Decision Making for Sustainable Use and Development - Coastal Lagoons: Ecosystem Processes and Modeling for Sustainable Use and Development - page 360

Chesapeake Bay Program Structure

Executive Council
Principals' Staff Committee

High-Ranking
Govt officials

Citizens Adv.

Scientific and
Technical Adv.

Input at high level

Implementation
Committee

Fed Agencies

Local Govt Adv.

Air
Quality

“97 Nutrient
Reevaluation”

Budget
Steering

Data
Center

GIS

Subcommittees: nutrient, toxic, monitoring, modeling, living resources, land, growth
and stewardship

FIGURE 8.7 Example of lagoon implementation program structure. (Modified from U.S.
EPA, 1997.)

public and private entities are sufficient to implement the new plan with little
additional infrastructure necessary. On the other hand, the complexity of inter-
jurisdictional boundaries and issues may dictate the creation of a new “coordinating
entity” to direct and evaluate progress. The following examples are used to show
the diversity of infrastructures dealing with lagoon management.
The function and structure of infrastructure committees and working groups are
paramount to their effectiveness and therefore should be established and evaluated
according to the depth and breadth to which they address their focus area. Each
committee or workgroup should address a nonoverlapping task or issue and set goals,
objectives, and specific action items with target dates. The committees are generally
composed of working-level government staff and organizations or associations,
which actually implement these tasks within the context of each respective program's
responsibilities. Each of these committees develops, coordinates, and ensures the
implementation of an important aspect of lagoon restoration.
An example of a structure established primarily for the administration and
management of a lagoon system is shown in Figure 8.7. More complete descriptions
of the Chesapeake Bay Program infrastructure, with committees and their functions,
can be found in the EPA reference. 69

8.8 THE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION

IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Evaluation is important because it:

• Is a means to measure progress and revise implementation strategies
• Recognizes both the tangible goals, i.e., pollution levels, fisheries catch,
etc., and the intangible goals, e.g., partnerships, stewardship ethic