Attchmt_5a_-_MEPS_M V_Tools.xls
XLS spreadsheet 378 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Somalia Program Support Services (SPSS)
- Solicitation number
- SOL-623-14-000010
About this file
Attachment 5a - MEPS M V Tools as of December 2013
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Verification Types
| MEPS Verification Types |
| MEPS clusters its verifications around six different types, or categories, each with its own corresponding toolkit and approach to interviewing and data collection: |
| Tool A | Construction, Rehabilitation, Procurement: |
| Tool A examines deliverables associated with visible quality, perceived relevance and utility and fairness as it pertains to the activity selection process for new construction, rehabilitated structures and procurement and distribution. |
| Tool B | Event or Post-Event: |
| Tool B is used to either: 1) observe events as they happen so as to verify specific activities in real-time; or 2) produce post-event verifications that focus on target audience, community and beneficiary reflections about, and perceptions of, the relevance and value of events that are completed. |
| Tool C | Tenders: |
| Tool C is used to explore partners’ tendering processes and help them gain insight into how uniformly, fairly and comprehensively these processes are being adhered to at the project level. While common sense transparency & fairness will be looked at, monitors will focus their attention on the application of each implementer's own standard procedures. |
| Tool D | Technical Assistance: |
| Tool D is used to explore how long-term, embedded technical advisors have supported and assisted institutions over time. This tool is focused at looking at individual contributions to institutional capacity. |
| Tool E | Outcome: |
| Tool E can be used across sectors. It allows partners to ask questions that relate to the medium and longer term impact of assistance, processes or interventions. The most nuanced of all of the tools, outcome verifications require the MEPS team to work with donors and/or partners to design specifically tailored interview questions. |
| Tool F | Environment: |
| Tool F focuses on compliance of activities to USAID’s regulations on environmental sustainability. Monitors review actual measures taken against approved Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plans. |
FORM A (CONSTRUCT)
| Form A | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MEPS - FIELD VERIFICATION & MONITORING 'snapshot' REPORT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CONSTRUCTION, REHAB & PROCUREMENT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| VERIFICATION PROFILE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IMPLEMENTOR: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RELATED TO: | Region: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Verif # (MEPS Ref) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IP GRANT or ACTIVITY # | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City or village: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TITLE OF ACTIVITY: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TYPE: | Construction | Rehabilitation | Procurement | Other: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PMP/LOGFRAME INDICATOR most closely related: | (Drop down menu option on Clearinghouse with the list of the IP PMP indicators) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (If not already specified or clear, request guidance from MEPS) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Name of Third Party Monitor (TPM): | (Drop down menu of TPMs) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FLAGS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cancel* | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cancel* | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| USAID/DfID Acknowledgment (comment required when a flag is raised) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RESULTS | Always remain neutral, focusing on gathering feedback & data (no personal advice or recommendation should be expressed) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Strictly adhere to the confidentiality clause & respect USAID/DfID guidelines on how to introduce yourselves. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LAT | − | − | N | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Verification completed: | (day/month/year) | GPS Location: | [3 -15 ° ] | [0-59.99'] | [0-59.99''] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LONG | − | − | E | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [3 -15 ° ] | [0-59.99'] | [0-59.99''] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| COMPLETION OF ACTIVITY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Verification of activity reported by IP as completed | If so, date reported fully executed by IP: | (dd/mm/yy) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| If so, results observed: | Fully executed | Almost fully executed | Partially executed | Not executed/started | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| OR | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Verification of activity reported as still ongoing | If so, please compare to reported progress to date (i.e., not the initial plan) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| If so, results observed were: | More advanced | As reported | Some delays not reported | Significant delays not reported | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| VISIBLE QUALITY OF WORK | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quality of work executed (measured against expected standards) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results observed | High | Adequate | Could be improved | Inadequate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| REPORTED USABILITY/IMPACT/ADEQUATENESS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Beneficiary feedback on usability/impact/adequateness of execution (measured against expected outcome) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Overall feedback was: | Very positive | Positive | Adequate | Uneven | Inadequate | n/a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| REPORTED SUSTAINABILITY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Beneficiary feedback on sustainability (maintenance, demonstrated usefulness over time…) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Overall feedback was: | Very positive | Positive | Adequate | Uneven | Inadequate | n/a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENGINEERING TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE (Only if Verification done by Engineers) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Compliance with contracted engineering specifications | n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Higher technical compliance than required | Fully compliant | Overall compliant | Not fully compliant | Inadequate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE (ENVIRONMENTAL VERIFICATION ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Level of expected environmental compliance (see supporting documentation) | n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Higher level than expected | Compliant | Overall compliant with minor infractions | Not fully compliant | Inadequate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Type of individuals interviewed: | Direct & targeted beneficiaries | Indirect benef. | Unintended benef. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sample size: | one individual | 2 to 3 individuals | 4 to 10 indiv. | more than 10 indiv. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Specify the type or title of individual interviewed : | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Supporting documentation collected & submitted: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Narrative report (Required) | FLAG RESPONSE (submitted by implementing partner ONLY) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Interview notes (Required) | Other (specify): |
FORM B (EVENTS)
| Form B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MEPS - FIELD VERIFICATION & MONITORING 'snapshot' REPORT | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| EVENTS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| VERIFICATION PROFILE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IMPLEMENTOR: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RELATED TO: | Region: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Verif # (MEPS Ref) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IP GRANT or ACTIVITY # | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City or village: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TITLE OF ACTIVITY: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TYPE: | Workshop | Public Event | Theater/Performance | Other: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Training | Public gathering, Inauguration… | Drama, movies | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TIMING OF VERIF: | Same day as event | Shortly after | Weeks after | More | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PMP/LOGFRAME INDICATOR most closely related: | (Drop down menu option on Clearinghouse with the list of the IP PMP indicators) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (If not already specified or clear, request guidance from MEPS) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Name of Third Party Monitor (TPM): | (Drop down menu of TPMs) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FLAGS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cancel* | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cancel* | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| USAID/DfiD Acknowledgment (comment required when a flag is raised) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RESULTS | Always remain neutral, focusing on gathering feedback & data (no personal advice or recommendation should be expressed) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Strictly adhere to the confidentiality clause & respect USAID/DfID guidelines on how to introduce yourselves. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LAT | − | − | N | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Verification completed: | (day/month/year) | GPS Location: | [3 -15 ° ] | [0-59.99'] | [0-59.99''] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LONG | − | − | E | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [3 -15 ° ] | [0-59.99'] | [0-59.99''] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GENERAL OBSERVATIONS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GENERAL AUDIENCE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| a- Degree of participation | Higher than expected | Good/adequate | Slightly less | Much less than expected | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| b- Was mainly made up of… | Targeted beneficiaries | General local population | c-Were Gov officials present? | Yes | No | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FEMALE PARTICIPATION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| d- Estimated Levels | More than 50% | About 50% | More than 20% but clearly less than 50% | less than 20% or so | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| e- To what degree were they actually participating? | A great deal | A fair amount | Not at all | Somewhat | N/A | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| OTHERS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| f- Adequacy of the chosen VENUE | Perfectly suited | Adequate | May have been more effective in a different venue | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| g- TIMING of the event | Optimal | Adequate | May have been more effective earlier or later | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| h- PRESENTERS/Performers | Effective/Engaging | Adequate | Ought to have been more effective /engaging | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| i- SIGN-UP SHEET - use | Properly & fully used | Adequate | Incomplete | Not used | Not needed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| j- AGENDA - clarity/relevance | Clear & relevant | Adequate | Could be clearer/more relevant | No agenda | Not needed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| k- MESSAGE - clarity/relevance | Clear & relevant | Adequate | Could be clearer/more relevant | Not clear | Not applicable | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mostly only applicable to theatre, drama performances,… | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| INTERVIEWS-BASED OVERALL ASSESSMENT | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Below ratings to be based on the results of overall recorded interviews (use and submit Event Interview Forms to that effect) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1-Participants understood why they were there | Very clearly | Sufficiently clear | Not clear | Not at all clear | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2-Did the event seem relevant to participants? | Very relevant | Relevant | Not really relevant | Irrelevant | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3-Did the event seem to achieve its goals? | Beyond expectations | Yes clearly | Yes overall | Not really | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4-Perceived degree of beneficiary ownership? | Very high | High | Adequate | Low | Inadequate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5-If follow-up is required, were next steps clearly stated? | Yes clearly | To some extent | No | Not needed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6-Could this be considered 'a success story'? | Yes | Not yet | No | If yes, please substantiate in the report | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7-Were IPs faced with real external challenges? | Substantial | Manageable | Not really | If yes, please substantiate in the report | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Type of individuals interviewed: | Direct & targeted beneficiaries | Indirect benef. | Unintended benef. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benef group: | General population | CSO | Gov officials | Busin. owners | Youth | Other | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sample size: | one individual | 2 to 3 individuals | 5 to 10 indiv. | more than 10 indiv. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Supporting documentation collected & submitted: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Narrative report (Required) | FLAG RESPONSE (submitted by implementing partner ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Interview notes (Required) | Other (specify): |
FORM C (TENDERS)
| Form C | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MEPS - FIELD VERIFICATION & MONITORING 'snapshot' REPORT | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TENDERS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| VERIFICATION PROFILE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IMPLEMENTOR: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RELATED TO: | Region: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Verif # (MEPS Ref) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IP GRANT or ACTIVITY # | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City or village: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TYPE: | Construction/Rehab | Procurement | Services | Other: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TITLE OF ACTIVITY: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (Indicating what is to be done and for WHO/beneficiary) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| How was it advertised? | Postings | Newspaper | Radio | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tender submission deadline: | (day/month/year) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date the Tender was completed: | (day/month/year) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PMP/LOGFRAME INDICATOR most closely related: | (Drop down menu option on Clearinghouse with the list of the IP PMP indicators) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (If not already specified or clear, request guidance from MEPS) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Name of Third Party Monitor (TPM): | (Drop down menu of TPMs) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FLAGS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cancel* | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cancel* | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| USAID/DfID Acknowledgment (comment required when a flag is raised) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RESULTS | THIS VERIFICATION PROCESS DOES NOT INVOLVE INTERVIEWS - ONLY OBSERVATIONS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Strictly adhere to the confidentiality clause & respect USAID/DfID guidelines on how to introduce yourselves. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LAT | − | − | N | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Verification completed: | (day/month/year) | GPS Location: | [3 -15 ° ] | [0-59.99'] | [0-59.99''] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| LONG | − | − | E | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [3 -15 ° ] | [0-59.99'] | [0-59.99''] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PART I - PUBLIC TENDERING PROCESS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| National Tender Board | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| a- Participants | Names | USAID/DfID | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| /IP | Civil Society | Grantee | Line | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ministry | Name of Ministry | Other | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| b- Audience | Were all bidders allowed to access this event? | Yes | No | (If No please file a report) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| c- Did all Committee members publically confirm… | …the names of all the bidders recorded in the registry | Yes | No | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| …that the tender box was not tempered | Yes | No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| …that the envelops were all in good condition/closed | Yes | No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| d- Did Committee members ensure… | …that names of all persons present is recorded (attendance) | Yes | No | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| …that the envelops were opened in clear view/in public | Yes | No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| …that each bidder name and amount was read out and recorded? | Yes | No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| …that bid or summary doc was counter-signed by all Members? | Yes | No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| e- BIDS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Name | Amount | Name | Amount | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Name | Amount | Name | Amount | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Name | Amount | Name | Amount | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PART II - TENDER ANALYSIS /REVIEW | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Were the required criteria made very clear? | Yes | No | Were bids rejected if not meeting all required criteria? | Yes | No | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Was the selected bidder, lowest cost bidder? | Yes | No | If no, what was the selection criteria applied? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Will there be changes in the quoted price? | No | Yes | If yes, explain: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Supporting documentation collected & submitted: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Narrative report (Required) | FLAG RESPONSE (submitted by implementing partner ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Interview notes (Required) | Other (specify): |
FORM D (MIDA)
| Form D | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| MEPS - FIELD VERIFICATION & MONITORING 'snapshot' REPORT | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE / MIDA | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| VERIFICATION PROFILE | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| IMPLEMENTOR: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| RELATED TO: | Region: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Verif # (MEPS Ref) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| District: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| IP GRANT or ACTIVITY # | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| City or village: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ministry/Institution: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Name of Expert: | Area of expertise: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Is this technical assistance… | still ongoing? | or completed? | Start date | (Expected) End date | |||||||||||||||||||
| PMP/LOGFRAME INDICATOR most closely related: | (Drop down menu option on Clearinghouse with the list of the IP PMP indicators) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| (If not already specified or clear, request guidance from MEPS) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Name of Third Party Monitor (TPM): | (Drop down menu of TPMs) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| FLAGS | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cancel* | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cancel* | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| USAID/DfID Acknowledgment (comment required when a flag is raised) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| RESULTS Section | Always remain neutral, focusing on gathering feedback & data (no personal advice or recommendation should be expressed) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Strictly adhere to the confidentiality clause & respect USAID/DfID guidelines on how to introduce yourselves. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| LAT | − | − | N | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Verification completed: | (day/month/year) | GPS Location: | [3 -15 ° ] | [0-59.99'] | [0-59.99''] | ||||||||||||||||||
| LONG | − | − | E | ||||||||||||||||||||
| [3 -15 ° ] | [0-59.99'] | [0-59.99''] | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Interview 1 | Expert | Supervisor | Colleague | Trainee | Other | ||||||||||||||||||
| Interviewee Name: | Position/Title: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| BEFORE the completion of the assignment, how did you feel about… | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | The usefulness of this technical assistance | Very useful | Useful | Adequate | Not really needed | Inadequate | |||||||||||||||||
| 2 | The timing of this technical assistance | Very timely | Timely | Adequate | Untimely | N/A | |||||||||||||||||
| 3 | The qualification of assigned expert | Above expectations | Strong | Adequate | Below expectations | N/A | |||||||||||||||||
| N/A- If answered by |
expert himself
| DURING OR AFTER the completion of the assignment, how do you feel about… | ||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | The usefulness of this technical assistance | Very useful | Useful | Adequate | Not really needed | Inadequate | ||||||||||||
| 5 | The timing of this technical assistance | Very timely | Timely | Adequate | Untimely | N/A | ||||||||||||
| 6 | The qualification of assigned expert | Above expectations | Strong | Adequate | Below expectations | |||||||||||||
| OVERALL, IN YOUR OPINION… | ||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | Was the expert given required access & support within the Institution to adequately accomplish his assignment? | Yes | Somewhat | No | ||||||||||||||
| 8 | Was the Institution able to develop new knowledge and capacity as s result of the expert's assignment? | Definitely | Somewhat | No | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | Would the Institution benefit from more similar support/assignments? | Definitely | Probably | Not sure | No | |||||||||||||
| In the written report, provide qualitative feedback to the following 3 questions: | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1) Why would you or not recommend this type of activity to others? | 2) What were the main challenges? | 3) What would you do differently? | ||||||||||||||||
| Interview 2 | Expert | Supervisor | Colleague | Trainee | Other | |||||||||||||
| Interviewee Name: | Position/Title: | |||||||||||||||||
