Forums36
Topics40,995
Posts558,312
Members18,518
|
Most Online3,612 Jan 10th, 2023
|
|
13 members (esshup, Cliff76169, rjackson, Don Kennedy, tlogan, Dave Davidson1, Bigtrh24, canyoncreek, Sunil, Theo Gallus, Shorthose, catscratch, Knobber),
815
guests, and
264
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,577 Likes: 853
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Lunker
|
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,577 Likes: 853 |
I'd take them all out, and here's why.
It's hard to ensure that the pond basin is compacted properly with the trees there. If you have a large amount of water available to keep the pond full if the existing trees caused a leak, then I would be OK with leaving them there. If not, I'd sure feel better about taking them out, compacting the pond basin and then not have to worry about the possibility of having to fix it later..
You can stockpile the trees and use them for cover in the pond after the bottom is compacted.
|
|
|
Moderated by Bill Cody, Bruce Condello, catmandoo, Chris Steelman, Dave Davidson1, esshup, ewest, FireIsHot, Omaha, Sunil, teehjaeh57
|
|
|
|
|
My First
by Bill Cody - 05/06/24 07:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|