Welcome to the forum.

My suggestion would be leave what you have shown in pictures as it is. If you like the nature it attracts, leave it that way. The reasoning is several fold. For one, the EPA and other official agencies frown seriously on disturbing natural wetlands and there can be some heavy fines and worse. If it is a man made wetland you might be ok but do your due diligence. The NRCS likely will have a good idea what the ruling is, but I have heard of situation where proper local and or state permits are obtained only to find out later the fed says you done been screwed. That is the first hurdle you MIGHT face (maybe not).

The other thing is that it is immeasurably harder to build a pond in an existing bog than it is to start out on dry land. I have built ponds both ways and it really sucks working in the mud. Your construction costs are going to be multiples higher working in that wetland compared to building a nice pond to one side or the other.

Which brings me to my recommendation. Talk to the NRCS and a good pond builder about building a pond ADJACENT TO the wetland. Then you not only have the best of both worlds (a nice pond AND a nice wildlife wetland) but you totally avoid messing up what you already like about the property.

Your plan reminds me of something I read that Mike Otto said something on the order of he had seen people buy a prairie only to build a pond and plant trees because they wanted a forest and others that bought a forest only to clear it of all trees and built a pond and a prairie. It baffled him why they did not just buy property like they wanted instead of buying something different and spending lots of money modifying it to suit them.

I'm not trying to be harsh or discourage you. My only intention is to help you think outside the box in your vision so you can get the best out of your property at a reasonable cost and with minimal legal hassles. Hope I accomplished that.

Last edited by snrub; 08/21/16 07:19 PM.
John

I subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine