CHAPTER 4—SURVEY RESULTS

Survey Respondents

In total, 125 respondents participated in the survey. Of those, 23 provided substantially incomplete or blank answers, resulting in 102 valid responses. Survey participants were asked to identify as one of five stakeholder types, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Survey Respondents by Stakeholder Type.

Most survey participants were project owners, followed by utility owners and a few contractors and consultants. Participants in the other category included members of utility damage notification centers, hazardous liquid pipeline operators, and damage prevention professionals.

To contrast differences in perception among stakeholders, researchers compared the answers of project owners with all other groups combined for some of the survey questions. To simplify the comparison, and because the consultant and contractor groups had low numbers of responses, researchers compared project owners with all others (i.e., other than project owners). Table 7 reflects this grouping.

Table 7. Survey Respondents Grouped as Project Owners and Other than Project Owners.

Of the 22 participating utility owners, most were employed by natural gas or oil companies. Table 8 shows respondents identifying as utility owners by type of utility. Participants were allowed to select multiple answers.

Table 8. Utility Owner Respondents by Utility Type.

Survey participants were involved in all typical phases of a highway project delivery process, as shown in Table 9. Multiple answer selections were allowed. In total, 88 respondents provided 193 responses, suggesting that each respondent was involved in slightly more than two project phases on average.

Table 9. Survey Respondents by Phase of the Project Delivery Process.

Potential Outcomes of OOS Utilities

Survey participants were asked to select potential outcomes when an OOS utility is found during a highway project. A list of potential outcomes was provided, and survey participants were allowed to select multiple answers including other, which allowed respondents to manually enter an answer not provided. In total, 86 participants responded, making 301 selections (about four selections per participant on average). Figure 9 shows that 87 percent of participants identified project delays and 76 percent of participants identified cost increases and budget overruns as potential outcomes of an OOS utility found during a highway project. About half of participants identified changes in project scope and safety issues as potential outcomes. Constraints in right-of-way availability was identified as a potential outcome by 42 percent of participants, and about one-third identified environmental impacts and concerns as a potential outcome. For other potential outcomes, participants noted that OOS utilities are mostly unrecorded, utility ownership is often unclear, and utility status (i.e., active or out of service) is typically unknown when found.

Comparing responses from project owners to other stakeholders, most project owners believed that project delays (94 percent) and cost increases (84 percent) are a potential outcome, compared to 70 percent and 57 percent of participants identifying as other stakeholders, respectively (Figure 10 and Figure 11). However, a larger percentage of participants identifying as other stakeholders identified changes in project scope as a potential outcome when an OOS utility is found during a highway project than the project owners (65 percent versus 52 percent). Regarding constraints to the available right-of-way, 47 percent of project owners believed this to be a potential outcome versus 30 percent of the participants identifying as other stakeholders.

Project Owner Perspectives

Situations Addressed in Daily Duties

Researchers asked project owners how often they address situations that may arise when dealing with OOS utilities. Researchers provided the following list of situations and asked respondents to indicate their frequency using never, rarely, sometimes, often, or always:

• Conduct inspections to identify OOS utilities in the right-of-way.
• Financially support the removal of OOS utilities located in the right-of-way.
• Find unreported OOS utilities during a highway construction project.
• Follow up on utility abandonment notifications or permits.
• Keep records of the location and attributes of OOS utilities.
• Manage OOS utilities in the right-of-way.
• Receive notifications or permits to abandon utilities in the right-of-way.
• Repurpose OOS utilities (e.g., communications duct, pipe casing, etc.).
• Struggle to find/contact the owner of OOS utilities.
• Supervise procedures for the abandonment of utilities in the right-of-way.

Figure 12 (a) and (b) provide an overview of the responses, ranked by the frequency with which project owners addressed these situations in their daily duties. Overall, project owners rarely or never dealt with most situations, with two exceptions. Project owners more frequently reported struggling to find/contact the owner of an OOS utility and finding unreported OOS utilities during a highway construction project as part of their daily duties.

Challenges Managing OOS Utilities

Project owners were asked what challenges or obstacles their department faces when dealing with OOS utilities in the right-of-way. Appendix B provides a summary of the responses. The issues mentioned most frequently were determining utility ownership, locating OOS utilities, and managing utility conflicts during an active construction project. The research team categorized and summarized the comments provided by survey respondents related to utility coordination, right-of-way management, and construction challenges as follows:

• Ownership and verification challenges.
  • Difficulty determining ownership of facilities.
  • Difficulty verifying whether a utility is truly out of service.
  • Difficulty identifying the correct owner, especially with frequent ownership changes.
  • Lack of documentation/outdated records make it hard to locate abandoned lines.
  • Poor recordkeeping and slow response in identifying OOS utilities.
• Documentation and reporting issues.
  • Poor documentation of the location of OOS infrastructure.
  • Lack of a method to change the status or ownership of existing permits.
  • Inadequate rules or policies addressing OOS facilities in current regulations.
  • Utilities not maintaining records/flagging OOS utilities, as required by state law.
• Coordination and communication issues.
  • The permit office is not always in the loop, leading to follow-up challenges.
  • Lack of updated contact information.
  • Decisions by field engineers not shared or consulted with others.
  • Difficulty gaining consensus on allowing OOS utilities in the right-of-way.
  • Difficulty getting utility companies to admit ownership or cooperate.
• Construction and project management issues.
  • Difficulty confirming a utility is abandoned in the field during construction.
  • Late identification of OOS utilities leads to project rescope/rework.
  • Inability to locate abandoned lines threatens the safety of construction field workers.
  • Unplanned utility work in active construction zones results in project delays.
  • Difficulty tracking down owners of abandoned facilities during construction.
• Project workflow disruptions.
  • Delays in construction when OOS utilities are encountered.
  • Work stoppages to confirm utility status diminishes productivity.
  • Claims from contractors due to work stoppages during construction.

• Regulatory compliance and policy challenges.
  • No funds available for OOS removal.
  • Utility owners with OOS utilities might discontinue participation in One Call, and One Call services might be unable to reach the owner of OOS utilities.
  • Environmental impacts related to utility infrastructure containing asbestos.

Experience with Removal of OOS Utilities

Project owners were asked whether they have experienced issues with the removal of OOS utilities during highway construction project. Of the 56 respondents, 38 had experienced issues, 11 had not, and seven were unsure (Figure 13).

