Forums36
Topics40,944
Posts557,788
Members18,483
|
Most Online3,612 Jan 10th, 2023
|
|
0 members (),
778
guests, and
246
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,508 Likes: 829
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Lunker
|
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,508 Likes: 829 |
Welcome to the forum.
I realize the reasons for the island, but it will also make achieving your depth more difficult unless the pond is somewhat shaped like a tear drop with the island in the tail. I recommend trying to get Mike Otto to come out to build it, or see if he can recommend anyone in that area (or a recommendation from Bob Lusk). Think about the slope required to get to that depth, and how big you want that depth to be, area wise. Going on the steep side of the slope, i.e 2:1 means that the pond will have to be 140 feet across at the deepest point to come down to a point, and if you want the deepest part to be bigger, add distance to that 140'. 3:1 is more realistic, so that's 210 feet. At 3:1, if you want that 35' depth to be 20'x20', then that's 230' across, then you want the shallow area to be less steep, so that makes the the pond even wider. Coming up to the island then going back down to have depth around it takes more room, that's why I suggested that shape.
It's doable, just needs some design work and thought.
|
|
|
Moderated by Bill Cody, Bruce Condello, catmandoo, Chris Steelman, Dave Davidson1, esshup, ewest, FireIsHot, Omaha, Sunil, teehjaeh57
|
|