(volume xiiii, version -1a-) - colorado 811 · (volume xiiii, version -1a-) an annual report...

Perspectives on Facility Damage - 2014

© 2001-2015 COLORADO 811, all rights reserved. Page-1

(Volume XIIII, Version -1a-)

An annual report published by COLORADO 811 reviewing underground facility damages

resulting from excavation activity.

- For Calendar Year 2014 - Covering underground facility damages for years 2001-2014

Includes the 2014 County Damage Report Cards

DRAFT Release October 30, 2015

This report may be referenced as the COLORADO 811 2014 Analysis on Underground Facility Damage. A special thanks to Mr. Barry Miller with Foresight Advantage for preparing this report since 2001.



INTRODUCTION 2015 marks the fourteenth year for publication of the Colorado underground facility damage report, Perspectives on Facility Damage-2014. CO811 publishes the only comprehensive annual report in the nation that analyzes statewide underground facility damages, including the root cause. CO811 is indebted to the member organizations that provide this valuable information. Many of the Colorado’s facility owners/operators have consistently reported information concerning their underground facility damages since 2001, the first legally mandated reporting year. The current dataset spans fourteen years, contains detailed information on 94,589 separate facility damages and encompasses all facility types in nearly every county in Colorado. The decreasing trend from 2003 through 2010 in the number and severity of facility damages in Colorado is evidence that shared responsibility, mutual cooperation and accurate information do make a difference. The moderate increase in damages from 3,615 in 2013 to 3,837 in 2014, a 6.1% increase in the number of underground facility damages, was driven primarily by the 4.2% increase in the state’s construction activity and the 10.9% increase in locate requests by excavators; but with a larger 20.6% increases in gas damages and a 22.8% increase in telecom damages. On a same-operator reporting basis, excluding non-operator reporters, the reported facility damages increased from 1,925 in 2013 to 2,298 in 2014, a large 19.4% increase. This annual increase occurred along with a 10.9% increase in Incoming Notification Requests and in light of the following conditions:

1) a continuing recovery, with improved job creation, of the state and national economies, 2) a 4.2% annual increase in residential construction activity in the state, 3) a 13.9% annual increase in One-Call outgoing transmission activity to operators, and 4) an increase in the efforts and more effective programs by a number of industry stakeholders to increase public awareness of One-

Call (811) requirements along with stakeholder damage prevention education.

Note: See Table-B on page-10 for additional data and statistics. The real change in facility damages attributable to stakeholders’ public awareness and damage prevention efforts in 2014 can be determined by subtracting the 19.4% same-operator increase in damages from the 13.9% increase in outgoing transmission activity. Out-going transmission activity is a better measure of excavation damage risk than incoming notification activity. By this method, continued stakeholder efforts have resulted in a relative 5.5% increase in facility damages in 2014. This number is move reflective of the real change in damages than that determined when including the damage records from all reporting operators, who may not consistently report. Colorado stakeholders reduced their all-facility damages per 1,000 outgoing transmissions from 2.8 in 2003 to 1.0 in 2014, a 64.7% decrease. At the same time, natural gas damages per 1,000 outgoing transmissions have decreased from 1.31 in 2003 to 0.28 in 2014, a 78.3% decrease. Over these eleven years, outgoing transmissions decreased 19.6% while all-facility damages decreased 71.7%. By these measures, facility damages decreased at a faster 2.65 times the rate that outgoing transmissions decreased during a time when economic growth and residential construction activity also slowed, and then slowly increased. Since 2000, the influence of legislatively mandated damage reporting has had both an absolute and relative impact in improving public awareness and reducing facility damages. See Chart-B on page-13 and the explanation on pages 18-20 for a concise summary of improvements made in damage prevention in Colorado. Colorado is the only U.S. state that has legislatively mandated, over the past 13 years, the annual collection and reporting of comprehensive damage information by all underground facility owners/operators to the state One-Call Center. This distinction provides Colorado facility owners/operators the ability to both understand the causes of facility damage and to implement targeted public awareness and industry educational activities. These activities are designed to improve notification requesting by homeowners and professional excavators, promote safer excavation practices and to ultimately reduce facility damages. The cooperation of all industry stakeholders to facilitate the success of these actions ensures the delivery of vital utility services and creates a safer Colorado. Colorado can take pride in its leadership role in damage prevention standards, practices, programs and bottom line results. We encourage the public and all involved in the damage prevention industry to maintain their efforts in the coming years. CO811 is always open to feedback and suggestions to improve the usefulness of the report. Please contact the Marty Mead, the CO811 Director of Damage Prevention if you have any questions, need additional information or would like to arrange damage prevention education or support programs in your community. CO811 Phone: (303) 232-1991 16361 Table Mountain Parkway Web: www.COLORADO811.org Golden, CO 80403

http://www.colorado811.org/



ABOUT THIS REPORT Underground facility owners and operators in Colorado have submitted their damage data for analysis in this report as required by C.R.S. 9-1.5-103(7)(b). CO811 has collected and summarized the data and published this report to its membership and to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado as required by C.R.S. 9-1.5-103(7)(c)(d) & 9-1.5-105. The intended audience for this report includes the following stakeholder groups: underground facility owners and operators, the underground facility location and marking industry, the excavation and construction industry, related industry associations, the One-Call industry, related regulatory and compliance agencies, appropriate local, county and state governments, and the interested public. CO811 anticipates that these stakeholder groups will utilize this information to create positive transformation within the utility safety and damage prevention community and specifically within damage prevention programs and efforts. CO811 is not responsible for any action taken based upon the data or the interpretation of any information presented within this report. Additional information is available in past Damage Data Report reports from 2001 to 2013. Please visit the CO811 web site at www.Colorado811.org. From the Menu Bar on the left, click: Resources, followed by clicking Reports, then select a reporting year under the column Damage Data Report.

I M P O R T A N T R E P O R T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N Colorado facility owners and operators are required by state law to submit their facility damage data within 90 days of service restoration for each damage event. Other damage prevention stakeholders, including locators and excavators, are encouraged to submit their damages to help facilitate analysis of the damage data. Please visit: www.cga-DIRT.com/Colorado 811 to register and submit your underground facility damages for 2015. The deadline for 2015 data submission is March 31, 2016.

The methods and formulas used to determine the damage prevention metrics, regressions, scores and grades utilize proprietary techniques and intellectual property that was developed and is owned by Foresight Advantage. The methods may not be used without the expressed written consent of Foresight Advantage. CO811 is granted the right to publish the results, but not the algorithms used for this report.

COLORADO DAMAGE PREVENTION REPORT CARDS

This report includes the 2014 Damage Prevention Report Card for each of the 64 counties in Colorado. 2014 marks the 8th reporting year (since 2007) CO811 has published this valuable resource. The report card is designed to provide interested stakeholders a detailed understanding of damage reporting compliance by local stakeholders as well as the effectiveness of public awareness and damage prevention efforts in the county. Based upon the grading results each year, CO811 identifies and acknowledges those stakeholders who are performing effectively at the highest levels, while providing guidance and assistance to those stakeholders needing improvement. Since each county is evaluated and graded relative to all other counties, our aim is to raise the reporting compliance, public awareness, and damage prevention level of all counties over time through continued innovation and sharing of effective damage prevention practices. Information is presented in this report that demonstrates Colorado has consistently been effective at improving public awareness and decreasing damage metrics since 2003.

http://www.colorado811.org/

http://www.cga-dirt.com/uncc



KEY FINDINGS

General underground facility damage information. 3,837 DIRT damages were reported in 2014, a 6.1% increase from 3,615 damages in 2013.

The trend in DIRT damages between 2010 through 2014 has increased (Charts 1&2).

Excavators requested locates on 71.8% and did not request locates on 28.2% of the damages where a root cause option was selected (Chart-3, also see Root Cause section on page-6).

Facility owners did not specify a root cause for 27.8% of reported damages in 2014. The share of damages without a reported root cause has been erratic since 2006, ranging from 1.1% to 50.5%.

DIRT Damages were reported by 74 One-Call members in 54 of 64 counties, and in 282 cities; the highest level of One-Call members reporting since 2001.

Chart 1 # Damages Chart 2 % Change in Damages Year to Year Chart 3 % Damages Without and With Request

11,0

94

12,6

97

13,5

40

10,5

73

9,3

71

8,9

47

6,3

58

4,9

00

3,1

92

3,1

30

3,5

88

3,5

84

3,6

15

3,8

37

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

14.4%6.6%

-21.9%

-11.4%-4.5%

-28.9%-22.9%

-34.9%

-1.9%

14.6%

-0.1%

0.9%6.1%

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

01 0105 0510 10

28.2%

71.8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No Locate Requested Locate Requested

Colorado Facility Damages 2001-2014 Colorado Facility Damages 2001-2014 Colorado Facility Damages 2001-2014

2 injuries and no fatalities were reported in 2014 (Chart-4).

Owners reported 134,493 customers were affected by the facility damages (Chart-5). 82% of the owners reported some value >=0, as shown by the red diamond line.

Owners reported 30,644 hours of service outage due to facility damages (Chart-6). 37% of the owners reported some value >=0, as shown by the red diamond line.

Subsequent to a large decrease in reporting after conversion to the Virtual Private DIRT system in 2006, One–Call members have been improving their level of damage reporting in recent years.

Chart 4 Injuries and Fatalities Chart 5 Customers Affected & %Reported >=0 Chart 6 Outage Hours Duration & %Reported >=0

0 03 3

51

12 00 02 00 01 00 20 00 00 00 02 0

People Injured Fatalities

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

Colorado Facility Damages 2001-2014 Colorado Facility Damages 2001-2014 Colorado Facility Damages 2001-2014

Which facility type was damaged? Owners reported 1120 (29.2%) Telecommunication facility damages in 2014 (Charts 7&8), a 22.8%

annual increase from 2013.

Owners reported 1,701 (44.3%) Natural Gas facility damages, a 20.6% annual increase.

Owners reported 522 (13.6%) Electric facility damages, a 1.8% annual increase.

The trend of all facility damages has generally decreased since 2003 (Chart-9).

Natural gas and electric facility damage data represents the most complete information.

12 counties (19% of 64 counties) had at least 75 facility damages, and combined these counties had 3,124 (81% of total) facility damages. (See also page-11, Table–C)

Colorado Facility Damages 2014 (All data) Colorado Facility Damages 2014 (exclude Unknown) Colorado Facility Damages 2001-2014

Chart 7 # Damages by Facility Type Chart 8 % Damages by Facility Type Chart 9 DamageTrend by Facility Type

1,120 1,701

522 389 3 72 15 15 -

Tel

ecom Gas

Ele

ctric

CA

TV

Oth

er

Pot

able

Wat

er

Sew

er

Haz

ard

ous

Liqu

id

Irrig

atio

n

29.2%44.3%

13.6% 10.1%0.1% 1.9% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0%

Tel

ecom Gas

Ele

ctric

CA

TV

Oth

er

Pot

able

Wat

er

Sew

er

Haz

ard

ous

Liqu

id

Irrig

atio

n 0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Tel

ecom Gas

Ele

ctric

CA

TV

Oth

er

Pot

able

Wat

er



Who was excavating when the damage occurred? A professional (contractor) excavator was identified on 2,314 damages (88.6%) (Charts 10&11).

Professional excavators’ contribution ranged between 78-94% over the years (Chart-12).

Utility company staff was identified on 113 damages (4.3%).

An occupant was identified on 107 damages (4.1%).

