam erosion and bank stabilization 1 51 Phillips County Rural Sewer Collection Project 1 52 Piggott Relief Wells 1 53 Port of Cates Landing 1 54 Red Duck Creek Channelization 1 55 Riverfront 1 56 Riverfront Development Study, Caruthersville, MO 1 57 Science Partnership - White River Comp, Lower Cache 1 58 St John’s Bayou and New Madrid Spillway 1 59 St. Francis Basin Maintenance 5 60 St. Francis Basin Project 1 61 St. Francis Basin Project (MR&T) 1 62 St. Francis Levee 1 63 St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Closure Levee 1 64 St. Francis Levee, DD#48, DD#7 1 65 Strawberry Plains Audubon Center 1 66 Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou - St. Francis Basin 1 67 Various 1 68 West Tennessee Tributaries Project 1 69 White River Comp 2 70 White River Comprehensive Study 2 71 White River Comprehensive Study and Lower Cache 1 72 White River Levee Surfacing-Phillips & Desha Count 1 73 White River Navigation Improvement Project 1 74 Wolf River 1 75 Wolf River Environmental Restoration Project 3 76 Wolf River Harbor Redevelopment Plan 1 MVN 1 2009 Stone Placement 09-C-0028 1 2 Acadia Gulf of Mexico Access Channel (AGMAC) 1 3 Amite River and Tributaries Flood Control 1 C-33

District Count Project # 4 Amite River and Tributaries, Bayou Manchac, Louisiana 1 5 Ascension Parish Benchmark Densification Project 1 6 Ascension Parish comprehensive Sewer Improvements 1 7 Atchafalaya Basin 1 8 Atchafalaya Basin EIS 1 9 Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Comprehensive Mo 1 10 Atchafalaya River Protection Levee System 1 11 Avelis Test 1 12 BFE requests 1 13 base flood elevations 1 14 Bayous Bouef, Black and Chene Project 1 15 BFE determinations 1 16 Calcasieu River 1 17 Calcasieu River and Pass 1 18 Calcasieu Ship Channel 1 19 Carencro Flood Study program 1 20 Chene, Boeuf, and Black, LA Dredged Material Management 1 21 Comite River Diversion 1 22 Comite River Diversion Canal 1 23 Donaldsonville to the Gulf Feasibility Study 1 24 Donaldsonville to the Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Pro 1 25 East Baton Rouge Parish Geographic Information Sys 1 26 Eastbank Hurricane Protection Levee and Control St 1 27 Emergency Management Coordination 1 28 EPA Region 6 Targeted Brownfields Assessment Program 1 29 GIS Support for Fort Polk, LA 1 30 HNC Deepening Study 1 31 Houma Canal Lock 1 32 HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL DEEPENING 1 33 HSDRRS 1 34 Inspection of Completed Works 4 35 J. Bennett Johnston Waterway 1 36 Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, North of Airline, 1 37 Lake Pontchartrain Levee 1 38 LCA 1 39 LCA - Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern T 1 40 LCA - Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration 1 41 LCA Amite River Diversion Canal Modification Project 1 42 LCA Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Program 1 43 LCA Program Manager 1 44 LCA Small Diversion at Convent/Blind River 1 45 LCA-Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline 1 46 Levee 1 47 LPV and Vicinity 1 48 Maintenance Dredging 1 49 Maintenance Dredging of West Barge Basin, West Cal 1 50 Mississippi River and Tributaries 1 51 Morganza to the Gulf Hurricane Protection Project 1 52 Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico 1 53 MRGO closure structure St. Bernard Parish, La. W91 1 54 MS RV Levee (Completed Works) 1 55 Nature Trail 1 56 Navigation 1 57 Navigation of the Inland Waters of the US 1 58 New Orleans District 1 59 New Orleans Harbor Dredging 1 C-34

District Count Project # 60 Old River 5 61 Old River Lock 2 62 Ongoing base flood elevation determinations in AZ 1 63 Plaquemines Turf Study (TO #04, 06, 08, and 09) 1 64 Port of Iberia 1 65 Possum Bayou Pump Station Keel Kool Repair 1 66 Post Storm Assessment for Hurricanes Gustav/Ike 1 67 Programming Office 1 68 Relocate Levee Utilities Station New Orleans 1 69 Richtonj 1 70 Salinity Testing for Borrow Pits (TO #10 & 11) 1 71 SELA 2 72 Several WRDA Coastal Restoration Projects 1 73 South Washington Ave. Redevelopment Project 1 74 Southwest Studies 1 75 St. Charles Parish Urban Flood Study 1 76 Survey 1 77 tba 1 78 Teche-Vermilion 1 79 Thigpen 1 80 unknown 1 81 Unspecified 29 82 Urban Storm Water Study 1 83 Urban Storm Water Team 1 84 Various 3 85 Various (Navigation Bulletins, Response to Specifi 1 86 W123 W124 1 87 West Bank & Vicinity 1 88 West Bank and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project 2 89 West Bank levee 1 90 West Cameron Port Loop and east fork dredging 1 91 West Roosevelt Forcemain Relocation 1 92 West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain HPL 1 93 Zemurray Park Lake Restoration 1 MVP 1 2009 Flood Fight 1 2 2009 Flood Fight Red River 2 3 2009 Red River Flood 2 4 2009 Spring Flood 2 5 2009 Spring Flood Fight 1 6 2009 Spring flood on Red and Wild Rice Rivers 1 7 Ada Section 205 Feasibility 1 8 assorted flood control projects 1 9 Bois Forte Section 569 1 10 Brook Park Water Tower 1 11 Cass Rural Water District - Casselton/Kindred Proj 1 12 Cedar Lake Project, Half Moon Lake Project and Cen 1 13 City of Devils Lake Embankment Raise 1 14 COE 205 Flood Protection Study - Ada, MN. 1 15 Design of two sewer extensions 1 16 Devils Lake Embankment Project 1 17 Devils Lake Flood Risk Project 1 18 EGF/GF Flood protection 1 19 Emergency Protective Measures Cass County 2009 Spr 1 20 EMP Mississippi River 1

