Pond Boss Forums AERATION Systems questions Desperate 16-acre Lake

Hello, everyone.

I recently purchased a home on a 16 acre lake. For about 8 years all of the land around the lake has been owned by the county, and they quite obviously have neglected the lake completely. We've treated the weeds, and they are slowly dying, but I'm almost more alarmed by the approximately 2 or more feet of black muck and tree debris layering the bottom of the lake. When I stick an oar into the muck in the shallow areas near shore, it sinks almost 2 feet even there before it hits anything solid. My guess is that the lake on the average has lost 3 or 4 feet of depth over these years. That alarms me.

I have read, heard, and been told that aerating the lake will help break that stuff up and get it to decompose and go away. But, here's where I need help...

How do I design an aeration solution for an oddly shaped 16-acre lake? The vast majority of the lake shore is still owned by the county, and I would like to enlist their help in paying for it. To have a prayer, I need to have a good estimate of cost, and to do that I need to have a design and plan. As I said, the lake is oddly shaped. It basically has two large "lobes" at about a 90 degree relationship to each other. Each "lobe" is approximately half of the lake, but smaller bays open off of them as well. I suppose I could consider it as two oblong 8-acre lakes.

How should I plan to aerate? Are there any good resources for planning something like this. I know I could hire someone to do this, but I'm sure money would be an issue, so I need to hold down the cost as much as possible.

Has anyone ever aerated anything comparable?

Hi WLCopper,

While waiting for the experts to reply, can we talk about the source of the debris getting into the lake?

Are they nice trees that you would hate to part with, or are you willing to remove some of them? If you can prevent leaves from entering the lake, the muck will eventually break down somewhat on its own.

WLC, designing an aeration system for your size lake is not a problem. Designing an aeration system to meet your goals is. With muck decomposition and reduction a top priority the practical side of design tells me that you should explore other options.Aeration will have some effect on slowing the accumulation process but in your case it needs to be stopped and then reversed. Mother Nature has a huge jump in this case.Even though bottom diffused aeration may offer many other benefits to your lake, the speedy demise of your organics will not be one of them.3-4 ft of organic is a lot of material. I have seen 2 inches per year of organic rendered to Co2 and H2Oin smaller bodies of water with turnss (gallons lifted per day) of 2-3 times the total water volume. A 16 acre lake may get sized to 1 turn to be practical from a cost standpoint.You can find studies and products that claim HUGE reduction volumes but all seem to be testimonials.I prefer the hard independent data.Your situation is a common one that many of us would welcome a practical solution to, other than physical removal with the volume stated I dont think a good economical answer is available.I would however explore what other benefits a properly designed aeration system might do for you.

I beg to differ, Ted, we have that ongoing project in Michigan that is independant where we have seen several feet of muck reduction over the last 4 years with aeration.
Here is a link to a write up on the project:
http://www.karajaal.com/K2007-pdfs/LA-3_East%20Twin%20Lake.pdf
WLCopper - just send one of us aeration folks a PM with your pond address/location along with as much information as you have on depth, slope, inflow, outflow and possible power locations and we will give you all the design/recomendation info you will need to present the county at no cost.

I am aware of that study and hope it (is) becomes the exception and not the rule, I was also hoping you would post those findings as I was not comfortable doing so since it was not my data.2ft of reduction in 2.5 years are great numbers but I have not seen those kind of results on a consistant basis on this scale.Perhaps this study is just the start of the hard independent data I was referring to.The HUGE claims normally come with costly beneficial bacteria which reduce several feet per year and accompanied with the testimonials I referred to.I think in time we will also find that the reduction volume will be dictated by the organic makeup or some organics easier to decompose than others.Proper aeration and additional beneficial bacterias are finding there way into the marketplace and the total benefits are still being discovered. I think the post that Bing made concerning his reduction of muck may become common in the future, but we will have to know why this situation gets results and another situation that appears similar does not.Temperature at the lake bottom and the part it plays will also be key in understanding reduction.I am open minded to the concept and the data and dont want conservative to be confused with skeptical.

Bobad,

That is yet another result of their neglect. The entire lake shore is completely surrounded by brush. A few decent trees are in the mix, but probably 95% of the lake shore is nothing but scrub trees that not only can be removed, but NEED to be removed. I have begun the long process of removing the brush from my shore line, but the county owns about 85% of the lake shore, and they do basically 0% maintenance. I'm afraid that I won't be able to do much to really impact the debris build up anywhere but along my shore line.

Ted and Sue,

Is it safe to say that aeration has many benefits besides MAYBE reducing muck and organic debris? I know of most benefits, and it is definitely on my ist of things to try to do. If I can not get the county to help, I will probably just aerate my general area, and let the rest go to pot. LOL Maybe they will get the point when my area ends up looking like a park and theirs looks like wilderness. LOL

Is it also safe to say that to accomplish an aggressive reduction of the muck, I can remove it manually (not my preference to be sure), or I can add bacteria and enzymes? I realize that adding bacteria and such is also no guarantee, and different products can have different results, and different costs.

Is it also safe to say that aerating the water when bacteria is being added will "supercharge" the bacteria and help it remove what it will faster and longer?