Pond Boss Forums POND CONSTRUCTION Selecting a site New pond construction costs

Hey, ya'll....I'm the new guy on the block and looking forward to perusing the nearly infinite collection of helpful input. I am in the first stages of constructing a 5 acre pond in the midwest. It is located in the midst of fairly heavy hard-woods; the timber is probably avg 30 years old with some 50-60's occassionally. I am very comfortable with my excavator; is well known in the community, done many ponds in the area, and spent 8 years in the local NRCS office 15 years ago. His work quality and attention to detail are already evident. When I hired him, it was early summer and the trees and bushes made it impossible to really see what was ahead (except for USGS aerials and topo's), so a firm project quote was not possible. He is billing me $100 hour per pc equipment; using dozer and a track hoe (and earth mover to clean up scrappy waste at end of clearing process). We are just at the end of the clearing process and based on my estimations, I figger we are in the $14-15K range. This includes burning all the waste and burying the root balls. I know that there was no screwing off and trust him. I spent a couple of days just hanging around; it just seems to be so darn time-consuming, one tree at a time. Anyway, I need feed-back to the cost per acre to clear fairly thick timber (in dry conditions) based on today's (2005) costs to run heavy equipment.

Brettski,

In my area, you can hire someone to "rake" which means clear brush, pile it and burn it, for about $200 per acre. This includes, as you say, stump removal and disposal. It takes a fairly large dozer to accomplish that...plus I'm talking about large tracts, 100 acres and above, so may not be a good comparison.

Another comparison, I can hire track-hoe for about $90 per hour, and dozers for around $70 per hour depending on size (including operator)..delivery and removal charges extra on the track-hoe also, and that cost me about $400 recently for one job. Hope this helps, but comparisons that far apart geographically may not be the best.

I kind of hate to mention this too late in the game, but if I was putting a pond in "heavy hard-woods," I would seriously look into having it logged off first.

Meadowlark, this work would be considerably more difficult since it requires working with thick trees that are about 80 -90 feet tall, one after the other....that, combined with the regional cost differences will create an "apples and oranges" comparison, I fear. Thanks.
Theo, I had a logging company site inspector come in and look it over....he told me to call him in 20 - 30 years. The only mature stuff was too few to make it worth the logging investment. He did say that it would have decent firewood value, but I ultimately nixed that idea due to a number of logistical restraints that are too detailed to discuss.

The cost per hour is really dependent on the size and age of the equipment. Some of the newer D6's will do more than an old time D8. I can get an almost new D6 on my land for about $100 per hour, with operator. Or at least I could with lower diesel prices. If he using older equipment or anything less than a newer model D6, turn around leave without bending over.

If you had it checked out Brettksi, at least you know you didn't miss the opportunity.

Hi-track D6 work in my area went for $85/hr
before diesel prices skyrocketed. Older D8's
went for the same, and I've had trackhoe work
done for $125/hr. I'm thinking that your $100/hr
charge is not out of line. I had a pond built
a couple of years ago that required significant
tree clearing and an enormous amount of dirt
work with a price tag of $20,000.

Thanks for the help, Theo.....
Dave and Squeeky, the dozer is a '96 hi track D6 with an 11' blade; the track hoe is a '90'ish Cat, not quite as new but in terrific shape. This guy takes real good care of his equipment. He said that he had to raise his $90/hour from last year to $100 this year, mostly for obvious reasons. The dozer rocks, the track hoe is needed for precision plucking to minimize collateral damage, particularly at the perimeter. The real dance, tho, is both of them together....it's like Astaire and Rogers. I can't complain too much about their efficiency, I just hate big bux when it's new to me. Remember, tho, that I have not begun pushing dirt for the pond or dam. To this point, I have a perfectly bald and shaven site with a slightly extended perimeter to push back the treeline and create a place to waste dirt creating a shoreline. After this phase, I don't know what to expect at "dirt-pushing" time.

I am in final stages of a 5a "bottom land" pond with smaller trees cleared, and nearing $70k. This includes 2 islands, 2 1'x80' drainage pipes, an emergency spillway, and lined in 2'+ of clay. A large peninsula for fishing and a beach for swimming were nice additions. I used 8 55 gal. drums, 5 pallet condos, 4 large tractor tires, and 8 1200# round bales of haygrazer for structure. Needing clay for a building pad we ended up 20' in places. Lots of cuts and dropoffs, fish channels throughout. Will try and post pictures when wife returns next week. My cost were a little high due to a change of contractors.

ahvatsa.....
Yikes! $70k! I better not push anywhere near half that. My guy told me at the beginning that, as an average/rule of thumb, an average pond will come in complete at $5k - 7k per acre, m/l. He is very familiar with the land in my area and felt confident at the low side of this range. My advantage: major clay at 3 - 5 feet below natural grade, surrounding well records (I pulled them fromt the DNR website b4 land purch) show 30 ft thick layer. My disadvantage: the site I chose is a very gradual bowl shape, the majority will be dug (removing 2 - 3 feet) to avg 7 feet deep (9-10 ft center of bowl), sloping to the dam at about 13 - 14 ft. The other concern is that I am only working with about 40-50 acres of drainage, mostly farm land filtering thru the timber surrounding the pond.

