Like many of you, I dream of having my own runway. I've been shopping for houses for a couple years (serious for the last year) and finally found one that might work out. It's not perfect but it does have room for at least a 1000 ft runway with pretty clear approaches on either end.

The problem is, the flat area is quite low. A creek runs through the property and there is apparently at least one spring. It looks like it could easily be very "spongy". It is covered by long grass currently so it's definitely not always wet and wasn't today when we walked it although it's been a dry spring. The owner does cut trails through it with a brush hog and it does seem to have good grass where it has been mowed (vs. mud). There is only one region with any marshy looking plants in it. Looking at past Google Images that one spot does appear to have had standing water at one point in the past as if it was a shallow pond but it is not in the area where I plan to have a runway. This is in South West Wisconsin at an elevation of about 750 feet. There are fields on two sides of it that appear to be at the same elevation and they appear to be planted each year although at least in 2011, one had a large muddy spot that I can see from Google Streetview.

The question is; does anyone have any experience with putting a runway in a low area like this? Could you crown an area and put a ditch on either side to help keep it dry? Any other ideas, tips, tricks etc.?

Here is a screen capture from an "observation" flight yesterday in case it helps. Again, it's been a dry spring so it looks good and dry now.

You can crown it with drainage ditches on each side, but you're talking about several thousand dollars per acre in dirt work. You will have to one way it over the barbed wire fence, which the neighbor will probably want to keep. You will need to push the tail up in a hurry and force the mains off quickly to get into low, level ground effect to accelerate enough to jump the fence. Hot days and/or fair load, you will sink a bit beyond the fence, but you are fine if you stay level in ground effect until you have maneuvering or climb speed.

I flew out of a airfield like that for several years. It was a peat bog in a flood plain. It was only dry and firm for perhaps 5 months of the year. They had built it by mining the peat from other areas or the property and building up the runway area a little so it could stay above the ground water level at the worst time of the year. Ditching seemed to be of little use, due to the fact the water really did not have anywhere to go, besides peat is very porous so water moves through it readily.
We improved some areas by using cedar hog fuel. That stuff worked great. It was cheap and was somewhat structural. The chips and strands would interlock and mat together over time with settlement, to the point that it was firm and strong enough that you could drive a truck on it.

Cedar also is resistant to decay, and can last for years in the acid environment of a swamp. The only problem, maybe fisheries and the EPA. Since your close to a creek, there may be concerns over toxic leaching. Another cheap option is to top it with clay, our cross runway was built like that. It was very functional after some grass grew on it. whatever you do. I highly recommend using a road grader for finishing. It is guaranteed to do the best job maintaining a consistent level surface. Building your own runway would be a great milestone for any pilot Good luck.

Hard to tell for sure from the 2 images you put up, but I would almost bet that the cheapest and easiest option would be to ditch the low spot into the creek. If the water can get to the creek, it won't sut in the low spot, no more low spot. As a farmer, we do this a lot. Its amazing how fast and easy it actually is.
The problem with crowning and ditching is that you'll most likely need a culvert for the water to cross in the low spot, as it seems higher on each end then the lowspot, and its hard to drain water up hill. I'd try to drain into the creek first...
David

Get some 35's and don't worry about it?

Thanks for the replies everyone! I have since found via FEMA maps that it's in the area of "1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard"; which sounds low but in actuality means it will probably remain pretty damp.

patrol guy wrote:Get some 35's and don't worry about it?

I do like the idea of 35's! However, making every landing a splash might get old.

Sidewinder wrote:I flew out of a airfield like that for several years. It was a peat bog in a flood plain. It was only dry and firm for perhaps 5 months of the year.
We improved some areas by using cedar hog fuel. .

It seems like this property would be a bit drier than something in the flood plain now that I know it isn't, how much of the time it will be usable is my concernt.

Clay and Cedar Hog fuel are some good ideas but my guess is that would likely not go over well with the environmentalists, In my research so far it appears to be very frowned upon to try to reclaim any marsh-land these days too.

contactflying wrote:You can crown it with drainage ditches on each side, but you're talking about several thousand dollars per acre in dirt work.

