Acushnet committee proposes Eco Harvester to clear invasive weeds from Lake Street ponds; hearing continued

The Acushnet Conservation Commission on Tuesday heard a detailed proposal from the Lake Street Improvement Committee to mechanically remove invasive aquatic vegetation from three Lake Street/New Bedford Reservoir ponds using an Eco Harvester, and continued the public hearing to Oct. 23 so state agencies can comment.

Scott Daget, a member of the Lake Street Improvement Committee, told the commission the ponds are overrun with invasive species such as milfoil and fanwort and that past mismanagement has allowed weeds to proliferate. "We're citizens of the town... we have an interest in trying to get these ponds cleaned up," Daget said, explaining that the committee had rejected herbicide treatments because of risks to nearby cranberry growers and residential wells.

Daget described how an Eco Harvester operates: rotating front wheels skim vegetation near the surface (about 18 inches to 2 feet deep), conveyor the material into an onboard hopper and deposit it ashore for dewatering and truck removal. He said operator Jeff Cordisco (CN underwater/eco‑harvester contractor) estimated roughly one acre per day at about $5,500 for one machine and operator, a figure the committee used to size an initial pilot. "He can probably do about an acre a day," Daget said of the contractor's estimate.

The committee proposes beginning with a visible "phase one" along Lake Street so residents can see results. Daget said removed vegetation could be stored at the town yard, dewatered and offered as nutrient‑rich compost, and that New Bedford officials had provided a mutual‑understanding allowance for the work so long as the town kept the city informed.

Commissioners and residents pressed for more detail on monitoring, wildlife protection and sediment disturbance. The Division of Marine Fisheries' timing restrictions (April 1–June 15) were noted; Daget said the committee plans work in August when the weeds are largest to avoid those limits. He also said the harvester operator would monitor the conveyor and "gently" return any turtles to the water and that the device is not intended to dredge or scrape the bottom.

Funding and long‑term maintenance were central concerns. Daget said $75,000 had been approved at a prior town meeting for pond improvements but that some of that funding had already been used for boat ramp and parking work. He said the committee plans to pursue grants (state programs, regional coalitions and federal sources such as EPA or fisheries funding) and to avoid relying solely on local taxpayers. Residents estimated that fully treating all affected acreage across the pond system could require repeated phases stretching over years and potentially cost several hundred thousand dollars in aggregate if contractor costs and multiple visits are required.

Several commissioners recommended more technical follow‑up: a pre‑treatment survey, clearer turbidity controls, shore‑staging plans for dewatered material and written protocols for wildlife protection. The commission also asked the applicant to obtain comments from Natural Heritage and other state reviewers before the next hearing.

The public hearing was continued to Oct. 23 to allow time for agency responses and for the committee to provide more detailed plans, monitoring measures and a funding strategy.

Next step: the commission will accept agency feedback and updated scope, monitoring, and disposal details at the continued hearing.