The dirt contractor will be moving in equipment next week to start on my pond. It should be around 10 acres of surface water. I have a creek bed running through where the pond will be that varies from 6 to 10 feet deep that is steep sided, 6 to 8 feet wide at the bottom, and 8 to 15 feet wide at the top. I sold the timber where the pond will be, and the loggers left lots of brush and tree tops fallen over into what was once a fairly clear creek channel. I am piling and burning the brush in the rest of the pond area with my dozer, but I can't work in the creek. It is now totally clogged with fallen tree tops. Very little of the creek channel will need to be excavated to get the dirt for the dam due to some ridges of good clay sticking out into the area around the dam, so the contractor will not need to clean out the creek channel to build the dam except in the deepest parts of the pond. The channel will meander for about 500 yards along the bottom of the lake before emerging at the mouth.

What would you do about the brush and tree tops that are clogging the creek channel? Would you clean it out and burn it? I'm thinking the channel will be good for the fish to travel in, but I don't know if they would use it if it is densely clogged with logs and brush.

If I shouldn't clean it out, how much would you leave in for cover/structure, and how would you gauge how much to leave?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

My concern would be that, in a heavy rain, all of it would wind up in the pond.

Dave,

The creek channel will be submerged once the pond fills. Last week we had a 4 inch rain that filled the creek to out of banks and very little, if any, of the tree tops moved down the creek at all. I'm trying to figure out what would make the best fish habitat. An open deep creek channel in the bottom of my pond, or a creek channel that is clogged with brush and dead logs.

Lynyrd

Lynyrd,

I am by no means an expert, in fact, I have made most of the mistakes possible, so your milage WILL vary.

I left a lot of "stuff" in the upper third on our big pond when we built it for just that reason, Habitat.

Here is what some of it looks like three years later.



One other thing to think about is all the nutrients the decaying matter will introduce to your pond as they decompose. If you need those nutrients like I did, you may not have a problem, but if your water is rich with nutrients, you may. As always around here, it depends.

For me, I am glad I left the brush and trees in the upper areas and I am also still happy I left some smaller trees on the east side for when the water rose. The habitat has bee used by the fish and birds. I now have active wood ducks and wood peckers in our trees. I see the Kingfishers and the occasional Eagle. I love it. The one thing to remember is that the nutrients WILL be used.

Here is a picture of the algae from this year, it is the reason I am going to try to grow Tilapia over winter. I am going to try to and produce several hundred pounds this winter and see if I can lessen the algae problem next year. On the other hand, I have seen a great deal of smaller fish in the algae this season, and the LMB are still doing great.



In moderation, everything (almost everything) is better.

Thanks Brian, I don't really want standing timber left in the pond, so I will take all of that out. I had envisioned the creek channel as a sort of fish highway that they would use to travel from the deeper areas into the shallows. The channel will extend from the mouth of the pond some 500 yards under water to very near the dam. Before excavation, the deepest part will be about 14 feet not counting the creek channel which is another 8 to 10 feet deep. I am just wondering if the log jams and brush in the creek channel will tend to deter the fish from using it as a travel route.

You gave me some things to think about.

Lynyrd

If your brush piles and logs are going to be that deep, you also need to know that some of that will be below the thermal-cline and will not decay as fast due to the lack of O2 down there. Also, the fish will not live in water without O2. I think the minimum is around 3ML. Below that, the water will not support most fish life, so few if any fish would use that area as cover. There are other things to think about as well with deeper water, sunlight, and temps are just a few. Of course, aeration could change that if you are planning on aerating.

In short, there is a lot more to think about besides just where to put your brush piles.

Also, make sure that the ground is good enough so that it will hold water without having to be compacted in those areas.

Personally? I'd like to see the stumps dug out and the whole pond basin compacted.

Esshup, NRCS engineer core samples found solid clay as far down as they could go all over the lake site. They used a 10' bit. And even below the creek bed the engineer hit clay immediately and couldn't get below it. According to the NRCS engineer, no worries on holding water. We'll see.

I understand what you mean about low O2 in the deeper water. As the creek flows into the lake, it will be in the submerged channel for over 200 yards where the surronuding area averages 4 to 6 foot deep. Maybe I should just focus on cleaning the brush from the shallow end?