Facility owners did not report the excavator type on 1,225 damages (31.9%). The quality of data reporting decreased significantly after 2005 (when 2% of damages did not have excavator reported).

The share of damages reported for each excavator type has been similar over the years (Chart-12), with an increasing share of utility company excavators damaging underground facilities after 2009.


Chart 10 # Damages by Excavator Group Chart 11 % Damages by Excavator Group Chart 12 % Damage Trend by Excavator Group

2,314

113 107 64 13 1 1,225

Pro

fess

iona

lE

xcav

ator

Util

ityC

ompa

ny

Occ

upa

nt

Gov

ernm

ent

Age

ncy

Far

mer

Rai

lroad

Unk

now

n

88.6%

4.3% 4.1% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0%P

rofe

ssio

nal

Exc

avat

or

Util

ityC

ompa

ny

Occ

upa

nt

Gov

ernm

ent

Age

ncy

Far

mer

Rai

lroad

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pro

fess

iona

lE

xca

vato

r

Util

ityC

om

pany

Occ

upa

nt

Gov

ern

me

ntA

genc

y

Far

mer

What excavation equipment was used when the damage occurred? Backhoe and trackhoe equipment damaged 1,726 facilities (55.6%) (Charts 13&14).

Drilling equipment (all types) damaged 577 facilities (18.6%)

Non-invasive (hand tool, probe and vacuum) equipment damaged 357 facilities (11.5%).

Facility owners did not report the excavation equipment type on 735 damages (19.2%). This represents a large increase from pre-2011 levels, but a decrease from 49.3% in 2012.

The share of damages reported for each equipment type has changed over the years (Chart-15), with a increase in drilling & hand-tool and decrease in trencher damages over the last seven years.


Chart 13 # Damages by Excavation Equipment Group Chart 14 % Damages by Excavation Equipment Group Chart 15 % Damage Trend by Excavation Equip Group

1,726

577 357 230 188 24 0735

Bac

khoe

/T

rack

hoe

Dril

ling

Equ

ipm

ent

Non

-In

vasi

ve

Too

ls

Tre

nche

r

Gra

de/

Scr

ap/ M

ill

Far

mM

achi

nery

Exp

losi

ves

Unk

now

n

55.6%

18.6%11.5% 7.4% 6.1% 0.8% 0.0%

Bac

khoe

/T

rack

hoe

Dril

ling

Equ

ipm

ent

Non

-In

vasi

ve

Too

ls

Tre

nche

r

Gra

de/

Scr

ap/ M

ill

Far

mM

achi

nery

Exp

losi

ves 0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%

Bac

kho

e/T

rack

hoe

Dri

llin

gE

quip

me

nt

No

n-In

vasi

veT

ools

Tre

nch

er

Gra

de/

Scr

ap/ M

ill

Far

mM

ach

iner

y

What work was performed when the damage occurred? The utility work group contributed to 1,909 damaged facilities (57.7%) (Charts 16&17).

The landscaping/fencing work group contributed to 576 damaged facilities (17.4%).

Sewer work contributed the most damages with 661 (20.0%) followed by Electric work 423 (12.8%). (Note: The charts reflect groupings of similar, not specific, work performed types).

Landscape work contributed the next most damages with 332 (10.0%) followed by Water work 301 (9.1%). (Note: The charts reflect groupings of similar, not specific, work performed types).

Facility owners did not report the work performed type on 528 damages (13.8%) The quality of the reported work performed data improved significantly after 2006, but has worsened recently.

The share of damages reported for each work group type has changed over the years (Chart-18). Notice the increase share for the utility infrastructure maintenance work group since 2006, along with the reduction in residential and commercial construction and landscape/fence work during the economic slowdown.


Chart 16 # Damages by Work Performed Group Chart 17 % Damages by Work Performed Group Chart 18 % Damage Trend by Work Performed Group

1,909576 443 316 62 3 528

Util

ity W

ork

Land

scap

e/F

ence

Wor

k

Roa

d/ S

treet

Wor

k

Con

stru

ctio

n/D

eve

lopm

ent

Wor

k

Irrig

atio

n/

Agr

icul

ture

Wor

k

Rai

lroad

/W

ate

rway

/Tra

nsit

Wor

k

Unk

now

n

57.7%

17.4% 13.4% 9.5%1.9% 0.1%

Util

ity W

ork

Land

scap

e/F

ence

Wor

k

Roa

d/ S

treet

Wor

k

Con

stru

ctio

n/D

eve

lopm

ent

Wor

k

Irrig

atio

n/

Agr

icul

ture

Wor

k

Rai

lroad

/W

ate

rway

/Tra

nsit

Wor

k

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Util

ity W

ork

Land

scap

e/F

ence

Wo

rk

Ro

ad/ S

tree

tW

ork

Co

nstr

uctio

n/D

eve

lopm

ent

Wo

rk

Irrig

atio

n/A

gric

ultu

re W

ork

Ra

ilro

ad/

Wa

terw

ay/

Tra

ns

it W

ork



What was the root cause of the damage? Facility owners reported 782 damages (28.2%) due to insufficient notification practices.

669 (24.2%) of these were reported as No Notification Made and 106 (3.8%) were reported as Insufficient Notification Practice (Charts 19 & 20).

Facility owners reported 795 damages (28.7%) due to insufficient locate/marking practices.

Facility owners reported 1,024 damages (37.0%) due to insufficient excavation practices.

Facility owners reported 168 damages (6.1%) due to another root cause not listed.

Facility owners did not report the root cause on 1,068 damages (27.8%), significantly decreasing the quality of the data reported over 2013 (9.1% of damages with a root cause not reported).

The share of damages due to each root cause has shown some variance over the years, and changed considerably in 2006 and 2007 (Chart-21), likely due to inconsistent data collection procedures and the switch-over to the Virtual Private DIRT system.

NOTE: Use of the option “Other Root Cause” does not provide any clue as to the root cause of the damage. The submitter did NOT select “Locate Not Requested”, so we might assume a locate was in fact requested. But we do not know if the root cause was due to insufficient notification practices, insufficient locate/marking practices, or insufficient excavation practices. Facility owners are encouraged to research the damage incident and provide an appropriate root cause to facilitate proper analysis of the data.

Root Cause Detail

Of the 795 damages with a locate request and insufficient locate/marking practice:

490 were located but had insufficient marks or locate practice,

247 were not located by the facility owner/operator,

37 were not located because they could not be found by the locator,

21 were not properly located because of incorrect map information.

Of the 1,024 damages with a locate request and insufficient excavation practice:

738 were reported as insufficient excavation practices,

98 indicated that proper clearance was not maintained by the excavator,

94 indicated that a hand tool was not used by excavator within 18 inches of marks,

51 indicated that a test hole (potholing) was not used by excavator when required,

36 indicated that the excavator did not properly maintain the marks,

5 indicated that the facility was not properly supported during excavation,

2 indicated that the excavator improperly backfilled the hole,

Of the 168 damages with a locate request and sufficient excavation practice, but some other root cause:

93 listed some other root cause,

64 listed abandoned or deteriorated facility,

4 listed a previous damage,

7 listed a Call Center error.


Chart 19 # Damages by Root Cause Group Chart 20 % Damages by Root Cause Group Chart 21 % Damage Trend by Root Cause Group

782 795 1,024168

1,068

Insu

ffici

ent

Not

ifica

tion

Pra

ctic

e

Insu

ffici

ent

Loca

te/

Mar

king

Pra

ctic

e

Insu

ffici

ent

Exc

avat

ion

Pra

ctic

e

Insu

ffici

ent

Oth

er

Pra

ctic

e

Dat

a N

otC

olle

cted

28.2% 28.7%37.0%

6.1%

Insu

ffici

ent

Not

ifica

tion

Pra

ctic

e

Insu

ffici

ent

Loca

te/

Mar

king

Pra

ctic

e

Insu

ffici

ent

Exc

avat

ion

Pra

ctic

e

Insu

ffici

ent

Oth

er

Pra

ctic

e

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Insu

ffici

ent

No

tific

atio

nP

ract

ice

Insu

ffici

ent

Loca

te/

Ma

rkin

gP

ract

ice

Insu

ffici

ent

Exc

ava

tion

Pra

ctic

e

Insu

ffici

ent

Oth

erP

ract

ice



A NOTE ABOUT “DATA NOT COLLECTED / UNKNOWN”

From 2001-2005, the quality of the information submitted for most of the requested data elements was improving. This means that facility owners/operators were researching and providing a valid option for the data element instead of the “Unknown/Other” or “Data Not Collected” options. As Chart-A and Table-A show, when facility owners/operators began submitting their data directly into Virtual Private DIRT in 2006, the quality of the information degraded significantly as measured by the percent of unknown or not collected data.

Colorado Facility Damages 2001-2014

Chart A % Data Unknown / Not Collected

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

ExcavatorType

Excavation Equip.Type

Work PerformedType

Root CauseType

Colorado Facility Damages % Data Unknown or Not Collected

Table A 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

Excavator Type 2.2% 59.4% 51.9% 54.1% 61.6% 44.5% 47.7% 35.5% 26.4% 31.9%

Excavation Equipment Type 10.0% 18.5% 7.2% 5.6% 7.4% 6.3% 30.1% 49.3% 26.2% 19.2%

Work Performed Type 10.0% 61.7% 8.7% 8.1% 18.1% 6.7% 14.9% 12.4% 15.2% 13.8%

Root Cause Type 12.0% 49.7% 50.5% 2.9% 7.5% 43.0% 1.1% 28.9% 9.1% 27.8% Note the poor reporting from 2006 to 2012 for Excavator Type. Data reporting has slowly improved since 2009. Note the poor reporting in 2011 and 2012 for Excavation Equipment Type, after a general improvement in reporting for Excavation Equipment Type from 2007 to 2010. Data reporting improved in 2013 and 2014. Note the relatively good reporting for Work Performed Type after 2006. Data reporting was worse from 2011 through 2014. Note the poor reporting of Root Cause Type in 2006, 2007, 2010, 2012 and 2014. Data reporting improved in 2008, 2011 and 2013. Facility owners/operators are encouraged to collect and submit accurate and complete information on all facility damages. Lack of information limits our ability to analyze the data and to draw accurate and useful conclusions about facility damage.



