</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Still 64,800/27= 2400cu yd for the main area. )</font>
Well, I guess that depends where you measure the pond size. If the 60 x 120 size is measured at the 9' depth (the bottom of the pond), you're right. But then, the pond at the top of the bank would be 114' x 174' with a 3:1 slope (it takes 27' horizontally to get to 9' vertically, on each side, or 54'). What I assumed was that the top of the banks would measure 60' x 120', which, less 27' on each side for sloping, would give a pond bottom of 6' x 66' at the 9' depth. If what he's after is 60' x 120' of water surface area, the top of the banks have to be 12' wider on each side (using the 4' water level and 3:1 slope), or 84' x 144'. In that case, the bottom of the pond would be 36' x 96', still assuming 5' water depth and 9' from the bottom to the top of the banks.
The only reason I'm going through all this is because that's what I had to go through in my own case. I have a need for a certain number of cubic yards for fill, and I have to be sure I size the pond at least big enough and deep enough to get the minimum fill. On the other hand, each excavated (and moved & graded) cubic yard is $2.50, so I have to be sure I don't make it too big. Since I plan a very irregular shape and varying depths, it got into quite an exercise in geometry. I think my poor brain was fried by the time I was done, and I know I filled almost an entire pad of graph paper /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif.