bay. Meaningfulness if defined relative to improvement of the bay 
compared to its previous condition. 
Goals for Sarasota Bay as a whole do not exist now, except insofar 
as regional plans contain general language applicable to all of the 
region’s bays. However, Sarasota Bay is unique by its division into two 
regional planning areas, so even the existing regional plans agree only 
by coincidence where the bay is concerned (Estevez 1988). 
The hope for a management program for Sarasota Bay should not be 
abandoned. In 1986, the 99th Congress passed a reauthorization of the 
Water Quality Act, which drew an executive veto after the session closed. 
In 1987, the 100th Congress overrode a second veto to authorize the Act 
as originally drafted. An element of the Act (Section 320, National 
Estuary Program) identifies nationally significant estuaries threatened 
by pollution, development of overuse; promotes comprehensive planning for 
these estuaries; encourages the preparation of management plans; and 
enhances the coordination of estuarine research. 
Governors may nominate estuaries of national significance to the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and request a 
management conference to develop a comprehensive management plan for the 
estuary. It is important to note that the federal program is called a 
management conference, but in fact involves much more than a conference 
per se. Special panels are convened as part of the process to set 
policy, interpret data, collect new information and produce educational 
programs. The conference should not be confused with the Bay Symposium 
described earlier in this paper. 
The act intends that the Administrator give priority consideration 
to several estuaries across the nation, including Sarasota Bay. The 
principal purposes of the management conference are to collect existing 
data and assess trends in water quality, natural resources and uses of 
the ecosystem; develop relationships between point and non-point loadings 
of pollutants to water quality and natural resources; and develop, 
implement and monitor a comprehensive plan that identifies priority 
corrective actions. 
Participants in the management conference are specified and 
include federal and state governments, public and private educational 
institutions and the general public. The conference has up to five years 
to develop a plan which then can be implemented with state and federal 
grants. 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
The experience of other bay management programs supports the view 
that the extra effort expended to develop a bay management plan is offset 
by the extra benefits which result. The management objectives for Tampa 
Bay and Sarasota Bay are quite similar, however, the systems are 
inherently different. That fact notwithstanding, both bays must be 
213 