SPECIAL ANALYSIS OF KEY FINDINGS

This page left blank



SUPPLEMENTAL DATA CHARTS

Pages 10 through 13 illustrate the following information for the 64 Colorado counties: Page-10 County Map of Colorado, Table-B - State Demographic and One-Call Statistics Page-11 Table-C - Share of Data and Cumulative Share of Data by County Page-12 Table-D - Demographic and One-Call Data by County Page-13 Chart-B - Facility Damages per 1,000 Incoming Tickets by Facility Type Pages 14 through 21 define the grading process and display the Report Cards for the 64 Colorado counties: Pages 14-16 Damage Prevention Grading Process, Table-E – Damage Reporting Risk Factors Page-17 Table-F - County Report Card Summary 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Pages 18-20 Assessing Improvement in Damage Prevention from 2004 through 2014 Page-19 Table-G - Summary of Public Awareness versus Facility Damage Page-21 Chart-C - Damage Prevention versus Public Awareness Metrics: 2004, 2009 2012, 2014 Pages 22 through 85 display the Report Cards for the 64 Colorado counties: Pages 22-85 County Damage Prevention Report Cards



County Map of Colorado

Table-B – State Demographic and One-Call Data

2003-2014 UNCC State Damage Prevention DataDEMOGRAPHICS

Land Area: 104,093 Square Miles %Change %Change %Change

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2003-2014 2007-2014 2013-2014

Population: 4,583,430 4,649,698 4,718,562 4,813,536 4,908,108 5,013,015 5,083,221 5,160,189 5,119,778 5,189,245 5,273,720 5,350,572 16.7% 9.0% 1.5%

Population Density: 44.0 44.7 45.3 46.2 47.2 48.2 48.8 49.6 49.2 49.9 50.7 51.4 16.7% 9.0% 1.5%

Net Migration: 24,315 26,412 30,126 54,784 54,686 49,843 29,531 45,736 33,488 34,714 48,335 53,339 119.4% -2.5% 10.4%

Building Permits: 39,569 46,199 45,891 38,343 29,454 18,998 9,355 11,591 13,502 23,301 27,517 28,686 -27.5% -2.6% 4.2%

-49.8% -50.8% -43.6% -43.6% -43.1% -39.7%

ONE-CALL DATA

Incoming Tickets: 788,314 789,539 764,883 727,039 643,647 563,041 470,716 500,622 503,408 560,366 617,608 684,863 -13.1% 6.4% 10.9%

Counties w/ Reported Damages: 56 56 52 56 56 51 55 53 59 59 53 54

DIRT Facility Damages: 13,540 10,573 9,371 8,947 6,358 4,900 3,192 3,130 3,588 3,584 3,615 3,837 -71.7% -39.7% 6.1%

Telecommunications Damages 6,425 5,216 4,639 4,144 3,195 2,602 1,911 1,391 1,897 1,467 912 1,120 -82.6% -64.9% 22.8%

Natura l Gas Damages 4,489 2,627 2,435 2,939 2,185 1,521 768 1,194 1,095 1,310 1,411 1,701 -62.1% -22.2% 20.6%

Electric Damages 1,666 1,561 790 1,497 635 472 231 349 303 430 513 522 -68.7% -17.8% 1.8%

Cable TV Damages 847 1,079 1,434 258 235 226 200 152 172 258 639 389 -54.1% 65.5% -39.1%

Water Damages 90 84 53 89 77 62 40 33 49 70 60 72 -20.0% -6.5% 20.0%

Sewer Damages 19 5 17 16 21 6 17 2 7 8 8 15 -21.1% -28.6% 87.5%

Liquid Pipel ine Damages 0 1 1 2 5 1 1 2 7 4 6 15

Other Damages 4 0 2 2 5 10 24 7 58 37 66 3

DAMAGE METRIC

Damages / 1,000 Tickets: 17.2 13.4 12.3 12.3 9.9 8.7 6.8 6.3 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.6 -67.4% -43.3% -4.3%

Telecom Damages / 1,000 Tickets 8.2 6.6 6.1 5.7 5.0 4.6 4.1 2.8 3.8 2.6 1.5 1.6 -79.9% -67.1% 10.7%

Nat Gas Damages / 1,000 Tickets 5.7 3.3 3.2 4.0 3.4 2.7 1.6 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.5 -56.4% -26.8% 8.7%

Electric Damages / 1,000 Tickets 2.1 2.0 1.0 2.1 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 -63.9% -22.7% -8.2%

Cable TV Damages / 1,000 Tickets 1.1 1.4 1.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.6 -47.1% 55.6% -45.1%

Water Damages / 1,000 Tickets 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.11 -7.9% -12.1% 8.2%

Sewer Damages / 1,000 Tickets 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02

Other Damages / 1,000 Tickets 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.03



Table-C – Share of Data and Cumulative Share of Data by County Table-C lists the Population, Net Migration, Permits, Incoming Tickets and Facility Damages as a share of the state total for the sixteen counties with the largest population (sorted in decreasing order). The lower part of the table summarizes the same data for the top sixteen, middle 32 and bottom sixteen counties. The interesting observation is that the top sixteen counties (25% of the counties) with the largest population represent from 85.1% to 94.1% of the five measures; while the bottom sixteen counties with the smallest share of the population represent from between 0.5% to 1.1% of the five measures for 2014. While this relationship is to be expected, it suggests that any lack of damage reporting by the smallest population counties does not materially impact the analysis and usefulness of the data reported for the state. DIRT facility damages were reported in 54 of the 64 Colorado counties in 2014. Of the ten counties with no (-0-) damages reported in DIRT, all but two, Phillips and San Juan Counties, had damages reported by excavators in the Norfield Ticketing System. Additionally, only San Juan County had no (-0-) damages reported in either DIRT or the Norfield Ticketing System.

There are three interesting observations evident in Table-C: 1) The proportionally smaller share (9.4%) of facility damages in Denver County in relation to its share of

population (12.4%), building permits (20.8%), and incoming tickets (10.1%). This gave Denver County the 7th

lowest ratio of Damages per 1,000 Tickets (5.4) for the Top 16 Counties.

2) The proportionally larger share (11.3%) of locate requests in Weld County in relation to its share of population (5.2%), building permits (9.4%), and facility damages (6.9%). Weld County had the lowest damage ratio of 3.5.

3) The decrease in the share of damages from 2013 to 2014 (while the share of tickets held steady) in the top 16 counties was offset by an increase in the share of damages in the middle 16 counties. The likely explanation for this observation is an improvement in damage prevention efforts by stakeholders in the larger counties.

Top 16 Counties Middle 32 Counties Bottom 16 Counties Tickets Damages (Share 0f) Tickets Damages (Share 0f) Tickets Damages (Share 0f) 2009 85.5% 78.7% 13.3% 19.8% 1.2% 1.5% 2010 85.8% 84.7% (Increased Share from 09) 13.0% 13.3% (Decreased Share) 1.2% 1.9% (Increased Share) 2011 85.8% 80.1% (Decreased Share from 10) 13.0% 18.8% (Increased Share) 1.2% 1.1% (Decreased Share) 2012 86.5%% 79.6% (Decreased Share from 11) 12.2% 18.6% (Decreased Share) 1.2% 1.7% (Increased Share) 2013 88.3%% 86.9% (Increased Share from 12) 10.5% 11.5% (Decreased Share) 1.2% 1.5% (Decreased Share) 2014 88.4%% 85.1% (Decreased Share from 13) 10.5% 13.7% (Increased Share) 1.1% 1.1% (Decreased Share)

2014 Year Taken from DPC-County tab, Column H

Colorado 5,350,572 53,339 28,686 684,863 3,860

CO

UN

TY

%P

op

ula

tio

n

Cu

mu

lati

ve

%P

op

ula

tio

n

%N

et

Mig

rati

on

Cu

mu

lati

ve

%N

et

Mig

rati

on

%P

erm

its

Cu

mu

lati

ve

%P

erm

its

%In

com

ing

Tick

ets

Cu

mu

lati

ve

%In

com

ing

Tick

ets

%A

dj D

IRT

Dam

age

s

Cu

mu

lati

ve

%A

dj D

IRT

Dam

age

s

Dam

age

s /

10

00

Tic

kets

El Paso 12.4% 12.4% 9.0% 9.0% 12.3% 12.3% 11.6% 11.6% 12.4% 12.4% 6.0

Denver 12.4% 24.8% 15.0% 24.0% 20.8% 33.1% 10.1% 21.7% 9.4% 21.7% 5.2

Arapahoe 11.5% 36.4% 11.5% 35.5% 6.6% 39.7% 9.4% 31.1% 8.2% 29.9% 4.9

Jefferson 10.4% 46.8% 9.0% 44.5% 8.8% 48.5% 9.0% 40.0% 8.6% 38.5% 5.4

Adams 8.9% 55.7% 8.2% 52.7% 3.9% 52.4% 7.0% 47.1% 8.1% 46.6% 6.5

Larimer 6.0% 61.7% 8.3% 61.0% 8.7% 61.1% 7.1% 54.2% 7.8% 54.5% 6.2

Boulder 5.9% 67.6% 5.1% 66.2% 4.8% 65.9% 6.3% 60.5% 6.7% 61.2% 6.0

Douglas 5.8% 73.4% 6.2% 72.3% 11.3% 77.1% 7.1% 67.6% 5.4% 66.6% 4.2

Weld 5.2% 78.6% 8.2% 80.5% 9.4% 86.6% 11.3% 78.9% 6.9% 73.5% 3.5

Pueblo 3.0% 81.6% 0.8% 81.3% 0.5% 87.1% 1.6% 80.5% 2.8% 76.3% 9.8

Mesa 2.8% 84.4% 1.3% 82.6% 1.8% 88.9% 2.5% 83.0% 2.6% 78.9% 5.9

Garfield 1.1% 85.5% 2.4% 85.0% 2.9% 91.7% 1.5% 84.5% 1.3% 80.2% 4.9

Broomfield 1.1% 86.6% 0.7% 85.7% 0.3% 92.0% 1.2% 85.7% 1.7% 81.8% 7.7

Eagle 1.0% 87.7% 1.9% 87.6% 1.0% 93.0% 1.5% 87.2% 1.2% 83.0% 4.6

La Plata 1.0% 88.6% 0.2% 87.9% 0.9% 93.9% 0.7% 87.9% 1.1% 84.1% 8.2

Fremont 0.9% 89.5% 1.0% 88.9% 0.2% 94.1% 0.5% 88.4% 1.0% 85.1% 11.4

Top 16 89.5% 88.9% 94.1% 88.4% 85.1%

Next 32 9.6% 10.1% 5.4% 10.5% 13.7%

Bottom 16 0.9% 1.0% 0.5% 1.1% 1.1%



Table-D – Demographic and One-Call Data by County Table-D lists the Demographic and the One-Call data along with the Rank Order for the 64 Colorado counties, sorted alphabetically. Note that Rank Order is where 1=most and 64=least, except for DIRT Damages, where fewer is better. Each county includes data for Adjusted DIRT Damages, Incoming One-Call Tickets, Population, Net Migration and Building Permits. Note that 54 of the 64 counties had facility damages reported in DIRT. Nine of the ten counties without DIRT damages had 1 to 13 facility damages reported in the Norfield Ticketing System. Additionally, two counties (Phillips and San Juan) had no damages reported in the Norfield Ticket System. Also note that the Adjusted DIRT Damages may not include all facility damages that actually occurred in the county as facility owners or excavators may not have reported the damage. The maximum Damages/1,000 Tickets over 64 counties was 40.5, the minimum was 0.0, and the average was 7.1. NOTE: These values are not Density Adjusted as they are with the County Report Cards and are therefore slightly larger.