| BEFORE the completion of the assignment, how did you feel about… | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | The usefulness of this technical assistance | Very useful | Useful | Adequate | Not really needed | Inadequate | ||||||||||||
| 2 | The timing of this technical assistance | Very timely | Timely | Adequate | Untimely | N/A | ||||||||||||
| 3 | The qualification of assigned expert | Above expectations | Strong | Adequate | Below expectations | N/A | ||||||||||||
| N/A- If answered by |
expert himself
| DURING OR AFTER the completion of the assignment, how do you feel about… | ||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | The usefulness of this technical assistance | Very useful | Useful | Adequate | Not really needed | Inadequate | ||||||||||||
| 5 | The timing of this technical assistance | Very timely | Timely | Adequate | Untimely | N/A | ||||||||||||
| 6 | The qualification of assigned expert | Above expectations | Strong | Adequate | Below expectations | |||||||||||||
| OVERALL, IN YOUR OPINION… | ||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | Was the expert given required access & support within the Institution to adequately accomplish his assignment? | Yes | Somewhat | No | ||||||||||||||
| 8 | Was the Institution able to develop new knowledge and capacity as s result of the expert's assignment? | Definitely | Somewhat | No | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | Would the Institution benefit from more similar support/assignments? | Definitely | Probably | Not sure | No | |||||||||||||
| In the written report, provide qualitative feedback to the following 3 questions: | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1) Why would you or not recommend this type of activity to others? | 2) What were the main challenges? | 3) What would you do differently? | ||||||||||||||||
| Interview 3 | Expert | Supervisor | Colleague | Trainee | Other | |||||||||||||
| Interviewee Name: | Position/Title: | |||||||||||||||||
| BEFORE the completion of the assignment, how did you feel about… | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | The usefulness of this technical assistance | Very useful | Useful | Adequate | Not really needed | Inadequate | ||||||||||||
| 2 | The timing of this technical assistance | Very timely | Timely | Adequate | Untimely | N/A | ||||||||||||
| 3 | The qualification of assigned expert | Above expectations | Strong | Adequate | Below expectations | N/A | ||||||||||||
| N/A- If answered by |
expert himself
| DURING OR AFTER the completion of the assignment, how do you feel about… | ||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | The usefulness of this technical assistance | Very useful | Useful | Adequate | Not really needed | Inadequate | ||||||||||||
| 5 | The timing of this technical assistance | Very timely | Timely | Adequate | Untimely | N/A | ||||||||||||
| 6 | The qualification of assigned expert | Above expectations | Strong | Adequate | Below expectations | |||||||||||||
| OVERALL, IN YOUR OPINION… | ||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | Was the expert given required access & support within the Institution to adequately accomplish his assignment? | Yes | Somewhat | No | ||||||||||||||
| 8 | Was the Institution able to develop new knowledge and capacity as s result of the expert's assignment? | Definitely | Somewhat | No | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | Would the Institution benefit from more similar support/assignments? | Definitely | Probably | Not sure | No | |||||||||||||
| In the written report, provide qualitative feedback to the following 3 questions: | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1) Why would you or not recommend this type of activity to others? | 2) What were the main challenges? | 3) What would you do differently? | ||||||||||||||||
| Interview 4 | Expert | Supervisor | Colleague | Trainee | Other | |||||||||||||
| Interviewee Name: | Position/Title: | |||||||||||||||||
| BEFORE the completion of the assignment, how did you feel about… | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | The usefulness of this technical assistance | Very useful | Useful | Adequate | Not really needed | Inadequate | ||||||||||||
| 2 | The timing of this technical assistance | Very timely | Timely | Adequate | Untimely | N/A | ||||||||||||
| 3 | The qualification of assigned expert | Above expectations | Strong | Adequate | Below expectations | N/A | ||||||||||||
| N/A- If answered by |
expert himself
| DURING OR AFTER the completion of the assignment, how do you feel about… | |||||||||||||
| 4 | The usefulness of this technical assistance | Very useful | Useful | Adequate | Not really needed | Inadequate | |||||||
| 5 | The timing of this technical assistance | Very timely | Timely | Adequate | Untimely | N/A | |||||||
| 6 | The qualification of assigned expert | Above expectations | Strong | Adequate | Below expectations | ||||||||
| OVERALL, IN YOUR OPINION… | |||||||||||||
| 7 | Was the expert given required access & support within the Institution to adequately accomplish his assignment? | Yes | Somewhat | No | |||||||||
| 8 | Was the Institution able to develop new knowledge and capacity as s result of the expert's assignment? | Definitely | Somewhat | No | |||||||||
| 9 | Would the Institution benefit from more similar support/assignments? | Definitely | Probably | Not sure | No | ||||||||
| In the written report, provide qualitative feedback to the following 3 questions: | |||||||||||||
| 1) Why would you or not recommend this type of activity to others? | 2) What were the main challenges? | 3) What would you do differently? | |||||||||||
| Supporting documentation collected & submitted: | |||||||||||||
| Narrative report (Required) | FLAG RESPONSE (submitted by implementing partner ONLY) | ||||||||||||
| Interview notes (Required) | Other (specify): |
FORM E (Outcome)
| Form E | ||||||||||||||||||||
| MEPS - FIELD VERIFICATION & MONITORING 'snapshot' REPORT | ||||||||||||||||||||
| OUTCOME related verification | ||||||||||||||||||||
| VERIFICATION PROFILE | ||||||||||||||||||||
| IMPLEMENTOR: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| RELATED TO: | Region: | |||||||||||||||||||
| Verif # (MEPS Ref) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| District: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| IP GRANT or ACTIVITY # | ||||||||||||||||||||
| City or village: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Activity focus/title: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Key Beneficiary(ies): | ||||||||||||||||||||
| IP activities/assistance… | still ongoing? | or completed? | Start date | (Expected) End date | ||||||||||||||||
| PMP/LOGFRAME INDICATOR most closely related: | (Drop down menu option on Clearinghouse with the list of the IP PMP indicators) | |||||||||||||||||||
| (If not already specified or clear, request guidance from MEPS) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Name of Third Party Monitor (TPM): | (Drop down menu of TPMs) | |||||||||||||||||||
| FLAGS | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cancel* | ||||||||||||||||||||
| USAID/DfID Acknowledgment (comment required when a flag is raised) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| RESULTS Section | Always remain neutral, focusing on gathering feedback & data (no personal advice or recommendation should be expressed) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Strictly adhere to the confidentiality clause & respect USAID/DfID guidelines on how to introduce yourselves. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| LAT | − | − | N | |||||||||||||||||
| Date Verification completed: | (day/month/year) | GPS Location: | [3 -15 ° ] | [0-59.99'] | [0-59.99''] | |||||||||||||||
| LONG | − | − | E | |||||||||||||||||
| [3 -15 ° ] | [0-59.99'] | [0-59.99''] | ||||||||||||||||||
| UNDERLYING QUESTIONS | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Outcome-related questions that monitors tried to address, through in-depth and targetted interviews. |
Special attention placed on perceived and/or demonstrated effectivness of IP interventions on the medium and longer term.