C-35

District Count Project # 21 Environmental Management Plan Miss. River 1 22 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Control Study 1 23 Fargo-Moorhead Metro Feasibility Study 2 24 Flood Control - Crookston 1 25 Flood Control, Red River of the North, Wahpeton St 1 26 Flood Protection Levee 1 27 Garrison Kathio West Mille Lacs Lake Sanitary 1 28 Grand Forks FDM Project 1 29 Grand Forks/East Grand Forks Flood Damage Recuctio 1 30 Granite Falls FDR 1 31 Lower Minnesota River Model 1 32 Marsh Lake Feasibility - Minnesota 1 33 Minnesota Flood Damage Reduction Projects 1 34 Minnesota River Basin Integrated Watershed Study 1 35 Minnesota River Navigation Channel 1 36 Minnesota River Watershed Study 1 37 Miss. River Environmental Management Plan 1 38 Mississippi Whitewater Park 1 39 Montevideo Flood Control Project 1 40 NESP 1 41 Northeast Richland County Reservoir Improvements 1 42 Ransom County Flooding - (Including Lisbon - Fort 1 43 Rapidan Dam Feasibility Study Stage 1 1 44 Red River Basin Feasibility Study 1 45 Red River Basin Watershed Feasibility Study 1 46 Red River Basin Wide Feasibility Study 1 47 Red River Basin Wide Feasibility Study and assist 1 48 Red River Section 22 1 49 Roseau East Diversion 1 50 Section 14 - Crow Rover/CSAH 50 Stabilization Proj 1 51 Section 14 Emergency Streambank Protection Project 1 52 Section 154 grant 1 53 Section 205 Feasibility Report Ada Mn 1 54 Section 569 1 55 Soudan Area Infrastructure 1 56 St. Paul Small Boat Harbor 1 57 Stillwater MN FDR 1 58 Sunrise River Watershed Study 2 59 Tract 33 Water Consolidation and Improvements Proj 1 60 Upper Mississippi River Navigation System 1 61 Wahpeton, ND Section 205 Local Flood Reduction Red 1 62 Wastewater 1 63 Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvement Project 1 64 Wastewater/ Sewer Extension & Replacement 1 65 Water Sewer Improvements 1 66 Well House and Well 1 MVR 1 2008 Flood damage 1 2 2008 Flood Recovery Project: City of Canton 1 3 Beginning building of 5 locks on Mississippi and 2 1 4 Blackhawk Bottoms Feasibility Study 1 5 Brownfield Area and/or Raccoon River at Perry 1 6 Canal Wall Repair 1

C-36

District Count Project # 7 Cedar River Feasibility Study 1 8 Cedar River Flood Control 1 9 Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, IA 1 10 City of Davenport, IA FRM 1 11 City of East Moline Local Flood Protection Project 1 12 City of Moline Planning Assistance 1 13 City of Rock Island PAS 1 14 Clarence Cannon NWR 1 15 Coal Creek - Section 14 1 16 Des Moines Local Flood Protection Project (DM-I,DM 1 17 Elkader local flood protection project 1 18 Emiquon West 1 19 EMP 1 20 EMP and NESP 1 21 EMP/LTRMP 1 22 Environmental Management Program 2 23 Flood 2008 1 24 Flood Damage Reduction Project 1 25 Flood Recovery Work 3 26 Fox River Water Crossing 1 27 Green Island Drainage District 1 28 Illinois and Mississippi River O&M 1 29 Illinois River Basin Restoration 1 30 Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration; NESP; Section 1 31 Iowa River Hydrologic Survey 1 32 Iowa/Cedar River Comprehensive Study 1 33 Keith Creek Feasibility Study 2 34 Lake Sinissippi Alternatives Report PAS Section 22 1 35 Levee repair 1 36 Levee Repairs (PL84-99), Marshalltown Levee Flood 1 37 Lighthouse 1 38 Local Flood Protection Project 1 39 Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) 2 40 Mad Creek Levee Improvement Project 1 41 Mainstream Levee Evaluation 1 42 Marshalltown Local Flood Protection 1 43 Mississippi River 1 44 Mon Maq Dam Feasibility Study 1 45 Multiple 2 46 NA 1 47 Navigation 1 48 NESP 3 49 NESP, Comprehensive Plan 1 50 PAS 1 51 Pekin Lake 1 52 PL-84-99 1 53 Pool 12 Islands 1 54 Rehab after June 2008 Flood 1 55 Riverfront Planning Initiative 1 56 Roberts Creek Park and Cordova Park 1 57 Rock Island FRM: Mainstem Levee Evaluations (IAA) 1 58 Rock River Hydraulic Study 1

C-37

District Count Project # 59 Section 14 - Bear Creek Project 1 60 Section 14 - Keosauqua, IA 1 61 SECTION 205 FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT REACH 1 1 62 Section 206 Emiquon East 1 63 Senachwine Creek, Section 519 1 64 Time Check Levee Feasibility - Cedar Rapids Flood 1 65 UMR Environmental Management Program - Long Term R 3 66 UMR Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program 1 67 UMRS Environmental Management Program 1 68 Unspecified 16 69 Ventura Marsh 1 70 Ventura Marsh Feasibility Study-Clear Lake, IA 1 71 Waubonsie Creek Restoration 1 72 Whitebreast Feasibility Study 1 MVS 1 2008 flood recovery 1 2 Adoption of multi-use trails for maintenance, impr 1 3 Alternate 15 1 4 Audubon Center 1 5 Calumet Nature Area 1 6 Cape Girardeau Flood Protection 1 7 Cape Girardeau, Missouri Reconstruction Project 1 8 Chesterfield Valley Flood Protection Project 1 9 Clarence Cannon NWR 1 10 Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District 1 11 Confluence Point State Park, Mo River Mitigation 1 12 Darst Bottom Levee District 1 13 Elsberry Levee and Drainage District 1 14 EMP Projects in Missouri Pool 24 (Ted Shanks) 1 15 ESL and Vicinity Restoration, Eagle Park Sewers, M 1 16 Festus-Crystal City Flood Protection Project 1 17 Glen Carbon Sanitary Sewer Improvements 1 18 Indian Creek Development Corporation d/b/a: Indian 1 19 Judy Creek riffel pool project 1 20 King’s Lake Drainage District 1 21 Kissinger Drainage and Levee District 1 22 Kuhs Lock and Dam 1 23 L-15 1 24 Levee Improvements 1 25 Lower Meramec Basin Levee Project 1 26 marine repair 1 27 Mark Twain Lake 3 28 Mark Twain Lake and Clarence Cannon Dam, MO 2 29 Metro-East Levee Reconstruction Program 1 30 Metro-east Levees 1 31 Mississippi River F&W Area 1 32 Mississippi River Water Trail 1 33 MOGA 1 34 N/A 1 35 Native Plant Flower Gardent, Retaining Wall, Mark 1 36 NESP, Upper, Lower, Illinois WW, Mel Price, REG Wo 2 37 Numerous 1 38 Nutwood Levee and Drainage District Rehab 1