The 38 participants who responded affirmatively were asked to describe the issues they experienced with the removal of OOS utilities during a highway construction project. For the 34 participants who responded, the research team categorized and summarized their comments related to construction challenges, safety concerns, and regulatory issues, as follows:

• Identification and ownership challenges.
  • Difficulty determining ownership of abandoned facilities in the right-of-way.
  • Difficulty determining ownership and responsibility for removal or mitigation.
• Safety and environmental concerns.
  • Uncertainty about OOS utility contents and safety concerns during removal.
  • Injury/hospitalization from cutting unknown abandoned utility.
  • Contamination in facilities, including hazardous materials like asbestos.

• Communication problems.
  • Confusion regarding the status of utilities (i.e., active or out of service).
  • Contractors must assume which facilities are out of service.
  • If contractors assume incorrectly, they may cause damage to active utilities.
  • Lack of standardized reporting for OOS utilities.
  • New utility owners destroy maps or never receive maps (records) from previous owners, making it difficult to identify utilities.
• Construction and project delays.
  • Delays in construction due to the discovery of abandoned utilities.
  • Delays/costs incurred to relocate utilities during construction.
  • Delays/costs incurred if utilities are not relocated as specified.
  • Delays/costs incurred if unidentified utility lines are encountered.
  • Delays in receiving relocation plans from utilities.
  • Difficulty quickly determining how to keep contractors working during delays.
• Financial and liability considerations.
  • Costs/risks during removal of facilities considered environmental concerns.
  • Financial burden on DOT when facilities were already in place on right-of-way.
• Regulatory and legal issues.
  • Difficulty complying with utility permits for utilities containing asbestos.
  • Difficulty assigning removal/mitigation costs to owner/former owner.
  • Difficulty changing the status or ownership of existing permits.

Strategies to Manage and Resolve OOS Utilities

Project owners were asked about successful strategies or practices to manage and resolve OOS utilities. Of the 56 respondents, 39 provided an example of a successful strategy or practice; Appendix B summarizes these responses. Survey responses collectively emphasized the importance of proactive planning, communication, compliance, and technological tools to manage and mitigate issues related to OOS utilities during construction projects. The research team summarized these successful strategies and practices as follows:

• Documentation and recordkeeping.
  • Tracking relocations and obtaining as-builts.
  • Keeping good records, including as-built records.
• Communication and coordination.
  • Openly communicating and maintaining relationships with utility companies.
  • Building trustworthy business relationships.
  • Coordinating utilities during design and construction.

• Regulatory compliance and policy implementation.
  • Ensuring compliance with state utility accommodation policy.
  • Enforcing policies for sharing utility information.
  • Tightening language on removal requirements for better enforcement.
  • Charging utilities for delays caused by OOS issues.
• Technology and tools.
  • Implementing utility tracking software.
  • Using mapping tools for utility location data.
  • Performing SUE investigations.
• Project planning and design.
  • Performing thorough SUE investigations.
  • Identifying utility issues during the planning phase.
  • Planning for utility identification and relocation deadlines.
  • Redesigning around obstructions, as feasible.
  • Designing with awareness of utilities within the right-of-way.
• Enforcement and permitting.
  • Denying new utility permits for delayed relocations of OOS utilities.
  • Making utilities contractually responsible for meeting deadlines.
• Prevention of future issues with OOS utilities.
  • Reporting OOS facilities to the state’s One Call system.
  • Denying applications to companies with abandoned utility lines.
  • Encouraging removal through negotiation with facility owners.

Project owners were asked whether their department has a manual, guideline, or document that describes the requirements to abandon a utility or place it out of service. Of the 56 respondents, 34 responded affirmatively, 7 responded negatively, and 15 were unsure (Figure 14).

The 34 participants who responded affirmatively were asked to provide a link to their department’s document(s); these links are included in Appendix B.

Project owners were asked whether their department has established guidelines for coordinating abandonment activities with a utility owner. Of the 55 respondents, 26 responded affirmatively, 9 responded negatively, and 20 were unsure (Figure 15).

The 26 participants who responded affirmatively were asked to describe the guidelines further; Appendix B summarizes these responses. Several respondents pointed to state DOT manuals that provide guidance for managing utilities in state right-of-way, including both active and OOS utilities. Others responded that guidelines for coordinating abandonment procedures are only described at a cursory level; details are left to a utility coordinator or project manager.

Project owners were asked whether their department collaborates or coordinates with other government agencies or stakeholders when managing OOS utilities. Of the 55 project owners who responded, 25 responded affirmatively, 16 responded negatively, and 14 were unsure (Figure 16).

Among possible collaborators, respondents mentioned the One Call system, counties and municipalities, contractors (if the OOS utility is found during construction), and state agencies such as public utility commissions (PUCs) and environmental agencies. The most frequently mentioned response was local government agencies. Discussions often involve multiple agencies when utility projects involve more than one right-of-way owner with different rules for placing utilities out of service. Ideally, the utility owner conveys these differences in policies among multiple right-of-way owners because not all agencies have as strict of rules to place utilities out of service as the DOTs.

Identification of OOS Utilities

Researchers asked project owners how OOS utilities are found and identified during a highway project. To get a more granular response, researchers requested responses based on three major phases of a highway project: the planning phase, the design phase, and the construction phase. Appendix B summarizes these responses.

Planning Phase

For the planning phase, project owners mentioned a review of available utility data, in coordination with utility owners. This data might include utility maps provided as portable document format files or geographic information system (GIS) files, old permit records, and markups of design files from utility owners. Less frequently, project owners mentioned activities to collect and manage the data that included field visits or advanced utility inspections, utility matrices, and information requests to the One Call system. One Call, however, typically does not maintain information about OOS utilities. Respondents also mentioned conducting topographic surveys, potholing, and SUE investigations, which might indicate the presence of otherwise unknown utilities. A few responses mentioned that institutional knowledge—otherwise undocumented—is an important source of information about OOS utilities. Alarmingly, some responses—such as simply notifying utility owners of upcoming work and/or ignoring the issue during the planning phase of a highway project—fell clearly short of the necessary work required to identify OOS utilities.

Design Phase

For the design phase, the 41 project owners who responded frequently mentioned utility coordination meetings, the One Call system, preliminary surveys, site visits, and SUE investigations. A few respondents acknowledged that OOS utilities might only occasionally be found while conducting SUE investigations. For example, an aboveground utility feature not owned by any of the utilities involved in the utility coordination process might indicate an OOS utility. Some respondents indicated that it is the utility owner’s responsibility to identify OOS utilities during project coordination meetings. Several respondents indicated few differences in the efforts to identify OOS utilities between the planning and design phases of a project.