| 1- | ||||||||||||||
| 2- | ||||||||||||||
| 3- | ||||||||||||||
| 4- | ||||||||||||||
| A- | Overall, to what degree did interviewees perceived or confirmed that IP interventions were helping to affect positive change? | |||||||||||||
| Clearly so | Overall so | Somewhat | To a limited extent | Not really | Not at all | Not sure | ||||||||
| B- | To what extent did positive changes (if any) seem to be ATTRIBUTED to IP related activities (as opposed to other external factors/actors)? | |||||||||||||
| To a great extent | To a good extent | Somewhat | To a limited extent | Not really | N/A (no positive change) | |||||||||
| C- | Did interviewees overall feel that it is TOO EARLY to tell if IP interventions will effect positive change? | |||||||||||||
| Clear positive outcome already | Positive changes but more time needed | No change yet, more time needed | No change noted or expected | |||||||||||
| D- | Did interviewees overall feel that resources/time/scope assigned to IP activities were appropriate to affect change? | |||||||||||||
| Clearly so | Overall so | Somewhat | More required | Insufficient | Not sure | |||||||||
| Supporting documentation collected & submitted: | ||||||||||||||
| Narrative report (Required) | FLAG RESPONSE (submitted by implementing partner ONLY) | |||||||||||||
| Interview notes (Required) | Other (specify) |
Interviews
| INTERVIEW NOTES | ||||||||
| RELATED TO: | ||||||||
| Verification # (MEPS Ref) - REQUIRED | IP GRANT or ACTIVITY # - only if applicable | |||||||
| INTERVIEWEE 1 | Gender: | Male | Female | Type of interviewee/title/function: | ||||
| Type of individual interviewed: | Intended benef. / user | Indirect or unintended benefiary/actor | Name (optional): | |||||
| INTERVIEWEE 2 | Gender: | Male | Female | Type of interviewee/title/function: | ||||
| Type of individual interviewed: | Intended benef. / user | Indirect or unintended benefiary/actor | Name (optional): | |||||
| INTERVIEWEE 3 | Gender: | Male | Female | Type of interviewee/title/function: | ||||
| Type of individual interviewed: | Intended benef. / user | Indirect or unintended benefiary/actor | Name (optional): | |||||
| INTERVIEWEE 4 | Gender: | Male | Female | Type of interviewee/title/function: | ||||
| Type of individual interviewed: | Intended benef. / user | Indirect or unintended benefiary/actor | Name (optional): | |||||
| INTERVIEWEE 5 | Gender: | Male | Female | Type of interviewee/title/function: | ||||
| Type of individual interviewed: | Intended benef. / user | Indirect or unintended benefiary/actor | Name (optional): | |||||
| INTERVIEWEE 6 | Gender: | Male | Female | Type of interviewee/title/function: | ||||
| Type of individual interviewed: | Intended benef. / user | Indirect or unintended benefiary/actor | Name (optional): | |||||
| INTERVIEWEE 7 | Gender: | Male | Female | Type of interviewee/title/function: | ||||
| Type of individual interviewed: | Intended benef. / user | Indirect or unintended benefiary/actor | Name (optional): | |||||
| INTERVIEWEE 8 | Gender: | Male | Female | Type of interviewee/title/function: | ||||
| Type of individual interviewed: | Intended benef. / user | Indirect or unintended benefiary/actor | Name (optional): |
Response to Flags
| IP FEEDBACK to FLAGGED FINDINGS | ||||||||
| VERIFICATION PROFILE | ||||||||
| RELATED TO: | ||||||||
| Verif # (MEPS Ref) | IP GRANT or ACTIVITY # | |||||||
| IP NAME/PROGRAM | Region: | |||||||
| Type of Verification | District: | |||||||
| City or village: | ||||||||
| Key flagged findings: | ||||||||
| IP CERTIFICATION | ||||||||
| Feedback submitted by: | Position: | Date: | ||||||
| IP FEEDBACK ON FLAGGED FINDINGS | ||||||||
| Please provide feedback on flagged findings, commenting from your perspective on factors at play and, |
if and when possible and applicable, ways of addressing issues raised.
Other notes or comments you may wish to add (optional)
FORM F - Environment
| Form F | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MEPS - FIELD VERIFICATION & MONITORING 'snapshot' REPORT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENVIRONMENTAL related verification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| VERIFICATION PROFILE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IMPLEMENTOR: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RELATED TO: | Region: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Verif # (MEPS Ref) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IP GRANT or ACTIVITY # | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City or village: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TITLE OF ACTIVITY: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TYPE: | Construction | Rehabilitation | Procurement | Other: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| PMP INDICATOR most closely related: | (Drop down menu option on Clearinghouse with the list of the IP PMP indicators) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (If not already specified or clear, request guidance from MEPS) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Name of Third Party Monitor (TPM): | (Drop down menu of TPMs) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FLAGS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cancel* | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cancel* | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| USAID Acknowledgment (comment required when a flag is raised) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RESULTS Section | Always remain neutral, focusing on gathering feedback & data (no personal advice or recommendation should be expressed) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Strictly adhere to the confidentiality clause & respect USAID guidelines on how to introduce yourselves. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LAT | − | − | N | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Verification completed: | (day/month/year) | GPS Location: | [3 -15 ° ] | [0-59.99'] | [0-59.99''] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| LONG | − | − | E | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| [3 -15 ° ] | [0-59.99'] | [0-59.99''] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| OVERALL ASSESSMENT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1- | Potential level of risk | Minimal-none | Moderate | Moderate w/construction | Potentially high / larger scale construction | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2- | Relative degree of importance of findings & potential impact on the environment? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Minimal-none | Moderate | Moderate w/construction | Potentially high / larger scale construction | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3- | Recommended urgency to address recommendations or to identify mitigation measures? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nothing required | Long term | Before end of project | ASAP | Immediately | |||||||||||||||||||||
| USAID GUIDELINES & CHECKLISTS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4- | Related USAID Guidelines | Agricul. | Nat.Ress. | Construction | Energy | Fisheries | Forestries | Livestock | Road | ||||||||||||||||
| Schools | Water supply & Sanitation | Solid waste | Health facilities | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5- | Monitors examined the activity according to all above relevant USAID guideline(s) / checklist(s)? | YES (see report) | NO (explain in report) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| PROGRAM EMMP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6- | Is this activity related to any activty mentioned in the program EMMP? | YES | Marginally | NO | Does not have an EMMP | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 7- | If YES, have all the mitigation relevant EMMP measures been followed? | Fully | Mostly | Somewhat | Minimally | No | |||||||||||||||||||
| 8- | Did you identify new or missing measures which should be undertaken to minimize impact? | YES (see report) | NO | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Supporting documentation collected & submitted: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Narrative report (Required) | FLAG RESPONSE (submitted by implementing partner ONLY) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Interview notes (Required) | Other (specify) |
Construct
| Checklist confirming adherence to USAID guidelines | ||||||
| SMALL-SCALE CONSTRUCTIONS | VERIFIED | |||||
| Were any issues identified? | ||||||
| 1 | Site Selection (SS) | N/A | NO | YES | If YES - see key comment below (more detail in report) | |
| a | Site occupied or used by local residents | |||||
| b | Dwellings located close by | |||||
| c | Site has historic, cultural, or social importance | |||||
| d | Site would require road improvement or new road construction | |||||
| e | (Also consult “Rural Roads” section of the Guidelines) | |||||
| f | Site contains habitat for important ecosystems, animals or plants | |||||
| g | Site has important scenic, archeological or cultural/historical features | |||||
| h | Site is wetland or abuts body of water | |||||
| i | Site is steeply sloped | |||||
| j | Area is heavily wooded | |||||
| k | Site prone to flooding | |||||
| l | Area and/site prone to landslides | |||||
| 2 | Planning & Design | |||||
| m | Area experiences heavy rainfall, earthquakes | |||||
| n | Facility is or will include a water supply improvement | |||||
| o | Facility is or will include a sanitation improvement | |||||
| p | Facility will provide healthcare services | |||||
| q | Facility will generate solid waste | |||||
| r | Facility will house automotive, laboratory or other industrial activities | |||||
| s | Facility will generate cooling waters, soaking waters, or water containing suspended organic mater, mercury, lead, soaps, etc. | |||||
| t | Indirect effects on local populations | |||||
| u | Cumulative effects of one development project over time or many small developments built within a short time period | |||||
| 3 | Construction | |||||
| v | Construction crews and camps | |||||
| w | Use of heavy equipment | |||||
| x | Use of hazardous materials | |||||
| y | Demolition of existing structures | |||||
| z | Site clearing and/or leveling | |||||
| aa | Excavation | |||||
| ab | Filling | |||||
| ac | Road improvement/new road construction | |||||
| ad | Source of building materials | |||||
| Decommissioning | ||||||
| ae | Hazardous abandoned structures | |||||
| af | Eroded soils in the vicinity of abandoned infrastructure |
Schools
| Checklist confirming adherence to USAID guidelines | |||||
| PRIMARY & SECONDARY SCHOOLS | VERIFIED | Issues identified? | |||
| SITING & SITE DIMENSIONS | N/A | NO | YES | ||
| Avoid proximity to health hazards | If possible, the school site should be a minimum of 100m away from rubbish dumps, abattoirs, markets, transport yards, and other facilities/land uses with a high concentration of pathogens and disease vectors. | ||||
| Avoid road noise and dust | If possible, school site should not be located along a primary road, due to both noise and dust nuisance.* If NOT: |
• If at all possible locate the school structures behind the observed “settling zone” for road dust.
• Minimize road noise in classrooms by maximizing set-back from the road and/or minimizing road-way facing windows
• If perimeter wall, build this higher along the roadway... strip of trees Assure adequate site dimensions Large enough to accommodate planned structures, water supply, and sanitation facilities:
• latrines should be sited 30-50m from school buildings and 30m from any well.
• latrine types in which pits fill up and must be decommissioned, the site must provide space for replacement latrines.
| Flood risk below the local baseline | Schools should be located out of flood zones, if not, important to assure that the school site is not more flood prone than the community it serves. |
| Appropriate Earthquake resistance | Verify local risk of earthquake.If risk is more than slight, consult a qualified architect/structural engineer. |
| Appropriate wind resistance | • Ascertain strongest winds remembered in local community and the damage done to typical structures at that time. |
• Examine local roofing techniques and inquire about storm frequency and typical damages (roofing always thoroughly tied down to the roof frame, and the roof frame to the structure)
• Assure that the design—roof, walls, and drainage—is resistant to the “50-year storm;”
| Appropriate thermal performance | In hot climates, consider the “design options for enhanced ventilation and thermal performance” (see guidelines) |
| Pest resistance | • Ascertain if termites are locally prevalent. (They are throughout most of Africa.) If yes, at a minimum: |
• Extend slab at least 20cm beyond external walls. Set wooden structural poles on elevated concrete or stone footing.
• Design walls with a concrete course near base
• Use termite-resistant woods for key structural members.
| SANITATION & WASTE MANAGEMENT | |
| Sufficient latrine capacity | • A rule of thumb is one toilet per 20-30 students. |
• Minimum number of toilets is one for each gender (ideally, 2 for boys / 2 for girls) and 1 for teachers each 2- classroom block)
| Appropriate latrine technology | Never ideal, they are particularly inappropriate for schools. |
| Latrine siting/ configuration | • Should be sited at least 30 meters away from the school, kitchen, and wells. |
• Male and female latrines be widely separated.