Colorado 2014 3,860 684,863 5,350,572 53,339 28,686

CO

UN

TY

Ad

j DIR

T D

amag

es

Ran

k: 6

4 is

larg

est

Inco

min

g Ti

cke

ts

Ran

k: 1

is la

rge

st

Po

pu

lati

on

Ran

k: 1

is la

rge

st

Ne

t M

igra

tio

n

Ran

k: 1

is la

rge

st

Pe

rmit

s

Ran

k: 1

is la

rge

st

Dam

age

s /

1,0

00

Tic

kets

Ran

k: 1

is B

est

CO

UN

TY

Ad

j DIR

T D

amag

es

Ran

k: 6

4 is

larg

est

Inco

min

g Ti

cke

ts

Ran

k: 1

is la

rge

st

Po

pu

lati

on

Ran

k: 1

is la

rge

st

Ne

t M

igra

tio

n

Ran

k: 1

is la

rge

st

Pe

rmit

s

Ran

k: 1

is la

rge

st

Dam

age

s /

1,0

00

Tic

kets

Ran

k: 1

is B

est

Adams 313 60 48,126 8 477,870 5 4,387 6 1,115 9 6.5 39 Kit Carson 2 9 1,241 41 8,104 41 42 45 2 52 1.6 3

Alamosa 12 33 1,073 42 16,002 30 82 37 52 28 11.2 56 La Plata 47 50 10,240 13 54,629 14 1,031 11 278 12 4.6 21

Arapahoe 318 61 64,264 4 616,881 3 6,124 2 1,897 7 4.9 26 Lake 5 20 529 50 7,533 43 169 28 0 59 9.5 49

Archuleta 14 35 2,133 32 12,306 36 144 31 75 25 6.6 40 Larimer 302 59 48,696 7 321,221 6 4,448 5 2,498 6 6.2 37

Baca 3 14 590 48 3,695 55 36 47 0 59 5.1 27 Las Animas 9 28 6,102 15 14,557 33 202 26 5 49 1.5 2

Bent 2 9 661 47 5,798 47 128 34 0 59 3.0 9 Lincoln 6 21 1,533 37 5,422 49 3 59 2 52 3.9 16

Boulder 260 57 43,355 9 313,624 7 2,736 9 1,371 8 6.0 35 Logan 10 29 3,013 24 21,965 25 33 48 19 36 3.3 11

Broomfield 50 51 10,289 12 61,100 12 1,281 10 820 10 4.9 24 Mesa 100 54 16,942 10 149,082 11 701 12 504 11 5.9 34

Chaffee 18 36 2,138 31 18,600 27 344 22 105 20 8.4 46 Mineral 1 2 115 63 740 63 21 53 6 47 8.7 47

Cheyenne 2 9 456 56 1,913 59 27 49 1 55 4.4 20 Moffat 4 17 1,579 35 13,178 34 5 58 9 44 2.5 7

Clear Creek 8 26 1,428 38 9,015 39 (35) 63 11 42 5.6 33 Montezuma 22 40 3,228 22 26,207 21 472 16 15 37 6.8 42

Conejos 3 14 465 55 8,263 40 (10) 60 13 38 6.5 38 Montrose 30 44 3,957 19 41,248 17 479 15 89 22 7.6 43

Costilla 10 29 247 59 3,550 56 48 44 30 34 40.5 64 Morgan 34 45 3,287 21 28,512 20 26 50 20 35 10.3 53

Crowley 1 2 333 57 5,278 50 50 42 7 46 3.0 8 Otero 6 21 1,567 36 18,659 26 79 39 2 52 3.8 14

Custer 1 2 508 54 4,410 53 130 33 43 30 2.0 5 Ouray 3 14 567 49 4,686 52 158 29 33 32 5.3 29

Delta 40 48 2,921 25 30,594 18 275 23 47 29 13.7 59 Park 18 36 1,699 34 16,615 29 416 17 88 23 10.6 55

Denver 361 63 69,437 3 662,670 2 8,012 1 5,958 1 5.2 28 Phillips 1 2 527 51 4,324 54 (21) 62 9 44 1.9 4

Dolores 7 23 720 46 2,059 58 49 43 1 55 9.7 50 Pitkin 23 41 2,563 29 17,470 28 57 41 98 21 9.0 48

Douglas 207 56 48,799 6 311,589 8 3,287 8 3,230 3 4.2 17 Prowers 4 17 1,264 40 12,350 35 40 46 1 55 3.2 10

Eagle 42 49 5,117 18 53,013 15 133 32 256 13 8.2 45 Pueblo 107 55 10,970 11 162,036 10 412 18 157 15 9.8 51

El Paso 477 64 79,271 1 665,891 1 4,789 4 3,533 2 6.0 36 Rio Blanco 11 32 3,173 23 6,804 44 (12) 61 10 43 3.5 12

Elbert 19 39 2,822 26 24,287 22 545 14 116 19 6.7 41 Rio Grande 18 36 909 43 11,894 37 111 35 12 41 19.8 63

Fremont 39 47 3,415 20 46,749 16 554 13 55 27 11.4 57 Routt 29 43 2,763 27 23,917 23 398 19 132 18 10.5 54

Garfield 64 52 8,337 14 58,138 13 359 21 83 24 7.7 44 Saguache 2 9 513 53 6,346 46 98 36 32 33 3.9 15

Gilpin 7 23 523 52 5,684 48 81 38 13 38 13.4 58 San Juan 0 1 33 64 697 64 8 56 0 59 0.0 1

Grand 38 46 2,639 28 14,584 32 252 24 137 17 14.4 61 San Miguel 7 23 1,279 39 7,905 42 203 25 36 31 5.5 31

Gunnison 13 34 2,327 30 15,708 31 183 27 58 26 5.6 32 Sedgwick 4 17 292 58 2,342 57 7 57 1 55 13.7 60

Hinsdale 1 2 216 61 830 62 24 51 6 47 4.6 22 Summit 80 53 5,513 17 28,975 19 146 30 207 14 14.5 62

Huerfano 8 26 794 45 6,499 45 61 40 13 38 10.1 52 Teller 24 42 5,648 16 23,642 24 362 20 140 16 4.2 18

Jackson 1 2 203 62 1,369 61 17 55 0 59 4.9 25 Washington 2 9 816 44 4,716 51 (51) 64 5 49 2.5 6

Jefferson 331 62 61,314 5 558,896 4 4,803 3 2,519 5 5.4 30 Weld 268 58 77,085 2 276,337 9 4,357 7 2,708 4 3.5 13

Kiowa 1 2 230 60 1,419 60 21 54 0 59 4.3 19 Yuma 10 29 2,069 33 10,179 38 23 52 3 51 4.8 23



Chart-B – Facility Damages per 1,000 Incoming Tickets by Facility Type

Chart-B shows the DIRT Damages per 1,000 Incoming Tickets for all facility types and the three major facility types in Colorado from 2003 through 2014. Note the strong decreasing trend in this damage metric over the years. For all facility types (the green line with circle markers), the metric has decreased from 17.2 Damages per 1,000 Incoming Tickets in 2003 to 5.6 in 2014, a 67.4% decrease over eleven years. For the Natural Gas facility type (the yellow line with square markers), the metric has decreased from 5.7 Damages per 1,000 Incoming Tickets in 2003 to 2.5 in 2014, a 56.4% decrease over eleven years. Unfortunately, the damage ratio for the Natural Gas facility type has increased from a low of 1.6 in 2009 as both Incoming Tickets and Gas Facility Damages have increased while the economy and general construction activity has expanded during the slow business recovery in Colorado.

Measuring County Damage Prevention Grades - 2014


DAMAGE PREVENTION GRADING PROCESS

Pages 14 through 16 describe the methods used with the 2014 Damage Prevention Report Cards for scoring and grading each county. The report card utilizes metrics derived from three damage prevention areas: 1) Public Awareness, 2) Facility Damages, and 3) Damage Reporting. These three metrics are then combined to derive a Composite Damage Prevention Grade. A fourth grading metric will be added in the future to measure Damage Prevention Activity undertaken by stakeholders in each county during the year. Page-17 contains a detailed listing of the Damage Prevention Grades sorted by Composite Grade and includes the four grading metrics for each county for 2009 through 2014. Pages 18 through 20 contain an assessment of the improvement in damage prevention for Colorado from 2004 through 2014.

Colorado Damage Prevention Report Cards Pages 22 through 85 include the Damage Prevention Report Card for each of the 64 Colorado counties. All of the demographic and One-Call data used to generate each metric, score, and grade is included on each county report card.

Description of the Public Awareness Metric

The Public Awareness Metric assesses the level of incoming tickets as compared to the level of the population. As population increases, incoming tickets should also increase. Some level of the ratio of the two measures should be representative of an acceptable level of public awareness. As time passes though, the economy as well as construction activity may undergo periods of expansion and contraction, which has an effect on the level of the tickets, and so, on the ratio. As construction activity slows down, incoming tickets will generally slow down, while population may slowly increase. In this case, the ratio will decrease; though this does not mean that the public awareness level has fallen. If incoming tickets decrease at a slower rate than construction activity, the public awareness level may actually increase. This ratio is best used to compare public awareness between counties in the same year and not across multiple years. Since higher density population areas tend to utilize more vertical construction styles (high rise office buildings, multi-story apartments, etc.) there is a natural tendency of fewer incoming tickets for the level of population. This tendency suggests the need to adjust the incoming ticket level for higher population density areas. An algorithm was developed to make just such a population density adjustment for incoming tickets for each county. In addition, both the adjusted incoming tickets and the population were transformed by the Natural Log function since there is such a large variation between the highest and lowest values of each measure. The Public Awareness Metric is thus calculated as a ratio of LN(Density Adjusted Incoming Tickets) / LN(Population). For 2014, this ratio ranged from 0.54 to 0.93 with an average of 0.81, a ticket weighted average of 0.89, and a standard deviation of 0.07. The 2014 Ticket Weighted Ratio of 0.89 was used as the Public Awareness Threshold. In 2014, eleven counties had a Public Awareness ratio above the Public Awareness Threshold, leaving 53 counties below the threshold. The eleven counties above the Public Awareness Threshold received a Public Awareness Grade of A or B, while the 53 counties below the threshold received a Public Awareness Grade of C, D or F.



Description of the Damage Metric

The Damage Metric assesses the level of facility damages compared to the level of incoming tickets. As incoming tickets increase, damages are likely to increase also. Some level of the ratio of the two measures should be representative of an acceptable level of damage prevention. As time passes though, the economy as well as construction activity may undergo periods of expansion and contraction, which has an effect on the level of tickets, and so, on the ratio. As construction activity slows down, both incoming tickets and facility damages should decrease – though the damage ratio should stay about the same if damage prevention activities are sufficient. If facility damages decrease at a faster rate than incoming tickets decrease, the damage ratio will actually decrease, indicating an improvement in damage prevention efforts. This ratio can be used both to compare damage prevention results across time and between counties. As described in the previous Public Awareness Metric section, the incoming ticket level for each county was adjusted to compensate for population density. In 2014 there was no facility damage reported in DIRT by facility owners for ten counties. The DIRT damages for all ten of these counties were adjusted from -0- to ½ times the facility damages reported by excavators in the Norfield Ticket System. Additionally, two counties (Phillips and San Juan) had both no facility damages reported into the Norfield Ticket System by excavators, and no damages reported by facility owners into DIRT. Since stakeholders desire to improve their damage prevention efforts, and we desire to measure and track this progress over time, we use the Damage Weighted Ratio computed in 2004 as the Damage Ratio Threshold with which to measure progress. If damage prevention efforts are improving in a county, then the Damage Ratio should get smaller over time and that county’s Damage Ratio may move below the 2004 Damage Ratio Threshold. In addition, the Damage Weighted Ratio for all counties in a given year should decrease over time if overall damage prevention efforts for the state have improved. The Damage Metric is thus calculated as a ratio of Adjusted DIRT Damages / 1,000 Density Adjusted Incoming Tickets. For 2014, this ratio ranged from 0.00 to 37.05 with an average of 5.58, a damage weighted average of 3.84, and a standard deviation of 5.01. The 2004 Damage Weighted Ratio was 10.78 and was used as the Damage Threshold. In 2014, 60 counties had a Damage Ratio below the 2004 Damage Threshold, leaving four counties above the threshold. The 60 counties below the 2004 Damage Threshold received a Damage Prevention Grade of A, B or C, while the four counties above the threshold received a Damage Prevention Grade of D or F.