Brettski, Sounds like good equipment with a good operator. Hope he can do it for $5k per acre. I expect he will.

Brettski,

You mentioned that your contractor has done other ponds in the area. Why not call on some of these pond owners to see what their costs were.

Sounds like a great project, keep us posted on the results.

Just for an offset, I was bid 23K for my 1.5a pond. Both contractors bid ponds by the yard, and both bid $1 per yard to dig the dirt and haul it away.

Trees would have been extra, probably $60-$75 per hour.

One of the frustrating things about pond building is there is no template, or model to pattern. Each site is different. I have seen an eight acre lake cost $6,000 and a six acre one cost $32,000. But, there is a template to get an idea of what it should cost, for your site. The more planning you do, the more accurate cost projections will be.
The world is full of honest earthmovers, making a fair living. As expert as they are, it's incumbent on the landowner to guide the contractor, not vice-versa. In order to do that, the landowner must know as much as possible about the project, before any dirt is moved.
With dense trees and brush with harsh slopes, it should cost as much as $1,000-1,500 per acre for clearing, tops. Normally, clearing runs $150-400 per acre.
Brettski, you mentioned it wasn't possible to get an estimate. I certainly appreciate the degree of difficulty for your project, but today's advanced technology allows us to make projections which weren't available several years ago. Even as inaccurate as gps can be, you should be able to get an approximation of the amount of clearing to be done, beforehand. Also, designers and engineers can accurately calculate the length, width and height your dam should be. That creates an idea how much dirt needs to be moved above the ground. With some test holes, designers can give you an idea how big a core trench needs to be, and how much dirt should be moved below ground.
Then, using gps or a laser transit, flag the shoreline, to determine the configuration of the lake. At that time, you can see how much shallow water you will have, what the bottom will look like, and how much work needs to be done to provide habitat.
You didn't mention your goals, so it's tough to guide you beyond these tips.
The hourly rate for the equipment is fair. It sounds like you have reputable people working for you.
What's missing, to me, is a projected plan. You guys are building a lake by the day, by the hour, making decisions on the fly, because it seems, you think that's the best way for this site.
If I am you, the next thing I do is get the NRCS out there, or an engineer, to stake the dam site. Have the excavator dig a few test holes to look at soils below the ground. The kind of dirt you have helps dictate how (and how much) to build the dam. Once you know dam size, your designer can project costs.
Last, but not least, keep in mind several things. You are not only building a dam, you are building a lake. A dam is a water management structure, a lake is a habitat teeming with life. It's your job to make sure the habitat matches your goals. Decisions you are making now will impact that environment for a minimum of four generations beyond you. And, two or three years from now, when you are in a boat, enjoying the serenity, you don't want to look around and say to yourself, "I wish I had done it differently."

Now that's the kind of advise you won't find anywhere else! Great Post Bob!
Brettski, & anyone building or thinking of building a pond should take heed!

I would like to add one thing. When most of us build our ponds, we generally spend the most we can afford for the biggest pond we can buy. "If" by chance we have a handful of cash in our pockets, many years down the line, what could I do now to make renovations easier in the future ? Think about your original layout if there's a chance you could expand in the future.

Bob,
Tunza thanx for the square input. I like to believe that I am not "working on the fly" as much as it comes off to be. In the course of 4 years looking through the midwest for "pond-able" property, I had the distinct pleasure to work with about 8 different NRCS offices that spent virtually hours teaching me and lending me knowledge. I laugh to think that I know just enough to be dangerous. Before I bought the property, I was already in touch with the NRCS office securing soil maps and input. The unfortunate part is that out of all the NRCS offices that I had worked with up to that point, this one lacked considerably....numerous reasons, all pointing to potential issues with communication and reliable support. My contractor worked in this same office 15 years ago as the conservation dept officer for 8 years. This, combined with superior references from locals, made my choice easy. Yes, I got a lower bid, but they did not talk-the-talk. You can read a "pond-wizard" when he starts whipping out details like my choice did. He addressed all the details that I had been learning about over 4 years of OTJ training during my search. He is still connected with the local NRCS office, and can/did use them for the details that he needed to handle the engineering. He told me to feel free to have them handle the entire project; no problem with him. Because of my lousy feeling about the potential of trying to work with them, tho, I opted to allow my contractor to over-see the engineering. I am very hands-on and spent alot of time shooting elevations and marking water levels and perimeters. It has been an enjoyable learning experience and I am not disappointed (to date). This is my baby, my biggest project.
The only issue I have is the cost, and quite frankly I doubt that I have a lot of room to cry. I based my projections for clearing timber on what I learned during research, and at $80/hour equipment cost (a cheaper region that I researched), I was told to expect about $1500 per acre. Bumping up to $100/hour equip time, I figured on $1800/acre to clear. He used a D-6 hi track dozer (found out the blade is 12' wide) and a track hoe excavator. I just got the news today...it cost $15,000; cleared, burned, scavenged for roots and clean and smooth as a whistle. It really is beautiful work. I am guesstimating the entire area to be about 5.5 acres. That figures at $2700/acre. I was present for at least half of the work, and truly trust this guy. When I discuss the apparent loss of efficiency, he explains: The timber that I have is relatively young. It is not one big tree, move 15 or 20 feet and get the next one. It is remove one young tree, the next one is 5 feet away in all directions. It becomes a "number of trees" equation, not an acreage equation. His assessment of the timber is accurate. It is one 6" - 8" dia x 80' tall tree after the other. They are so closely spaced that the weeds don't grow under the canopy they create. The only other explanation I can imagine is another obvious one....would it have been more efficient to have 2 dozers and a backhoe....or even 2 dozers and the backhoe on occassion for precision removal at the perimeter. He did run one dozer and one backhoe for equal time. I must say, tho, the the backhoe is also pretty darn important in creating and maintaining the burn-pile, so I don't see how it can be struck from the equipment arsenal.
At this point, I must note that this is a 2-phase project. We are fully cleared and will wait until next summer/fall to build the dam and complete.
For the record, we had one of our extensive and comprehensive discussions regarding what is done and where we are going. I asked him what he thought it would take to bring the project to completion, particularly since I have already told him how much dirt I want to move and what water depths we are going to achieve. Now that the big picture is exposed and VERY clear, I need a firm contractual commitment based on the specified dimensional criteria. He is going to work it up, but shot for the hip: based on a 4.5 - 5 acre water surface, about $3000 per acre to finish. He will make a firm offer and also monitor equipment time. If the equipment time comes in under the firm offer, he will charge me the lesser. Long and short, on this 5 acre pond project, we are at about $30k. All in all, I suppose this isn't horrible. He does very nice work. I am prepared to get what I pay for....I just don't want to pay for it.
P.S. to all else in the forum, thanx for the props.

