For information on the 28 National Estuary Programs and their contact numbers, please visit the ANEP website at www.anep-usa.org. For EPA Office of Water contact information, please visit the EPA OWOW website at www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries.

Why is the loss of habitat a key issue in our estuaries?

Coastal areas and estuaries are the most developed areas in the nation. Although coastal areas make up less than 20% of the total contiguous U.S. land area, more than 50% of the nation's population live in this narrow fringe. Coastal population is increasing by 3,600 people per day, a rate of growth faster than for the nation as a whole. In addition to being a popular place to live, almost 31% of the Gross National Product is produced in coastal counties. At their 1997 conference in San Francisco, NEPs agreed that intensification of land use and land use conversions was the most significant current cause of impact to estuarine habitat.

Estuaries are among the most productive natural ecosystems. Critical estuarine habitats provide spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter and food for finfish, shellfish, birds and other wildlife. Almost 85% of commercially harvested fish depend on estuarine habitats at some stage in their life cycle. Wetland habitats help improve surface water quality by filtering land runoff, and serve to buffer coastal areas against storm and wave damage. The impacts of habitat loss ripple throughout the estuarine ecosystem and into marine ecosystems linked to the estuaries.

Estuarine habitat types include physically-defined examples such as submerged (seagrass and eelgrass, kelp and other attached macroalgae, soft bottom, hard bottom such as coral reefs or oyster bars), intertidal (rocky coasts, mudflats and sandbars) and emergent (marshes and mangroves). Habitat can also be defined by water quality parameters such as salinity (oligohaline habitat in coastal tributaries). All these habitat types are important to estuarine-dependent species (fish, invertebrates or mammals) at some point in their life cycle, and can act as a "bottleneck" to the survival and growth of these populations if lost or degraded.

Coastal and estuarine habitat loss and degradation are serious concerns. Scientists estimate that more than 50% of the nation's original wetland area were lost between 1790 and 1980 (Dahl 1990). In 2001, the National Coastal Condition Report compiled information and data from coastal areas throughout the U.S. to help efforts to protect, manage, and restore coastal ecosystems. Using data that have been measured consistently, findings from the Coastal Condition Report indicate that, of seven indicators of ecological condition, the poorest condition throughout the U.S. was coastal wetland loss, followed by eutrophic condition and benthic condition. The Report found that almost 50% of the coastal area in the U.S. experienced "degraded" wetland habitat.

Several large-scale and many local programs focus on protecting and restoring coastal habitat, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and EPA's National Estuary Program. Since 1990, the EPA's National Estuary Program has protected or restored over 400,000 acres of coastal habitat in 28 estuaries around the country.

What is in this report?

The report summarizes the work of the National Estuary Program, as represented by the 28 NEPs that make up the program, to stem the loss of habitat in our nation's estuaries. All NEPs address the issue of habitat in the context of estuaries or entire ecosytems. NEPs build partnerships, provide technical assistance and coordinate work to implement science-based actions that will lead to improved health of our estuaries. In working to improve the health of habitats and stem their loss, NEPs have found several principles important:

• The development and maintenance of strong partnerships and collaborations;
• The value of aerial photography to inform management decisions;
• Acquisition of land;
• A process to set priorities for goals and projects to restore habitat;
• Long-term monitoring of both projects and trends;
• Funding for both planning and implementation of projects; and
• Education carefully targeted toward affected and interested groups.

This report is divided into the following sections: Historical Data Sets; Development of Indicators; Direct Measurement; Modeling and Forecasting; Remote Sensing Techniques; Social Surveys; Education and Outreach; and Policy.

What is the Habitat Website-Database?

The goal of the supporting Habitat Website-Database is to transfer NEP approaches for characterizing and abating threats to habitat. The habitat website-database is an integrated compendium of unique, state-of-the-art NEP characterization and management approaches and initiatives that have been compiled from the NEP experience to facilitate the dissemination of technical information useful to resource managers. Many can benefit from these experiences, especially those involved in watershed planning and protection, both within and outside of the existing NEP framework. This habitat module is the presentation and analysis of information through case studies.

To access the website, visit www.anep-usa.org and click on "ANEP's Technology Transfer". To use the website-database, click in the left sidebar to choose to search by Topic (Characterization Approaches or Management Approaches) or by National Estuary Program.

Then, choose from the subtopics that appear in order to display the desired documents.

Click on the ANEP logo to return to the Home page, with easy access to the main Topic and National Estuary Program lists.

Historical Data Sets

Historical databases, especially maps and aerial photography, are critical to understanding large-scale changes and for setting targets for restoring and protecting habitat. Aerial photographs and maps have been used to a greater extent than historical databases. Remote sensing and use of satellite imagery have also been useful. Problems arise when different methods are used to gather data-for example, satellite imagery taken at different resolutions. The right resolution is also important to compiling useful data.

Indian River Lagoon has set a goal of restoring seagrass to a depth of 1.7m. To do this, they draw a line on each historic seagrass map (1942, 1970s, 1980s) to see the variability of the depth of seagrass over time. The program has also found that bathymetric and navigational charts from the 1880s have been useful to educate the public but not so useful in setting targets for restoration. Using historical maps and photos of intertidal habitat, the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program has set a target of restoring 18 acres per year which is the equivalent of restoring one percent of lost acreage each year. The Tampa Bay Program has used 1950s maps of seagrass coverage to develop targets for protecting and restoring seagrass. The program has also used 1950s aerial surveys of shorelines to develop targets for restoration of marshes and mangroves. To further refine its goals, the program has used a database on water quality (derived from monitoring begun in 1972) to develop chlorophyll targets needed to restore seagrass to coverage seen in the 1950s. The Coastal Band Bays Program uses aerial photography at 10-year intervals to map changes in seagrass. Both the Narragansett Bay Program and the Long Island Sound Study have used aerial photographs to identify and analyze trends in wetlands and eelgrass. In addition, the Narragansett Bay Program uses photographs to identify specific impairments to wetlands. The Delaware Inland Bays Program has used aerial photographs from 1938 to look at land use, erosion, inlet movement, and miles of hardened shoreline.

The Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program funded a study to digitize 30 years of data on habitat. The program is also using land use and land cover satellite imagery to classify vegetation. For example, the program used 1994 elevation data gathered from satellite imagery and GPS technology to model wetland elevations. The Galveston Bay National Estuary Program has used NWI data, from the 1950s to 1990s, to evaluate changes in wetlands. However, the program found that the scale used was not small enough to accurately determine net changes and is now using Digital Ortho Quads to assess land cover and LIDAR to assess the elevation of wetland areas. The Mobile Bay Program uses aerial photography to evaluate SAVs (1:24 scale) and LIDAR for floodplain mapping.

Many programs have used the data from the National Wetlands Inventory.

Both the Galveston Bay and the Barataria-Terrebonne Programs use SONAR to map oyster reefs and the Puget Sound Program uses maps of forage fish spawning beaches. The Tillamook Estuaries Partnership is coordinating an effort to recreate a study, first done in 1972, of the number of species using different habitats in the bay. The Puget Sound Action Team used a study of river basins to identify landscape changes along river courses. The Barataria-Terrebonne Program used GIS layers of stormwater pumps to determine how the pumps were diverting water from wetlands. The Santa Monica Bay Program has used aerial surveys to track changes over time of canopy for DFG kelp.

The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership Program has digitized historic data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey and encouraged the National Marine Fisheries Service to use the data in addressing issues affecting species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Development of Indicators

Many NEPs have chosen indicators of the health and recovery of habitats in their estuaries and an increasing number of programs use a suite of indicators, including those related to habitat, to report to the public and policy-makers about the condition of their estuaries. The development of indicators must include consideration of both technical needs and public values. In Charlotte Harbor, seagrasses have proven to be the most important indicator, because of their direct ties to water quality and nutrient loading (technical elements) and to clear water and enhanced fisheries (public values). Many NEPs caution that it can be challenging to connect indicators to policy and management actions. Development of indicators, monitoring them over time and reporting on them cannot be done effectively without adequate funding over the long term. Much of the work in developing and monitoring indicators requires coordination among many partners; this can be a particular challenge for multi-state NEPs. All NEPs have identified the need for regional reference sets.