Description of the Damage Reporting Metric

The Damage Reporting Metric assesses the level of facility damage reporting for each facility type within a county. For each of the eight facility types where one or more damages were reported, a county was given risk weighted points. The points were summed and divided by two to determine the numeric score for Damage Reporting. The score ranges from 0.00 points if no damages were reported to 4.50 points if at least one damage was reported for each facility type within a county. This measure can be used both to compare damage prevention reporting across time and between counties. Table-E on the next page lists the risk weighting factor and the number of counties with reported damages for each facility type in 2014. Each facility type was assigned a risk weighting factor based upon its relative risk of injury to humans and damage to property, giving the most risk weight to Natural Gas and Electric facility damages. Counties with a higher damage reporting metric have a higher level of



facility damage reporting than counties with a lower metric. This metric penalizes counties where few facility types had reported damages. When no facility damage actually occurred in a county and none were reported in both the DIRT system and the Norfield Ticketing System, the county is given a score of 4.0. If damage reporting efforts are improving in a county, then the Damage Reporting metric will increase over time.

The Damage Reporting Metric is thus calculated as the sum of risk weighted scores for each facility type within a county. For 2014, this numeric score ranged from 0.25 to 4.25 with an average of 1.96 and a standard deviation of 1.17. Note from Table-E that Natural Gas and Electric damages were reported in 51 and 27 counties respectively, while both Natural Gas and Electric damages were reported in 25 counties (data not shown).

The Average Damage Reporting Metric has ranged from a high of 2.11 in 2012 and 2.06 in 2011, to a low of 1.53 in 2010. The large increase in the Damage Reporting Metric in 2011 and 2012 is welcome and resulted from a letter writing campaign by the One-Call center staff to encourage damage reporting.

Description of the Composite Damage Prevention Metric

The Composite Damage Prevention Score is formed through a weighted sum of the scores for each of the three damage prevention metrics:

1) Public Awareness Metric 50% Weighting 2) Damage Metric 25% weighting 3) Damage Reporting Metric 25% weighting

For 2014, the Composite Damage Prevention Score ranged from 0.75 to 3.63 with an average of 2.30 and a standard deviation of 0.71. The Composite Grade stats show a moderate improvement over 2013.

Damage Prevention Grading Summary

Table-F on page-17 summarizes the 2009 through 2014 letter grades from the County Damage Prevention Report Cards. Each yearly table is sorted on the Composite Damage Prevention Metric and includes the four grading metrics previously described:

1) Public Awareness Metric 2) Damage Metric 3) Damage Reporting Metric 4) Composite Damage Prevention Metric

In 2009, there were 23 counties with an active DPC. The light blue shading identifies these counties. In 2010, there were 9 more counties with an active DPC. Light purple shading identifies these counties. In 2011, there were 6 more counties with an active DPC. Light green shading identifies these counties. In 2012, there were 6 more counties with an active DPC. Light orange shading identifies these counties. Prior to 2013, the total number of counties in Colorado with a DPC was 44.

2014

Table E - Damage Reporting Risk Factor and #Counties

Facility Type

Natu

ral

Gas

Ele

ctr

ic

Tele

co

m

Cab

le T

V

Wate

r

Sew

er

Pip

eli

ne

Oth

er

Risk Factor 2.00 2.00 0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25 0.50 0.50

#Counties 51 27 48 21 16 5 6 3



Table-F – County Report Card Summary 2009 through 2014

County

Public

Awareness

Grade

Damage

Grade

Reporting

Grade

Composite

GradeCounty

Public

Awareness

Grade

Damage

Grade

Reporting

Grade

Composite

GradeCounty

Public

Awareness

Grade

Damage

Grade

Reporting

Grade

Composite

GradeCounty

Public

Awareness

Grade

Damage

Grade

Reporting

Grade

Composite

GradeCounty

Public

Awareness

Grade

Damage

Grade

Reporting

Grade

Composite

GradeCounty

Public

Awareness

Grade

Damage

Grade

Reporting

Grade

Composite

Grade

2nd Sort 3rd Sort 4th Sort 1st Sort 2nd Sort 3rd Sort 4th Sort 1st Sort 2nd Sort 3rd Sort 4th Sort 1st Sort 2nd Sort 3rd Sort 4th Sort 1st Sort 2nd Sort 3rd Sort 4th Sort 1st Sort 2nd Sort 3rd Sort 4th Sort 1st Sort

Weld A- C+ A+ B+ Weld A- B A- A- Weld A- B A- A- Denver A- B A- A- Larimer A- B A- A- Weld A B A- A-

El Paso B+ C+ A+ B+ Larimer B+ B B+ B+ Rio Blanco A B B- B+ Weld A- B B+ A- Denver A- B A- A- Denver A- B A- A-

Tel ler A B D+ B Denver B+ B B- B+ Las Animas A- C+ B B+ Douglas A- B- A+ A- Jefferson A- B- A+ A- Jefferson A- B- A A-

Rio Blanco A- A+ F B Arapahoe B+ B- B- B+ El Paso A- C A+ B+ Rio Blanco A C+ A- B+ Arapahoe A- B- A A- Douglas A- B B B+

Broomfield B+ B+ D- B El Paso B+ C+ A+ B+ Denver B+ B A- B+ Larimer A- B- B B+ Rio Blanco A B B- B+ Broomfield A- B B- B+

Arapahoe B B B- B Douglas B+ C+ B+ B+ Arapahoe B+ B B- B+ El Paso A- C+ A+ B+ Weld A- B B B+ Arapahoe A- B- A- B+

Boulder B B B- B Rio Blanco A B D+ B Boulder B+ B B- B+ Arapahoe B+ B B B+ Boulder A- B- B B+ Tel ler A- B- B+ B+

Douglas B C+ B- B Tel ler A B D+ B Larimer B+ B- B B+ Jefferson B+ B- B B+ La Plata A- B- B- B+ El Paso A- C+ A+ B+

Larimer B C+ C+ B Yuma A- B+ C- B Douglas B+ C+ A- B+ Boulder B+ B- B- B+ El Paso A- C+ A+ B+ Larimer A- C+ B+ B+

Denver B- B+ B- B Broomfield B B B- B Jefferson B B- A- B+ Adams B B A+ B+ Douglas A- C+ A- B+ Adams B+ C+ A+ B+

Jefferson B- B- B- B Boulder B B- B- B Tel ler A C+ D+ B Tel ler A- C+ C- B Cheyenne A B D+ B Rio Blanco A C+ C+ B

Adams C+ B B B Jefferson B C+ B- B La Plata B+ C+ C B Broomfield B+ C+ B- B Tel ler A- B+ D+ B Las Animas A B+ D+ B

La Plata A- C+ D+ B- La Plata A- C+ D+ B- Broomfield B B C+ B Summit B+ C B- B Broomfield A- C+ B- B Boulder A- C+ B- B

Summit B- C B- B- Las Animas B B- C- B- Summit B C B+ B Las Animas B+ C C+ B Summit B+ C B B La Plata A- C+ C B

Yuma C+ A- D+ B- Summit B- C- B- B- Adams B- B B+ B Park A- D+ C+ B- Adams B C+ A- B Summit A- C- B+ B

Washington D+ A+ A B- Adams C+ C+ B- B- Hinsdale C A+ A B La Plata B C+ D+ B- Las Animas C+ B C+ B- Dolores B+ C- D+ B-

Gi lpin C+ A- F C+ Mesa C+ C B B- Phi l l ips C A+ A B Yuma C+ B- C B- Garfield C+ C+ B+ B- Lincoln B C+ D+ B-

Clear Creek C+ B D+ C+ Garfield C+ C B- B- Yuma B B- D+ B- Mesa C+ C B B- Mesa C+ C+ B B- Mesa C+ C+ B+ B-

Morgan C+ C+ D+ C+ Minera l D+ A+ A B- Garfield C+ C A- B- Garfield C+ C+ A- B- Clear Creek C+ C B- B- Yuma C+ C+ C+ B-

Garfield C+ C C- C+ Grand C+ C+ C- C+ Mesa C+ C B+ B- Clear Creek C+ C+ D+ C+ Yuma C+ A- D C+ Garfield C+ C A- B-

Mesa C+ C C+ C+ Clear Creek C+ C+ D+ C+ Baca D A+ A B- Archuleta C A D C+ Pitkin C+ D+ B C+ Pitkin C+ C B- B-

Pueblo C+ C- C- C+ Pueblo C+ C C- C+ Washington D A+ A B- Logan C B- D+ C+ Archuleta C B+ D C+ Montezuma C C+ B B-

Pitkin C+ D B+ C+ Pitkin C+ C- C- C+ Clear Creek B- C+ D+ C+ Morgan C C+ C+ C+ Logan C B D+ C+ Pueblo C C B+ B-

Archuleta C A D- C+ Morgan C B- D+ C+ Ouray C+ C D+ C+ Chaffee C C C+ C+ Delta C B- D+ C+ Logan C+ B- D+ C+

Las Animas C C C+ C+ Eagle C C+ B- C+ Logan C C C+ C+ Cheyenne C C C+ C+ Eagle C C+ B- C+ Archuleta C+ C+ C C+

Chaffee C C- B C+ Gunnison C C C+ C+ Eagle C D+ B C+ Montrose C C C+ C+ Chaffee C C+ C+ C+ Clear Creek C+ C+ D+ C+

Eagle C C- B- C+ Chaffee C C C+ C+ Montezuma C D+ B C+ Ouray C C C+ C+ Gunnison C C+ C+ C+ Washington C B D+ C+

Gunnison C C- B C+ Logan C C- C+ C+ Pitkin C D+ B C+ Delta C C C C+ Montrose C C+ C+ C+ Gunnison C C+ C+ C+

Montrose C C- C+ C+ Delta C B+ F C Pueblo C D+ B- C+ Gunnison C C- B- C+ Morgan C C+ C- C+ Elbert C C+ C- C+

Montezuma C D+ B C+ Archuleta C B- F C Routt C D B C+ Pueblo C D+ A- C+ Routt C C B- C+ Chaffee C C C+ C+

Crowley F A+ A C+ Montrose C C+ F C Chaffee C- C+ B- C+ Montezuma C D+ B+ C+ Montezuma C C C C+ Eagle C C C+ C+

Grand C+ D+ C- C Ouray C C+ F C Cheyenne C B- D C Eagle C D+ B C+ Pueblo C C- B- C+ Morgan C C C+ C+

Ouray C C D+ C San Miguel C C+ F C Archuleta C C+ F C Routt C D+ B C+ Elbert C D+ B C+ Montrose C C C C+

San Miguel C C- D+ C Phi l l ips C- C+ D+ C Delta C C D+ C Pitkin C D+ B- C+ Fremont C- C+ C+ C+ Fremont C- C B C+

Logan C- C+ D+ C Elbert C- C C- C Morgan C C D+ C Fremont C- C+ C+ C+ Moffat C- C+ C+ C+ San Juan F A+ A C+

Moffat C- C D+ C Park C- C D+ C Grand C C- C- C Minera l D- A+ A C+ Grand C+ D+ C- C Grand C+ D+ D+ C

Fremont C- C- C- C Prowers D+ B+ D C San Miguel C C- C- C San Juan F A+ A C+ Dolores C+ D+ D+ C Kit Carson C B+ F C

Rio Grande D+ C- C+ C Baca D+ B D C Gunnison C C- D+ C Grand C+ C- D+ C Baca C B- F C San Miguel C C+ D C

Routt C D D- C- Routt C D+ D- C- Montrose C C- D+ C Lincoln C C+ D+ C San Miguel C C+ D+ C Cheyenne C C+ F C