"The world is full of honest earthmovers, making a fair living. As expert as they are, it's incumbent on the landowner to guide the contractor, not vice-versa."

Exactly why I had to dismiss my first contractor! My wife and I would meet and discuss our "projected plan" and 3-4 days later we would see HIS VERSION and hear his excuses. That was a great post and having experienced what you conveyed I must agree it is of the upmost importance. I have had 2 earthmovers come and bid jobs, get the sight really torn up, only to "bump" the price. They didn't know each other and lived 400 miles apart. It seems they get a price locked in and either want more $ or start cutting corners! I now have a reliable honest earthmover and am totally satisfied with his work and price. With both contractors, my wife and I presented our goals and contractor #1 just did his own thing. Actually, at one point, found myself wondering who owned this ranch...
Again great post Bob.
Eastland, I am proud of my design where I can add 2-3a to it at a later date. I did hire and consult with two designer\engineers and our NCRS agent spent a day with me, and only after 100+ hours of research, mostly on this sight, did I proceed.
Brettski, I am dealing with almost 200a drainage. I will say this, when it finally fills and you see it for the first time, it is an awesome experience!
My advice is when your desires aren't met, DON'T hesitate to change contractors. Best of luck to you... already maping out my next pond for the spring.

I am thankful for Pond Boss for presenting the opportunity to share experiences and learn.

Brettski, I hear you, completely. Been there, done it many times. Sounds like you have done mucho homework, and are dealing with fair and honest people. Keep in mind, though, they are still spending your hard earned dollars, not theirs.
I still see a red flag with your project. And, without a firm understanding of your goals, I may be off base a bit.
"Pretty" doesn't count under water. Most earthmovers take pride in ponds which look like Jessica Simpson's skin...smooth. Smooth, to a fish, is like the Sahara desert. Eliminating all the trees, collecting all the roots, burying the stumps, to me, is partly unnecessary. My next word of caution to you is to pay attention to "pretty" and avoid it below the water line. That's one of those things which can push the costs way above the pain threshold.
Pour your concern to making sure the lake is built as nice as the dam. I hear your comments about projecting hard costs to finish. While that's important, you must be the guy to define "finish." If you get to the end of the money and your vision doesn't match the contractor's vision, you will have a conflict. I have seen it over and over. Look at the dam as following a blueprint, but creating the lake as art. Your interpretation of art must match the artists ability to put in on the canvas you will call your lake. It will be a shame if you have to decide the painting is finished because you ran out of paint.

