Just curious as to why multiple little ponds would be cheaper than a big one? Seems the oppisite because you have to have 2-3 dams etc.
I certainly don't want to discourage you from building one large pond. For anyone who has ever visited Sunil's pond, which is in the mountains of south western Pennsylvaia, it can provoke serious jealousy. I beleive his pond is seven acres, and he has built an incredible fishery that includes beautiful largemouth and smallmouth bass, hybrid striped bass, yellow perch, bluegill, trout, and I'm not sure what all else. I beleive his pond was built by the government many years ago, so their budget was a little different than most mortals.
There are a number of reasons that make it more feasible, particularly in Western VA, WV, western MD, and southern PA, to build several small ponds. One is certainly the topography. There is little advantage to building a pond much deeper than 12 feet. Without extensive water movement, such as from aerators, the pond stratifies. The bottom portion of a deep pond becomes an oxygen free zone that will not support fish. Trying to build a five acre pond in WV typically would mean a very high dam and a very large volume of deep water. I don't know the requirements, but when water volume and dam height get to a certain point, you are required to get the Army Corps of Engineers involved in the design and construction. From all I've heard, that is not a pleasant experience.
It certainly is possible to find 5 acres of relatively flat land. But when you do, you will have to excavate and move dirt over that entire five acres. For instance, you will probably need to strip the top soil from the entire area. Moving dirt is expensive. Secondly, if you find five acres of flat land, will you have an adeqaute watershed to feed it that will not completely overwhelm it during heavy rains?
Cascaded ponds of a half-acre to 2 acres are generally more practical in this area.
Keep dreaming of ponds. It will keep you sane.
Ken