• If possible, they should also be DOWNSLOPE of these facilities (rule of thumb)
• For “fill up” latrines, the site plan must reserve locations for future latrine pits in close proximity when first pit fills up,
| Child-friendly design | • Avoid latrines that are dark, have handles or locks placed for adult use, or have adult-sized squat holes. |
| Hand-washing stations | • Handwashing stations located next to latrines or in locations where teachers can supervise use |
• Stations must be kept clean and well-drained.
• Signs or murals should be painted on latrines to encourage hand washing.
| Solid waste management | ||
| (burn pit, storage) | • Appropriate food wastes (excluding oils, meats) should be composted. |
• Papers and non-compostable foods wastes should be burned (fenced burn pit)
| WATER SUPPLY | |
| Sufficient quantity | 10 liters per student per day (a good average estimate) |
| Potability | • If other than a municipal supply, water source should be tested for potability. At a minimum arsenic and fecal coliform tests should be conducted. (USAID requires testing for arsenic for all USAID-funded water supply projects) |
• To assure that water remains potable:
Site wells to reduce chance of contamination from latrines Ground around latrines drains away from water supply points.
Always cover wells.
| Sufficient and separate supply points | Hand wash stations should be separate from water provision for cooking and drinking. |
| LANDSCAPING, GROUNDS & DRAINAGE | |
| Livestock Barrier | Livestock prevented from entering school grounds |
| Runoff Management & Rainwater Harvesting | Gutters, drainage channels and site grading that prevent standing water and protect foundations, plantings and neighboring properties (ESPECIALLY water supply points, handwashing stations, and kitchens are well drained). |
| Plantings | Part of school design; landscape plants should be indigenous or at least common to the area and well-suited to climatic conditions |
Solid Waste
| Checklist confirming adherence to USAID guidelines | |||||
| SOLID WASTE: GENERATION, HANDLING, TREATMENT & DISPOSAL | VERIFIED | Issues identified? | |||
| WASTE MINIMIZATION | N/A | NO | YES | ||
| Reduce, reuse, recycle | • Organize itinerant collectors and publicize prices. |
• Foster secondary markets.
• Offer incentives
| Facilitate separation at disposal site | Waste pickers allowed access to disposal sites, significant amounts of material can be recovered. |
| Composting and anaerobic digestion | • Evaluation of possibility of composting. |
Large centralized composting Small composting enterprises Backyard composting
• Promote vermiculture treatment of vegetable food waste.
• Investigate anaerobic digestion.
| COLLECTION & TRANSFER | |
| • Use appropriate technology. |
• Integrate the informal sector.
• Build on the existing system.
• Introduce transfer activities.
• Shift to direct fee-for-service and local financing.
| LANDFILS | |
| DO - NOTs | • In wetlands or areas with a high water table |
• In floodplains
• Near drinking water supplies
• Along geological faults or seismically active regions
• Within two kilometers of an airport Dos • Above clay soils or igneous rock
• With active public involvement
• In areas with sufficient capacity Open dumps Initial upgrades can be made:
1. Construct perimeter drains to catch runoff and leachate.
2. Minimize leaching through soil by and repeating periodically
3. Protect the health of waste pickers and landfill staff by providing soap, water and hygiene training.
4. Regularly test groundwater for contaminants, including bacteria, heavy metals, and toxic organic chemicals.
5. Conduct a formal environmental assessment of the current site before making further upgrades.
6. Engage the public in decision-making.
Controlled dumps To transform an open dump into a controlled dump:
1. Fence in the active face of the landfill and hire staff to monitor and control dumping.
2. Track how much waste is delivered.
3. Compact waste before or after dumping.
4. Schedule monitoring of methane gas production, landfill composition, & surface water and groundwater conditions.
5. Develop closure and post-closure plans.
6. Seal and cover the dump in stages as its capacity to receive waste is exhausted.
7. Maintain scheduled monitoring until sampling indicates it is no longer necessary—possibly 30 years or more.
Sanitary landfills To mitigate environmental impacts, sanitary landfill designs should include:
1. An impermeable or low-permeability lining
2. Leachate collection, monitoring, and treatment.
3. Gas monitoring, extraction, and treatment.
4. Fencing to control access.
5. Provisions for closure and post-closure monitoring and maintenance.
| Incinerators | Do not construct |
| Wastes Requiring Special Attention | |
| Hazardous waste | Suggested best practices: |
• Providing technical assistance and training to educate decision-makers, system operators, and the public.
• Establish incentives, disincentives, or regulations to promote waste reduction where it is not otherwise cost-effective.
• Establish dedicated hazardous waste recycling and disposal facilities.
• Develop systems to ensure that waste is not illegally dumped.
• Explore options for contracting private sector firms that specialize in the handling and disposal of hazardous wastes.
Medical Waste Suggested mitigation measures include:
• In rural areas, burn infectious waste in a single-chamber incinerator, if possible.
• In urban areas, burning is not advisable,
• In some large cities, off-site wet thermal, microwave or chemical treatment options may be available.
• The least expensive option is land disposal.
Construcation & Demolition debris Best practices for construction and demolition debris:
• Inventory control and allowance for return of construction material.
• Selective demolition.
• On-site separation systems. Use multiple smaller containers instead of a single roll-off or compactor.