Bob,
Ya know, it seems in life that no matter how much homework one does with his books, it always happens differently on the streets. You are right; I have been soaking it up like a sponge. Such is life, tho, that you never stop learning and that is why I am so pleased to have come across Pond Boss....what a great grad-school.
The red flag you see is a good call and already on my hit-list. Quite frankly, it is one of the main reasons that I am excited to get involved with Pond Boss. I didn't want to bore everyone with the peripheral details of my project, but now that we have discussed in that direction, I will explain further.
The pond is part of larger development of about 40 acres of timber. It took me 4 years to find "the right one"....decent timber, pond-able, reasonably close to home, and affordable. It will be our vacation home, week-ends, and eventually retirement(?). Phase one of this project actually started before clearing the pond area...it required building a 2000 ft driveway (the main block of property is land-locked except for an 1100 ft x 100 ft wide owned access to the county road, 1/2 of which is meadow). The same excavator did the driveway. Results: outstanding! V cool. We spent a number of hours walking potential routes, him telling me why the ridge is better and the valley isn't....and....me telling him that I want to save that big ole Maple and Walnut tree, so let's go this way. Ultimately, we both agreed on a route, executed the plan, and it is like driving into a nice state campground. I am thrilled. I got to watch him during the 2 days that he and his pal used the dozer and backhoe in symphony to create this path, and it bacame obvious his sense of "surgery"....the collateral damage to surrounding trees was way below minimal...nearly non-existant. This was critical for me, because I used it to gauge him for the big project; he passed with and "A"....so....back to the pond.
We stopped after clearing the pond area for two reasons: a) cash flow b)"a" will cause us to take 8-9 months to think, think, and think. You see, we will have to clear for a building site. I determined the water level based on a draw that runs up on the neighboring property, and the result was a depth that works well with the entire project. No, it ain't gonna be 20 feet deep....I knew that when we bought it. It's shape is kinda like a skeleton keyhole, the squarish part of the keyhole is the two opposing hills that create the dam (absolutely ideal topo for a dam). The larger, round part of the keyhole is a 3-4 acre basin and the area for the homesite. Ah yes, the homesite. The plan is to clear for the homesite in next year's phase 2; there are quite a few thicker/more mature trees in the target area and they will be used for fish structure. There should be ample supply.
Now, finally, the red flag that we have both identified. As mentioned, it is the first reason that I am here. I am not a fisher-guy (awkward, sorry), but I could be and I have alot of pals that are. That combined with the value of a well maintained fish pond and the challenge of making this new "hobby" work have me sharply focused on how to shape and carve the "Sahara Desert" that I currently have. Enter Pond Boss and P-B posters. The beauty of clearing to slightly beyond the waterline: it will allow me to see the blank canvas as a whole, without ruining any options that I have to make it my masterpiece. I now have about 8 months to gather my paints, set up my easal, and think about what landscape portrait to produce. My contractor has some helpful fish input, but I am going to continue to take the reins, particulary in shaping the bottom. I know now that what we agree on will happen...this based on my experiences to date.
Yes, I want a firm $ commitment from him. It helps me to see the big $ picture. Likely, tho, his fair option of $/hour will be the billing method in the end.
So there stands the red flag....I am ready, teachers. Please energize bottom-scape -101.
Thanx
Bski

Brettski:

Here's how it worked for me. NRCS engineered the damn, provided drawings and volume estimates for contractors to follow. This included spec's for overflow pipe, dimensions for emergency spillway, and in the case of the first pond, for the hydrant below the dam. Slope of dam not to exceed 3:1, all other areas not to exceed 4:1 until 6(?) feet of depth reached. Those were the things I would have had no idea even to ask for. NRCS was a fount of knowledge. I was able to point out to them where I wanted depth increased, and how much.

These plans were given to 3 contractors who provided bids. These were firm bids, i.e. the amount they would build that pond for, to those specs. I wouldn't have felt comfortable doing it any other way. I needed to know how much the project was to cost, as I was essentially borrowing the money from the gov't, albeit in the form of an interest free loan. I still had to be able to make the payment.

First pond wasn't "exactly" like this, as we had a max limit...I was to get as much pond as possible for the $7100 NRCS had in the budget.

Second pond, however, was EXACTLY this scenario. "Here's what I want. How much will you charge to build it for me?" That's where the NRCS prints were beneficial. They gave all bidders the same gameplan. No fudging. The two that I've used are very different in their approaches, but both understood how this works. Very few people around here build with no gov't assistance, so the contractors are all familiar with NRCS and their rules.

Matt,
I will freely admit that I made a conscious decision to not get NRCS involved when I started this project. This decision actually flies in the face of my better judgement, particulary since I was SOOOO impressed with the service that I received from numerous other offices during my property search. If it had not been for my contractor's background and history as the NRCS CD agent in this same county, his strong reputation as a pond contractor, his obvious knowledge and communication skills...and...the lousy feeling I got during the 4 or 5 times that I did communicate with the local NRCS CD agent, I would have brought the NRCS office on board right from the beginning. I didn't....but that doesn't mean that I still won't. I knew this was going to be a 2 phase thing, and that any damage I created during phase one was going to be put on hold anyway, giving me a chance to "adjust". It also gives me a chance to adjust contractors, should there be a need. Ultimately, I am thrilled with the results so far. The cost was the only thing that kinda hit be on the back of the head...maybe I'm too cheap? I had referrals so I knew going into it that this guy was not going to be the cheapest, but nobody beats the service and the quality. This is exactly what occurred; I paid a little more and have zero regrets. Heck, for all I know, his rates are right on the money as an average...? Mr Lusk's points are well taken, valid, and are indeed on my list....your's too. The word is that there is a brand new CD agent in the NRCS office. I plan to reach out and re-attempt dialogue. My first and foremost reason for the pond is a beautiful, tranquil water feature. The opportunity to create a fish habitat is a nice bonus, though it was not the original goal. I do know one thing...now is the time to do it right. I have about 8 or 9 months to work out the kinks.

Brettski,

I wouldn't sweat the costs much. It may be a little high, but so what? Twenty or thirty years from now, you will not remember or care in the least about the costs, but you will dang sure remember if you have a poor quality product that did not meet your needs.

Far better to pay for it once, than pay and pay and pay to get it right. Keep your eye on your objective, find the money, do it right, and you won't be sorry.

Meadowlark,
I hear ya...and this is way too big a deal to pull a punch in the first round to lose the fight later. I want to take that same attitude for all facets of the project, including pursuing the NRCS assistance. So far, I read this as a classic "you get what you paid for" scenario. I repeat, I am thrilled with the results so far. I just talked with my bro in the U.P. of Mich; he built a 3.5 Ac pond in the woodland flats and it took about $33K about 5 years ago. This included clearing alot of timber and a pond that averages 6 - 7 feet. Moral of the story; as Bob Lusk says, each case is unique...there is no hard and fast formula. So, when I came across this forum, it showed up just in time for me to "bone up" on preparations for the real artistry.

Brettski,

Don't be surprised if the NRCS leads you nowhere...or worse, astray

Some guys have had good luck with them. I have not. It all depends on your local area and the peoples' competence in that location.

Enjoy the journey as you pursue your objective.

Meadowlark,
Interesting post. So far, it seems like you and I have either experienced or have been exposed to a negative factor of working with the NRCS. Kinda odd that the first 6 or so different offices that I worked with during the property search were so impressive that I confessed that I enjoy paying taxes if it is supporting that specific government agency. Then, the last two were luke-warm; unfortunately, this is where I wound up (ain't it always the way). It wasn't a horrible experience....it just lacked from the unbelieveable attention and service I got from the others. Quite frankly, I was prepared to go the course with this NRCS office until I met my contractor and got his background; what a great second choice. There is another factor that I did not mention. My decision to go forward with this project was made Spring 2005 and I wanted to be running heavy equipment by Fall 2005. Based on my education from the other NRCS offices, the wheels can turn slow on "gotta do it now" projects, particularly during "the season".

Brettski:

Not saying your course of action is right or wrong. I just did it different. I'm lucky in that the gal that does this stuff at our local NRCS office is really INTO it. She loves her job, and really makes an effort to get the projects done for as many as possible. Admittedly, our county (Louisa) is not as busy as some around us, as we don't seem to get as much funding as others.

My point was that this route simply lets you set a level playing field for all contractors to play on (a set of design plans). If one says "I'll do this and that" and another says "yeah, but we could add this or you need to consider this other feature" it leaves it up to you to decide what the better deal really is. Price would be secondary.

It's all good and fun...

I have a post on here somewhere (10 - 12 acre lake) where I chronicled my experience and solicited advice. Probably the biggest suggestion I would add from that experience is to build your dam last to ensure you have time to do the rest. Ironically though, I bet there is someone out there somewhere who did their structure and all that first only to find out they couldn't get their dam to hold water with the advice to build the dam first. I guess each situation is truly different. Read and get all the advice you can. It'll pass the time through winter. Have fun! :-)

Matt: You are absolutely right. Funny you should mention an enthusiastic gal...I also had an outstanding encounter with a CD agent that was a gal. The service was absolutely unbelieveable...and this was only to help me (during my search) to consider a property with an existing pond. She actually gave me her cell number and fielded my calls from her home on a Saturday night! I wrote a letter to her boss to praise her service and commitment.
Ranger: We plan to use a constuction drain made from 6" PVC and a gate valve on the downstream side of the dam. This will eliminate water accumulation, giving us plenty of time.

OUCH!!!
Some of these prices are downright scary. I guess I should consider myself lucky. I recently had a small pond (little less than 1/2 acre) put in for $950. It took a little more than 2 days. The dozer (D4) operator charges $50 per hour.

This is the first of two or three ponds I will be putting in. If my next (larger and more involved than the first) costs anywhere these prices I would have to think twice about doing it.

Some photos of the project. www.snapfish.com
To sign in use my email address darinalexander@bellsouth.net, password is 12345.
Then open first farm pond.

Since finding Pond Boss it has become one of my regular sites I visit. Great site everyone.

Darin

Brettski:

You raise a good point. I never have told her boss how much I appreciate all of her help. I think I'll do that right now. Without her pushing, neither of my ponds would've ever gotten done, let alone partially PAID for!

Matt: good call...."they never remember when you do it right, only when you do it wrong". Every good deed needs to be hi-lited to upper management.
Darin: When we interviewed contractors for our project, we did have a low-ball pricing option to consider. Because of the size of the project and the specific and considerable details involved, I had pass on their offer. Thank goodness for the time I spent over the course of 3 - 4 years with different NRCS offices, learning the "pond trade" to the extent that I knew what to look for and expect. When I found the guy we ultimately awarded the work, I knew we were going to be paying more. He walked the walk and talked the talk. My personal test was: can I lay out a specific plan with this guy, never be there to see it executed, and go when it is done to find exactly what was planned? He met this test, I went with him, and he delivered. I am a frugal guy, and my pockets are not deep, but this was way too big a project for me to pinch pennies and take a risk.

Hope this works!

Brettski, you seemed surprised at the co$t I posted... this shows the "character and unique design" we wanted.

You have been invited to visit a photo album
http://photobucket.com/albums/b165/ahvatsa/

Will be adding more pictures, 80 tons of rock and gravel due to arrive today.

Click slide show.

ALL COMMENTS WELCOMED!

Learned alot, 2 more ponds planned for next year.