Huerfano C- C+ F C- Cheyenne C- B- F C- Gilpin C- C+ D+ C Phi l l ips C C+ D+ C Lincoln C C- D+ C Hinsdale C C+ F C

Cheyenne C- C- F C- Custer C- C F C- Fremont C- C C- C San Miguel C C+ D+ C Ouray C C- D+ C Delta C C- C C

Delta C- C- D+ C- Fremont C- C- D+ C- Elbert C- D B- C Kit Carson C- A- F C Kit Carson C- A- F C Routt C C- C- C

Elbert C- D+ D+ C- Montezuma C- C- D+ C- Park C- D C+ C Otero C- B D C Otero C- B D+ C Phi l l ips C- B+ D C

Phi l l ips C- D+ D+ C- Hinsdale C- C- D C- Otero D+ B C- C Moffat C- C D+ C Phi l l ips C- B F C Custer C- B D C

Prowers D+ B+ F C- Lincoln C- D+ D+ C- Moffat D+ C- C+ C Elbert C- D+ B C Park C- C C+ C Moffat C- B F C

Custer D+ B F C- Moffat D+ B+ F C- Sedgwick D+ B- F C- Hinsdale C C- F C- Lake D+ C+ C+ C Otero C- B- D+ C

Otero D+ B- F C- Otero D+ B F C- Lake D+ C- D+ C- Washington C D D+ C- Alamosa D+ C C+ C Bent C- B- D C

Alamosa D+ D+ C+ C- Kit Carson D+ C+ D C- Huerfano D B+ F C- Kiowa C- C+ F C- Hinsdale C D+ F C- Ouray C- C+ D+ C

Baca D B- D C- Washington D+ C+ F C- Custer D C+ D+ C- Sedgwick C- C+ F C- Kiowa C- C+ F C- Baca C- C+ F C-

Kit Carson D B- D C- Rio Grande D+ C- D+ C- Kit Carson D C+ D C- Huerfano C- D+ C- C- Sedgwick C- C+ F C- Prowers C- B- F C-

Bent D C+ D C- Alamosa D+ D+ C+ C- Alamosa D D+ C+ C- Rio Grande C- D D+ C- Prowers D+ B+ F C- Huerfano C- C- D+ C-

Sedgwick D C+ D C- Sedgwick D+ C F D+ Bent D- B D C- Dolores C- D- D+ C- Gi lpin D+ C+ D- C- Park C- C- D+ C-

Minera l D+ C F D+ Huerfano D+ C- F D+ Minera l D+ C F D+ Baca D+ B F C- Custer D+ C C- C- Gi lpin C- C- F C-

Park D+ C- F D+ Gi lpin D+ D F D+ Lincoln D+ D C- D+ Custer D+ C+ D+ C- Rio Grande D+ C D+ C- Kiowa D+ C+ D C-

Hinsdale D+ D+ D D+ Jackson D C+ F D+ Prowers D+ D D+ D+ Jackson D+ C+ D C- Huerfano D+ D+ C+ C- Alamosa D+ C- C C-

Jackson D- C+ F D+ Costi l la D- B- F D+ Jackson D C+ F D+ Prowers D+ C+ F C- Bent D C+ D C- Rio Grande D+ D+ C+ C-

Conejos F B D D+ Saguache D- C+ F D+ Rio Grande D C- D+ D+ Alamosa D+ D+ C+ C- Washington D+ D+ F D+ Sedgwick D+ D+ D+ C-

Saguache F B D D+ Bent D- C D D+ Kiowa D- C D D+ Saguache D C+ D C- Crowley D C+ F D+ Lake D C C+ C-

Dolores D F D+ D Conejos F C+ C D+ Saguache F B- D D+ Lake D D+ C+ C- Saguache F B F D+ Jackson D C+ F D+

Lincoln D- D+ F D Dolores D- F D+ D Conejos F C D+ D+ Bent D C- D D+ Jackson D- C F D Saguache D- C+ F D+

Kiowa F C F D Crowley F C+ F D Crowley F C+ F D Gi lpin D C- F D+ Minera l D- C- F D Crowley F B- D D+

Costi l la F C- F D Lake F D+ D+ D Costi l la F C- D D Costi l la D- C+ F D+ Conejos F C D D Conejos F C+ D+ D+

Lake F C+ F D Kiowa F D+ D D Dolores F C- F D Crowley F B- D D+ Costi l la F D D+ D Minera l D- C- F D

San Juan F D F D- San Juan F D F D- San Juan F D F D- Conejos F C+ C D+ San Juan F D+ F D- Costi l la F F D+ D-

15 Active DPC 2004-2007 15 Active DPC 2004-2007 15 Active DPC 2004-2007 15 Active DPC 2004-2007 15 Active DPC 2004-2007 15 Active DPC 2004-2007

8 DPC added 2008-2009 8 Active DPC 2008-2009 8 Active DPC 2008-2009 8 Active DPC 2008-2009 8 Active DPC 2008-2009 8 Active DPC 2008-2009

9 DPC added in 2010 9 DPC added in 2010 9 DPC added in 2010 9 DPC added in 2010 9 DPC added in 2010

6 DPC added in 2011 6 DPC added in 2011 6 DPC added in 2011 6 DPC added in 2011

6 DPC added in 2012 6 DPC added in 2012 6 DPC added in 2012

23 Total DPC in 2009 32 Total DPC in 2010 38 Total DPC in 2011 44 Total DPC in 2012 44 Total DPC in 2013 44 Total DPC in 2014

2012 Sorted Report Card List2011 Sorted Report Card List2010 Sorted Report Card List2009 Sorted Report Card List 2013 Sorted Report Card List 2014 Sorted Report Card List



Assessing Improvement in Damage Prevention: 2004-2013

The four quadrant scatter charts on page-21 visually demonstrate the improvements made in damage prevention for Colorado from 2004 through 2014. Each chart provides a snapshot of a measure of Public Awareness (x-axis) versus a measure of Facility Damage (y-axis) for 2004, 2009 and 2014. We can hypothesize a cause and effect relationship between these measures. As we create and support active DPCs within a county, and thereby increase public awareness, damage prevention should improve. We can therefore hypothesize that as we fund and support improvements in the quantity and quality of public awareness efforts within a county, the facility damage metric should decrease within the county over time. To understand how the three charts demonstrate these improvements, we must first explain how the charts are setup and how to interpret the information. a) Each chart represents a measure of Public Awareness on the horizontal X axis and a

measure of Facility Damage on the vertical Y axis. b) The measure of Public Awareness is computed as the County Public Awareness Metric for

the year less the Public Awareness Threshold (see description at bottom of page-14) for the state that year. The Public Awareness Threshold becomes the -0- vertical axis line on the chart and positive numbers to the right of the axis line represent higher levels of public awareness, while negative numbers to the left of the axis line represent lower levels of public awareness.

c) The measure of Facility Damage is computed as the 2004 Damage Threshold (see description at bottom of page-15) for the state less the County Damage Metric for that year. The 2004 Damage Threshold becomes the -0- horizontal axis line and positive numbers above the axis line represent lower levels of facility damage, while negative numbers below the axis line represent higher levels of facility damage.

d) The two axes divide the chart into four quadrants. Each quadrant represents a hypothesized cause-effect relationship between the Public Awareness measure and Facility Damage measure.

Quadrant-1 Upper Right Higher Public Awareness Lower Facility Damages Quadrant-2 Upper Left Lower Public Awareness Lower Facility Damages Quadrant-3 Lower Left Lower Public Awareness Higher Facility Damages Quadrant-4 Lower Right Higher Public Awareness Higher Facility Damages

e) There is a small green box with a number and a small blue box with a number in each quadrant. The green box represents the number of counties in the quadrant with an active DPC. The blue box represents the number of counties in the quadrant without a DPC.

f) The 64 data markers represent each of the counties within the state for that year. The green data markers are counties with an active DPC that year. The blue data markers are counties without a DPC that year.



Table-G below summarizes the number of counties that fall in each quadrant of the chart for a series of years since 2004, showing both counties with and without a Damage Prevention Council (DPC). Careful study of the three quadrant charts on page-21 and Table-G below reveal progressive improvements from 2004 through 2014 in both the public awareness and the facility damage metrics as additional DPCs have been created and supported in the counties. The improvement is indicated by an increasing number of counties moving out of Quadrant-3 (with lower awareness and higher damage metrics) and into Quadrants-1 and 2 (with a lower damage metric) from 2004 through 2014. Additionally, an improvement is indicated by the increasing number of counties in Quadrants-1 and 2 with a DPC from 2004 through 2014. Forty-four of the 64 counties had an active DPC from 2012 to 2014, while only eight had an active DPC in 2004.

Observations

1) Quadrant-4 represents the worst relationship for a county to attain – both a high public awareness and high facility damage metric. Note there was one county in Quadrant-4 in 2012. That county moved out of Quadrant-4 and into Quadrant-2 in 2013. There were no counties in Quadrant 4 in 2014

2) Quadrant-1 represents the best relationship for a county to attain – a high public awareness and low facility damage metric. Note the number of counties in this quadrant increased from (6 with DPC + 2 without DPC = 8 Total) in 2004 to (10 with DPC + 1 without DPC = 11 Total) in 2014. One county moved out of Quadrant-2 into Quadrant-1 in 2014, while one county without a DPC moved out of Quadrant-1 and into Quadrant-2 in 2014. This resulted in no net change in Quadrant-1 in 2014.

3) Quadrant-2 represents the next best relationship for a county to attain – a lower public awareness metric but with lower facility damage metric. Note the number of counties in this quadrant increased from (2 with DPC + 28 without DPC = 30 Total) in 2004 to (33 with DPC + 16 without DPC = 49 Total) in 2014. In 2014, three counties with a DPC in Quadrant-3 moved into Quadrant-2, decreasing their facility damage metric, while two counties with and without a DPC moved from Quadrants-3 to Quadrant-2, decreasing their damage metric. This resulted in a net increase of five counties in Quadrant-2 in 2014.

4) Quadrant-3 represents a worse relationship for a county to attain – a lower public awareness and higher facility damage metric. Note the number of counties in this quadrant decreased from (0 with DPC + 26 without DPC = 26 Total) in 2004 to (1 with DPC + 3 without DPC = 4 Total) in 2014. In 2014, five counties moved from Quadrant-3 into Quadrant-2, a positive development as these counties reduced their damage metric.

QUADRANT Quadrant-1 Quadrant-2 Quadrant-3 Quadrant-4 Quadrant-1 Quadrant-2 Quadrant-3 Quadrant-4 Total

YEAR with DPC with DPC with DPC with DPC W/Out DPC W/Out DPC W/Out DPC W/Out DPC

2004 6 2 0 0 2 28 26 0 64

2009 9 11 3 0 3 30 8 0 64

2010 10 18 4 0 3 25 4 0 64

2011 12 20 6 0 2 19 5 0 64

2012 11 26 7 0 1 13 5 1 64

2013 9 30 5 0 2 14 4 0 64

2014 10 33 1 0 1 16 3 0 64

Table-G - Summary of Public Awareness versus Facility Damage



To summarize the significance of these observations:

17.2% (11 of 64) of the counties have a higher Public Awareness and lower Facility Damage Metric (Quadrant-1). From 2004 through 2012 the number of counties in this quadrant increased from 8 to 12, and then dropped to 11 in 2013 and 2014.

76.6% (49 of 64) of the counties have a lower Public Awareness and lower Facility Damage Metric (Quadrant-2). From 2004 through 2012 the number of counties in this quadrant increased from 30 to39, and then increased to 44 in 2013 and to 49 in 2014.