• Crushing, milling, and reusing secondary stone and concrete materials.
x
| Small-Scale Construction | ||
| Issue or aspect of activity | Impact | Mitigation |
| The activity may. . . | Note: Mitigations apply to specified project phase: Site Selection (SS); Planning and Design (P&D), Construction (C), or Operation and Maintenance (O&M) | |
| Site Selection (SS) | ||
| Site occupied or used by local residents | Displace untenured residents or reduce farmers’ or pastoralists’ lands | · Find alternative location (SS). If that is not possible: |
| · Provide equivalent land and/or accommodations or fair monetary compensation, provided these are accepted voluntarily and without coercion (SS) | ||
| Dwellings located close by | Facility and/or construction disturbs neighbors, creating noise and dust | · Build as far as practical from neighbors (SS) |
| · Concentrate noisiest types of work into as short a period as possible, and during least disruptive times of the day. Take measures to keep dust to a minimum (P&D)(C) | ||
| · Screen facility with trees or fencing to control noise (P&D) | ||
| · Wet ground if water is abundant and/or leave natural cover intact as long as possible (C) | ||
| Site has historic, cultural, or social importance | Offend local population; damage local social fabric | · Find alternative site (SS) |
| Site would require road improvement or new road construction | Cause one or more of a set of adverse environmental impacts typical of roads, including erosion, changing water tables, or providing access for illegal landclearing, logging or poaching | · Find alternative site. Evaluate “minimum tool” alternatives (e.g. consider whether a foot or bicycle path might suffice (SS) (O&M) |
| (Also consult “Rural Roads” section of the Guidelines) | · Follow guidance on design, construction, and operation and maintenance described in “Rural Roads” and resources listed there | |
| Site contains habitat for important ecosystems, animals or plants | Destroy or harm plants or animals of ecological, cultural, and/or economic importance | Find alternative location (SS). If that is not possible: |
| · Limit access to the site | ||
| · Design any infrastructure (if unavoidable) to create least impact (P&D) | ||
| · Minimize disturbance of native flora during construction (P&D) (C) | ||
| · Remove, without destroying, large plants and ground cover where possible (C) | ||
| · Replant recovered plants and other flora from local ecosystem after construction (C) | ||
| Site has important scenic, archeological or cultural/historical features | Destroy or harm these sites | Find alternative location (SS). If that is not possible: |
| · Limit access to site | ||
| · Design any infrastructure (if unavoidable) to create least impact (P&D) | ||
| · Minimize disturbance of site during construction (P&D) (C) | ||
| · Remove important artifacts where possible (C) | ||
| · Provide worker incentives for discovery and safe removal of archeological or paleontological material. (SS) (C) | ||
| Site is wetland or abuts body of water | Destroy or harm valuable and sensitive ecosystems and organisms | Find alternative site. Wetlands and riparian ecosystems (those sited next to a body of water) are extremely sensitive. Wetlands provide important environmental services such as water storage, bird and animal habitat, flood control, and filtering toxins and nutrients from runoff (SS). If no alternative is available: |
| · Set back any infrastructure as far as possible from the water body/wetland and minimize the amount of wetland destroyed by infrastructure footprint or construction (SS) (P&D) | ||
| · Revegetate as soon as possible (C) | ||
| If facility will include sanitation facility, find alternative site (SS) | ||
| Site is steeply sloped | Cause erosion and damage to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems during construction or use | Find alternative site (SS). If that is not possible: |
| · Design facility and apply construction practices that minimize risk, e.g., use hay bales to control erosion during construction. Pay particular attention to potential erosion and redirection of water flows during design and construction (SS) (P&D) (C) | ||
| · Revegetate as soon as possible (C) | ||
| · Maintain design features (O&M) | ||
| Area is heavily wooded | Degrade forest, contributing to flooding potential | Find alternative location if area is old growth or relatively undegraded forest (SS). If that is not possible: |
| · Design so as to minimize clearing or disturbance (P&D) | ||
| · Avoid destroying rare or unique species. Consult with local populations about current use of forest and preferences for preservation (SS) (P&D) (C) | ||
| Site prone to flooding | Be destroyed and/or subject workers or inhabitants to risk of injury or death | Find alternative site or design infrastructure so it is raised above flood plain, if possible (SS) |
| Cause environmental damage from accidental release of toxic, infectious or otherwise harmful material during flooding | Design infrastructure to minimize risk, e.g., design with proper grading and drainage (P&D) | |
| Contaminate drinking water | Maintain design features such as drainage structures (O&M) | |
| Avoid constructing sanitation or other facilities that will use and store harmful materials at flood-prone sites (SS). If that is not possible: | ||
| · Design storage area so that hazardous materials are above ground and/or in waterproof containers with locking lids that are kept closed. Ensure that facility operators follow these practices (P&D)(O&M) | ||
| · Chose dry sanitation options or closed disposal systems, instead of wet ones such as septic tanks or detention ponds (P&D) | ||
| Area and/site prone to landslides | Be destroyed and/or expose workers or inhabitants to risk of injury or death | Find alternative site on stable ground (SS). If that is not possible: |
| Cause environmental damage from accidental release of toxic, infectious or otherwise harmful material | · Design infrastructure to minimize risk, e.g., plant trees all around facility ((P&D) | |
| Contaminate water supplies | · Maintain protective design features (O&M) | |
| Avoid constructing sanitation or other facilities that will use and store hazardous or biohazardous materials at landslide-prone sites (SS). If that is not possible: | ||
| · Design storage area so that hazardous materials are stored in durable leak- proof containers with locking lids, and that these are kept closed (P&D)(O&M) | ||
| · Chose dry sanitation options or closed disposal systems, instead of wet ones such as septic tanks or detention ponds (P&D) | ||
| · Planning and Design | ||
| Area experiences heavy rainfall, earthquakes | Be destroyed and/or expose workers or inhabitants to risk of injury or death | · Design infrastructure to minimize risk, e.g., in earthquake-prone areas, build structures with wood frames instead of concrete or brick (P&D) |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .