I am new to the forum, so please forgive me if this topic has already been explored. I am converting a seasonal pond into a perennial rainbow trout habitat. There is an upper pond and lower pond, connected by a stream. The entire habitat is sunk into a red alder woodland, and there are some large alders growing out of the stream. I will be drilling a well for the water source, as well as installing circulation pumps that will run 24/7. The ponds are easy enough because they are smooth-bottomed and will accommodate liners. The problem will be the spawning stream.

The stream is approximately 60 feet long and 15 feet wide, and the soil is netarts fine sand. The issue is not so much "sealing" the bottom and sides of the stream, rather to slow down seepage as much as possible. The water will be fast-flowing and the bottom will be filled with gravel and boulders (and the alders growing in the stream).

I am not interested in a clay liner, but was wondering if anyone has tried laying strips of EPDM on the bottom of a stream to slow seepage. Water velocity should aid as well. I do not want to create a situation where the well pump is constantly running to maintain the water level.

Any thoughts or suggestions? Thank you!

Are you are sure that the water temps will accomidate trout during the summer? If so, and you will be lining the ponds, could you also excavate and line the stream? Placing gravel and rocks back on top of the liner for spawning substrate.

Yes, the alders in the stream bed itself will have to be removed, but if the stream floor is sand, once the ponds are drained for installation of the liners, I think it might be just as easy to install a liner in the stream as well.

Yeah, I know, it sounds easy but it will be a LOT of work......

Hmm, I thought I posted something before and it is gone.
What esshup said... essentially other than the liner potentially being concrete.

I think a rubber liner would be better though as you could excavate a larger hole for the stream, then backfill with soil/clay on the bottom, then gravel, and then landscape with nice stone on top. You could simultaneously take advantage of the new larger surface area without leakage as filtering substrate on the bottom. Big project, and the liner isn't cheap. However you can "weld" (glue) hunks of liner together for your stream rather than leaving a very leaky gap.

I was working on a much smaller version of this before we got our farm pond dug. I intended to go "all out" on a pond garden and stream until I started adding up all of the costs.

This is a duplicate thread. There was one started earlier with an exact copy of the above text in another category. Both posted at the same time, so your not crazy Liquidsquid!!!! One took off with responses, this one stayed dead.

OK, found the other thread where responses had started.

Go here http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=350761#Post350761

I'm glad I posted on this forum. The responses are making me re-think my design of the connecting stream. I now think a liner is the way to go, and in the end, will probably be cheaper than trying to use other means to keep water from seeping into the sand bottom.

But I still need to keep the cost down by limiting the amount of excavation, and working with the area the way mother nature has created it over who knows how many years. When the stream bed is dry, I can see that the water has carved two trenches down the length of the bed. I could line the trenches, and, essentially create two small streams, and then some sort of island in the middle. The trenches weave around the alders so I wouldn't have to remove them. Yes, I think this might work!!