A number of NEPs use indicators that measure percentage and distribution of disturbance of shorelines and habitats while many use acres of shoreline and intertidal habitat restored or protected as an indicator. Several west coast programs use changes in coverage by eelgrass and kelp as indicators. The Puget Sound Action Team measures changes in coverage by Spartina. Santa Monica Bay looks at numbers of fish (specifically at-risk species) as an indicator of the health of both habitat and the entire bay. On the east coast, NEPs are looking at changes in land use as well as acquisition and restoration of sensitive habitats. The Barnegat Bay Program has used phragmites cover in salt marshes to document impairment and track restoration. The San Francisco Estuary Program is supporting a San Francisco Estuary Institute DNA study of the hybridization of alteniflora. The Long Island Sound Study has looked at trends in fin fish, beach closures, wetlands coverage, and hypoxia over time. The Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program (Texas) and the New York-New Jersey Harbor Program measure changes in extent of areas used by wading birds, while the Maryland Coastal Bays Program uses changes in forest acreage and riparian buffers as indicators. The Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program is working to reverse declines in colonial waterbird populations by implementing measures to control predators, minimize human disturbance and improve nesting habitat on important rookery islands. In addition to seagrasses, the Tampa Bay Program's indicators include changes in acres of oligohaline habitat and salterns (high salt marshes). Indian River Lagoon uses the freshwater grass species Vallisneria as one indicator of freshwater inflow, and the program has identified acres of impounded areas reconnected to the lagoon as another indicator.

The Massachusetts Bay Program is working the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program to develop measures of wetland integrity using bioindicators, while, in Puget Sound, the percentage of impervious surface is one factor being considered in an Index of Biological Integrity.

Direct Measurement

Most NEPs are directly monitoring habitat or supporting partners' efforts to do so. NEPs are particularly skilled at understanding how various monitoring initiatives can or do fit together and identifying and addressing any gaps. All NEPs consider it important to make data available and understandable to the public and user groups. NEPs also are catalysts for new efforts-such as the development of protocols (e.g., Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay), recruiting and training volunteer monitors and organizing coordinated monitoring programs. NEPs are problem solvers and often provide a special kind of help that removes a last barrier to a new or improved monitoring initiative-for example, providing funds to cover travel costs for volunteers or stipends for scientists to oversee their work (e.g., Tampa Bay). A challenge for some NEPs has been to keep such efforts in place over time. Among techniques used by NEPs are aerial photography, satellite imagery, GIS technology, groundtruthing and physical surveys, side scan sonar, bathymetry, and inventories. A particular continuing need and challenge for some NEPs is rigorous estuary-wide monitoring of the extent and quality of wetlands.

The Maryland Coastal Bays Program measures clean beaches and monitors tide pools and the health of wetlands. The Maryland Coastal Bays Program and the Narragansett Bay Program, among others, have developed inventories of tidally restricted areas; the Barnegat Bay Program has developed an atlas of such areas (which also includes sites under threat from stormwater). Many NEPs survey eelgrass beds, looking at both biomass and density. Several programs use sonar for mapping-for example, the New Hampshire Estuaries Program maps oyster reefs while the Narragansett Bay Program uses both sonar and video to groundtruth eelgrass maps. The Long Island Sound Study has developed a list of 400 coastal wetland sites for tracking purposes, including different habitat types and has conducted surveys of benthic habitat for different wetland types (including measures of diversity and presence/absence surveys). The Morro Bay and Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds programs have also inventoried wetlands. The Santa Monica Bay Project is mapping subtidal habitat employing very high resolution.

A number of NEPs, for example, Santa Monica Bay, San Francisco Estuary and Morro Bay, coordinate or directly support volunteers who monitor habitat and wetlands. These NEPs stress the importance of permanent core staff, clear protocols, clarity about uses of data, and effective and ongoing training for volunteers. These programs emphasize that, where these elements are in place, effective monitoring is the result.

Modeling and Forecasting

Modeling has been critical to some NEPs but has not played an important role in the work of many others. A number of programs are developing models, but the usefulness of them has been mixed or limited. Most programs agree that modeling may be a good tool as long as those participating in the development of models can agree on the data and methods used-indeed, most agree that the models are only as useful as the data used to build them. A number of NEPs expressed concern that current development of Total Maximum Daily Loads will rely on state-developed models which may not adequately address environmental effects in estuaries. A number of NEPs would like a model to measure the functionality of wetlands over time.

