Developing a Guide to Manage Out-of-Service Utility Facilities (2026)
Chapter: Front Matter
Developing a Guide to Manage Out-of-Service Utility Facilities
Edgar Kraus
Harshit Shukla
Kristopher Harbin
Jenny Naranjo
Minjie Xu
Texas A&M Transportation Institute
The Texas A&M University System
College Station, TX
Conduct of Research Report for NCHRP Project 08-148
Submitted May 2025
NCHRP Web-Only Document 454
Developing a Guide to Manage Out-of-Service Utility Facilities
© 2026 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state department of transportation (DOT) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Authors herein are responsible for the originality and accuracy of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) grants permission to reproduce written material in this publication for classroom and non-commercial purposes subject to the rights of any third parties and appropriate attribution. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply NAS, TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. For other uses of the written material, users must request permission from the National Academies Press.
DISCLAIMER
This material is based upon work supported by the FHWA under Agreement No. 693JJ32350025. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed or implied in this document are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors.
The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications.
The Transportation Research Board, the National Academies, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. Tsu-Jae Liu is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of four centers of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to mobilize expertise, experience, and knowledge to anticipate and solve complex transportation-related challenges. The Board’s varied activities annually engage more than 5,500 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state departments of transportation, federal agencies including component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 454
Monique R. Evans, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Christopher McKenney, Senior Program Officer
Sheila Moore, Senior Program Assistant
Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications
Brian Haefs, Associate Director of Publications
Jennifer Correro, Assistant Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 08-148 PANEL
Field of Transportation Planning – Area of Planning Methods & Processes
Patrick Overton, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL (Chair)
Eric C. Cimo, Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover, DE
Marvin Gerard Dalla Rosa, Garver, North Little Rock, AR
Jillian Gattuso, Mott MacDonald, LLC, La Jolla, CA
Alexander Hainen, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
Scott Evan Lucas, City of Columbus, Columbus, OH
Jennifer H. McCleve, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort, KY
Nikesh S. Patel, City of Sarasota, Sarasota, FL
Thomas G. Swafford, Utility Mapping Services, Inc., Lake Norden, SD
Claudia Valles, Michael Baker International, Inc., San Antonio, TX
Julie A Johnston, FHWA Liaison
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research report was developed under NCHRP Project 08-148 by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. The authors are grateful for the invaluable assistance provided by numerous officials at departments of transportation throughout the country who responded to survey questions, participated in discussions with the research team, provided materials for case studies, and offered insight into relevant business practices at their agencies.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Outcomes, Impacts, and Risks Related to OOS Utilities
Legal Review of Federal and State Regulations Addressing OOS Facilities
Requirements to Decommission, Abandon, or Place Facilities Out of Service
Addressing Hazardous Materials when Managing OOS Facilities
Investigation and Data Management of OOS Facilities
Practices and Tools for Identification of OOS Facilities
Depiction and Management of OOS Facility Data
Impacts and Practices of OOS Facilities in Project Delivery
OOS Facilities in the Project Design Phase
OOS Facilities in the Construction Phase
OOS Facilities in the Operations and Maintenance Phase
Assessment and Management of OOS Risks
Chapter 3—State-of-Practice Survey
Part 2–Project Owner Questionnaire
Frequency of OOS Utility Types
Frequency of OOS Utility Types
Part 4–Utility Owner Questionnaire
Potential Outcomes of OOS Utilities
Situations Addressed in Daily Duties
Challenges Managing OOS Utilities
Experience with Removal of OOS Utilities
Strategies to Manage and Resolve OOS Utilities
Identification of OOS Utilities
Assessment of Risks Associated with OOS Utilities
Frequency of OOS Utility Types
Preventing Unauthorized OOS Utilities
Need for Federal Legislative Changes
Contractor and Consultant Perspectives
Situations Addressed in Daily Duties
Challenges Managing OOS Utilities
Experience with Removal of OOS Utilities
Strategies to Manage and Resolve OOS Utilities
Identification of OOS Utilities
Situations Addressed in Daily Duties
Private Property with OOS Utilities
Tracking of OOS Utility Information
Expected Likelihood and Impacts of Outcomes
Chapter 5—Case Study Selection
Identification of Potential Case Studies
Record Management for OOS Utilities
Coordination of Stakeholder Activities
Potential Case Studies by Rank
Chapter 6—Case Study Descriptions
OOS Utility Management, Arizona
Additional Considerations and Comments
Utility Database for Enhanced Project Coordination, California
Data Collection and Database Maintenance
Lessons Learned and Recommendations
Use of Gyroscopic Mapping to Locate OOS Utilities, Delaware
Gyroscopic Utility Mapping Process
OOS Utility Infrastructure Management During Project Construction, Florida
Utility Investigations for OOS Utility Infrastructure, Florida
Visualization of Underground Utility Infrastructure Locations, Texas
Technical Requirements and Compatibility
Implementation Challenges and Lessons Learned
Stakeholder Recommendations for the Management of OOS Utilities
Project Outcomes, Impacts, and Risks
Appendix A—Final Survey Questionnaire
Part 2–Project Owner Questionnaire
Part 3–Consultant and Contractor Questionnaire
Question 13. How are OOS utilities found and identified during a highway project?
Question 17. How do you manage an OOS utility that is found during a highway project?
Question 18. How do you manage OOS utilities outside of an active highway construction project?
Question 29. How are OOS utilities found during a highway project? Please describe.
Question 31. How do you deal with an OOS utility that is found during a highway project?
Question 34. Please describe how you have repurposed an OOS utility for use with an active utility.
Question 38. What are common causes or circumstances to place a utility out of service?
Question 40. Please describe how you transferred ownership of the OOS utility.
Question 42. Please describe how you track the information about OOS utilities.
Question 43. Please describe how you have repurposed an OOS utility for use with an active utility.
NCHRP Web-Only Document 454 contains the conduct of research report for NCHRP Project 08-148 and accompanies NCHRP Research Report 1185: Out-of-Service Utility Facilities: Management Throughout the Highway Life Cycle. Readers can read or purchase NCHRP Research Report 1185 at nationalacademies.org/publications.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Typical Project Delivery Process for Design-Bid-Build Projects (42).
Figure 2. Percentage of Change Order with Abandoned Facilities by Year.
Figure 3. Percentage of Abandoned Pipeline Mileage Reported in NPMS by State.
Figure 4. Percentage of Abandoned Pipelines in Relation to Total Pipeline Milage by State.
Figure 5. 2020 Grouped Root Causes Related to Locating Practices.
Figure 6. 2021 Grouped Root Causes Related to Locating Practices.
Figure 7. 2022 Grouped Root Causes Related to Locating Practices.
Figure 8. General Survey Flow.
Figure 9. All Respondents: Potential Outcomes of OOS Utilities Found During a Highway Project.
Figure 10. Project Owners: Potential Outcomes of OOS Utilities Found During a Highway Project.
Figure 12. Project Owners: Situations Addressed in Daily Duties (56 Respondents).
Figure 17. Departments that Use Specific Technologies or Tools to Identify OOS Utilities.
Figure 20. Departments that Use Tools or Procedures to Track the Status of OOS Utilities.
Figure 21. Project Owner Frequency of Utility Types Placed Out of Service.
Figure 22. Departments that Allow Repurposing of OOS Utilities.
Figure 25. Contractors and Consultants: Situations Addressed in Daily Duties (9 Respondents).
Figure 30. Contractor and Consultant Frequency of Utility Types Placed Out of Service.
Figure 32. Utility Owners: Situations Addressed in Daily Duties (12 Respondents).
Figure 33. Utility Owners Who Have Dedicated Personnel for Dealing with OOS Utilities.
Figure 34. Utility Owners Who Have Transferred Ownership of an OOS Utility.
Figure 35. Utility Owners Who Have Placed Utilities Out of Service on Private Property.
Figure 36. Utility Owners Who Track Information Related to OOS Utilities.
Figure 37. Utility Owners Who Have Repurposed an OOS Utility.
Figure 38. All Respondents: Expected Likelihoods of Outcomes in the Planning Phase (38 Respondents).
Figure 39. All Respondents: Expected Impacts of Outcomes in the Planning Phase (38 Respondents).
Figure 40. All Respondents: Expected Likelihoods of Outcomes in the Design Phase (39 Respondents).
Figure 41. All Respondents: Expected Impacts of Outcomes in the Design Phase (39 Respondents).
Figure 43. All Respondents: Expected Impacts of Outcomes in the Construction Phase (52 Respondents).
Figure 45. All Respondents: Expected Impacts of Outcomes in the Maintenance Phase (16 Respondents).
Figure 46. Project Owners: Expected Likelihoods of Outcomes in the Planning Phase (26 Respondents).
Figure 47. Project Owners: Expected Impacts of Outcomes in the Planning Phase (26 Respondents).
Figure 48. Project Owners: Expected Likelihoods of Outcomes in the Design Phase (31 Respondents).
Figure 49. Project Owners: Expected Impacts of Outcomes in the Design Phase (31 Respondents).
Figure 51. Project Owners: Expected Impacts of Outcomes in the Construction Phase (36 Respondents).
Figure 53. Project Owners: Expected Impacts of Outcomes in the Maintenance Phase (10 Respondents).
Figure 61. Project Risk Scale and Color Code.
Figure 62. All Respondents: Estimated Risks of Project Delays in the Planning Phase.
Figure 65. All Respondents: Estimated Risks of Changes in Project Scope in the Planning Phase.
Figure 67. All Respondents: Estimated Risks of Safety in the Planning Phase.
Figure 68. All Respondents: Estimated Risks of Project Delays in the Design Phase.
Figure 71. All Respondents: Estimated Risks of Changes in Project Scope in the Design Phase.
Figure 73. All Respondents: Estimated Risks of Safety in the Design Phase.
Figure 74. All Respondents: Estimated Risks of Project Delays in the Construction Phase.
Figure 77. All Respondents: Estimated Risks of Changes in Project Scope in the Construction Phase.
Figure 79. All Respondents: Estimated Risks of Safety in the Construction Phase.
