124 



decisions. In recent years, the Corps has sponsored eelgrass transplant 

 studies as a form of mitigation to disturbances (e.g. Fonseca et al., 

 1979, 1985; Goforth and Peeling, 1979). 



Towns often have bylaws which may broadly cover coastal impacts, 

 but no towns in Buzzards Bay have any bylaws specifically protecting 

 eelgrass. Some local bylaws (e.g. Title V Amendments) extend the 

 distance of septic tanks from shore (the "setback") , to further reduce 

 the risk bacterial and viral contamination of shellfish. These laws 

 indirectly benefit eelgrass beds because increased distance of septic 

 tanks from shor.e reduces nutrient loading of bays (Valiela and Costa, in 

 press) . 



Town conservation commissions may have broad powers to consider 

 aesthetic and ecological impact of a project. While their decisions are 

 based on both local and state laws, their decision is independent of 

 state decisions, and technically they may prohibit a project even if 

 approved by the state, although in practice, this is infrequent. 



Most direct management of eelgrass beds, if any, is conducted by 

 the town shellfish warden. In some towns, the shellfish warden may view 

 existing eelgrass beds as valuable habitat, as is the case in Fairhaven, 

 and harvesting shellfish in eelgrass beds may be discouraged. In other 

 towns the shellfish warden may view eelgrass beds as a nuisance weed 

 that reduce the quantity or quality of shellfish harvested, and the 

 removal of eelgrass has been considered. Methods of eelgrass removal in 

 the past were more extreme, and the application of the herbicide 2,4-D 

 was attempted in Fairhaven in the 1960's (Fiske et al., 1968). 



