Roscoe Arborn

We've decided that there's just too much life in the existing pond to drain it, reshape it, and change the pond bottom to various gravels.

The plan is to dig out a new, smaller/deeper pond and not risk the loss of habitat. I'll try to document my semi-educated guess work here for posterity.

We dug a pond that measures ~50'x~80' and varies from 3' to 6' deep, though it was initially dug about a foot or so deeper. It's mainly fed with runoff from the slope above. There is no aeration or circulation aside from the run off and natural convections that might occur via the difference in depth. The heavy clay here held water from the get go.

It's been great in so many ways, but we don't swim in it. We'd really like to change that. We've become enamored with the whole organic pool thing that David Pagan Butler does, but we really don't like the idea of a liner. It doesn't seem like we need it as our pond holds water really well. Purchasing a liner large enough for this pond is also a lot of money for something that brings so little to the table.

So why else might I want a liner?
- Limiting nutrient flow from the clay to the water? Is that point moot since the pond is fed with runoff anyway?
- Would it provide us with a less "mucky" bottom? If this is the main appeal, could I just put a woven geotextile fabric on bottom and lay bank run or stone on it? It's still extra plastic, but for an easier to digest price.

Also of note, we had ducks for a number of years who would spend most of their waking hours in or around the pond. They're gone now, but should I be concerned with whatever microbial life their poop might have introduced into the pond? Would copious aeration get us out of the duck poop bind if it's a problem?

Would the aforementioned aeration lead to an uptick in algae? We have never had any visible algae.

We have LOADS of frogs, tadpoles, salamanders, dragonfly, damselfly, and a small slider turtle that'd I'd hate to disturb unnecessarily. Are any of these signs of healthy water that doesn't require intervention?

I'm in the process of purchasing this land (50 acres) pictured below and am trying to plan out some swales so I can get right to work come spring (I wont be able to close until winter sets in due to the town taking their time with a subdivide).



Property details: The green lines mark the property outline and the orange roughly mark the contours in 10ft increments. The road frontage is on the southern edge of the property and the landscape slopes away from the road to the north. The grade varies from ~10% in the eastern corner to a more constant 2-5% elsewhere. The earth has about 1-1.5 ft of topsoil before giving way to some clay in the areas I've taken a spade to. It's covered with immature hardwoods and some hemlock and pines in the more green portions of the picture.

My goal is to grow mostly woody crops like apple, plum, pear, apricot, mulberry, seaberry, hazelnuts, walnuts, chestnuts, etc. accompanied by other understory companions where applicable. I feel like carving on contour swales into the landscape could be beneficial though maybe not essential as the land seems fairly moist already and it's mid September. I will eventually raise small livestock (sheep and/or goats) so I'd like to plan grazing into my swale positioning as well.

I'm wondering if swales would be the most beneficial/economical way to improve upon the fertility of the property. If I were to go with swales, would I need to have large spacing between my tree rows to account for the shadows of the more southern rows? Essentially, I'm a complete novice to producing food outside of a typical household garden and am in need of some more educated input. I'm open to any and all advice this wonderful community has to offer. If you need any more info on my behalf, just ask and I'll deliver. Thank you in advance!