C-38

District Count Project # 39 Old Lead Belt Southeast Missouri 1 40 Old Mill Creek Sewer Rehabilitation 1 41 Pike Grain Drainage and Levee District 1 42 Portland Avenue Storm Water Separation 1 43 Portland Sewer Separation 1 44 Prairie du Pont 1 45 Putting butts in boats 1 46 Reconstruction 1 47 Repair Flood Damage 1 48 River Resources Coordination 1 49 Salt River Road Construction - Regulatory Permit 1 50 Slide repairs in 2009 1 51 St. Louis Flood Protection 2 52 River Resources Coordination 1 53 Salt River Road Construction - Regulatory Permit 1 54 Slide repairs in 2009 1 55 St. Louis Flood Protection 2 56 Summary Area 1 57 Themis & Whitener Drainage Improvements 1 58 Turkey Hunt by Disabled Individuals 1 59 Two Rivers NWR 1 60 Unspecified 5 61 Upper, Lower, Illinois WW 3 62 Valley Opark Levee 1 63 Various Projects 2 64 Winfield Drainage and Levee District 1 NAB 1 Anacostia Levee Project 1 2 Belle Haven FDR Study & Cameron Run-Holmes Run FS 1 3 Bloomsburg PA Flood Risk Mitigation 1 4 Broad Top Township/Coaldale Borough Wastewater 1 5 Great Seneca/Muddy Branch; Anacostia Watershed Res 1 6 I&I Study 1 7 MPA’s Dredged Material Management Program 1 8 Phase II Slope Stabilization Project 1 9 Potomac Park Levee 1 10 Railroad Sewer Line Replacement 1 11 St. Jerome Creek Jetty Study 1 12 Tylerton 1 13 unknown 1 14 Various 2009 Water Resources Related Projects 1 15 Wicomico River Dredging 1 16 Wicomico River Dredging, Lower Thorofare Dredging 1 17 Wyoming Valley Levee Raising 1 NAE 1 Assabet River Dam and Sediment Removal Feasibility 1 2 Bridgeport Harbor DMMP 1 3 Connecticut River Watershed Study 1 4 Milford Pond Restoration Project 1 5 Muddy River Flood Control and Restoration 1 6 New Hampshire Navigation Projects 1 7 Ten Mile River Ecosystem Restoration Section 206 1 8 Unspecified 4 NAN 1 “Union” Beach Flood Damage Reduction 1

C-39

District Count Project # 2 Bayonne Bridge Air Draft Analysis 1 3 Bronx River at Westchester County Center, White Pl 1 4 Burlington Harbor Bollards Removal 1 5 Byram River Basin Feasibility Study 1 6 Coastal Storm Damage Reduction and Flood Control 1 7 Delaware County Action Plan 1 8 East River Bridges - Structural hardening and Security 1 9 Echo Bay - New Rochelle 206 1 10 FIMP 1 11 Flood Mitigation Projects in NJ 1 12 Gerritsen Creek, East Rockaway Inlet, and other projects 1 13 Green Brook 1 14 Green Brook Flood Control Project 1 15 Harbor Deepening Project 1 16 Hudson-Raritan Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Study 1 17 Jackson Brook 1 18 Jamaica Bay Marsh Island Restoration 1 19 Jamaica Bay, Bronx River, Flushing Bay, and Gowanu 1 20 Maintenance Dredging of Jones Inlet and Beneficial 1 21 Metro NY Evacuation Study 1 22 Minish Park 1 23 Minish Park Flood Control Project 1 24 Multiple 2 25 NYC Hurricane Planning and Preparedness Study 1 26 NYC Water Supply Security Upgrade 1 27 Orchard Beach Shoreline Protection 1 28 Orient Harbor, NY Emergency Shoreline Protection 1 29 Peckman River 1 30 Preservation of Natural Storage Areas 3 31 Ripparian Buffer Implementation Project / Stormwater 1 32 Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet Coastal Storm Reduction 1 33 Section 542 Lake Champlain Program 2 34 Shrewsbury River Flood Control Project 1 35 Soundview Park, Bronx, New York, Section 206, Aqua 1 36 West Hampton Dunes Interim Project 2 37 Winooski River 1 NAO 1 Bath County Power Station 1 2 Bells Mill Creek Watershed study 1 3 Broad Creek Navigational Channel Dredging Project 1 4 Buckroe Beach Renourishment & PAS 1 5 Chesapeake Bay Lynnhaven River Oyster Restoration 1 6 Chesapeake Bay Progammatic Oyster EIS 1 7 Chowan River Basin Gaging Network 2 8 Chowan River Basin Study 1 9 Chowan River Basin Study and Flood Mitigation 1 10 Chowan River Basin Technical Advisory Committee 1 11 Combined Sewer Overflow Control Design (various projects) 1 12 Craney Island Eastward Expansion 1 13 Deep Creek Canal Bridge 1 14 DWT Turning Basin Expansion Project (James River) 1 15 Embrey Dam Removal 1 16 Environment Virginia 1

C-40

District Count Project # 17 Environmental Restoration of Tangier Shorelines 1 18 Gathright Dam 1 19 Gathright Dam O&M 1 20 Hampton Roads Drift Removal 1 21 Indian River Watershed Study 1 22 James River, Virginia 1 23 Jordans Branch Drainage Study 1 24 Lynnhaven Inlet Navigation Channel 1 25 Lynnhaven Oyster Restoration Project 1 26 Lynnhaven River Environmental Restoration Feasibility 1 27 Maintenance Dredging (ARRA) Queens Creek, Winter H 1 28 Mathews County RSM 1 29 Norfolk Harbor & Channels 2 30 Norfolk Harbor and Hampton Roads Drift Removal 1 31 Old Dominion University Wetlands Restoration Project 1 32 Pagan River Dredging 1 33 Programmatic Oyster EIS 1 34 Rudee Inlet Navigation Channel 1 35 Sandbridge Beach Project 1 36 Scuffletown Creek Living Shoreline 1 37 Thalia Creek Section 22 1 38 USCG Integrated Support Center Portsmouth Small Bo 1 39 VA Hurricane Evacuation Re-Study 1 40 Virginia Beach Hurricane & Storm Damage Reduction 1 41 Willoughby Spit and Vicinity, Norfolk, Virginia Co 1 NAP 1 C&D Canal Trail 1 2 DE Coast Shore Protection - Multiple 1 3 Delaware Bay Oyster Revitalization Project 1 4 Delaware River Main Stem Channel Deepening 1 5 DuPont Chambers Works FUSRAP - Deepwater, NU 1 6 Fairmount Dam 1 7 Hatfield Borough Sewer Collection Improvement 1 8 Lower Assunpink Restoration Project 1 9 Mordecai Island Coastal Wetlands Restoration Project 1 10 NJ Coast Shore Protection - Multiple 1 11 Pond Creek Restoration 1 12 Tacony Creek / Woodland Dam Fish Passage / Cobbs C 1 NWK 1 1600 Acre Leased area. 1 2 Blacksnake Creek (205 Program) 1 3 Blue River Basin-Dodson 1 4 Blue River Channel 1 5 BPU Floodwall Improvements 1 6 Brush Creek Basin 1 7 Brush Creek Basin Study 1 8 Brush Creek Feasibility Study 1 9 Clinton State Park 1 10 Cooperative Fire - Hutchinson Community College Fund 1 11 David Brooks Bank Stabilization Project 1 12 Eagle Days at Tuttle Creek 1 13 Eastern Republican River Riparian Project 1 14 Eureka Creek Manhattan, KS, Sect. 205 Project 1 15 Golden Eagle Bank Erosion Project 1

C-41

District Count Project # 16 Hydraulic Study for the Shunganunga Watershed 1 17 K-32-Stranger Creek Stream Stability 1 18 Kansas City Levees 2 19 Manhattan KS Local Protection Project 1 20 Melvern Lake 1 21 Melvern Wildlife Area 1 22 Milford Lake Marina 1 23 MRLS L-455, R460-471 Feasibility Study 1 24 Multiple 1 25 NW Missouri Water Supply Studies 1 26 Pomme de Terre 2 27 Pomme de Terre Running River Trail 1 28 Pomona Lake Recreational Improvements 1 29 R471-460 1 30 Rathbun Lake 1 31 Rathbun Lake Shoreline Ecosystem Restoration Project 1 32 Riverfront Ecosystem 1 33 Section 14 South Fork Clear Creek Route FF Project 1 34 Seven Levees Project - North Kansas City Levee 1 35 Skidmore Refuge Observation Deck 1 36 Smithville Lake 2 37 Smithville Sect. 1135 Ecosystem Restoration Project 1 38 Stockton Lake 1 39 Stockton USACE (National Emergency Grant - Disaster 1 40 Stockton Water Supply Project 1 41 Swope Park Industrial Park 1 42 Too many to list 1 43 Topeka, Kansas Flood Risk Management Project 1 44 Turkey Creek 1 45 Tuttle Creek 2 46 Tuttle Creek River Pond Area 1 47 Upper Turkey Creek Basin 1 48 Walking trail / cross country course 1 49 Warsaw Recreation 1 50 Youth and Assisted Deer Hunt 1 NWO 1 Antelope Creek Flood Reduction Project, Lincoln, N 1 2 Big Sioux River Skunk Creek Flood Protection Project 1 3 Cache La Poudre GI Study 1 4 Carter Water Project 1 5 Cedar River Bank Stabilization 1 6 Chatfield State Park - USACE/Colorado Cost Share P 1 7 Cherry Creek State Park - USACE/Colorado Cost Share 1 8 County Water district of Billings Heights Phase 2 1 9 Crow Tribe Phase 3a Wastewater Improvement Project 1 10 Crystal Lake 1 11 Cumulative Impact Study 1 12 Elbowoods Memorial Health Center 1 13 Emergency Streambank Protection, W. Nishnabotna River 1 14 Gildford Sewer Project 1 15 Goose Creek Flood Study 1 16 Goose Creek Restoration 1 17 Heron Haven, Omaha, NE 1

C-42

District Count Project # 18 Kevin Water Improvement Project 1 19 Loma County Water Project 1 20 Lower Boulder Creek 1 21 Lower Decatur Bend, NE 1 22 Lower Platte River & Tributaries Project 1 23 Manhattan Water Project 1 24 McKenzie County Rural Water System II Phase II Imp 1 25 Miles City Water System Improvements, Custer Count 1 26 Missouri River Title VII Study 1 27 Missouri River Water Treatment Plant 1 28 Muddy Cluster Water Main Extension, Rosebud County 1 29 Mystic Drainage 1 30 New Municipal Water System 1 31 Nishnabotna River Basin Section 22 Study 1 32 Parshall Water Supply System 1 33 PAS-Iowa-Nishnabotna Watershed 1 34 Perry Creek Flood Protection 1 35 Phase 3 water and sewer 1 36 Prison Farm Project 1 37 Reconnaissance Study For Denver County 1 38 Renovate our Sewer 1 39 Schuyler 205 Project 1 40 South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Planning 1 41 South Fremont (NE) 205 Study 1 42 Water Reclamation Facility Upgrade 1 43 Water Treatment Plant 1 44 Water/sewer project 1 45 Watershed Stabilization Survey for Fontenelle Fore 1 46 Western Sarpy Clear Creek Flood Reduction Project 1 47 Wolf Creek New Centralized Wastewater Facilities 1 48 Yellowstone River Corridor Comprehensive Study, MT 1 49 Yellowstone River Cumulative Effects Study 1 NWP 1 Columbia River Channel Improvement Project 1 2 Columbia Slough Section 1135 Restoration Project 1 3 Coos Bay Channel Improvement Project (Section 203) 1 4 Lone Pine Creek Flood Study 1 5 Lower Willamette River Environmental Dredging 1 6 MCDD1 1 7 Mt. St. Helens 1 8 Multiple 1 9 Non-Lethal Sea Lion Barrier—USACE (NWP) 1 10 Ochoco Flood Study 1 11 Willamette River Basin Reservoir Study 1 NWS 1 Bigfork Wastewater Treatment Plan Phase 2A 1 2 BLI Comprehensive Wetland Summary 1 3 Calahan Creek Levee Rehab 1 4 Chief Joseph Dam Hatchery 1 5 Chief Joseph (Fish Coord) 2 6 Granite-Reeder - Phase 2A Sewer Collection 1 7 Greater Woods Bay Sewer Project 1 8 Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Project 1 9 Lake level management on Lake Pend Oreille 1

C-43

District Count Project # 10 Large Capital Program 1 11 Levy Rehabilitation 1 12 Libby Dam 1 13 Meter Project 1 14 Middle Fork Nooksack Fish Passage 1 15 Mill Creek ERP 1 16 Multiple - Albeni Falls, Libby 1 17 Qwuloolt Restoration 1 18 Several 1 19 Shoalwater Bay Shoreline Erosion, Washington Flood 1 20 Shorty’s Island 1135 Project 1 21 Siphon One Phase One 1 22 Swinomish Channel 1 23 Swinomish Channel, WA 1 24 Unspecified 2 25 Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades 1 26 Water Project Phase 2 1 27 Water/Sewer Extension Project 1 28 Whitehall Wastewater System Improvement 1 29 WWTP Phase 1, Big Hole River Diversion Dam 1 NWW 1 1135 Bennington Dam Fish Passage 1 2 all Corps property & river frontage in the City 1 3 Bennington Lake Flood Control Reservoir 1 4 City of Soda Springs WWTP 1 5 Columbia and Snake River lock & dam operations 1 6 Columbia and Snake River Navigation 4 7 Dworshak, Lucky Peak, Ririe (USBR), Fish Creek 1 8 Eagle Island Ecosystems Restoration Section 1135 S 1 9 EIRWWA - WWTP and Eastern Interceptor line 1 10 FCRPS - Payos Kuus Cuukwe 1 11 Flood Control 1 12 I permit encroachments on Lake Pend Oreille 1 13 Idaho 595 Water Supply program 1 14 Idaho Levees and rivers, Snake River Basin 1 15 Levy Sponsor 1 16 Little Goose Lock & Dam cable replacement W912EF-3 1 17 Lyons Ferry Park and Marina 1 18 Mill Creek Dam and Levees System 2 19 Mill Creek Diversion 1 20 Not Applicable 1 21 Pacific Lamprey Passage- Tribal and Corps Fish Acc 1 22 Paradise Creek Daylighting Project 1 23 Shoreline Management Plan 1 24 Snake River Corridor Lease/Challenge Cost Share We 1 25 Snake River system levees 2 26 Stream Channel Alteration and Boise River GI Feasibility 1 27 Unspecified 1 28 Walla-Walla Coord. Act Report 1 29 Wastewater Treatment Facility 1 30 Water Front Planning 1 31 Wave Attenuator/Marine Pumpout 1 32 WWTP 1

C-44

District Count Project # 33 Yakima Levee Pump Station Upgrade 1 POA 1 2009 Emergency Shoreline Erosion Protection-Shishm 1 2 Anchorage Harbor 1 3 Breakwater Extension, Harbor Maintenance Dredging 1 4 Causeway study update 1 5 Chignik Harbor 1 6 Douglas Boat Harbor 1 7 East Harbor expansion 1 8 Feasibility Study - McGrath Erosion Control 1 9 Feasibility Study Small Boat Harbor 1 10 Galena Barge Transfer Facility 1 11 Haines Harbor 1 12 Homer Dredging 1 13 Maintenance Dredging 2 14 Multiple projects 2 15 Navigation Improvements Valdez, Alaska 1 16 Newtok Relocation Effort 1 17 Rock Revetment 1 18 Tanana River Levee Certification 1 19 Unalaska Navigation Improvements 1 20 Unspecified 3 21 Various, including barge landing design and construction 1 22 Whittier Navigation Study 1 POH 1 Ala Wai Watershed 1 2 American Samoa Roads 1 3 Barbers Point Harbor 1 4 Iao Stream Flood Control 1 5 Kawainui Marsh Habitat Restoration Project 1 6 Kuliouou/Wailupe Stream Flood Control 1 7 Mokuhinia Restoration, Lahaina NHL 1 8 Molokai WR Study 1 9 Regional Sediment Management 1 10 Sand Island WWTP Process Control Laboratory 1 11 Tutila Harbor (Seaports project) 1 12 Waiakea Stream Flood Damage Reduction 1 SAC 1 ALS Site Stabilization 1 2 Charleston 644 Project 1 3 Charleston Harbor 1 4 Diking of Navy Spoil Area/Design of FY10 Dredging 1 5 Edisto Beach Storm Damage Feasibility Study 1 6 General 1 7 Lake Marion Regional Water Authority 1 8 Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility 1 9 Multiple projects 1 10 Myrtle Beach Shore Protection 1 11 Myrtle Beach Shore Protection Renourishment Project 1 12 Renourishment Projects 1 13 The Development Roundtable 1 14 Unspecified 6 15 Waccamaw River 1 SAJ 1 Alligator Creek Habitat Restoration 1 2 Anna Maria Island Shore Protection Project 1