Good to know some rough idea of the cost; So far that seems to be an option although it's hard to say how well it will work.

contactflying wrote:You will have to one way it over the barbed wire fence, which the neighbor will probably want to keep.

My hope is to cut down the trees on the end to make it a two-way. Also, there is enough room beside the neighbors fence to potentially extend the runway to 1500 ft or more.

A1Skinner wrote:I would almost bet that the cheapest and easiest option would be to ditch the low spot into the creek.
The problem with crowning and ditching is that you'll most likely need a culvert for the water to cross in the low spot, as it seems higher on each end then the lowspot, and its hard to drain water up hill. I'd try to drain into the creek first...
David

The low spot is not right where I'd want to land, but your point about draining water up hill is one of my concerns. Since it's all flat it'll be hard to get water to move.

sophis wrote:Clay and Cedar Hog fuel are some good ideas but my guess is that would likely not go over well with the environmentalists, In my research so far it appears to be very frowned upon to try to reclaim any marsh-land these days too.

From my very limited knowledge marsh-land even on private property is federally protected by the Clean Water Act I think. If you reclaim marshland you have to replace it with an equal amount somewhere else on your property.

whee wrote:From my very limited knowledge marsh-land even on private property is federally protected by the Clean Water Act I think. If you reclaim marshland you have to replace it with an equal amount somewhere else on your property.

That's huge . . I need to learn more about that. The question probably is whether not this land is actually categorized as "wetland" etc. Thanks; that could definitely be a deal breaker.

For about a year, I kept my airplane at a friend's strip east of Wellington, CO. It's pretty dry in the area, but he built his strip with a slight crown and depressions (not really ditches) on either side anyway, and there aren't any ponds, marshes, etc. anywhere near. During much of the year, that strip is as hard as concrete. But there were times after even a little rain when it was unusable; although it would be dry to walk on, even a relatively light vehicle would sink in. I know zip about soils and drainage and such, but it sure taught me that a home-grown strip can be problematic, so that if I were to ever create one, I'd want to get some good engineering advice to guarantee as much usability as possible.

Cary

Here are a few thoughts gleaned from my years as an airport consultant and private strip owner. They are only friendly advise at most.

I've done several site selection studies to replace old public airports. Seems universally these airports were built on the cheapest land available which is marshy land. As a result, it was expensive to the point of impossible to maintain year around operations on these sites. The sites were also usually too small or obstructed. If you already own this site then there's nothing wrong with using it best you can but if you are looking at buying it then maybe there's a better site elsewhere.

If you decide to use this site then I suggest doing the absolute minimal effort into making it useable. Years ago when I first started my flying my family's land included a small marsh that had been dry for decades except for a couple weeks after the snow melted each year. Now over the past 15 or more years this site has been inundated nearly every year all year due to a change in seasonal weather patterns, and had I made any investment in the site to improve it my investment would have been lost.

Whee raised a good point. In the site selection studies I've done it was common to come across old wetland/waterfowl easements placed on marsh land by farmers that sold the easement to the USF&WS. there's also landbank, soilbank and a variety of other federal programs, plus farmland that is under a support program usually gets stuck with a restriction on draining wetlands. So buyer beware.

I have another landing strip I'm going to use this year. It is also a little marshy in the spring and after heavy rain. I plan to mow it and tamp dirt in any badger holes, mark it, and use it as is when I can. One must just accept the fact there's a lot of times a minimally improved site is not useable but heck that's part of the fun and adventure of roughing it. And that's what roads are for in a pinch.

Keep in mind the FAA requires formal notification if you plan to use a site regularly. And maybe your state has some sort of airport permit required. These agencies will give you a tough time about your site if it's too short or obstructed. Of course you could always not tell them too. As an airport design professional I never had that choice if I wanted to maintain my credibility among the agencies I had to work with daily on the public airport projects.

Good luck with your project and have fun with it.