A number of NEPs have developed models related to habitat. The Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds Program has developed one for wetland mitigation ratios and participated in development of one for benthic fisheries habitat. The Long Island Sound Study is developing a model for water flow around and through wetlands in order to show how water and sedimentation could move through a wetland. Barnegat Bay has developed a model using the nitrogen loadings of land use to predict loss of eelgrass. Both the Barataria-Terrebonne and Galveston Bay programs are using models to predict freshwater inflows into their estuaries. In Tampa Bay, empirical models (supported by mechanistic models) have been critical to development of a nutrient strategy to support goals for improved water quality targets and restoration of seagrasses. Forecasting future loads under various management scenarios played an important role in determining nutrient reduction targets and maintain goals for restoration of seagrass over time.

Remote Sensing Techniques

	Click graphic above to view larger image.

A few NEPs are using remote sensing techniques to monitor habitat in limited ways. All programs look forward to using them much more extensively when they become available, reliable and affordable. For example, the four Florida NEPs would like to use remote sensing to detect and map exotic species and to map seagrass and shorelines. In another example, the Barataria-Terrebonne Program used flyovers to assess brown marsh but would have liked to use satellite imagery or real time data-which would have caught the problem earlier and been much less expensive. The New Hampshire Estuaries Program uses sub-pixel delineation of Thematic Mapper satellite imagery to calculate percent impervious surface at three scales: municipal, sub-watershed, and the NEP study area.

Social Surveys

Surveys are useful to measure change in attitude when targeted to a specific issue or audience. A number of NEPs used them to develop their Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans but have used them less in guiding implementation of the plans. Most programs have used surveys to gauge understanding and interest in specific issues and to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs.

The Galveston Bay Program conducts a public opinion survey every two years to measure public awareness of key issues, willingness to act and changes in behavior. The Galveston Bay and Barnegat Bay Programs and the Long Island Sound Study used surveys to identify specific sites for potential habitat and wetland restoration. The Maryland Coastal Bays Program developed a community visioning program, laying out alternative viewscapes, to develop its management plan. The Narragansett Bay Program conducted a resource economics analysis to examine the community values of wetlands and compare them to scientific values. The Peconic Estuary Program used economic valuation surveys to help determine the value that residents and visitors placed on natural resources including open spaces, wetlands and farms, and recreational uses of these resources and the bay. The Puget Sound Action Team used a statewide opinion poll and focus groups to better understand whether its education programs were reaching the most critical audiences and employing the most effective messages.

Education and Outreach

Education and public involvement are key aspects of the work of every National Estuary Program, because much of the work of NEPs is sociological-targeted at changed many peoples' behavior. NEPs understand that people learn in different ways and that messages must be repeated many times and delivered in a variety of ways to actually change behavior. NEPs have been especially creative in designing and supporting public education and outreach programs, and a number of them relate to habitat enhancement and protection. Most NEPs employ a broad range of approaches to education. A few focus directly only on specific groups, such as local government officials, leaving broader education to non-profit groups organized around estuary protection. In general, all NEPs carry out their education and outreach through a huge variety of partnerships. Indeed, a focus of many programs is the building of partnerships.

A challenge facing NEPs is to quantify the effects such programs have on habitat (and water quality).

NEPs have developed websites, slide shows, newsletters, reports, videos, Power Point shows, fact sheets, coloring books, placemats, buttons, refrigerator magnets, decals, and comic books and consider them important tools for outreach and public education. Most NEP websites seek to educate a broad audience, but the Buzzards Bay Program uses its website to provide technical information and assistance to local governments. Posters and maps have proven to be useful tools to address habitat issues. The Barataria-Terrebonne Program developed maps showing habitat types and the marine life which relies on each type. Barataria-Terrebonne also uses graphics showing habitat loss over time as part of its Power Point shows. The Long Island Sound Study has developed a map showing all restoration sites; it includes text on habitat types and work underway at each site. The program also has a newsletter that focuses on habitat issues and projects. Barataria-Terrebonne produced a video on migratory birds and their habitats while the Massachusetts Bay Program developed a video on stewardship of salt marshes and value of coastal wetlands. The Puget Sound Action Team funded placement of a webcam under water at an interpretive center; the webcam sends pictures every 30 seconds to the Action Team's and the interpretive center's websites. Narragansett Bay is among NEPs which have published State of the Bay reports; the Narragansett report led to development of baywide planning to protect habitat.