Construction Phase

The 45 project owners who responded frequently mentioned that—in the construction phase—OOS utilities are often accidentally found during excavation activities. Several respondents noted that OOS utilities might not be marked by the One Call system or otherwise included in project plans. In other cases, OOS utilities are included in plans but incorrectly marked in the field. Some respondents noted that OOS utilities found during construction almost always create issues. One such issue is determining if the utility is in fact an OOS utility, which needs to be confirmed by the utility owner. Resolving this issue and determining how to proceed might take days or weeks.

The research team asked project owners whether their department uses any specific technologies or tools to aid in the identification of OOS utilities. Of the 54 project owners who responded, 13 responded affirmatively, 27 responded negatively, and 14 were unsure (Figure 17).

The 13 participants responding affirmatively were asked to describe the technologies or tools used to aid in identifying OOS utilities. The 12 participants who responded provided examples such as One Call locates, test holes, potholing, and, most frequently, SUE investigations.

Assessment of Risks Associated with OOS Utilities

Researchers asked project owners whether their department has a procedure for identifying and assessing risks associated with OOS utilities. Of the 54 project owners who responded, 9 responded affirmatively, 25 responded negatively, and 20 were unsure (Figure 18).

The nine participants responding affirmatively were asked to describe their department’s procedure for the identification and assessment of risks associated with OOS utilities. The 8 participants who responded referenced the state utility manual, use of a utility conflict matrix to track utility conflict information, field meetings with utilities, One Call location information, and SUE investigations.

Researchers asked project owners whether their department has a dedicated team or personnel responsible for addressing OOS utilities. Of the 54 project owners who responded, 24 responded affirmatively, 22 responded negatively, and eight were unsure (Figure 19).

The 24 participants responding affirmatively were asked to describe their department’s dedicated team or personnel responsible for addressing OOS utilities. The 21 participants who responded mainly highlighted the work of utility coordinators or the utility section at the state DOT’s district, noting that the identification of OOS utilities is part of their regular duties. While utility coordinators or right-of-way utility agents are typically responsible for managing OOS utilities, some states have utility engineers assigned for that purpose. Overall, it appeared that the management of OOS utilities is the responsibility of utility coordinators or utility sections at state DOTs in most states.

Management of OOS Utilities

Researchers asked project owners how they manage an OOS utility that is found during a highway project. To get a more granular response, researchers requested responses based on three major phases of a highway project: the planning phase, the design phase, and the construction phase. Appendix B summarizes the full responses to this question.

Planning Phase

For the planning phase, the 32 project owners who responded frequently outlined a process in which the utility coordinator contacts the utility owner, verifies the OOS status of the utility, and determines a strategy to remove or relocate the utility. Some respondents noted that their department has a policy of first avoiding the utility altogether. If avoidance is not possible, their second option is to minimize the conflict by redesigning the highway project. If a redesign is not feasible, the third option is to accommodate the utility relocation. Other respondents simply focused on efforts to relocate the OOS utility. In addition, several respondents mentioned that—at this stage in the project process—it does not matter much if the utility is active or out of service. For others, dealing with an OOS utility at this stage in the process was a rare event and probably too early to take any action.

Design Phase

For the design phase, the responses provided by the 34 project owners were similar to those responses provided in the planning phase. A few project owners stressed that avoidance of utility conflicts at this stage in the project process could be feasible and should be evaluated. If work to relocate the utility was initiated in the planning phase, now would be the time to confirm that the utilities have been relocated and to get as-built information from the utility companies.

Construction Phase

For the construction phase, the 41 project owners who responded mentioned strategies such as coordinating with utility companies for the relocation of OOS utilities and confirming abandonment. Respondents reiterated the need for confirming ownership, scheduling conflict resolutions, and coordinating with various stakeholders. Respondents also highlighted the need for ongoing coordination with contractors to mitigate risks, a thorough researching of old permits, and involvement of the district utility coordinator; responsibilities for pipeline cutting, purging, and capping are assigned to utility owners. Respondents mentioned the need for an efficient management process that involves engagement with the utility company, documentation, escalation, and, if necessary, legal action when issues arise with an unresponsive utility company.

The research team asked project owners how they manage OOS utilities outside of an active highway construction project. The 37 project owners who responded indicated that this task is typically assigned to a maintenance group at the DOT. Procedures to manage an OOS utility outside of an active highway construction project are often similar to those procedures applied in the planning phase of a highway project, when a lot more time is available to find a solution and a lot less pressure exists to act. Some project owners allow abandonment if feasible and if right-of-way space is available for other utilities. Some respondents noted that the same process is used both for OOS utilities and new utility installations in the permitting process. However, permitting systems might be set up for new utility installations, so some of the information about OOS utilities, such as active status, might not be captured.

Tools and Procedures to Manage OOS Utilities

The research team asked project owners whether their department uses any tools or procedures to track the status of OOS utilities. Of the 52 project owners who responded, 10 responded affirmatively, 27 responded negatively, and 15 were unsure (Figure 20).

The 10 participants responding affirmatively were asked to describe the tools or procedures their department uses to track the status of OOS utilities. The nine project owners who responded mentioned tools such as a utility permit database, workflow software, utility conflict matrix, data from SUE investigations, and GIS database systems. One respondent noted that OOS utilities that remain in the right-of-way also remain permitted; therefore, permit information is available when a new project is started in that area. One respondent mentioned CityWorks—a software package linked to an Oracle Primavera database—that allows the DOT to create reports about utilities in areas of interest. One respondent mentioned that utility owners have increased privacy concerns about their data and are increasingly requesting nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) before providing information about their facilities in the right-of-way.

Improvements to the Process of Managing of OOS Utilities

The research team asked project owners what improvements or additional measures could be implemented to enhance the management of OOS utilities in the right-of-way. The 32 project owners who responded provided a variety of ideas for improving the OOS utility management process. Collectively, respondents highlighted improvements related to communication, documentation, technology, accountability, and legal aspects to enhance the management of utility facilities during the project development process. The research team summarized these improvements as follows:

• Communication and coordination.
  • Maintain a solid working relationship with utilities for effective communication.
  • Incorporate owner and location information in local and state GIS.
  • Incorporate utility coordination in planning, design, and construction phases.
• Documentation and recordkeeping.
  • Emphasize better as-built plans by utility owners.
  • Improve data tracking, consistent management, and recordkeeping.
  • Document OOS utility location, ownership, size, material, transmittance, etc.
• Technological improvements.
  • Capture accurate subsurface utility location data.
  • Embrace digital solutions, including GIS, digital as-builts, and tracking software.
• Accountability and cost management.
  • Hold utilities more accountable for costs associated with their OOS facilities.
  • Establish agreements with utilities for future OOS facility cost responsibilities.
  • Incentivize improved OOS management by imposing accountability measures.
• Legal and regulatory measures.
  • Legally require utilities to promptly complete relocations after DOT notification.
  • Revise state codes to mandate sharing of essential utility information with DOTs.

Frequency of OOS Utility Types

The research team asked project owners how frequently certain types of utility facilities are placed out of service by their department. Survey participants were presented with a list of eight types of utilities—communication, electric, natural gas, non-potable water, oil, potable water, wastewater, and other—and were asked to rank them from most frequent to least frequent.

In total, 40 project owners responded, providing 320 responses—one response per respondent and utility type. Figure 21 provides an overview of the responses, ranked by the average score (last column). Darker shades of green indicate higher percentage values for a utility type and ranking. For each utility type, a percentage was calculated for each frequency ranking by dividing the number of responses for that ranking by the total number of responses for that utility type. For example, 19 of 40 or 48 percent of project owners ranked communication utilities as most frequently out of service. An average ranking score was calculated for each utility type by multiplying the percentage values by the frequency rankings, summing these values, and dividing by the number of responses. Thus, an average score of 1.0 would mean that all survey respondents had given that utility type a frequency ranking of 1.

Based on the responses, communication utilities were placed out of service most frequently, followed by natural gas and electric utilities. Potable water, non-potable water, and wastewater utilities were placed out of service less frequently. Oil utilities were least frequently placed out of service. Some respondents mentioned that it was difficult to rank utility types because placing utilities out of service happens infrequently.

Repurposing of OOS Utilities

The research team asked project owners whether their department allows the repurposing of OOS utilities by other utilities (e.g., the use of abandoned lines by communication facilities). Of the 50 project owners who responded, 17 responded affirmatively, 13 responded negatively, and 20 were unsure (Figure 22).

The 17 participants responding affirmatively were asked to further describe their department’s experience with repurposing OOS utilities as other facilities. The 14 project owners who responded provided the following examples of repurposing:

• Communication utilities using conduits from electric or other communication utilities.
• Repurposing of electrical conduit for other utility types.
• Repurposing of old water mains for communication utilities.
• Communication utilities placing fiber inside old OOS natural gas lines.

One project owner mentioned that, if the ownership of an OOS utility cannot be determined, the DOT can take ownership of the conduits for its own various purposes. Project owners also mentioned that, if a utility is repurposed, the original owner might have to transfer ownership and responsibilities for mapping and data management to the repurposing utility. This process might require a new permit from the DOT. Other respondents mentioned that repurposing is a rare event; they have not yet been approached by any interested utilities but would allow it.

Preventing Unauthorized OOS Utilities

The research team asked project owners whether their department has a practice or policy for preventing unauthorized abandonment of utilities in the right-of-way, including fines, permit restrictions, or other. Of the 50 project owners who responded, 10 responded affirmatively, 17 responded negatively, and 23 were unsure (Figure 23).

The 17 participants responding affirmatively were asked to further describe their department’s practice or policy for preventing unauthorized abandonment of utilities in the right-of-way. The nine project owners who responded mentioned that penalties can be applied to utilities that do not follow the rules specified as part of the agency’s utility accommodation rules; however, this authority is not often exercised. An effective way to achieve compliance with utility owners is to restrict future permits for as long as the utility is not in compliance with current accommodation rules.

Need for Federal Legislative Changes

The research team asked project owners whether there is a need to update or modify federal laws or regulations to improve management of OOS utilities in the public right-of-way. Of the 50 project owners who responded, 12 responded affirmatively, 10 responded negatively, and 28 were unsure (Figure 22).

The 12 participants responding affirmatively were asked to further describe how federal laws or regulations should be updated to improve the management of OOS utilities in the public right-of-way. The nine project owners who responded suggested that agencies should have the authority to fine utilities for not promptly removing or identifying lines and to charge delay claims for incorrect or incomplete information. Issues with OOS utilities could be avoided by mandating the removal of old or unused underground lines. Similarly, retired in-place lines should be entirely removed from sites. Project owners also highlighted the importance of mandates and fines, particularly to encourage accurate data sharing between utility owners and state DOTs. Strengthening requirements and consequences could potentially attract federal funding for states to update their mapping and tracking of OOS utilities, thereby reducing delays during construction projects. However, project owners acknowledged the complexities of dealing with utility owners, stressing the importance of finding a balanced approach in regulations that considers timeliness, costs, and the ability of utilities to recover approved relocation costs.

Contractor and Consultant Perspectives

The research team specifically solicited responses from contractors and consultants during the administration of the survey. However, given that the response rates were so low—just 3 percent for contractors and 1 percent for consultants—the results throughout this section also include responses from participants who identified as other stakeholders. Participants in the other category had a 7 percent response rate and included members of utility damage notification centers, hazardous liquid pipeline operators, and damage prevention professionals who may have similar viewpoints. Results in this section are based on potential responses from 11 total survey respondents.

Situations Addressed in Daily Duties

The research team asked contractors and consultants how often they address situations that may arise when dealing with OOS utilities. The research team provided the following six situations and asked participants to indicate their frequency using never, rarely, sometimes, often, or always:

• Change a design/construction procedure due to OOS utilities found during construction.
• Delay some tasks due to OOS utilities found during construction.
• Find a mislocated OOS utility during construction.
• Find an unreported OOS utility during construction.
• Manage/remove an OOS utility within the project limits.
• Request a change order from the project owner to manage/remove an OOS utility.

Figure 25 provides an overview of the responses, ranked by how frequently contractors and consultants addressed these situations in their daily duties. Overall, these respondents indicated

Experience with Removal of OOS Utilities

Contractors and consultants were asked if they have experienced issues with the removal of OOS utilities during highway project construction. Of the 11 respondents, 4 responded affirmatively, 3 responded negatively, and four were unsure (Figure 27).

The four participants responding affirmatively were asked to further describe the issues they experienced with the removal of OOS utilities during highway project construction. The 3 participants who responded noted, for example, that issues with removal are common when multiple owners of utility facilities are using the same pole or conduit.

