Ground Disturbance Level II common mistakes
Ground Disturbance Level II · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating a locate request as the complete hazard assessment, so the ground disturbance record is submitted with only ticket numbers and no documented review of soil conditions, adjacent utilities, or overhead/underground conflicts.
Candidates conflate the notification step with the planning step because both happen before digging and both generate paperwork; the locate ticket feels like the deliverable, so the written hazard assessment gets filled in minimally just to pass review.
What to do instead
Practise producing a full hazard assessment where the locate ticket is one input among several: list each identified hazard, its severity, the control, and the responsible person, and be able to state what changed in the plan because of each hazard. Treat 'ticket obtained' as the start of the assessment, not the end.
Assigning a single blanket search radius or tolerance zone to every facility on the plan instead of applying the correct zone per facility type and per the prevailing regulation, and then digging right up to the marked line.
Candidates memorise one number (often the tolerance-zone width for the most commonly discussed utility) and apply it everywhere, not realising that the zone is measured from the outside edge of the facility, differs by jurisdiction and facility type, and is a no-mechanical-dig zone rather than a target line.
What to do instead
Build a per-facility table: facility type, marking colour, tolerance/hand-exposure zone width, and the boundary from which it is measured. On practice scenarios, calculate the hand-dig boundary for each facility separately and state which regulation or code provision supplied the width.
Filing the locate request with insufficient notice, or filing it and then starting work before the locate is complete and the ticket is valid, including starting on the strength of a verbal 'it's clear' from the locator.
Schedule pressure and the belief that a phone call or a quick verbal assurance is equivalent to a completed locate; candidates also forget that tickets expire and that a re-ticket is needed if work is delayed or the markings are gone.
What to do instead
Memorise the notice period and ticket validity rules that apply in the jurisdiction being tested, and rehearse a timeline exercise: request date, locate-by date, planned start, ticket expiry, and the trigger conditions for re-ticketing (expired ticket, faded or destroyed markings, scope change, new facility).
Digging with mechanical equipment inside the tolerance zone, or using mechanical means to probe for a facility that could not be located, rather than exposing it by hand before machine work continues.
Candidates know 'hand dig near utilities' as a slogan but do not apply it as a hard boundary rule, and they underestimate how often an unlocatable or abandoned facility is the one struck; probing with a machine bucket or auger feels faster and 'careful enough'.
What to do instead
Drill the rule as a sequence: locate, mark, expose by hand within the zone, confirm depth and alignment, then and only then bring in equipment with a spotter. Practise identifying the situations that force full hand exposure - no locate response, conflicting markings, non-conductive or abandoned facilities, and depth discrepancies.
Backfilling or leaving an excavation without addressing the hazards created: unshored or unbattered walls, no barricade or cover, spoil piled at the edge, and no protection for the exposed facility crossing the trench.
Attention is concentrated on the dig itself, and candidates treat backfill as cleanup rather than as a ground disturbance activity with its own hazards; they also forget that the exposure they created changes the load on the facility and the stability of the trench walls.
What to do instead
Treat the excavation as a lifecycle: entry, work, and closure. For each stage, list the controls - protective system or safe slope, edge protection and signage, spoil setback distance, support or padding for exposed pipe or cable, and a documented closeout check before the crew leaves.
Describing the supervisor's role as general oversight ('ensure safety', 'monitor the crew') rather than naming specific non-delegable duties such as verifying the locate, confirming the hazard assessment is current, authorising the dig, and stopping work when conditions change.
Candidates answer role questions with broad virtue statements because those are easy to recall, and they have not separated what a supervisor must personally verify from what can be delegated to a competent worker or a locator.
What to do instead
Write out the supervisor's duty list as observable actions with a yes/no verification for each, and practise scenario questions by asking 'who must personally confirm this, and what evidence would show they did?' Distinguish duties that can be assigned from those that stay with the supervisor.
Missing the reporting and stop-work obligations after a contact or damage - continuing to backfill, not notifying the facility owner and the regulator, and leaving the scene before the line is made safe.
Candidates focus on prevention and skip the post-event procedure; they also assume that a strike with no visible damage, or a damaged line with no leak, does not need reporting, and they are unsure who must be called and in what order.
What to do instead
Memorise a contact-and-damage response sequence: stop work, clear and secure the area, call emergency services if there is a release or fire risk, notify the facility owner and the one-call/regulator as required, do not backfill or repair without authorisation, and document. Practise the near-miss and no-damage-contact variants, which are the ones most often missed.
Misreading the markings and drawings as a single authoritative picture - assuming the painted line is the exact position, ignoring marking colour meaning, and failing to reconcile the locate with the utility's own drawings or with evidence on site such as valves, pedestals, and patched pavement.
Markings look precise and are treated as surveyed positions, and candidates have not learned that locate marks carry an accuracy tolerance, that colour codes identify facility type, and that a discrepancy between the ticket and the drawings is itself a hazard requiring resolution.
What to do instead
Practise interpreting a set of markings plus a drawing: state what each colour denotes, where the tolerance zone sits relative to the mark, and what a mismatch implies. Make 'reconcile the locate against drawings and surface evidence, and resolve conflicts before digging' an explicit step in every scenario answer.
Answering questions about the duty to inquire or the private-side/owned-facility boundary by assuming the one-call service covers every line on the property, and failing to arrange a separate locate for service lines, irrigation, or customer-owned infrastructure.
The one-call system is the most familiar mechanism, so candidates generalise it to all buried infrastructure and do not recognise that some facilities are outside the notification system and must be located by other means.
What to do instead
Learn which facilities fall outside the one-call notification system in the jurisdiction being tested, and build a pre-dig checklist that asks 'who owns this line, and is it covered by the ticket?' for every facility on the plan, including service laterals and private infrastructure.
Ignoring changing site conditions during the dig - weather, frost, groundwater, vibration from equipment, or new traffic - and continuing on the original plan without reassessing, or letting the hazard assessment go stale across a multi-day job.
The hazard assessment is treated as a one-time form completed at the start, and candidates do not connect ground conditions to facility integrity or excavation stability, so they answer as if the plan stays valid regardless of what the site does.
What to do instead
Build reassessment triggers into the plan: daily pre-shift review, after rain or thaw, when the excavation deepens, when equipment changes, and when the scope moves. In scenario questions, look for the condition change and answer with the reassess-and-update action rather than the continue-as-planned action.