C-45

District Count Project # 3 Atlantic Intracoastal, Intracoastal and Okeechobee 1 4 Banana River Estuary Grant 1 5 Big Fishweir Creek 1 6 Brevard County Shore Protection Project 2 7 Broward County, Florida (BEC) -Seg I 1 8 Broward County, Florida BEC Segments II & III 1 9 C&SF Project, CERP 1 10 C-111 Spreader Canal , C-111 Federal Projects & L- 1 11 Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Pro 1 12 Central & Southern Florida Project, CERP (SFERP) 1 13 CERP 1 14 CERP Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands 1 15 CERP C-111 Spreader Canal 1 16 CERP Hillsboro ASR Pilot Project 1 17 CERP Information and Data Management Plan 1 18 CERP L-31N Seepage Management Pilot 1 19 CERP Master Recreation Plan 1 20 CERP Regional ASR Study 1 21 CERP, Kissimmee, C&SF 1 22 Delray Beach Renourishment project 1 23 Duval County Shore Protection Project 1 24 E&SF Ecosystem Restoration, Lake Okeechobee Water 1 25 Everglades Restoration 1 26 Fernandina Harbor Kings Bay Entrance Channel / Kin 1 27 Flagler Shore Protection Project 1 28 Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Program 1 29 Fortin San Geronimo, San Juan, Puerto Rico 1 30 Ft. Myers Beach Maintenance Dredging 1 31 Herbert Hoover Dike, Site 1, Picayune Strand, IRLS 1 32 Intercoastal WW Caloosahatchee River to Ancelote River 1 33 Kissimmee River Restoration 1 34 Lake Worth Inlet 1 35 Lee County, Florida BEC 1 36 Manatee Pass Gates 1 37 Miami Harbor Phase 3 1 38 Miami River Dredging & Miami-Dade County Beach Ren 1 39 Mile Point FS, Jacksonville Harbor Deepening, etc 1 40 Modwaters 1 41 Multiple Cooperative Projects 1 42 N/A 1 43 Naples to Gordon Pass 1 44 Nassau County Beach Restoration 1 45 North Boca Raton Beach Renourishment Project 1 46 NPBC1 1 47 Palm Beach County Shore Protection Project 1 48 Pelican Island, Florida 1 49 Picayune Strand Restoration Project 1 50 Pinellas County, FL 1 51 Ponce de Leon Inlet 1 52 Port Everglades Feasibility Study 1 53 Port of Palm Beach 1 54 Port of Palm Beach dredging 1

C-46

District Count Project # 55 PR, Rio Puerto Nuevo, PR, Rio Grande de Arecibo, P 1 56 Quality Assurance Oversight Team of Comprehensive 1 57 Recover 1 58 Rio Ojo de Agua 1 59 Site 1 Impoundment (Fran Reich Preserve) 1 60 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program 1 61 Southwest Florida Feasibility Study 1 62 St Johns Shore Protection Project; St Johns Feasibility 1 63 St. Lucie Inlet 1 64 Stevenson Creek Estuary Restoration 1 65 Tamiami Trail Modifications: Next Steps 1 66 Tampa Harbor GRR - Cut B 1 67 Tarpon Springs Section 103 Shoreline Protection 1 68 Ten Mile Creek WPA CRP 1 69 Various 1 70 Venice Inlet Dredging 1 71 Virginia Key 1135 1 SAM 1 Allatoona, Buford, Carters, R.F. Henry, Millers Fe 1 2 Beach Restoration / Construction 1 3 Black Warrior Tombigbee River 1 4 Chatthoochee River Restoration Project 1 5 Corps relocation 1 6 CSO Flood Mapping 1 7 East Pass Channel, FL 1 8 Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 1 9 Harrison County Sand Beach Replenishment Project, 1 10 ISIS 1 11 Lake Lanier, GA 2 12 Lake Sidney Lanier 1 13 Mark Avenue Regional Stormwater Management Facility 1 14 McDaniel Branch Stream Restoration, Peachtree Nanc 1 15 Mobile Harbor 1 16 MS Coastal Improvement Plan 4 17 Multiple 1 18 Panama City Beach, FL Beach Erosion Control and St 1 19 Pascagoula Harbor, MS 1 20 Recovery Act Subcontract Work re: Protective Coati 1 21 SHEARWATER MsCIP Interim 1 22 Survey (ACF) 1 23 Various Flood Control Projects 1 24 Walton County Storm Damage Reduction Project 1 25 West Fork Little River, Hall County, GA 1 26 West Point Lake 1 SAS 1 Brunswick Harbor Navigation 2 2 Byrum Creek Flood Risk Management - Section 205 1 3 Cockspur Island 1 4 Flood Detention Project 1 5 Georgia Emergency Preparedness 1 6 Georgia HES Restudy 1 7 GIS Development 1 8 Hartwell Lake Economic Impact Analysis 2 9 Hartwell, Richard B. Russell, J. Strom Thurmond 1

C-47

District Count Project # 10 Hurricane Evacuation Studies 2 11 Hurricane Study: Chatham County Flood Hazard Report 1 12 Keowee-Toxaway 1 13 Lake Hartwell Economic Impact Study 2 14 Lake Hartwell Level Study 1 15 Lower Savannah River Environmental Restoration Pro 1 16 New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam 1 17 Savannah Harbor (O&M Shep), Brunswick Harbor (Deep 1 18 Savannah Harbor Navigation Project 2 19 Savannah Navigation 1 20 Savannah/Brunswick Harbors and AIWW 1 SAW 1 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 1 2 Bogue Inlet 1 3 Bogue Inlet Dredging (AIWW and Connector Channel) 1 4 Breakwater, also Belhaven Harbor improvements 1 5 Brunswick Beaches GRR 1 6 Brunswick County GRR 1 7 Brunswick County Shore Protection GRR & Wilmington 1 8 Bulkhead Channel - Beaufort Harbor 1 9 Bulkhead Channel and Taylors Creek 1 10 Carolina Beach renourishment 1 11 Concord Streams Restoration, (CAP Section 206) 1 12 Cooperative Observation Program 1 13 Drought Advisory Team 1 14 Emergency Management 1 15 Falls Lake and Little River Reservior EIS 1 16 Hatteras Channel / Big Foot Slough 1 17 John H. Kerr and Philpott 1 18 Jordan Dam 1 19 Kerr 216 1 20 Kerr Scott 1 21 Kure Beach 1 22 Manteo 2 23 MHC Harbor, AIWW, Bogue Banks SPP, Atlantic Harbor 1 24 Millingport Elementary School Wastewater Collectio 1 25 Multiple 2 26 Navigation Channel O&M / NCIT Recon Study 1 27 Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project 1 28 Surf City and North Topsail Beach Shoreline Protection 1 29 Surf City North Topsail Beach 1 30 West Onslow Beach 1 31 Western Cary 1 32 Wilmington Harbor 3 33 Wilson Bay Bioremediation 1 34 Wrightsville Beach 1 SPA 1 Acequia Irrigation System, NM 1 2 Alamogordo Flood Control Project South Channel 1 3 Albuquerque Levees 1 4 Black Mesa 1 5 Black Mesa Section 593 Project 1 6 Blue Hole Improvements 1 7 Bottomless Lakes State Park - Aquatic Restoration 1