Strategies to Manage and Resolve OOS Utilities

Contractors and consultants were asked what successful strategies or practices are used to manage and resolve issues related to OOS utilities. Noteworthy responses from the 7 participants who responded include the following:

• Allow contractors to remove, cut, bypass, or take whatever actions are needed to avoid project delays if the One Call system cannot determine an owner or a third party.
• Encourage project owners to require a separate contract to move/relocate all remaining utilities prior to issuing the main contract.
• Encourage early engagement with all stakeholders during project planning and design phases to identify, prioritize, and manage risk factors.
• Develop partnerships with utility entities in the early project phases to improve project coordination.
• Perform SUE investigations during project planning and design phases to find OOS utilities.
• Consider new approaches to finding OOS utilities, such as combining PUC record searches, satellite imagery, and artificial intelligence (AI) to find trench lines.

The research team asked contractors and consultants what improvements or additional measures could be implemented to enhance the management of OOS utilities in the right-of-way. Noteworthy responses from the six participants who responded include the following:

• Use SUE and ground penetration radar in the right-of-way.
• Involve right-of-way and utility groups during project predesign and preconstruction phases.
• Use online utility coordination tools like Coordinate PA in Pennsylvania in other states.
• Encourage coordination, collaboration, communication, and cooperation by all stakeholders on every project.
• Allow fewer instances of placing utilities out of service.

Identification of OOS Utilities

Contractors and consultants were asked how OOS utilities are found during a highway project. The seven participants who responded highlighted the use of One Call systems, the use of SUE and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) technology, and coordination with utility owners to obtain utility records. Other participants noted that OOS utilities are mostly found during digging or excavation activities on a project.

Contractors and consultants were asked whether any specific technologies, practices, or tools are used by their respective companies to aid in the identification and management of OOS utilities. Of the ten participants who responded, six responded affirmatively, two responded negatively, and two were unsure (Figure 28).

The six participants responding affirmatively were asked to further describe the technologies, practices, or tools used by their companies to aid in the identification and management of OOS utilities. The six participants who responded reported using SUE investigations, nondestructive excavation techniques, tools that combine satellite imagery with AI technology, information from utility owners, and information from utility permits.

Contractors and consultants were asked how they deal with an OOS utility that is found during a highway project. The six participants who responded mentioned applying avoid/minimize/mitigate strategies; simply removing, cutting, or bypassing the OOS utility; investigating potential utility ownership; and coordinating with relevant stakeholders, including the contractor.

Contractors and consultants were asked whether their companies use a standard or symbology to depict OOS utilities in plans. Of the 10 participants who responded, five responded affirmatively, two responded negatively, and three were unsure (Figure 29).

The five participants responding affirmatively were asked to further describe the standard or symbology used by their companies to depict OOS utilities in plans. The four participants who responded noted the use of ASCE standards 38-22 and 75-22, state DOT computer-aided design (CAD) standards, and colored marker markups. One respondent mentioned the use of the Coordinate PA online service, which facilitates coordination, collaboration, and cooperation among project stakeholders and documentation of key project information. Since its inception in 2018, more than 45,000 projects have used this service. In April 2023, use of the site has become mandatory for all complex projects.

Frequency of OOS Utility Types

The research team asked contractors and consultants how frequently certain types of utility facilities are placed out of service. Survey participants were presented with a list of eight types of utilities—communication, electric, natural gas, non-potable water, oil, potable water, wastewater, and other—and were asked to rank them from most frequent to least frequent.

In total, six participants responded, providing 48 responses—one response per respondent and utility type. Figure 30 provides an overview of the responses. For each utility, a percentage was calculated for each frequency ranking by dividing the number of responses for that ranking by the total number of responses for that utility type. An average ranking score was calculated for each utility type by multiplying the percentage values by the frequency rankings, summing these values, and dividing by the number of responses.

Based on the responses, communication utilities were placed out of service most frequently (consistent with the project owner responses). However, contractors and consultants ranked electric utilities as the second most frequent OOS utility, followed by natural gas utilities. Project owners, by comparison, ranked the frequency of OOS electric utilities higher than the frequency of OOS natural gas utilities. Contractors and consultants ranked OOS wastewater utilities fourth, while project owners ranked OOS wastewater utilities sixth.

Repurposing of OOS Utilities

The research team asked contractors and consultants whether they have repurposed an OOS utility for use by an active utility (e.g., use of abandoned lines by communication facilities). Of the 10 participants who responded, one responded affirmatively, five responded negatively, and four were unsure (Figure 31).

The one participant responding affirmatively was asked to further describe how the OOS utility was repurposed for use by an active utility. The participant noted that no OOS utility has yet been repurposed, but that repurposing is part of their company’s policy.

Utility Owner Perspectives

Situations Addressed in Daily Duties

The research team asked utility owners how often they address situations that may arise when dealing with OOS utilities. The research team provided the following nine situations and asked participants indicate their frequency using never, rarely, sometimes, often, or always:

• Conduct inspections to ascertain the status of an OOS utility in the right-of-way.
• Find an unreported OOS utility during a utility installation.
• Keep records of the location and attributes of the OOS utility.
• Manage OOS utilities in the highway right-of-way.
• Manage OOS utilities on a private easement.
• Place a utility out of service in the highway right-of-way.
• Receive a request to remove an OOS utility from a DOT.
• Repurpose OOS utilities (e.g., communications duct, pipe casing, etc.).
• Request abandonment of a utility in the highway right-of-way.

Figure 32 (a) and (b) provides an overview of the responses, ranked by how frequently utility owners address these situations in their daily duties. Overall, utility owners have rarely or never dealt with most situations, with three exceptions. Half of utility owners reported sometimes managing OOS utilities on a private easement. Half of utility owners also reported sometimes finding unreported OOS utilities during a utility installation; fewer utility owners (8 percent) reported often finding unreported OOS utilities during a utility installation. Most utility owners reported always or often keeping records of the location and attributes of the OOS utility; an additional 9 percent of utility owners reported sometimes keeping records.

Management of OOS Utilities

Utility owners were asked what regulations, policies, standards, manuals, practices, or procedure they follow to manage abandoned facilities. Eight participants responded, mentioning 49 CFR 192.727, state laws and regulations including laws mandating the use of One Call, state and federal hazardous liquid regulations and associated standards, and professional associations such as the Building Industry Consulting Service International (BICSI) and PHMSA. One respondent noted that not all state One Call systems require inclusion of OOS utilities. Other states have just recently included the requirement, so older OOS utilities might not be included in their database. Respondents also noted that construction requirements vary based on who owns the right-of-way.