Ahvatsa,
V Cool! Nice job on the fotos. Although you and I are compatible in the 5 Ac range, we are working with a much different project, overall. No surprise, tho...I s'pose it's safe to say that ponds are like snowflakes. A few questions: Your project looks like a low spot amidst 200a of gradual slope. Did you have to create a dam? If no, how do you channel off excess? Where did you put the soil waste? Were you able to borrow the required clay liner from within the pond, or did you have to truck it in? Do you have a drain? If no drain, I'll bet the weather created alot of the cost???
Anyway, it's a great looking project at any cost. Congrat's on a beauty!
Bski

Brett

Used an existing dam, and only backing up a few feet of water. 2 1' pipes drain to creek first and emergency spillway will drain if they fill...I hope. Note: this was orginally a 1/2a pond we cleaned and enlarged. Used same spillway location as when first built. This area (western Wilson Co.) south of San Antonio has excellent clay to 30'. We did have to pack a small sand spot in old channel.No soil waste. Built a 150x150' pad on hill overlooking. Pad was dug to 10' to get to clay on clay. No drain, 3 Honda pumps.

best of luck.

Bski, you'll find as many bottom designs as you will ponds, the only differences being that some have more fish-appeal than others. On the bottom of my pond, I had an excavator construct many elongated hills, the tops of which rise to within twelve to eighteen inches of the water surface. Of course, beside each hill is a hole. My huge oversight was not connecting all the holes with large ditches, with the final ditch running into a sump area where the drain is located. I do have one ditch that runs across the pond, and the fish seem to like gathering along that ditch. Also, a thick stand of fairly large willows grew along the periphery of the pond which I cut below the waterline. The fish like that also. I pulled in and staked down about fifteen trees and now realize that ten or so large PVC structures would probably have been better. You are fortunate to have found this site while you can still make changes.

Well, as noted in a previous post I did reach out to the new NRCS agent. Before doing so, though, my contractor had already done so as part of another project he was working on. He assured me that albeit being a very young guy, he was personable and knows his stuff. This is a summary of the NRCS posture on ponds in my area: If it is anything to do with a wetland, they are very interested in engineering and cost-share...if it is a pond, they will help with basic preliminary engineering, but that's about it. Their limited time and resources must remain focused on the better ROI eco-projects. All that being said, tho, he followed up by saying that they appreciate my plan to use the entire parcel to create an eco-friendly nature preserve and arranged a meeting on the property with a state wildlife biologist. The 3 of us walked the property yesterday and discussed any/all options available. I will try to condense everything that Bob the wildlife biologist shared, as follows.

We are working with a mostly heavily wooded habitat...comparatively, this is not attractive to wildlife. It is the short brush, weeds, bushes and grasses that create the best environment. We have a 2 ac corner that is meadow; this lifted their eyebrows and a plan for cost shared native grasses was hatched. Then the pond. He likes the water feature for the overall environment, but it is critical to have shallows that create wetlands, noting that a pond with edges that drop off deep are not eco-friendly. He also said that I will need shallow areas for BG spawn anyway (I already learned this from you PB guys and it is planned). He was very impressed to know that I planned wasting soil from the pond bottom around the perimeter to create a "shelf" that will allow walking and driving access. This shelf should also receive native grasses on a cost share program. He pointed out that a 20-30' wide buffer of native grasses will create far more bio-diversity than the remaining 36 acres of timber. He wants me to find areas along the perimeter with smaller timber that can be sacrificed and cleared back to create little pockets to extend the native grasses into. Even one pocket is a huge improvement. My NRCS agent chimed in by suggesting we continue the native grasses in the 3/4 ac area where we will waste soil behind the dam. I believe he indicated including the actual dam mass....? We then walked into the woods and shifted to timber improvement. From an eco-attitude, less trees and more ground cover. To be practical, we should select areas to remove 75% of the trees and plant ground cover. I have an area of about 1 ac that collects and holds about 6 ac of run-off that is adjacent to the pondsite. It is seasonally wet. It runs away from the pond...my plan is to cut thru a berm and channel it into the pond and drain the area. Based on recommendation, we will remove a bunch of the silver maples growing in this area, "daylight it", and plant deciduous bushes and shrubs to create another eco-zone that is directly adjacent to the pondsite. I hope to include this in the cost-share program.
The government program being utilized is called "wildlife habitat incentive program...W.H.I.P." Basically, they will provide the names of recommended groups to provide products and services. I call, arrange, and manage the project. The govt covers 75% of the cost. The state guy was so interested in making it happen that he mentioned that the state would throw in some additional $ help to the extent that it may cost me very little to execute. They indicated that my contract with the govt would be 5 years.
I am pumped on this one! I told them that I wanted to incorporate this entire project with the pond construction this summer. They are on-board. Bob the bio. thinks that the entire package is a super eco-improvement and should yield excellent wildlife diversity.

Great post Brettski!

"WHIP" is an excellent Program that should meet or possibly exceed your environmental goals and objectives. Hopefully you will receive all the technical and engineering assistance required to fullfill your dream.

Additional Federal Programs include EQIP - (Environmental Quality Incentive Program) and WRP - (Wetland Reserve Program).

Additionally--------- Remember patience and persistence are key to persuing Government (American taxpayers) cost share dollars.

Good Luck,

Ed

Thank you Brettski for posting the summary from your wildlife biologist, you are doing what I dream of doing in a few years. Keep us updated as much as possible.

Thanx for the props, guys! There is gonna be so much going on this year on this project...my head is already spinnin'.
Ceadmin...
besides the forum, my website is the best place for progress (house icon above). It is completely dedicated as a cyber scrapbook for this project. The "Updates" page is the quickest way to summarize progress. I am afraid to start up a "W.H.I.P." button for fear that it may fall apart (superstitious). As things solidify, it will be included.

Brettski, that is wonderful news. It seems that you are getting some good advise. The advise you are getting is pretty standard and I think should be explained a bit more.

There really isn't such a thing as "wildlife". There are just plants and animals. All of these plants and animals live and are competitive in different environmental conditions. In a changing environment, there are always winners and loosers. In our modern world, the winners are the generalist that live in edge habitat. The loosers are the specialist that live in large, pure habitats of some type.

In general, there are two huge loosers in this country. One is the plants and animals that live in thick, mature forests. The other is the plants and animals that live in large prairie areas. The plants and animals that need these two types of habitat are in a huge decline.

The whole country is becoming edge habitat. Your plan will certainly increase the numbers of these types of species. I'm not saying this is bad. It's a lot like putting a dam over a creek. The winners are the species that live in a lake. The loosers are the species that needed the stream to live in. Lake species are very common while species that need streams to live in are in decline.

I hope this explains the concept of "wildlife habitat" a bit more.

Norm,
Thank you for the input.
When we entered the property, the state biologist and I spent about 10 minutes discussing what I have and what I wanted to do. In a nutshell, I told him I wanted to turn the 44 ac I own into an eco-friendly nature preserve that would attract and support as much wildlife and bio-diversity as possible. Naturally, they would have rather seen a wetland instead of a pond, but conceded that having a pond was by no means a negative in the big picture. We did not, however, have any areas developed specifically with prairie grasses. In fact, the entire region is fertile farmground. What isn't farmed is either timber or the small towns that dot the area. We have one of those timber patches. I presume his advice was based on my own little eco-project melded in with the needs of the entire region. He kept coming back, as you noted, to the "edge habitat" that we so sorely lacked. He also was very interested in some area of the pond being preserved as a shallow wetland. We had plans of doing this anyway. I was somewhat surprised by his inference that the heavy timber was not such a huge provider of this diversity that we seek. He shared a story: similar region, he visited a proud new owner of about 100 acres of thick, mature hardwood timber that wanted the same as us...wildlife and bio-diversity. He said he had a hard time telling him that the first step is to cut down a bunch of his prizes to allow the daylighting necessary to grow weeds, grasses, bushes, and shrubs...didn't go over well.
We truly hope this comes together for a second very good reason. I may not only have someone else plant these areas, but it might get paid for with tax dollars...and only a 5 year commitment. Lastly, this is exactly the "look" we wanted for this property. It matches my vision of the final product very well.

W.H.I.P. update....
My wildlife habitat improvements are a combination of 5 - 7 different areas (depending on how you hook 'em up). They are all fairly small by themselves, but in combo will meet the required $1000 min of cost share value under WHIP. The problem: a large portion of it will be in the pond construction site...and this won't be done until later this fall. My NRCS agent strongly recommends that I wait until all the dirt is moved and we have a very clear picture of the improvements required, particularly the specific amount. As Norm and Ed will likely attest, when you make the deal to plant the acreage, you have to plant the acreage.
And, if you come up short...you come up short. There is not enough work available to split it up and do 1/2 & 1/2 at $1000 per. So, he sent me back directly to the State biologist to see if they would take it over. I went directly to the bio. at the DNR. Yep, they will handle it piece-meal. He worked up a proposal for the parts that are ready now. I looked it over. It's kinda slight on the cost share and it is a 10 year commitment. I talked it over a little with my NRCS agent and his original wisdom has become my posture: I am gonna wait until next spring to do the entire package with the NRCS sponsered WHIP program. I feel it will be a better economical choice and only a 5 year commitment. As much as I want to get a full year of growth on the sections that are ready now, I gotta chill and do the right thing to yield the best ROI.
Note to Norm, Ed, or any other savvy wildlife development gurus: I have a 1.75 ac meadow that is enclosed on 3 sides with trees, the 4th is open to the many ac of farm field that surround our timber. I plan on planting a conifer shelterbelt to enclose this 4th side. Within the remaining meadow, we want to go with various native grasses and wildflowers (the DNR showed this as Forbs, right?) We are bird lovers; this is what I noted to the DNR when they responded with this blend. Any other ideas?

Brettski,

Your ideas sound good to me! I am a big fan of conifers for various reasons, wherever I can get them established. Take for instance today! - stop drifting snow, wildlife and livestock protection, improved moisture conservation and aesthetics to name a few.

Your ideas for native grasses and forbs (flowering plants other than weeds and grasses) are good. Remember, if you plant forbs with your native grasses you will be very limited with your chemical weed control efforts.

Good luck,

Ed

Brettski, I have some experience with prairie plants. Unfortunately, I think you will be fighting a loosing battle. The trees will invade this small prairie very quickly. You will have to mow this prairie every year and burning will also help. Still, the trees will shade much of this prairie and prairie plants do very poorly with shade.

Bruce Condello, can you add some of your experiences with your CRP bottom land? This grassland was completely overtaken by trees.

Bring up these concerns to your local biologist and ask their advice. I love prairies. After you have visited with your local biologist, post their thoughts and I can add some ideas for you to consider.

Ed,
Yeah, I haven't got a single conifer in the entire 44 ac; it's mostly hickory, maple, cherry, and walnut. Man, I love them pine trees. I really wanted to plug in Easter White Pine (listed as a top-shelf player in my region and soil), but both the NRCS and State bio. waved me off unless I install appropriate deer forage protection (nope, too much work & too many trees). Instead, they recommend Norway Spruce. I'm not crazy about this option because they look so droopy when they really mature, but I s'pose I shouldn't be concerned....by the time that happens I will likely be their fertilizer. Regarding chem. weed control, I anticipate that when all this stuff really takes root and grows, it's gonna be 2 - 3 years and weeds will be part of the show anyway. There will be an initial Round-up before planting, but I foresee only random cuttings thereafter once or twice a year.
Norm,
When we discussed maint, the bio. did make a special point to me that I have responsibility to keep the tree-lines at bay. He said that there would be random cuttings that should take care of that when done at the perimeter. I will admit that this advice was given when the only plantings were WWNG...not the flowers. I suppose mowings of flowers may be their annual death blow...?
Thanks to both you and all my new PB comrades for the support and help. This, like the fish thing, is a level that I never thought I would aspire to in my life...and luvin' it.

Brettski, I just got done planting hundreds of seedlings of various types on my land. All there was were a handful of Virginia and Pitch/Loblolly pines on mine when I got it ... like yours it was hardwoods dominated by poplar, black cherry, and walnut. The seedlings I planted included shortleaf, eastern white, and loblolly pine. There are lots of deer out there but I didn't protect the seedlings. If you plant a large number some will get damaged by wildlife, some will come through unscathed, and some will even be eaten/killed. But as long as it's not a lawn or manicured & landscaped type setting it doesn't really matter. There are already lots of imperfect, mishapen, deformed, and gnarled trees naturally in the woods. Rodents and deer will quit bothering pine trees after they get to a certain size, and if you plant a good number some will survive. You probably have inexpensive seedlings available through the state forestry service. If the quantities are too large or the prices aren't right in Illinois, most of the surrounding states will sell to out of state too.

Actually, I'm just having fun with photos!

The old saying: "A picture is worth a thousand words" is somewhat true here.
We enclose "specimen" trees inside a 6 ft. diameter woven wire game fence to keep predators off our best trees. Two 8 ft. steel posts hold the wire and the trees are planted into a geotextile fabric to hold down weed competition.

These "tree rings" although difficult to see, just happen to protect new aspen seedlings.

This mule deer fawn and several of her relatives are kept off these very young and vurnable trees.




Just thought I would through this picture in of "old Blue". We finally received some much needed moisture this week!



Black lump in the back of the pickup is a very cold, but happy black lab.

Ed

God's country is worth the hassle of tire chains...beautiful terrain!
No, I don't see myself using wirecloth or netting or any protection. I'm followin' Eric's path, tho I may relent to short needles that are less attractive to deer...and man I have deer big time. There is one area that is existing hardwood that I am going to thin out and plant conifers in with it...about 1/4 ac. It is off to the side of the damsite and will create a screen as it is right at my property line. The bio and NRCS both said that the Norway Spruce will grow OK under the existing hardwood canopy, particularly if it is daylighted a little.

an aerial of the parcel...north is up. The 1.75 ac meadow is center/right. The open area in the access lane is the other zone for a tree line along the driveway and the balance planted with WWNG. This pic is pre-pondsite clearing. Norm...do you see issues with my plans in these areas?

Edward, fantastic pics! The wife & I were supposed to have a Wyoming vacation last fall. But we ended up having another child so the vacation got pushed out a year or two. Old Blue looks almost exactly like my neighbor's farm truck.

Brettski, one thing worth mentioning is that Eastern white pine is somewhat shade tolerant (especially when immature) and most if not all the other pine species native to our general area need full sun. Hemlock is one conifer you might consider that is heavily shade tolerant and will grow under the hardwood canopy. (It's a slow grower, but deer seem to bother it much less than white pine) I'm kind of a stickler for planting native trees only, so Norway spruce won't work in the regard.

Eric,
Agreed on the point that Norway Spruce is not a native species...I was kinda surprised that both of the govt pros recommended it for my application. The state bio felt that it would be a good tree as it would be shade tolerant...? I do know that they grow pretty quickly; I planted about 50 of em at my principal residence 9 years ago and they are really "takin' off". Whatever choice occurs, tho, it has to be a quick grower, particularly in the 1/4 ac. area where I am going to mix it in with the existing/thinned out hardwoods. In this area, it's primary purpose is to create a visual screen to separate a neighboring property.

We have a small nursery, Norway spruce is our biggest seller for those who want something fast growing for a shelter belt or to block a view. They grow hardy in the midwest and are the fastest growing spruce you can get. It's my first choice for this reason as well. They are recommended in our area by the natural resource dept. and the University. I think they would do well in Illinois.