Filling in Pond...

[MicroPilot]

I have a small pond on my place that has over the last few years turned into more of a mud pit than pond. I'm thinking of filling this in and using the resulting flat space for a new Garage/Workshop. I've been told that IF I do this I'll have to remove all the mud at the bottomm as it will take a long time to completely dry out and settiling because of this would be a problem for a few years.

Has anyone done this kind of thing before?

Is the advice I've been given correct?

Are there any other issues I need to consider?

 

[EddieWalker]

You need to do a search for a post by Jinman about the removal of silt in his pond. Just search in projects under "silt" and you should find it. He had a track loaded dig out all his silt down to a solid bottom and ended up with a massive amount of material. Last I heard, it's been months, and it's still wet on the inside.

If you want to build, you will have to remove all of the silt. Then you will have to bring in clean fill and compact is as you fill in layers.

This is a very large undertaking and it will be very expensive. If it's a large pond, it will be rediculously expensive!!!! If the silt is really deep and you have to bring in clean fill from any sort of distance, you could be talking about the truly absurd level of expensive!!!!!!!

Either dig it out and have a pond, or fill it in and have a pasture. Don't waste a bunch of money on it.

Eddie

 

[jinman]

My guess is your silt might stay wet and plastic for years. The fellow who dug out my silt and put it into a 10' deep pile told me to figure on three years for it to dry out. That's outside the pond. Inside the pond, it may take an "eternity" due to seepage from the surrounding ground. I would do just as you have been told: remove the silt, backfill, and build. Even after you backfill, you may end up with a virtual "bowl" because the fill soil is different from the native soil. If you don't select your soil properly and compact it very well, you will never have a stable building site in my opinion. I would find somewhere else if at all possible.

 

[MicroPilot]

My guess is your silt might stay wet and plastic for years. The fellow who dug out my silt and put it into a 10' deep pile told me to figure on three years for it to dry out. That's outside the pond. Inside the pond, it may take an "eternity" due to seepage from the surrounding ground. ...Even after you backfill, you may end up with a virtual "bowl" because the fill soil is different from the native soil... I would find somewhere else if at all possible.

My property is all hill tops and steep valley bottoms. Flat space is hard to find. The location of this pond with my driveway right next to it would perfect for a garage/workshop. It does sound like it would be better in the long run to just lop off the top of one of the ridges with a dozer and make some flat space that way.

 

[Highbeam]

Any reason you don't drive piles? Basicly building your house above the muck and leaving it in place. There are several ways to do it but don't let the surface conditions stop you if you really want the building there.

 

[goaliedad]

Don't know about KY but here in Michigan I would be very carefull about filling anything that could be considered wetlands. I would make sure about permits and all of the needed hoops before I moved any dirt. I'm a big fan of "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" on many matters, but not this one.

 

[Doc_Bob]

Don't know about KY but here in Michigan I would be very carefull about filling anything that could be considered wetlands. I would make sure about permits and all of the needed hoops before I moved any dirt. I'm a big fan of "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" on many matters, but not this one.

Same in Wisconsin! Touch a wetlands and die! DNR, City, everyone will make you miserable.
Bob

 

[PineRidge]

If you get down to virgin soil and use a sheepsfoot to compact as you backfill you should not have an issue with sinking ground afterward. When they built our pond they compacted the material used for the dam every 6 inches in depth and it's solid.

The problem as I see it is just how deep would you might need to go to hit solid ground?

 

[jinman]

If you get down to virgin soil and use a sheepsfoot to compact as you backfill you should not have an issue with sinking ground afterward. When they built our pond they compacted the material used for the dam every 6 inches in depth and it's solid.

The problem as I see it is just how deep would you might need to go to hit solid ground?

I think you have the formula Micropilot needs to follow, Mike. Pick the right kind of fill and compact it properly after first removing the silt. A pond dam is different from a pad site, but I think the methods in this case would be the same.

 

[ByronBob]

What about filling it with stone?

 

[MicroPilot]

Don't know about KY but here in Michigan I would be very carefull about filling anything that could be considered wetlands. I would make sure about permits and all of the needed hoops before I moved any dirt. I'm a big fan of "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" on many matters, but not this one.

The pond is back my private drive and is not visible from any public road. I don't believe there are any regulations that would prevent me from filling in this pond, but I'm also not going to stir things up by asking.

Any reason you don't drive piles?

That's an option I hadn't thought of.

The problem as I see it is just how deep would you might need to go to hit solid ground?

That I don't know. The pond isn't very big. Kind of oblong maybe 25' across and 50' long. 2 years ago I was messing around trying to dredge out the cattails when the water was low and sunk my tractor in the mud up to the frame. It took 2 bigger AG Utility tractors to pull me out. This created ruts 2 or 3 feet deep. It looked like I could have gon deeper and this was at the edge!

What about filling it with stone?

I've considered this. I have plenty of field stone available. I would think you would still need to remove the silt though. With out doing this the rock would just settle into the mud.

 

[Highbeam]

cattails, oh yeah, it's a wetland. The gov't uses aerial photos these days to look for changes in the vegetation and ground. Not visible from the street is no longer an issue. In fact, the software can now recognize when vegetation is removed from an area and flags the site for automatic prosecution. Irritates the heck out of me.

 

[MicroPilot]

5 years ago when I moved onto this property there weren't any cattails. Now that I don't let the animals have access to the pond they have taken over.

As for automatic prosecution, thats sounds far fetched. What would happen if I decided to get some cows and let them use the pond as a watering hole? They would eat or trample all the cattails and the vegetation removel would be a "natural" occurance.

I'm also a believer in "if you own the land you can do any damned thing you want with it", not that this would matter to the government.

 

[goaliedad]

for what it's worth- we used to own alot on an inland lake in northern Michigan. Due to lack of use, the beach had growen up with cattails and other aquatic weeds. We were told that we could remove them manually but could not use any pwer equipment with out permits. I would assume that if you ran some cattle and they took care of the cattails, all is well- the water is still there. Big difference than filling in a weed choked pond.

As for automatic legal action- no idea. As for the possiblity of legal action- not sure, but I would think you would be very open to legal recourse.

While I would like to think that since I own a piece of property I can do what I want- but unfortunately I think this is one time when that is not the case.

 

[EddieWalker]

As for automatic prosecution, thats sounds far fetched. What would happen if I decided to get some cows and let them use the pond as a watering hole? They would eat or trample all the cattails and the vegetation removel would be a "natural" occurance.

In California, the environmentalist are getting cattle removed from land if they have acces to a stream, creak, or the runnoff from the pasture leads to a stream or creak that might has salmon in it.

There's no proof that there is salmon in those creeks, and the one I know about personally has never had salmon in it. But the landowners had to put up fences to keep their cattle a certain distance from that creek.

What's even funnier is there is a road between those cows and the creek.

To make if even more rediculous, horses are ok. Just cows have to be kept away.

Somebody decided that cow turds are bad, but horse turds are ok in streams that may or may not have salmon in them.

Of course, very few states are as wacky as California, but never underestimate just what they might try. And if they do try something, you automatically lose. Even if you win the case in court, you lose time, money and probaby years off your life in stress.

Good luck,
Eddie