Having a wetland isn't a show stopper if you want to do something with it but it does take a US Army Corps of Engineers permitting process that can be lengthy and expensive. In our country, there are people qualified to do wetlands delineations to determine if you truly have a wetlands and then to what extent. That service can be expensive or quite reasonable depending on who will do it.

I am unfamiliar with what material costs are in your neck of the woods. 6" minus fractured rock over geotextile fabric can cross just about any mud hole. Or like A1 said, might be able to drain it to the creek. If you don't have much of a wet spot, it might not be as expensive as you think. The best advice would be to find a local civil contractor who is experienced in the areas conditions and have him/her look at it with you. I see people try to beat a contractor out and do it themselves all the time. It's just dirt, after all. Sometimes it works, sometimes you get to call the contractor anyway. Again, all a matter of experience and expertise.

^^ well said gb. I have equipment and lots of experience, so building a strip didn't cost me anything but a bit of time and fescue seed. The 6" fracture over geotextile shouldn't cost too much if there is material near by, and will let the water flow underneath it. Won't hold up to constant heavy equipment running on it, but planes are light! This seems like it would be a good way to go if you cant drain it into the creek.

sophis wrote:

whee wrote:From my very limited knowledge marsh-land even on private property is federally protected by the Clean Water Act I think. If you reclaim marshland you have to replace it with an equal amount somewhere else on your property.

That's huge . . I need to learn more about that. The question probably is whether not this land is actually categorized as "wetland" etc. Thanks; that could definitely be a deal breaker.

Yes, you need to get educated and find out the local restrictions without educating the Government too much. Don't tell them you want to land planes there or their pea brains will go "tilt". If they don't understand something, Like no, your not building an international airport, it will just be easier for them to say no ,or hand you a crate full of paperwork.

Tell them your a naturalist and you want to improve the area for waterfowl and migratory pink blotted seagulls or what ever is popular for the area, by digging out a large pond for them to rest and feed. Governments with there green agendas would be far more favorable to approving that type of development. Then, if you can, dig out a big enough pond and use.. ( level out ) the excavated material to build up a the the "strip" area. Blend out the edges with a fine gradual taper and very few are going to notice or care about a foot or two of elevation gain. Stock it with fish and put up some duck blinds and you've got your own Fish'in and hunt'in grounds. Invite your friends over for a fly in and duck bbq. and celebrate.

Dealing with Bureaucrats can be like fighting a large bulky opponent, brute strength is often futile and tiring. You gotta be like the kung- fu master and use their weight and clumsiness to your advantage.

Coondawg wrote:Keep in mind the FAA requires formal notification if you plan to use a site regularly. And maybe your state has some sort of airport permit required.

I've been under the impression that the FAA doesn't care unless you want it to be charted. Can you point me in the right direction to read what the requirements really are? Also, what office at a state level would typically permit a landing strip?

Sophis and I are neighbors so you'll be helping both of us out.

These people did this in Washington. Not far from my home airport. It is on farm ground and it is wet like yours. It has standing water all winter and early spring. If you can get approval, get an earth mover and do this. These lakes are 2100' long.

Call it an irrigation reservoir, wildlife enhancement. 3' deep should do. Use the material to make your elevated runway. Now you have a water ski lake, float ops, stock some bass.

My neighbor down the road a ways put an old 30' wood cabin cruiser in his small lake. He turned it into his guest quarters. It is very cool!!

If you want to see it on Google Earth the lat and lon are on the pic.

Coondawg wrote:If you decide to use this site then I suggest doing the absolute minimal effort into making it useable. Years ago when I first started my flying my family's land included a small marsh that had been dry for decades except for a couple weeks after the snow melted each year. Now over the past 15 or more years this site has been inundated nearly every year all year due to a change in seasonal weather patterns, and had I made any investment in the site to improve it my investment would have been lost.

Whee raised a good point. In the site selection studies I've done it was common to come across old wetland/waterfowl easements placed on marsh land by farmers that sold the easement to the USF&WS. there's also landbank, soilbank and a variety of other federal programs, plus farmland that is under a support program usually gets stuck with a restriction on draining wetlands. So buyer beware.