These first two increases demonstrate our success over the years.

06.3% (4 of 64) of the counties have a lower Public Awareness and higher Facility Damage Metric (Quadrant-3). From 2004 through 2012, the number of counties in this quadrant decreased from 26 to 12, and then decreased to 9 in 2013 and to 4 in 2014.

This decrease demonstrates our success over the years.

From 2004 through 2012, the number of counties with a DPC increased from 8 to 44. This increase in DPCs significantly contributed to our success.

From 2004 through 2014, the number of counties with a Facility Damage Metric above the 2004 Damage Threshold (10.78) decreased from 26 to 4.

This reduction in the number of counties with a high Damage Metric is an important improvement in damage prevention in Colorado.

From 2004 through 2014, the descriptive statistics of the Facility Damage Metric for the state improved significantly:

o the average County Facility Damage Metric decreased from 12.75 to 5.58, a significant and steady 56% decrease.

o the worst County Facility Damage Metric decreased from 62.06 to 37.05, a very significant 40% decrease.

o the standard deviation range of the County Facility Damage Metric decreased from 12.3 to 5.0, a significant 59% decrease.

NOTE: Since the County Facility Damage Metric is derived from a population density adjustment and mathematical transformation (Natural Log), the value of the metric does not have a direct interpretation to the number of facility damages, but a lower value is better than a higher value.

The data and observations presented demonstrate that Colorado’s dedicated industry stakeholders have successfully increased the Public Awareness Metric and decreased the Facility Damage Metric from 2004 through 2014 for both individual counties and the state as a whole. Acknowledgement goes out to the staff at CO811, the volunteers on the Colorado Damage Prevention Action Team (CDPAT), the seventeen Damage Prevention Councils around the state (created prior to 2013), the facility locators, and the excavators and facility owners who support damage prevention best practices. A special thank you goes to DOT-PHMSA for providing the grant funding since 2008 which supported many of the damage prevention activities that have helped make a difference in Colorado.



Chart-C – Quadrant Charts

Damage Prevention Metric versus Public Awareness Metric

2004, 2009, 2012 and 2014

Colorado County Damage Prevention Report Cards - 2014


Reporting Year 2014

County Adams Note: Colorado has 64 Counties

Grading Area Grade Score Rank of 64 Weight

Publ ic Awareness Metric: B+ 0.874 15 50%

Damage Prevention Metric: C+ 3.398 24 25%

DIRT Reporting Metric: A+ 4.250 1 25%

Stakeholder Participation: Not Avai l 2014 Not Avai l 2014 Not Avai l 2014

County Compos ite Grade: B+ 3.375

Demographic Data County Value % of State State Value Rank of 64

Population: 477,870 8.93% 5,350,572 5

Pop Dens i ty per SqMi le: 404 51

Hous ing Permits : 1,115 3.89% 28,686 9

Net Migration: 4,387 8.23% 53,339 6

One-Cal l Data County Value % of State State Value Rank of 64

Incoming Tickets : 48,126 7.03% 684,863 8

Adjusted Faci l i ty Damages : 313 8.11% 3,860 60

Non-Adjusted DIRT Damages :

Telecommunications 85 7.59% 1,120

Natura l Gas 105 6.17% 1,701

Electric 34 6.51% 522

CableTV 80 20.57% 389

Water 5 6.94% 72

Sewer 1 6.67% 15

Pipel ine 3 20.00% 15

Other NotReported 0.00% 26

Report Card Metrics

2014 Colorado Damage Prevention Report Card

Colorado Damage Prevention Report Card© i s eva luated and publ ished annual ly by Colorado 811

The Colorado Damage Prevention Report Card© provides industry stakeholders in each county with current One-Call ticketing, underground facility damage and demographic information. This information is designed to provide know ledge of damage prevention conditions and programs in the county as w ell as to help facilitate improvement in public aw areness and damage prevention efforts. Accurate and timely information can lead to more effective public aw areness and damage prevention programs.

The Public Awareness Metric provides a population density adjusted measure of tickets versus the population.

The Damage Prevention Metric provides a measure of adjusted facility damages versus incoming tickets.

The DIRT Reporting Metric provides a measure of DIRT damage reporting by facility type.



Reporting Year 2014

County Alamosa Note: Colorado has 64 Counties


Publ ic Awareness Metric: D+ 0.752 53 50%

Damage Prevention Metric: C- 8.270 52 25%

DIRT Reporting Metric: C 2.000 28 25%


County Compos ite Grade: C- 1.750


Population: 16,002 0.30% 5,350,572 30


Hous ing Permits : 52 0.18% 28,686 28

Net Migration: 82 0.15% 53,339 37






Natura l Gas 6 0.35% 1,701

Electric NotReported 0.00% 522

CableTV NotReported 0.00% 389

Water NotReported 0.00% 72

Sewer 2 13.33% 15

Pipel ine NotReported 0.00% 15


Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Arapahoe Note: Colorado has 64 Counties


Publ ic Awareness Metric: A- 0.884 12 50%

Damage Prevention Metric: B- 2.405 12 25%

DIRT Reporting Metric: A- 3.625 5 25%




Population: 616,881 11.53% 5,350,572 3


Hous ing Permits : 1,897 6.61% 28,686 7

Net Migration: 6,124 11.48% 53,339 2






Natura l Gas 155 9.11% 1,701

Electric 94 18.01% 522

CableTV 20 5.14% 389

Water 4 5.56% 72

Sewer NotReported 0.00% 15

Pipel ine 4 26.67% 15


Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Archuleta Note: Colorado has 64 Counties


Publ ic Awareness Metric: C+ 0.835 22 50%




County Compos ite Grade: C+ 2.417


Population: 12,306 0.23% 5,350,572 36


Hous ing Permits : 75 0.26% 28,686 25

Net Migration: 144 0.27% 53,339 31






Natura l Gas 4 0.24% 1,701



Water 1 1.39% 72




Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Baca Note: Colorado has 64 Counties


Publ ic Awareness Metric: C- 0.781 44 50%


DIRT Reporting Metric: F 0.250 56 25%




Population: 3,695 0.07% 5,350,572 55


Hous ing Permits : 0 0.00% 28,686 59

Net Migration: 36 0.07% 53,339 47


Incoming Tickets : 590 0.09% 684,863 48



Telecommunications NotReported 0.00% 1,120

Natura l Gas NotReported 0.00% 1,701






Other 3 11.54% 26

Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Bent Note: Colorado has 64 Counties




DIRT Reporting Metric: D 1.000 49 25%


County Compos ite Grade: C 1.917


Population: 5,798 0.11% 5,350,572 47


Hous ing Permits : 0 0.00% 28,686 59

Net Migration: 128 0.24% 53,339 34






Natura l Gas 2 0.12% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Boulder Note: Colorado has 64 Counties




DIRT Reporting Metric: B- 2.750 17 25%


County Compos ite Grade: B 3.167


Population: 313,624 5.86% 5,350,572 7


Hous ing Permits : 1,371 4.78% 28,686 8

Net Migration: 2,736 5.13% 53,339 9






Natura l Gas 126 7.41% 1,701

Electric 45 8.62% 522

CableTV 39 10.03% 389





Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Broomfield Note: Colorado has 64 Counties



Damage Prevention Metric: B 2.155 7 25%





Population: 61,100 1.14% 5,350,572 12

Pop Dens i ty per SqMi le: 1,797 51

Hous ing Permits : 820 2.86% 28,686 10

Net Migration: 1,281 2.40% 53,339 10






Natura l Gas 33 1.94% 1,701

Electric 8 1.53% 522

CableTV 1 0.26% 389





Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Chaffee Note: Colorado has 64 Counties


Publ ic Awareness Metric: C 0.808 34 50%

Damage Prevention Metric: C 6.364 47 25%

DIRT Reporting Metric: C+ 2.375 20 25%




Population: 18,600 0.35% 5,350,572 27


Hous ing Permits : 105 0.37% 28,686 20

Net Migration: 344 0.64% 53,339 22






Natura l Gas 9 0.53% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Cheyenne Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 1,913 0.04% 5,350,572 59


Hous ing Permits : 1 0.00% 28,686 55

Net Migration: 27 0.05% 53,339 49












Other 2 7.69% 26

Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Clear Creek Note: Colorado has 64 Counties




DIRT Reporting Metric: D+ 1.375 35 25%




Population: 9,015 0.17% 5,350,572 39


Hous ing Permits : 11 0.04% 28,686 42

Net Migration: (35) -0.07% 53,339 63






Natura l Gas 6 0.35% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Conejos Note: Colorado has 64 Counties


Publ ic Awareness Metric: F 0.699 61 50%




County Compos ite Grade: D+ 1.250


Population: 8,263 0.15% 5,350,572 40


Hous ing Permits : 13 0.05% 28,686 38

Net Migration: (10) -0.02% 53,339 60






Natura l Gas 2 0.12% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Costilla Note: Colorado has 64 Counties



Damage Prevention Metric: F 37.048 64 25%



County Compos ite Grade: D- 0.750


Population: 3,550 0.07% 5,350,572 56


Hous ing Permits : 30 0.10% 28,686 34

Net Migration: 48 0.09% 53,339 44













Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Crowley Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 5,278 0.10% 5,350,572 50


Hous ing Permits : 7 0.02% 28,686 46

Net Migration: 50 0.09% 53,339 42






Natura l Gas 1 0.06% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Custer Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 4,410 0.08% 5,350,572 53


Hous ing Permits : 43 0.15% 28,686 30

Net Migration: 130 0.24% 53,339 33













Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Delta Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 30,594 0.57% 5,350,572 18


Hous ing Permits : 47 0.16% 28,686 29

Net Migration: 275 0.51% 53,339 23






Natura l Gas 23 1.35% 1,701



Water 3 4.17% 72




Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Denver Note: Colorado has 64 Counties






County Compos ite Grade: A- 3.542


Population: 662,670 12.39% 5,350,572 2

Pop Dens i ty per SqMi le: 4,248 51

Hous ing Permits : 5,958 20.77% 28,686 1

Net Migration: 8,012 15.02% 53,339 1






Natura l Gas 215 12.64% 1,701

Electric 72 13.79% 522

CableTV 9 2.31% 389

Water 7 9.72% 72


Pipel ine 3 20.00% 15


Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Douglas Note: Colorado has 64 Counties




DIRT Reporting Metric: B 3.000 14 25%




Population: 311,589 5.82% 5,350,572 8


Hous ing Permits : 3,230 11.26% 28,686 3

Net Migration: 3,287 6.16% 53,339 8






Natura l Gas 83 4.88% 1,701

Electric 51 9.77% 522

CableTV 33 8.48% 389




Other 1 3.85% 26

Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Eagle Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 53,013 0.99% 5,350,572 15


Hous ing Permits : 256 0.89% 28,686 13

Net Migration: 133 0.25% 53,339 32






Natura l Gas 24 1.41% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County El Paso Note: Colorado has 64 Counties




DIRT Reporting Metric: A+ 4.250 1 25%




Population: 665,891 12.45% 5,350,572 1


Hous ing Permits : 3,533 12.32% 28,686 2

Net Migration: 4,789 8.98% 53,339 4






Natura l Gas 190 11.17% 1,701

Electric 73 13.98% 522

CableTV 92 23.65% 389

Water 19 26.39% 72

Sewer 7 46.67% 15


Other 1 3.85% 26

Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Elbert Note: Colorado has 64 Counties