Figure 80. All Respondents: Estimated Risks of Project Delays in the Maintenance Phase.
Figure 83. All Respondents: Estimated Risks of Changes in Project Scope in the Maintenance Phase.
Figure 85. All Respondents: Estimated Risks of Safety in the Maintenance Phase.
Figure 86. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Project Delays in the Planning Phase.
Figure 89. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Changes in Project Scope in the Planning Phase.
Figure 91. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Safety in the Planning Phase.
Figure 92. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Project Delays in the Design Phase.
Figure 93. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Cost Increases or Budget Overruns in the Design Phase.
Figure 95. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Changes in Project Scope in the Design Phase.
Figure 97. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Safety in the Design Phase.
Figure 98. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Project Delays in the Construction Phase.
Figure 101. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Changes in Project Scope in the Construction Phase.
Figure 103. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Safety in the Construction Phase.
Figure 104. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Project Delays in the Maintenance Phase.
Figure 107. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Changes in Project Scope in the Maintenance Phase.
Figure 109. Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Safety in the Maintenance Phase.
Figure 110. Other than Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Project Delays in the Planning Phase.
Figure 115. Other than Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Safety in the Planning Phase.
Figure 116. Other than Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Project Delays in the Design Phase.
Figure 121. Other than Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Safety in the Design Phase.
Figure 122. Other than Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Project Delays in the Construction Phase.
Figure 127. Other than Project Owners: Estimated Risks of Safety in the Construction Phase.
Figure 128. Project Owners Versus Other than Project Owners: Risk Score Differences of Outcomes.
Figure 129. Location of Potential Case Studies.
Figure 130. Framework of Caltrans’ Centralized Utility Database.
Figure 131. Project Location in Little Assawoman Bay, Delaware.
Figure 133. Placement of the IMU in a Pipeline Access Point.
Figure 134. Pneumatic Duct Rod Pusher Mechanism.
Figure 135. IMU Single-Entry Mapping System.
Figure 136. Location of the OOS FM Sewer Main: Actual and Utility Plans.
Figure 137. Workers Uncovering the 6-Foot Unlined Segment (Dashed Red Line).
Figure 138. Southwest 1st Street Bridge Project Overview.
Figure 139. Southwest 10th Street Project Overview.
Figure 140. User Interface of the Line-Scape Digital Locate Software.
Figure 141. Screenshot of an OOS Facility on the Digital Locate Platform.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Terminology Used by States to Describe Out-of-Service Utilities.
Table 3. Select Provisions for OOS Facilities in State Statutes, Regulations, and Documents.
Table 4. Minimum Feature Attributes by Feature Type (40).
Table 5. Trends in Damages from Consistently Reporting Entities.
Table 6. Survey Respondents by Stakeholder Type.
Table 7. Survey Respondents Grouped as Project Owners and Other than Project Owners.
Table 8. Utility Owner Respondents by Utility Type.
Table 9. Survey Respondents by Phase of the Project Delivery Process.
Table 10. Best Practices for Dealing with OOS Utilities.
Table 11. Additional Participant Comments About OOS Utilities.
Table 12. All Respondents: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Planning Phase.
Table 13. All Respondents: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Design Phase.
Table 14. All Respondents: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Construction Phase.
Table 15. All Respondents: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Maintenance Phase.
Table 16. Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Planning Phase.
Table 17. Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Design Phase.
Table 18. Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Construction Phase.
Table 19. Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Maintenance Phase.
Table 20. Other than Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Planning Phase.
Table 21. Other than Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Design Phase.
Table 22. Other than Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Construction Phase.
Table 23. All Respondents: Risk Scores for Outcomes by Project Phase.
Table 24. Ranking of Potential Case Studies.
Table B-1. Survey Responses to Question 45 by Stakeholder Type.
ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, INITIALISMS, AND SYMBOLS
| AASHTO | American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials |
| ADOT | Arizona DOT |
| AI | Artificial intelligence |
| APWA | American Public Works Association |
| ASCE | American Society of Civil Engineers |
| BICSI | Building Industry Consulting Service International |
| CAD | Computer-aided design |
| Caltrans | California Department of Transportation |
| CFR | Code of Federal Regulations |
| CGA | Common Ground Alliance |
| DIRT | Damage Information Reporting Tool |
| DOT | Department of transportation |
| FDOT | Florida Department of Transportation |
| FHWA | Federal Highway Administration |
| FM | Force main |
| GIS | Geographic information systems |
| GPR | Ground-penetrating radar |
| IMU | Inertial measuring unit |
| MPO | Metropolitan planning organization |
| NCHRP | National Cooperative Highway Research Program |
| NDA | Nondisclosure agreement |
| NPMS | National Pipeline Mapping System |
| OOS | Out of service |
| PHMSA | Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration |
| PUC | Public utility commission |
| QLA | Quality Level A |
| QLB | Quality Level B |
| QLC | Quality Level C |
| QLD | Quality Level D |
| RFID | Radio frequency identification |
| SUE | Subsurface utility engineering |
| TTI | Texas A&M Transportation Institute |
| TxDOT | Texas Department of Transportation |
| USC | United States Code |