I have another landing strip I'm going to use this year. It is also a little marshy in the spring and after heavy rain. I plan to mow it and tamp dirt in any badger holes, mark it, and use it as is when I can. One must just accept the fact there's a lot of times a minimally improved site is not useable but heck that's part of the fun and adventure of roughing it.

Great points! I agree that if this land is not truly wetland; it's usefulness will vary by the season and its likely not a good idea to spend a bunch of money on it. Thankfully I don't see any other easements; the thing I'm still trying to figure out (without saying "runway") is if the DNR considers it "wetland". Since there are fields all around it I'm hoping not, but I'd hate to be wrong. Other than that, I'm great with "roughing it"

Sidewinder wrote:Yes, you need to get educated and find out the local restrictions without educating the Government too much. Don't tell them you want to land planes there or their pea brains will go "tilt". If they don't understand something, Like no, your not building an international airport, it will just be easier for them to say no ,or hand you a crate full of paperwork.

That's the plan! Just focus on determining if they think it's wetland and nothing else.

OregonMaule wrote:These people did this in Washington. Not far from my home airport. It is on farm ground and it is wet like yours. It has standing water all winter and early spring. If you can get approval, get an earth mover and do this. These lakes are 2100' long.

Call it an irrigation reservoir, wildlife enhancement. 3' deep should do. Use the material to make your elevated runway. Now you have a water ski lake, float ops, stock some bass.

That is pretty cool!! That's really thinking outside the box; I like it . . something to keep in mind if I ever decide to do floats . .

sophis wrote:That's the plan! Just focus on determining if they think it's wetland and nothing else.

An easy way to determine whether land contains a wetland(s) is to go to the national wetlands database. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html

I ran a quick map on the Mapper function and below displayed my proposed strip and associated wetlands. My wetland is seasonal and outside of a week or two each year there is no water above the surface, and I never see surface water in the area the runway will be located.


This is the official source for basic biological wetland information. You can click on any wetland on your parcel and access a decoder which will tell you whether it is seasonal, etc.

Note this info has only an indirect relationship to the Corp of Engineers jurisdiction over wetlands. The Corp has jurisdiction over navigable water waterways and the drainages, wetlands that spill water into a waterway. From personal experience there are few wetlands that are not connected in some way to a navigable waterway.

This is just information to help you out and not intended to sway you one way or the other. However when it comes to something like building open water ponds for ducks and geese next to the spot you build a runway I do have an opinion:

Good luck.

Coondawg wrote:An easy way to determine whether land contains a wetland(s) is to go to the national wetlands database. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html

You rock!! Thank you! This is exactly what I've been looking for over the last 24+ hours!

The land beyond the creek is Freshwater Forrested Shrub Wetland (PFO1Bg) and the field where most of the runway would be is (Pf)

Pf in Wisconsin is:

P System PALUSTRINE: The Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, emergents, mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean derived salts is below 0.5 ppt. Wetlands lacking such vegetation are also included if they exhibit all of the following characteristics: 1. are less than 8 hectares ( 20 acres ); 2. do not have an active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline feature; 3. have at low water a depth less than 2 meters (6.6 feet) in the deepest part of the basin; 4. have a salinity due to ocean-derived salts of less than 0.5 ppt.
Subsystem :
Class :
Subclass :

Modifier(s):

f SPECIAL MODIFIER Farmed: Farmed wetlands occur where the soil surface has been mechanically or physically altered for production of crops, but hydrophytes will become reestablished if farming is discontinued. By policy, before the adoption of the FGDC Wetlands Mapping Standard in 2008, the Service does not include all farmed wetlands as part of the wetland mapping effort. Mapped farmed wetlands are limited to the following habitats: farmed prairie potholes and pothole type depressions, farmed intermittent lake bottoms (playa lakes), cranberry bogs, diked former tidelands in California.

Now to figure out what that means to me. The fields all around the property including the pasture with the fence are not any kind of wetland so I'm glad I looked. If I had just assumed that this land wasn't wetland because the bordering property was a field i would have been wrong.