DIRT Reporting Metric: C- 1.750 33 25%




Population: 24,287 0.45% 5,350,572 22


Hous ing Permits : 116 0.40% 28,686 19

Net Migration: 545 1.02% 53,339 14






Natura l Gas 3 0.18% 1,701


CableTV 4 1.03% 389





Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Fremont Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 46,749 0.87% 5,350,572 16


Hous ing Permits : 55 0.19% 28,686 27

Net Migration: 554 1.04% 53,339 13






Natura l Gas 12 0.71% 1,701



Water 3 4.17% 72




Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Garfield Note: Colorado has 64 Counties






County Compos ite Grade: B- 2.708


Population: 58,138 1.09% 5,350,572 13


Hous ing Permits : 83 0.29% 28,686 24

Net Migration: 359 0.67% 53,339 21






Natura l Gas 28 1.65% 1,701


CableTV 1 0.26% 389

Water 1 1.39% 72



Other 1 3.85% 26

Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Gilpin Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 5,684 0.11% 5,350,572 48


Hous ing Permits : 13 0.05% 28,686 38

Net Migration: 81 0.15% 53,339 38












Other 7 26.92% 26

Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Grand Note: Colorado has 64 Counties



Damage Prevention Metric: D+ 11.965 61 25%





Population: 14,584 0.27% 5,350,572 32


Hous ing Permits : 137 0.48% 28,686 17

Net Migration: 252 0.47% 53,339 24






Natura l Gas 20 1.18% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Gunnison Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 15,708 0.29% 5,350,572 31


Hous ing Permits : 58 0.20% 28,686 26

Net Migration: 183 0.34% 53,339 27






Natura l Gas 2 0.12% 1,701


CableTV 3 0.77% 389

Water 1 1.39% 72




Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Hinsdale Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 830 0.02% 5,350,572 62


Hous ing Permits : 6 0.02% 28,686 47

Net Migration: 24 0.05% 53,339 51












Other 1 3.85% 26

Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Huerfano Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 6,499 0.12% 5,350,572 45


Hous ing Permits : 13 0.05% 28,686 38

Net Migration: 61 0.11% 53,339 40






Natura l Gas 5 0.29% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Jackson Note: Colorado has 64 Counties


Publ ic Awareness Metric: D 0.735 57 50%






Population: 1,369 0.03% 5,350,572 61


Hous ing Permits : 0 0.00% 28,686 59

Net Migration: 17 0.03% 53,339 55












Other 1 3.85% 26

Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Jefferson Note: Colorado has 64 Counties




DIRT Reporting Metric: A 4.000 3 25%




Population: 558,896 10.45% 5,350,572 4


Hous ing Permits : 2,519 8.78% 28,686 5

Net Migration: 4,803 9.00% 53,339 3






Natura l Gas 147 8.64% 1,701

Electric 78 14.94% 522

CableTV 30 7.71% 389

Water 1 1.39% 72

Sewer 4 26.67% 15



Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Kiowa Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 1,419 0.03% 5,350,572 60


Hous ing Permits : 0 0.00% 28,686 59

Net Migration: 21 0.04% 53,339 54






Natura l Gas 1 0.06% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Kit Carson Note: Colorado has 64 Counties



Damage Prevention Metric: B+ 1.440 3 25%





Population: 8,104 0.15% 5,350,572 41


Hous ing Permits : 2 0.01% 28,686 52

Net Migration: 42 0.08% 53,339 45












Other 2 7.69% 26

Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County La Plata Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 54,629 1.02% 5,350,572 14


Hous ing Permits : 278 0.97% 28,686 12

Net Migration: 1,031 1.93% 53,339 11






Natura l Gas 16 0.94% 1,701


CableTV 1 0.26% 389



Pipel ine 1 6.67% 15


Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Lake Note: Colorado has 64 Counties


Publ ic Awareness Metric: D 0.735 58 50%






Population: 7,533 0.14% 5,350,572 43


Hous ing Permits : 0 0.00% 28,686 59

Net Migration: 169 0.32% 53,339 28






Natura l Gas 2 0.12% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Larimer Note: Colorado has 64 Counties




DIRT Reporting Metric: B+ 3.375 9 25%




Population: 321,221 6.00% 5,350,572 6


Hous ing Permits : 2,498 8.71% 28,686 6

Net Migration: 4,448 8.34% 53,339 5






Natura l Gas 135 7.94% 1,701


CableTV 22 5.66% 389

Water 2 2.78% 72




Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Las Animas Note: Colorado has 64 Counties


Publ ic Awareness Metric: A 0.919 3 50%






Population: 14,557 0.27% 5,350,572 33


Hous ing Permits : 5 0.02% 28,686 49

Net Migration: 202 0.38% 53,339 26






Natura l Gas 2 0.12% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Lincoln Note: Colorado has 64 Counties


Publ ic Awareness Metric: B 0.860 17 50%






Population: 5,422 0.10% 5,350,572 49


Hous ing Permits : 2 0.01% 28,686 52

Net Migration: 3 0.00% 53,339 59






Natura l Gas 1 0.06% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Logan Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 21,965 0.41% 5,350,572 25


Hous ing Permits : 19 0.07% 28,686 36

Net Migration: 33 0.06% 53,339 48






Natura l Gas 6 0.35% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Mesa Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 149,082 2.79% 5,350,572 11


Hous ing Permits : 504 1.76% 28,686 11

Net Migration: 701 1.31% 53,339 12






Natura l Gas 49 2.88% 1,701


CableTV 3 0.77% 389

Water 10 13.89% 72




Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Mineral Note: Colorado has 64 Counties


Publ ic Awareness Metric: D- 0.718 60 50%




County Compos ite Grade: D 1.000


Population: 740 0.01% 5,350,572 63


Hous ing Permits : 6 0.02% 28,686 47

Net Migration: 21 0.04% 53,339 53












Other 1 3.85% 26

Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Moffat Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 13,178 0.25% 5,350,572 34


Hous ing Permits : 9 0.03% 28,686 44

Net Migration: 5 0.01% 53,339 58













Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Montezuma Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 26,207 0.49% 5,350,572 21


Hous ing Permits : 15 0.05% 28,686 37

Net Migration: 472 0.89% 53,339 16






Natura l Gas 9 0.53% 1,701


CableTV 1 0.26% 389



Pipel ine 2 13.33% 15


Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Montrose Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 41,248 0.77% 5,350,572 17


Hous ing Permits : 89 0.31% 28,686 22

Net Migration: 479 0.90% 53,339 15






Natura l Gas 12 0.71% 1,701



Water 6 8.33% 72




Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Morgan Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 28,512 0.53% 5,350,572 20


Hous ing Permits : 20 0.07% 28,686 35

Net Migration: 26 0.05% 53,339 50






Natura l Gas 10 0.59% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Otero Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 18,659 0.35% 5,350,572 26


Hous ing Permits : 2 0.01% 28,686 52

Net Migration: 79 0.15% 53,339 39






Natura l Gas 4 0.24% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Ouray Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 4,686 0.09% 5,350,572 52


Hous ing Permits : 33 0.12% 28,686 32

Net Migration: 158 0.30% 53,339 29






Natura l Gas 2 0.12% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Park Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 16,615 0.31% 5,350,572 29


Hous ing Permits : 88 0.31% 28,686 23

Net Migration: 416 0.78% 53,339 17






Natura l Gas 9 0.53% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Phillips Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 4,324 0.08% 5,350,572 54


Hous ing Permits : 9 0.03% 28,686 44

Net Migration: (21) -0.04% 53,339 62






Natura l Gas 1 0.06% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Pitkin Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 17,470 0.33% 5,350,572 28


Hous ing Permits : 98 0.34% 28,686 21

Net Migration: 57 0.11% 53,339 41






Natura l Gas 10 0.59% 1,701


CableTV 4 1.03% 389





Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Prowers Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 12,350 0.23% 5,350,572 35


Hous ing Permits : 1 0.00% 28,686 55

Net Migration: 40 0.07% 53,339 46












Other 4 15.38% 26

Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Pueblo Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 162,036 3.03% 5,350,572 10


Hous ing Permits : 157 0.55% 28,686 15

Net Migration: 412 0.77% 53,339 18






Natura l Gas 54 3.17% 1,701


CableTV 5 1.29% 389

Water 2 2.78% 72




Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Rio Blanco Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 6,804 0.13% 5,350,572 44


Hous ing Permits : 10 0.03% 28,686 43

Net Migration: (12) -0.02% 53,339 61






Natura l Gas 7 0.41% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Rio Grande Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 11,894 0.22% 5,350,572 37


Hous ing Permits : 12 0.04% 28,686 41

Net Migration: 111 0.21% 53,339 35






Natura l Gas 7 0.41% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Routt Note: Colorado has 64 Counties




DIRT Reporting Metric: C- 1.750 33 25%




Population: 23,917 0.45% 5,350,572 23


Hous ing Permits : 132 0.46% 28,686 18

Net Migration: 398 0.75% 53,339 19






Natura l Gas 8 0.47% 1,701


CableTV 4 1.03% 389





Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Saguache Note: Colorado has 64 Counties


Publ ic Awareness Metric: D- 0.719 59 50%






Population: 6,346 0.12% 5,350,572 46


Hous ing Permits : 32 0.11% 28,686 33

Net Migration: 98 0.18% 53,339 36












Other 2 7.69% 26

Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County San Juan Note: Colorado has 64 Counties



Damage Prevention Metric: A+ 0.000 1 25%

DIRT Reporting Metric: A 4.000 3 25%




Population: 697 0.01% 5,350,572 64


Hous ing Permits : 0 0.00% 28,686 59

Net Migration: 8 0.01% 53,339 56



Adjusted Faci l i ty Damages : NoDamages 0.00% 3,860 1










Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County San Miguel Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 7,905 0.15% 5,350,572 42


Hous ing Permits : 36 0.13% 28,686 31

Net Migration: 203 0.38% 53,339 25






Natura l Gas 7 0.41% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Sedgwick Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 2,342 0.04% 5,350,572 57


Hous ing Permits : 1 0.00% 28,686 55

Net Migration: 7 0.01% 53,339 57






Natura l Gas 1 0.06% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Summit Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 28,975 0.54% 5,350,572 19


Hous ing Permits : 207 0.72% 28,686 14

Net Migration: 146 0.27% 53,339 30






Natura l Gas 26 1.53% 1,701

Electric 14 2.68% 522

CableTV 9 2.31% 389


Sewer 1 6.67% 15



Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Teller Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 23,642 0.44% 5,350,572 24


Hous ing Permits : 140 0.49% 28,686 16

Net Migration: 362 0.68% 53,339 20






Natura l Gas 12 0.71% 1,701


CableTV 3 0.77% 389

Water 1 1.39% 72




Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Washington Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 4,716 0.09% 5,350,572 51


Hous ing Permits : 5 0.02% 28,686 49

Net Migration: (51) -0.09% 53,339 64






Natura l Gas 1 0.06% 1,701







Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Weld Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 276,337 5.16% 5,350,572 9


Hous ing Permits : 2,708 9.44% 28,686 4

Net Migration: 4,357 8.17% 53,339 7






Natura l Gas 102 6.00% 1,701

Electric 10 1.92% 522

CableTV 25 6.43% 389

Water 6 8.33% 72


Pipel ine 2 13.33% 15


Report Card Metrics









Reporting Year 2014

County Yuma Note: Colorado has 64 Counties








Population: 10,179 0.19% 5,350,572 38


Hous ing Permits : 3 0.01% 28,686 51

Net Migration: 23 0.04% 53,339 52






Natura l Gas 4 0.24% 1,701







Report Card Metrics







(volume xiiii, version -1a-) - colorado 811 · (volume xiiii, version -1a-) an annual report...

Documents