If it's a ground water dug out pond and it is too low in times of a lower water table, I would go for more depth.
When you fill it with the pump how long does it take to lose the added water once you shut off the pump?
Thanks for the reply,
I'll answer your question this way, I can run the pump 24 hours or so per week (around 50,000 gallons) and hold level within an approximate 6 inch band that I call normal pool. If I try to raise the normal pool level I want to maintain, the pump would need to run longer (more $$s).
34 gpm going into the pond sound about right? Or is it more and the pond is retaining 34 gpm?
I think you are in uncharted territory. If you accurately measure your surface area, and know the gpm of the water input into the pond, then you can calculate the leakage rate.
For instance, I know (or think) that in my pond, at the current pond water/ground water level, when pumping water into the pond, I leak 18 gpm and retain 7 gpm. I know the pond surface area. I am pumping 25 gpm into the pond. In a 24 hr period the pond should rise "X" amount on the yardstick that is in the pond. It only rises 1/4th of "X" amount, which equals 7 gpm over that pond surface area. So, it has to be leaking approximately 75% of 25 gpm, right?
I don't know if deepening the pond will increase the leakage rate due to more psi on the pond bottom, or increase the rate by more surface area on the pond bottom for water to leak out. OR if the leakage rate will stay the same.
Do some careful measuring before and after and report back. That will be good information to know.
As usual, I am now confused (and sorry to hack this thread here Bill but I think it will be good for you original post)
Please help ESSUP! If the water table is "normally" at, for example, 24" below the top soil. If I dug a hole in that spot that was 48" deep I would have a pool of water that was 24". Now if I dug that hole 96" deep I would have a pool of water at 72". By digging the pond deeper I would have a deeper pool of water.
Isn't it a relative scale? So a drought happens and the water table falls to 48" below the top soil. A 48" deep pond has no pool while a 96" deep pond has a 48" pool. Where does the pressure on the pond bottom factor into the equation for a ground water dug out pond? Thanks and sorry again if this detracts from you post Bill!
Last edited by mnfish; 05/20/1509:40 AM. Reason: spell
Pressure on the bottom of the pond figures in when there is 96" of water in the pond. It might leak out faster at full pool of 96" depth than it does with only 48" of water in it at full pool.
Then again, maybe not because the water table is higher. Like I said, you're going in uncharted territory.
BUT, I believe it would if you wanted to keep the pond at 96" depth when the water table is 48" below the surface vs. at the surface.
If you consider groundwater to be an infinite reservoir, and relative to a pond it will be, the pressure will equilibrate whether pond is 4' deep or 8' deep. There will be greater pressure down at 8', but the hydrostatic pressure is also greater and will balance. If the small tank's bottom moves down 2', the large tank will fill in to the same level. If two tanks have 3' of water in them, the level won't change if you pipe across 1' down or 3' down.
If the connection to groundwater is in the bottom of the pond, it will keep dropping as levels ebb. If the connection is 2' down, then theoretically it will quit leaking (badly) once you lose those 2' of water.
If you are concerned about transients, the filling and emptying process, if you open up more "conduction paths" to the reservoir, you will have greater flux in and out. Since the proposed work is on a filled pond and I didn't see mention of draining and keeping pumped out, compacting layers isn't a means to seal off the connection to groundwater. If that's true, any digging can only open up more routes in/out.
We don't know if the groundwater enters at 2' depth or at the bottom do we? If you know where your opening is, I would say dig in the other direction. If it's on the bottom, then widening and cutting soil away at 2' depth would seem least likely to increase leakage rates. If you have a ring at 2' depth, then going deeper would seem to least likely. If the whole thing is porous, then you'll just get more flow in and out during transients.
Just opinions from a guy who does fluid flow when not at the pond. Best of luck with the project. We're all rooting for you.
IMO given a pond 96" deep and the water table is at 48" the water will be 48" deep. The water coming in from the water table will equal the water leaking out anywhere. There will be flow to some extent. Now if I have a heavy rainfall and water flows into the pond from the watershed bringing the level up to 80" but the water table only rises to 46" below grade, the pond will leak to both the watertable and anywhere else it can to get to the same level as the watertable.
In the case of my well adding water, the higher I try to keep the pond above the watertable, the higher the leak rate will be. Currently, I believe the pond is being held about 1 foot above the water table. I put in 50K gallons in 24 hours and it leaks down in about 6 days, after shutting off the water, to my starting point so I am leaking/evaporating 50K gallons/7 days or about 5 GPM
If I continue to hold the pond at the current level, that leakage rate will go up if the watertable drops further and down if the watertable rises.