NEPs have also led use of graphic information systems to educate. Tillamook Bay supported development of a GIS Center that has produced interactive maps of the estuary which can be accessed by computer-producing a virtual tour of the estuary. The Narragansett Bay Program developed a GIS web-based portal for all wetland restoration sites in the bay that includes orthophotos, funding sources, contacts, and results of monitoring of the sites.

Conferences are another venue for educating specific audiences and the general public. Almost every NEP has sponsored a conference at one time or another. The San Francisco Estuary Program is among a number of NEPs that hold periodic conferences on the state of their estuaries. Other conferences and workshops are targeted at a wide variety of specific groups and audiences. The Puget Sound Action Team hosted a conference on Low Impact Development for builders, developers, and state and local government officials; every attendee received a CD-ROM tailoring examples of LID projects to Puget Sound and listing numerous resources for assistance.

NEPs support general public education through other avenues, including media coverage of issues affecting estuaries and approaches to them. The Tillamook Estuaries Partnership works with a local Riparian Advisory Council to host "The Riparian Show" on a local cable access television channel. The Morro Bay Program developed the Estero Conservation Alliance , a consortium of local conservation groups to publish an insert in the regional paper describing the programs, projects, and soliciting volunteers. Both the Puget Sound Action Team and Long Island Sound Study have worked with newspapers to produce and publish inserts on the health of their estuaries. Developing and supporting public access projects-enabling people to get out in or on the estuary-is one important hallmark of many NEPs' approach to protecting habitat.

The Sarasota Bay Estuary Program has developed several projects, including a heritage trail through the estuary which includes stations offering handouts on habitat and other aspects of the estuary. Sarasota and the Indian River Lagoon NEPs participate in the state Blueways program. NEPs, such al Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, support the work of interpretive centers, including development of exhibits and displays and websites, coordination among such centers to develop joint programs, and publicizing of the programs and events at centers. New York City, one of the partners of the New York-New Jersey Harbor NEP has developed a salt marsh center. Delaware Center of the Inland Bays supports the James Farm outdoor education center that provides a focus for wetland education and restoration. The Morro Bay Program has developed a small estuarine visitor center with interpretive exhibits.

Many NEPs run or support a wide range of projects that encourage people to get their hands wet or dirty. A number of NEPs, including Tampa Bay, sponsor or fund nurseries for native seagrasses or plants, which involve volunteers in planting, collecting, growing and distributing native plants which are used most frequently in habitat restoration projects. The Barataria-Terrebonne Program involves Americorps volunteers and junior high students in raising and planting mangroves and other vegetation. The Mobile Bay Program runs an oyster gardening program using volunteers to raise oysters in approved areas. The Delaware Estuary Program runs a backyard habitats program. With support from the San Francisco Estuary Program, Friends of the Estuary sell native plants, which they have propagated, and use the proceeds to support a creek-keepers program which involves inner city children in restoration projects in their neighborhoods. Other NEPs have sponsored baywide cleanups. Many NEPs have initiated or support volunteer monitoring projects. Volunteers in Tampa Bay participate in the Great Bay Scallop Search and in Manatee Watch. The Massachusetts Bays Program supports a citizens' monitoring program for wetlands.

NEPs have found it effective to do both education targeted to specific groups and broader public education. Indian River Lagoon hosts a Hunt for Reds every October that is targeted to fishers and includes education about habitat. Tampa Bay and Santa Monica Bay have very effective and popular Boaters' Guides that include information about habitat protection. Santa Monica Bay also offers bilge pads to boaters and teaches how to use them. The Puget Sound Action Team has produced a video and guidebook for shoreline landowners; both teach about the need to protect natural shoreline processes and habitat and natural, shore-friendly ways to protect property from erosion. Business groups and trade associations are the focus of education for a number of NEPs. The San Francisco Estuary Program has developed workshops on erosion control for the construction industry and local government officials, training thousands of construction workers and leading to a state certification program that the NEP administers. The Puget Sound Action Team funded development of a training program for realtors on habitat protection (and other topics related to the Sound); the program is now offered on a regular basis by Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service and those participating receive continuing education credits which count toward their licenses. Three Florida NEPs (Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, and Sarasota Bay) targeted people with yards in their innovative Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program which is now a statewide program run by the state's Cooperative Extension Service.

