Needham water officials press consultant over herbicide plan for Forbes Pond; hearing continued
Loading...
Summary
At a continued hearing on 636 Charles River St (Forbes Pond), the Needham Conservation Commission heard town water staff say they would be reluctant to authorize herbicide treatment near the town’s drinking‑water wells. The applicant proposed a chelated copper product and agreed to supply product labels, SDS and specific dosing details; the hearing was continued to April 23.
The Needham Conservation Commission on April 9 heard opposing views over a proposed aquatic‑vegetation treatment for Forbes Pond, with town water officials urging caution because the pond sits near the town’s drinking‑water wells.
Jackie Boyer, representing the applicant on the continued Notice of Intent for 636 Charles River St (DEP file 234‑958), said the project team submitted supplemental materials and best‑management practices and had discussed the plan with abutters, who have signed the NOI. Boyer said the consultant team proposed using copper‑based algaecides and would provide monitoring reports to the commission.
Colin, a consultant for Water & Wetland, described treatment options the applicant is considering, including fluridone (marketed as Sonar) and a chelated copper product. He said monitoring would be monthly and that treatments would be dosed and mapped with GPS so staff could track applications.
Mike Retzky, the town’s superintendent of water and sewer, told commissioners he had discussed the project with the consultant and expressed concern about approving systemic herbicide treatment given how close the pond is to the town’s three drinking‑water wells. “I did tell him at that time that it was my feeling that we wouldn’t authorize the chemical treatment,” Retzky said, adding that licensed distribution operators are ethically and legally responsible for the safety of the drinking‑water supply.
Consultant James Lacasse of Water & Wetland pushed back that the products under consideration are EPA‑approved for use in drinking‑water reservoirs and said the firm’s approach is a monthly monitoring program with treatment only as necessary. “Everything we use is EPA approved, doesn’t affect any sort of wellheads whatsoever,” Lacasse said, and offered to provide labels, safety data sheets and the firm’s dosing calculations.
Commissioners pressed the applicant to clarify exactly which products would be used, the concentration of the active ingredient, and the total quantity expected to be applied over a year. Fred (commissioner) asked specifically for the product name, active‑ingredient percentage and anticipated annual quantities so the commission and town consultants can fully evaluate risks.
Town staff and commissioners also asked that the applicant send SDS sheets and product labels to the commission and that the town forward revised materials to its consultants for review. The commission voted to continue the hearing for 636 Charles River St (DEP file 234‑958) to April 23, 2026. The vote was recorded as Aye from Bill, Clary, Reid, Fred, Sue, Paulina and Chair Dave Harrer.
The commission also noted that the project team intends to coordinate with the Planning Board if any treatment in the pond requires other town permits.