Utility owners were asked what common causes or circumstances result in a utility being placed out of service. Notable responses from the nine utility owners who responded include the following:

• Installation of a new service line.
• Lack of use.
• End of production at a well or closure of a refinery, eliminating the need for oil/gas transport.
• Change in business climate (e.g., operating a pipeline becomes unprofitable).
• Cost of upkeep or repair.
• Poor condition of pipeline due to age or corrosive contents.
• Poor maintenance or installation practices that cause integrity issues.
• Nonfunctional utility facilities.

Utility owners were asked whether they have a dedicated team or personnel responsible for dealing with OOS utilities. Of the 10 utility owners who responded, two responded affirmatively and eight responded negatively (Figure 33). The utility owners who responded affirmatively mentioned that OOS utilities are the responsibility of a compliance team.

Transfer of Ownership

The research team asked utility owners whether they have transferred ownership of an OOS utility to a salvage company or any other utility owner. Of the 10 utility owners who responded, one responded affirmatively, six responded negatively, and three were unsure (Figure 34).

The one utility owner who responded affirmatively mentioned that the utility company sold an unused flow line to a company that wanted it for other purposes, allowing them to consolidate multiple production facilities.

Private Property with OOS Utilities

The research team asked utility owners whether they have ever placed utilities out of service on private property. Of the 10 utility owners who responded, eight responded affirmatively and two responded negatively (Figure 35).

Tracking of OOS Utility Information

The research team asked utility owners whether they track information related to utilities placed out of service by their companies. Of the 10 utility owners who responded, five responded affirmatively, three responded negatively, and two were unsure (Figure 36).

The five utility owners who responded affirmatively were asked to describe how they track information about OOS utilities. The four utility owners who responded noted the use of GIS mapping systems. Among these four respondents, two respondents additionally noted that OOS utilities must be reported to the state and the One Call system on an annual basis in some states. Lastly, one utility owner stated that abandonment means that the utility facility no longer belongs to the utility owner.

Repurposing of OOS Utilities

The research team asked utility owners whether they have repurposed OOS utility for use by an active utility (e.g., use of an abandoned pipeline by communication facilities). Of the 10 utility owners who responded, one responded affirmatively, eight responded negatively, and one was unsure (Figure 37).

The one utility owner who responded affirmatively has put abandoned natural gas gathering lines into service as production lines or used them to transport different products, such as CO₂.

Stakeholder Lessons Learned

The research team asked all survey participants to share best practices or lessons learned when dealing with OOS utilities in the right-of-way. Table 10 provides a selection of responses by stakeholder type. Appendix B provides a complete list of responses.

Table 10. Best Practices for Dealing with OOS Utilities.

The research team asked all survey participants if they would like to provide any additional comments regarding OOS utilities in the right-of-way. In total, 16 participants responded. Table 11 provides a selection of responses by stakeholder type.

Table 11. Additional Participant Comments About OOS Utilities.

Expected Likelihood and Impacts of Outcomes

The research team asked survey participants about the expected likelihoods and impacts of outcomes related to OOS utilities. Survey participants were presented the following list of potential outcomes:

• Safety issues.
• Constraints in right-of-way availability.
• Changes in project scope.
• Environmental impacts and concerns.
• Cost increases or budget overruns.
• Project delays.

For each outcome, survey participants were asked to identify the likelihood of occurrence when an OOS utility is found on a highway project using the following 5-point likelihood scale:

• Extremely unlikely.
• Somewhat unlikely.
• Neither likely nor unlikely.
• Somewhat likely.
• Extremely likely.

For each outcome, survey participants were also asked to estimate the impact when an OOS utility is found on a highway project using a 5-point impact scale, where 1=low impact and 5=high impact.

Survey participants were asked to estimate the likelihoods and impacts of OOS utility outcomes separately for the following four phases of the project development process:

• Planning phase.
• Design phase.
• Construction phase.

• Maintenance phase.

The research team gave survey participants the option of choosing which project phase(s) they provided responses for. As a result, the number of respondents for each project phase varied. Based on the responses, the research team calculated response percentages for each outcome in each phase to get an understanding of how stakeholders estimated the likelihoods and impacts of the outcomes. The research team first calculated these values for all survey participants and then calculated values separately based on responses for project owners and everyone other than project owners (i.e., utility owners, contractors, consultants, and other) to show how different participant groups differed in their estimated likelihoods and impacts.

All Respondents

Planning Phase

Survey respondents estimated that outcomes of OOS utilities in the planning phase are not likely. One-third of respondents estimated that project delays due to OOS utilities are somewhat or extremely likely at this stage. Participants estimated that changes in project scope and cost increases or budget overruns have approximately the same likelihood of occurrence. Safety issues were of least concern at this stage of the project; 11 percent of participants estimated safety issues to be somewhat or extremely likely (Figure 38).

Survey participants estimated that the impacts of outcomes related to OOS utilities in the planning phase are low. Constraints in right-of-way availability had the highest estimated impact. However, using the scale where 1=low impact and 5=high impact, 17 percent of survey participants ranked the potential impact of OOS utilities on constraints in right-of-way availability as 4 or higher. Most participants estimated the impacts of all potential outcomes as 1 or 2 in the planning phase (Figure 39).

Design Phase

Survey respondents estimated the likelihoods of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the design phase of a highway project (Figure 40). Compared to the estimates for the planning phase, participants estimated that all outcomes are slightly more likely to occur, with two exceptions. Changes in project scope and project delays were estimated overall to be as likely to occur in the design phase as the planning phase. Constraints in right-of-way availability was the one outcome estimated to be more likely to occur than not in the design phase.

Survey participants estimated that the impacts of outcomes related to an OOS utility that is found in the design phase of a highway project are higher than in the planning phase (Figure 41). Although the impacts of all outcomes were estimated to be higher than in the planning phase, using the scale where 1=low impact and 5=high impact, all outcomes were estimated to have a mean impact of 2 or lower. The outcome with the highest estimated impact in the design phase was constraints in right-of-way availability.

Construction Phase

Survey respondents estimated the likelihoods of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the construction phase of a highway project to be much higher than in the design phase (Figure 42). In the construction phase, participants rated all outcomes to be more likely than not to occur. Nearly all participants (94 percent) estimated that project delays are somewhat or extremely likely to occur when an OOS utility is found in the construction phase. Similarly, 92 percent of participants estimated that cost increases or budget overruns are somewhat or extremely likely to occur in the construction phase. For all other outcomes, 49 to 65 percent of all participants estimated their occurrence to be somewhat or extremely likely.

Survey participants estimated that the impacts of outcomes related to an OOS utility that is found in the construction phase of a highway project are much higher than in the planning or design phases (Figure 43). Using the scale where 1=low impact and 5=high impact, all outcomes were estimated to have a mean impact score above 3. Participants estimated that project delays would have the highest impact, with 73 percent of respondents estimating an impact of 4 or 5.

Maintenance Phase

Survey respondents estimated the likelihoods of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the maintenance phase of a highway project to be higher than in the design phase of a project (Figure 44). However, the likelihoods of outcomes were estimated overall to be lower than in the construction phase of a project, with one exception. Participants estimated safety issues to be more likely in the construction phase. In the maintenance phase, participants estimated all outcomes to be more likely than not to occur.

Survey participants estimated that the impacts of outcomes related to an OOS utility that is found in the maintenance phase of a highway project are higher than in the design phase (Figure 45). Compared to the construction phase of a project, estimated impacts of outcomes were expected to be lower. Using the scale where 1=low impact and 5=high impact, the mean impact scores ranged from 2.8 to 3.7. Participants estimated that safety issues would have the highest impact, with 69 percent of respondents estimating an impact of 4 or 5.

Project Owners

Planning Phase

Project owners estimated slightly lower likelihoods of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the planning phase of a project than all respondents combined, with one exception (Figure 46). Project owners estimated a slightly higher likelihood of environmental impacts and concerns than all respondents combined.

Similarly, project owners also estimated slightly lower impacts of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the planning phase of a project than all respondents, with one exception (Figure 47). Project owners again estimated a higher impact of environmental impacts and concerns than all respondents combined.

Design Phase

Project owners estimated slightly higher likelihoods of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the design phase of a project than all respondents combined (Figure 48). No exceptions were observed in these responses.

Conversely, project owners estimated slightly lower impacts of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the design phase of a project than all respondents combined (Figure 49). Again, no exceptions were observed in these responses.

Construction Phase

Project owners estimated slightly lower likelihoods of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the construction phase of a project than all respondents combined, with one exception (Figure 50). Project owners estimated a slightly higher likelihood of cost increases or budget overruns than all respondents combined.

Project owners also estimated slightly lower impacts of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the construction phase of a project than all respondents combined (Figure 51). No exceptions were observed in these results.

Maintenance Phase

Project owners estimated slightly lower likelihoods of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the maintenance phase of a project than all respondents combined, with one exception (Figure 52). Project owners estimated a slightly higher likelihood of safety issues than all respondents combined.

Similarly, project owners estimated slightly lower impacts of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the maintenance phase of a project than all respondents combined, with two exceptions (Figure 53). Project owners estimated higher impacts of safety issues and constraints in right-of-way availability than all respondents combined.

Other than Project Owners

Planning Phase

Respondents other than project owners (utility owners, consultants, contractors, and other) estimated higher likelihoods of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the planning phase of a project than project owners, with one exception (Figure 54). Respondents other than property owners estimated a lower likelihood of environmental impacts and concerns than project owners.

Respondents other than property owners also estimated higher impacts of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the planning phase of a project than project owners, with one exception (Figure 55). Respondents other than project owners estimated a lower impact of environmental impacts and concerns than project owners.

Design Phase

Respondents other than project owners estimated lower likelihoods of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the design phase of a project than project owners, with two exceptions (Figure 56). Respondents other than project owners estimated higher likelihoods of project delays and cost increases or budget overruns than project owners.

Conversely, respondents other than project owners estimated higher impacts of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the design phase of a project than project owners, with one exception (Figure 57). Respondents other than project owners estimated a lower impact of safety issues than project owners.

Construction Phase

Respondents other than project owners estimated higher likelihoods of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the construction phase of a project than project owners, with one exception (Figure 58). Respondents other than project owners estimated a lower likelihood of cost increases or budget overruns than project owners.

Similarly, respondents other than project owners estimated much higher impacts of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the construction phase of a project than project owners (Figure 59). No exceptions were observed in these results.

Maintenance Phase

Consistent with all other stakeholder types, respondents other than project owners were asked to estimate the likelihoods of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the maintenance phase of a project and to estimate the related impacts of these outcomes. Despite the research team’s efforts to gather this information, an insufficient number of responses was received, preventing the subsequent analysis and reporting of findings related to likelihoods and impacts of outcomes in the maintenance phase.

Risk Analysis

Based on the responses from the survey participants regarding the expected likelihoods and impacts of outcomes when an OOS utility is found, the research team calculated the risk of each outcome in each project phase using a risk matrix (Figure 60).

The risk matrix consisted of 25 potential risk options, reflecting a combination of the likelihood and the impact of an outcome as estimated by the survey respondents. The research team assigned a relative project risk for each combination of estimated likelihood and impact, ranging from very low to very high. For example, an outcome estimated as extremely unlikely with an estimated impact of 1 was assigned a very low relative project risk.

To develop the respective risk matrices for each stakeholder type and project phase, the research team calculated each risk option value by multiplying the number of responses for a particular likelihood rating and the number of responses for a particular impact rating and then dividing that number by the sum for all risk options. The development of these risk matrices allowed the research team to map the survey participants’ estimated risk for each potential OOS utility outcome in each project phase. Each risk matrix shows the percentage of respondents that chose one of the 25 risk options. As a result, the higher the percentage value for a risk option, the higher the agreement among survey respondents about the risk of an OOS utility outcome during a project development phase.

For each risk matrix, the research team also calculated an overall risk score by summing the risk option values for each relative project risk rating, multiplying this sum by a risk scaling factor ranging from 1=very low risk to 5=very high risk, summing these products, and dividing this sum by the previous sum of unscaled values. This calculation resulted in an overall risk score ranging from 1.0=very low risk to 5.0=very high risk.

The color scheme used in the risk matrix (Figure 60) was based on the color scheme used in the relative project risk scale (Figure 61). Risk options that have the same color therefore have the same assigned relative project risk.

The remainder of this section first discusses the estimated risks of OOS utility outcomes as estimated by all survey respondents and then contrasts these findings with the estimated risks of OOS utility outcomes as estimated by different stakeholder types (project owners and other than project owners).

All Respondents

Planning Phase

Table 12 shows the calculated risk score for each outcome when an OOS utility is found in the planning phase of a highway construction project, based on responses from all survey participants. Figure 62 through Figure 67 present the risk matrices with calculated risk values for each of these six outcomes, respectively, based again on estimates from all respondents. Consistent with the survey responses for the planning phase, each outcome had a low calculated risk that ranged from 1.5 (safety issues) to 2.2 (changes in project scope).

Table 12. All Respondents: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Planning Phase.

Design Phase

Table 13 shows the calculated risk score for each outcome when an OOS utility is found in the design phase of a highway construction project, based on responses from all survey participants. Figure 68 through Figure 73 present the risk matrices with calculated risk values for each of these six outcomes, respectively, based again on estimates from all respondents. Consistent with the survey responses for the design phase, each outcome had a relatively low calculated risk, with two exceptions. Cost increases or budget overruns and constraints in right-of-way availability both had medium calculated risks. The risk scores for all outcomes in the design phase were slightly higher than the risk scores in the planning phase.

Table 13. All Respondents: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Design Phase.

Construction Phase

Table 14 shows the calculated risk score for each outcome when an OOS utility is found in the construction phase of a highway construction project, based on responses from all survey participants. Figure 74 through Figure 79 present the risk matrices with calculated risk values for each of these six outcomes, respectively, based again on estimates from all respondents. Safety issues and environmental impacts and concerns both had medium calculated risks. Cost increases or budget overruns, changes in project scope, and constraints in right-of-way availability all had high calculated risks. The calculated risk for project delays was very high. The risk scores for all outcomes in the construction phase were significantly higher than the risk scores in the design phase.

Table 14. All Respondents: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Construction Phase.

Maintenance Phase

Table 15 shows the calculated risk score for each outcome when an OOS utility is found in the maintenance phase, based on responses from all survey participants. Figure 80 through Figure 85 present the risk matrices with calculated risk values for each of these six outcomes, based again on estimates from all respondents. Each outcome had a medium calculated risk. The risk scores for all outcomes in the maintenance phase were significantly lower than the risk scores in the construction phase but slightly higher than the risk scores in the design phase.

Table 15. All Respondents: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Maintenance Phase.

Project Owners

Planning Phase

Table 16 shows the calculated risk score for each outcome when an OOS utility is found in the planning phase of a highway construction project, based on responses from only project owner participants in the survey. Figure 86 through Figure 91 present the risk matrices with calculated risk values for each of these six outcomes, based again on estimates from project owners. Consistent with the survey responses for the planning phase, each outcome had a low calculated risk that ranged from 1.5 (safety issues) to 2.1 (constraints in right-of-way availability). The risk scores based on estimates from project owners were similar or slightly lower than the risk scores based on estimates from all respondents for all outcomes.

Table 16. Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Planning Phase.

Design Phase

Table 17 shows the calculated risk score for each outcome when an OOS utility is found in the design phase of a highway construction project, based on responses from only project owner participants in the survey. Figure 92 through Figure 97 present the risk matrices with calculated risk values for each of these six outcomes, based again on estimates from project owners. Project delays, environmental impacts and concerns, and safety issues all had low calculated risks. Cost increases or budget overruns, changes in project scope, and constraints in right-of-way availability all had medium calculated risks. The risk scores based on project owner responses were slightly higher for environmental impacts and concerns, changes in project scope, and safety issues than the risk scores based on estimates from all respondents. The risk scores for the remaining three outcomes were either lower or similar.

Table 17. Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Design Phase.

Construction Phase

Table 18 shows the calculated risk score for each outcome when an OOS utility is found in the construction phase of a highway construction project, based on responses from only project owner survey participants. Figure 98 through Figure 103 present the risk matrices with calculated risk values for each of these six outcomes, based again on only project owner responses. Cost increases or budget overruns and changes in project scope both had high calculated risks. The calculated risk for project delays was very high. The remaining three outcomes each had a medium calculated risk. The risk scores based on project owner responses were slightly lower for all outcomes than the risk scores based on estimates from all respondents.

Table 18. Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Construction Phase.

Maintenance Phase

Table 19 shows the calculated risk score for each outcome when an OOS utility is found in the maintenance phase, based on responses from only project owner survey participants. Figure 104 through Figure 109 present the risk matrices with calculated risk values for each of these six outcomes. In the maintenance phase, safety issues had a high calculated risk, while each of the other outcomes had a medium calculated risk. The risk scores based on project owner responses were higher for all outcomes than the risk scores based on estimates from all respondents.

Table 19. Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Maintenance Phase.

Other than Project Owners

Planning Phase

Table 20 shows the calculated risk score for each outcome when an OOS utility is found in the planning phase of a highway construction project, based on responses from other than project owner survey participants (utility owners, contractors, consultants, and other). Figure 110 through Figure 115 present the risk matrices with calculated risk values for each of these six outcomes, based again on other than project owner responses. Environmental impacts and concerns, constraints in right-of-way availability, and safety issues all had low calculated risks. Each of the other outcomes had a medium risk. The risk scores based on other than project owner responses were higher than the risk scores based on project owner responses for all outcomes except environmental impacts and concerns, which was lower.

Table 20. Other than Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Planning Phase.

Design Phase

Table 21 shows the calculated risk score for each outcome when an OOS utility is found in the design phase of a highway construction project, based on responses from other than project owner survey participants. Figure 116 through Figure 121 present the risk matrices with calculated risk values for each of these six outcomes, based again on other than project owner responses. Safety issues and environmental impacts and concerns both had low calculated risks. Each of the other outcomes had a medium calculated risk. The risk scores based on other than project owner responses were higher for project delays and cost increases or budget overruns than the risk scores based on project owner responses. For all remaining outcomes, the risk scores based on other than project owner responses were lower than the risk scores based on project owner responses.

Table 21. Other than Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Design Phase.

Construction Phase

Table 22 shows the calculated risk score for each outcome when an OOS utility is found in the construction phase of a highway construction project, based on responses from other than project owner survey participants. Figure 122 through Figure 127 present the risk matrices with calculated risk values for each of these six outcomes. Cost increases or budget overruns and changes in project scope both had high calculated risks. The calculated risk for project delays was very high. The remaining outcomes each had a medium risk. The risk scores based on other than project owner responses were slightly lower than the risk scores based on project owner responses for all outcomes.

Table 22. Other than Project Owners: Risk Scores for Outcomes in the Construction Phase.

Maintenance Phase

As noted previously, an insufficient number of survey responses were received from other than project owner respondents when estimating the likelihoods and impacts of outcomes when an OOS utility is found in the maintenance phase of a project. As such, the research team was unable to perform any risk analyses for this phase and of stakeholder type.

Discussion of Risk Findings

Table 23 provides a summary of the risk scores shown earlier to facilitate comparisons. These risk scores are based on responses from all survey respondents and include three of the four phases of a highway construction project.

Table 23. All Respondents: Risk Scores for Outcomes by Project Phase.

The risk score for each of the potential outcomes increased from the planning phase to the construction phase of a project, indicating that the likelihood and impact of an outcome increase