Many NEPs run programs that offer small grants to support education and public involvement projects including many related to habitat protection and restoration. A number of these programs are modeled after the Puget Sound Action Team's Public Involvement and Education Program (PIE) which, since 1987, has awarded more than $10 million to 350 projects.

Many NEPs focus on educating school age children and college students (K-16). The Lower Columbia River Estuary Project has developed a floating classroom on the river for children (but also for their parents and for local elected officials). Tillamook Estuaries Partnership has put information and maps on a CD-Rom which is distributed to K-16 students. Tillamook Bay also sponsors a Clean Water Festival that attracts over 400 elementary education students. The Santa Monica Bay Project involves students in growing kelp in their classrooms and sponsor programs for inner city students to monitor and learn about the bay. A number of NEPs, such as New York-New Jersey Harbor and Santa Monica Bay, have developed curricula or resource guides about their estuaries for schools and teachers. The Puget Sound Action Team worked with the Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop seven model school programs in which environmental education was addressed by all employees, administrators, students, teachers and parents. Other NEPs, such as the Delaware Inland Bays, support mobile interactive learning centers or exhibits that move from classroom to classroom.

Outreach is another related but specific form of education. A number of NEPs provide outreach to specific geographic areas or to specific groups. The New Hampshire Estuaries Program established the Natural Resources Outreach Coalition that coordinates the efforts of all organizations working with municipalities on natural resource issues. The Coalition produced a program about the impacts of growth and tools that can mitigate them; the program focuses on habitat protection and water quantity and quality and was adapted from the NEMO program developed in Connecticut.

Policy

The management conferences of every NEP affect habitat policy in their Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs), although the hard work follows in getting policies implemented. NEPs are often the voice at the table encouraging or emphasizing regional or watershed planning.

Policies on habitat in many CCMPs have been incorporated into local, regional and state plans and permits. The Barataria-Terrebonne Program and its CCMP was used as an example by and influenced development of the Louisiana Coastal 2050 Program. The Peconic Estuary Program reviews permits within the watershed to see how well they match policies in the CCMP. In Florida, the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program compares comprehensive plans with development regulations for consistent incorporation of CCMP policies to protect habitat.

The Indian River Lagoon Program offers review of local comprehensive plans as a service and looks for language from its CCMP that supports specific setbacks and other policies to protect habitat. The Massachusetts Bays Program has played a pivotal role in developing and promoting the Green Neighborhoods Program. This program promotes habitat protection through clustering of development and implementation of other local and subregional protective environmental and land use practices. The Massachusetts Bay Program has also worked to incorporate measures of habitat quality into state habitat protection programs. The Tampa Bay Program developed mitigation criteria for the Tampa Bay watershed that have been adopted by the Tampa Bay Program partners. The San Francisco Estuary Program led development of wetlands plans for the bay, including policies on mitigation and habitat and ecosystem goals for the bay. That project led to development of a single application for an aquatic resource permit and creation of a permit center as well as a two-year pilot of the new permit. Also in San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Bay Restoration Program was formed to implement the habitat policies in the CCMPs. It includes an executive policy team that oversees the development of policies and a design review committee that offers advice (as well as a wetlands monitoring group). The NEP both funds and staffs the program. The New Hampshire Estuaries Program has provided funds to a watershed association to review, improve, and adopt municipal ordinances for shoreline protection. The Barnegat Bay Program has worked with local communities to develop bylaws for wetlands protection and planning.

A number of local, state and regional public and private entities consider habitat policies in CCMPs as they develop their own policies and programs. In Tillamook Bay, the county, cities and the Oregon Department of Forestry include in their plans the habitat protection policies of the Tillamook Bay CCMP. In Morro Bay, the NEP has helped finance acquisition of habitat and floodplains with high leveraging ratios and is using conservation easements as a cost-effective alternative to fee acquisition in certain cases.