C-48

District Count Project # 8 Cochiti 1 9 Espanola Valley Feasibility Study 1 10 Espanola Valley General Investigation 2 11 Hatch Dam and Reservoir 1 12 Jemez Canyon Dam 1 13 Middle Rio Grande flood control projects 1 14 Santa Fe River Watershed Study 1 15 Section 1135 - Las Cruces Dam Environmental Restoration 1 16 Southside Sewer and Water Improvements 1 17 Sparks Arroyo Project 1 18 SW Valley Flood Reduction Project 1 19 Waste Water Treatment Plant 1 20 Water Rights 1 21 Water Storage Tank 1 22 Water System Improvements Phase III 1 23 WRDA 729 Rio Grande Salinity Management Program 1 SPK 1 Blanding City Deep Well Project 1 2 CALFED Horseshoe Bend, Bethel Island 1 3 Coordination with SPK on encroachment applications 1 4 Cosgrove Creek Flood Management 1 5 Delta islands and levees feasibility Study & CALFE 1 6 Deweyville Town Culinary Water Improvement Project 1 7 Dry Canyon Debris Basin 1 8 East Loomis Basin Canal Efficiency Study 1 9 Elwood Sewer Project 1 10 Farmington Groundwater Recharge & Seasonal Habitat 1 11 Folsom Dam Bridge 1 12 Gradient Facility GCID Fish Screen 1 13 Grantsville 1 14 Grayson – Murderer’s Creeks Feasibility Study 1 15 Honeyvaille Culinary Water Improvement System 1 16 Incline Village Treated Wastewater Export Line 1 17 Isabella 1 18 IVGID Effluent Export Pipeline and Third Creek Pro 1 19 Jackson Flat Reservoir 1 20 Joint Federal Project, Folsom Dam and Reservoir 1 21 Lake Davis Water Treatment Plant 1 22 Lake Tahoe Partnership 1 23 Lower Walnut Creek GRR 1 24 M & S Water Storage Facility 1 25 Mantua Well Project 1 26 Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem 1 27 Mona Wastewater Treatment Project 1 28 Muddy Creek Water Quality Improvement Project Sediment 1 29 Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Protection Project 1 30 Navajo Mountain Water Pipeline 1 31 North Canyon Restoration & Urban Stormwater Treatment 1 32 Numerous Projects/Studies Throughout Central Valley 2 33 Phase III - Reservoir Lining Project 1 34 Regional Water Conservation and Recycling Project 1 35 Reservoir Lining Design and Effluent Tanks and Pump 1 36 Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel O&M 2

C-49

District Count Project # 37 Sacramento River Bank Protection and Delta Levee S 1 38 Secondary Water Roosevelt Pipeline 1 39 Stockton Deepwater Ship Channel O&M 1 40 Tehama Housing Elevation 1 41 Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, California, Project 1 42 Upper Berryessa Creek (Calaveras Blvd. to Old Pied 1 43 USACOE WRDA fund 1 44 Various 1 45 Virginia City (Nevada) Waste Water Treatment Facility 1 46 Wastewater Treatment Facility Up-grade 1 47 West Forest Waterline Project 1 48 West Sacramento Project 1 49 West Wendover Water Reclamation Facility Upgrade 1 50 Wide Hollow Water Storage Facility 1 51 Yerington Water and Sewer Extension Project 1 SPL 1 3 - Tres Rios (evaluated below); El Medio & Paseo 1 2 Agua Fria Tribly Wash 1 3 Big Bear Lake Environmental Restoration Feasibility 1 4 Borrego springs CAP 205 Study 1 5 Breakwater repair; dredging authorization 1 6 Bull Creek Channel Ecosystem R 1 7 Cities of Arcadia, Sierra Madre, Inglewood, Norwal 1 8 City Creek - Foothill Pipeline Erosion Protection 1 9 Colorado Lagoon 1 10 Easatern Santa Clara Basin (Santa Clarita Perchlo 1 11 Eastern Santa Clara River SubBasin GW Study (Perch 1 12 Encinitas/Solana Beach Shoreline Project 1 13 Goleta Beach/Ventura/Oil Piers Section 227 Project 1 14 Hansen Dam 1 15 Hansen Dam Basin maintenance 1 16 Hansen Dan "Youth at Risk" Campground 1 17 Hemenway Wastewater System Improvements 1 18 Los Angeles River Estuary, Colorado Lagoon, Breakwater 1 19 Marina del Rey Dredging, Coast of California Storm 1 20 Matilija Ecosystem Restoration 1 21 MB harbor Maintenance 1 22 Navajo Nation Flood Plain Management WRDA Section 1 23 Nogales Wash (Flood Control Project) 1 24 O&M Hueneme Harbor (Confined Aquatic Disposal) 1 25 Perris II Desalter/Perris II Desalter Ancillary Fa 1 26 Pismo Beach Bluff Erosion 1 27 Port Hueneme Maintenance Dredging and Confined Aqu 1 28 Port of Long Beach/ Catalina Terminal Dredging 1 29 Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening 1 30 Rillito River Riparian /Tucson Drainage 1 31 Rillito River Riparian Environmental Restoration 1 32 Rio de Flag 1 33 Rio De Flag flood control 2 34 Rio Salado 1 35 Rio Salado Environmental Restoration - Tempe Reac 1 36 San Clemente Shoreline Erosion Feasibility Study 1 37 San Diego County Shoreline Special Study 1

C-50

District Count Project # 38 San Luis Rey River Flood Control Project 1 39 Santa Barbara Harbor Dredging 1 40 Searchlight Water and Wastewater Systems Improvement 1 41 Seven Oaks Dam Water Quality 1 42 Shoreline Protection Project - Encinitas and Solan 1 43 Sun Valley, Arroyo Seco, and Tujunga 1135 1 44 Tres Rios del Norte 1 45 Tres Rios Environmental Restoration 1 46 Tropicana and Flamingo Washes 2 47 Tucson Drainage Project 1 48 Tuna Canyon Road Mile Marker 4.97, 4.98, 5.04 1 49 Various 1 50 Various - Burnt Mt./Long Canyon, Pinto Cove/Morong 1 51 Various - Matilija, Santa Clara River 1 52 Various, Hansen Dam and Supulveda Basin 1 53 Ventura Harbor 1 54 Virgin Valley Water District Arsenic Removal Proje 1 55 Whitewater River Basin (Thousand Palms) Flood Cont 1 SPN 1 2009 Channel Maintenance Dredging 1 2 Channel Deepening Baldwin and Stockton Ship Channe 1 3 Corte Madera Creek Flood Control 1 4 Crescent City Harbor maintenance dredging 1 5 Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project 1 6 Las Gallinas Creek Phase I Feasibility Study (Sect 1 7 multiple 1 8 Noyo Harbor DMMP 1 9 Pier 36 Demolition 1 10 Russian River BiOp 1 11 Sac River Deep Water Ship Channel deepening 1 12 Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project 1 13 San Francisqutio Creek Flood Reduction & Ecosystem 2 14 San Leandro Marina Maintenance Dredging 1 15 San Pedro Creek Flood Control Project 1 16 San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program Phase I an 1 17 SF Bay LTMS 1 18 Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project 1 19 Upper Guadalupe River, Upper Penitencia Crk, South 1 20 White Slough Flood Control Project 1 SWF 1 All Red River Valley projects: GI, CG and O&M 1 2 Bastrop County Flood Protection, Planning, Study 1 3 Benbrook Lake 1 4 Brazos River Basin Systems Assessment, Interim Fea 1 5 Central City 1 6 Chacon Creek 1 7 Cibolo Creek Watershed Study 1 8 Corps of Engineers Section 206 San Marcos River Pr 1 9 Dallas Floodway Extension 2 10 Elm Creek Feasibility Study 1 11 Federal Reservoirs - Brazos River Basin, Texas 1 12 Lake O’ the Pines 1 13 Lake Palo Pinto Storage Restoration Project at Tur 1 14 Lake Ralph Hall 1

C-51

District Count Project # 15 Lake Waco 1 16 Lavon Lake 1 17 LCRB- Onion Creek 1 18 Lower Colorado River Basin, Texas, Wharton/Onion C 1 19 Miami Lab; EPIC; Aviation Operations Center 1 20 Moccasin Branch Rehab 1 21 Nokomis Road Bridge at Ten Mile Creek (Stream Bank) 1 22 Nueces River & Tributaries, TX 1 23 Nueces River Basin Study 1 24 O.C. Fisher Lake Ecosystem Restoration Project 1 25 Onion Creek Project (Lower Colorado River Phase I) 1 26 PAS-Lake Weatherford Sediment Survey 1 27 Pecan Creek Flood Protection Project 1 28 Proctor Lake 1 29 Sam Rayburn Reservoir & Dam B (Lake BA Steinhagen) 1 30 Section 206 Stephenville Wetlands 1 31 Texas Water Allocation Assistance, Planning Assist 1 32 TRV Central City Project 1 33 TWAA and PAS 1 34 Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study 1 35 Whitney Rehabilitation / Daily Operations / Lake C 1 36 WWTP, Meridian 1 SWG 1 Arroyo Colorado (Channel to Harlingen) 1 2 Brazos Island Harbor 1 3 Brazos Island Harbor/Port Isabel Side Channel/GIWW 1 4 Cedar Bayou Channel Maintenance 1 5 Cedar Bayou Navigation Channel Improvement Project 1 6 Channel to Victoria (Barge Canal) 1 7 Chocolate Bayou 1 8 Corpus Christi Ship Channel 1 9 Dredging of Channel to Port Mansfield 1 10 Freeport & Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project 1 11 Galveston Seawall and Texas City Levee Repair 1 12 GIWW 2 13 Houston Ship Channel 1 14 Lower Colorado River Basin, Texas, Wharton/Onion C 1 15 Maintenance Dredging 1 16 Maintenance Dredging of Palacios Boat Channel 1 17 Matagorda Ship Channel 1 18 Mouth of the Colorado Jetty Project 1 19 Neches River Salt Water Barrier 1 20 Numerous/Freeport ship Channel widening project 1 21 Port Arthur Hurricane Flood Protection Plan 1 22 Raymondville Drain 1 23 Section B of Sabine River 1 24 Sims Bayou Flood Damage Reduction Project 1 25 Sims Bayou, Brays Bayou, Greens Bayou, Clear Creek 1 26 TC Channel Deepening 1 27 Texas City Federal Channel 1 SWL 1 All Red River Projects: GI, CG and O&M 1 2 Arkansas River Trail 1 3 Batesville Wastewater Treatment Plant Bank Stabilization 2

C-52

District Count Project # 4 Bull Shoals 1135 Project 1 5 Bull Shoals Nursery Pond 1 6 Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas Water Supply Storage 1 7 May Branch 1 8 Mid Arkansas Water Alliance 1 9 Millwood 1 10 MKARNS 1 11 NA 1 12 Ozark Rehabilitation 1 13 Pine Mountain 1 14 Reallocation of Storage at Bull Shoals Lake 1 15 Russellville Harbor 1 16 Southwest Arkansas Feasibility Study (Lake Millwood) 1 17 Tulsa Port of Catoosa 1 18 US 71 @ Red River, Bowie Co. W9127S-08-C-0015 1 19 US Hwy 71 @ Red River Emerg Streambank Restoration 1 20 Various Studies 1 SWT 1 All Red River Valley projects: GI, CG & O&M 1 2 Arkansas River Corridor Project 1 3 Lake Texoma EIS 1 4 MKARANS 1 5 Multiple 2 6 Red River Chloride Control Project 1 7 Sand Creek Restoration 1 8 Tulsa Port of Catoosa 1 9 Unspecified 6

C-53

----This Page Intentionally Blank

C-54