Last edited by Bill D.; 05/20/1501:13 PM. Reason: Typo
Update: Guy showed up today to start digging (one week early) so had to make a decision on the pond expansion. I went with adding about 1/8th acre of 10 to 12 feet deep water to the main pond. That should bring the main to a total of 3/8 to 1/2 acre, depending on water level. Also adding about a 1/20th acre sediment/forage pond 8 feet deep.
Update: Guy showed up today to start digging (one week early) so had to make a decision on the pond expansion. I went with adding about 1/8th acre of 10 to 12 feet deep water to the main pond. That should bring the main to a total of 3/8 to 1/2 acre, depending on water level. Also adding about a 1/20th acre sediment/forage pond 8 feet deep.
I took a before pic. I will take a progress pic tonight. Hopefully, I can take one with the holes at least dug Monday but there will be a whole bunch of dirt/gravel/sand piled around. Will be awhile before the piles are dry enough to move/grade. I will work to get the riprap on the north shore and the swales asap but supposed to rain all next week so trucks probably can't get in.
Well guys, the rough-in dig is complete on the little expansion of little Mutt Pond. One new bay is shown in the picture, the other is behind the point you can see in the middle of the picture. The pond is about 2 feet below low summer pool in the photo do to the dig. It has come up 6 inches or so since the photo was taken.
I'm going to have to figure out another way to put in a forage pond. The test hole for a combination sediment forage pond was beach sand down to 12 feet and would have had to be so far upgrade, 12 feet was above water table. Really don't want to deal with a liner in what could be at times a very high flow sediment pond.
The two swales coming into the pond will now both be filled with mats then riprap. The north shore of the pond (partly shown in picture), will have mat and riprap for erosion as well.
In my best Hank Hill voice, Damn it Bill excellent job. You must just be elated to have improved your Mutt pond so much. Every cubic inch of added water is just that much more of some type of life in your pond. I'm envious and happy for ya. Keep at it.
Do nature a favor, spay/neuter your pets and any weird friends or relatives.
It's your menagerie but my uncle used ta call Crappie Crappy and tho I like ta catch em, I agree. Speaking of menageries, have you checked out Bobby Rices latest post? Gaaawd what a pond. It's too bad we're so far north or we'd be havin lots of converted salties. He was gonna set me up with some Flounderr but I found out their low temp tolerance was 42 and my pond doesn't stay quite that warm.
Do nature a favor, spay/neuter your pets and any weird friends or relatives.
Bill my wife calls it "character". She wanted our pond to have some character. No nice round pond or any straight shore lines. Spent a number of extra hours on the dozer and scraper so our pond would have "character".
One of the conditions of being married to an artistic type with some imagination. I lack both of those features, but she has enough for both of us.
Looking for some opinions....I was down tossing minnow traps tonight to do a little sampling and saw the BG have constructed 15 or so nests in the last day or so in about a foot of water on a mud bar 4 or 5 feet from shore. My concern is this is wading distance/depth for GBH and they come here nearly daily. I run them off when I see them. I only saw 1 male on a nest. The rest appeared empty. GBH get the adult BG or are these probably abandoned nests?
I am pretty sure these nests were not there yesterday morning but can't swear to it. Is it possible that BG will build nests all at the same time in a day or two? There is a nest on pretty much every small area of this mud bar.
Last edited by Bill D.; 06/01/1504:28 PM. Reason: Clarification
Another question. So once the male BG builds a nest, does he wait for a female to come around or does he go out and attract one and lead her back to the nest?
Bluegills are colony spawners, and they do tend to build nests as a group. During the initial stages of nest building, I often observe my BG leaving the nest, most often due to a cold front passing through. I don't know what your temps are today, but it was almost chilly down here this afternoon. Combine that with a cool rain, and I think it would be enough to send them back out deeper for a bit. I'm betting they'll be back when it warms up a degree or two.
Once the males commit to the nest, I think they are less likely to be driven off....but not guaranteed.
The males build the nests, and the females choose their partner. The biggest males will often lay claim to the best spawning sites, often located in the middle of the colony, just for that reason...more appealing to the female.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
Thanks for holding this newbie's hand again Tony! Yep, cold front going thru here. Do you have an answer as to whether the females come looking for the males on their nests or do the males go looking for the females and lead/herd them back to the nest?
The females show up of their own accord. One of my favorite strategies is to target female bluegills who are often staged just off the actual spawning site in deeper water. I've never witnessed a male leave the nest and come back with a female in tow, but I have seen them get pretty showy (spinning, flaring, etc,) when a female is in the vicinity.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
Thanks Sparkie! You are the best....except for maybe your wardrobe choices. That baby blue singlet you use for fishing HBG is not really that flattering to your legs!
Flattering my stork-like appendages is a tall order.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.