Lynyrd, just a few thoughts on the brush in the creek.

Running water is always fastest 1" below the surface. If you have large tree tops in a pile, then you can bet the water runs pretty fast through that creek. If there is enough current, then non-floating trees/logs will tumble until the water flow slows down enough to let them naturally sink and overcome the current. This creates log jambs, and I bet that's what you're seeing.

As much as I like junk in my pond, I would be very leery of leaving that brush pile in the creek. I've had the best results adding cover at the 1-6' depth. If enough water does come in to breach that log jamb, then the limbs may float and become an issue. Or, they may sink to a depth that doesn't help the fish anyway, and they'll just be rotting wood sitting on the bottom of the pond. Either scenario boils down to a game of chance, and removing the trees eliminates that.

FireIsHot, I'm not sure you got the picture of my situation. The tree tops in the creek channel were not put there by running water. They are left over debris from logging the area where the pond will be. Before the logging operation, the creek channel was fairly clear with the occasional dead log laying in it. The natural fast running water from big rains kept the creek cleaned out.

When the pond fills, the creek channel will be submerged. The only way to get the tree tops, brush, and logs out of the creek channel now will be to pull them out with a track how before the pond fills up.

When the pond fills up, it will fill the creek channel, which averages 8 foot deep with steep sides. The creek channel will still be 6 foot deep in the shallow end of the pond and at the mouth of the pond this will be the only place containing water.

Lynard,

What I am saying is this.

Putting brush piles in deep water is not usually beneficial to fish populations.

For the Brush piles to be beneficial, they need to be in the shallower waters. From surface to about 6 feet deep. That is where the fish are going to live and that is where they need habitat. Really deep stagnant water will not hold O2 and will hold Anoxic gases in suspension which will keep the fish away. The only "benefit" will be the slow release of nutrients over time. And since most ponds have too much nutrients, more will not tend to be a benefit.

So in short, Move your brush piles to areas where they will end up in 1-6 feet of water, that way the fish can use them as habitat. Placing them in long "highways" is beneficial for your fish, but keep the depths right.

Lynyrd, I did for sure miss that.

Good luck with your plans.

Brian I am not disagreeing with you at all, just trying to learn something here.

It seems like I have read many times that during the winter months on Lake Fork that fishermen catch bass, crappie, and catfish in "deep water". I think I have heard reports of "the fish are suspended at 25 feet".

Are you saying a pond is different than a big public lake as far as where fish can survive and the fish being around deep structure in a much larger body of water?

That was my thinking too. Only time deep cover is of value is in winter after fall turnover.

But I would want at least a lot of the brush out if it were me. If some of it floats, where it will end up no one knows.

If the trackhoe has a hydraulic thumb, they can make pretty short work of it.

Thanks to everyone for the input. I think I will take most of it out. Don't want it to float off somewhere it shouldn't be. But, I am curious about the pros and cons of brush piles in deep water.

Thermoclines will tend to be a deeper in large lakes because of the ability of the wind to better mix the water. In small ponds that are protected from wind the thermocline may only be 5-6 ft. deep where as in a big lake it may be 15-20 ft. deep or deeper.

Use structure at all depths to cover all seasons of the year and all fishing and growth scenarios. Only part of the year is a thermocline present. Most predator fish love to be able to move up and down in the water column (subject to O2 requirements)for various reasons (protection , feeding and comfort/stress reduction). There are interesting studies on predators' use of the thermocline for feeding (trapping prey against the thermocline)and escape (they can and do go into the thermocline for feeding and escape).

Read and learn the structure archive.

Thanks Chris and Eric....that is interesting stuff.

One thing I have wondered ewest, do fish go down below the thermocline for short periods? For example, lets say the thermocline is at 5 feet and feed pellets are thrown out from the bank and some of them go down to a 6' deep level, a foot below the thermocline (sinking feed obviously). Will CC smell it or go searching for it at that depth? I know they can not stay down there because of lack of O2. But do they venture down for short periods? Especially if they know there is feed down there?

Eric,

Thanks for the info.

Is there a thread about using deep water in winter (after the thermal clime abates)?

I do have tree trunks in the deeper water but I figured it was for the CC not the other fish, so more learning needs to happen

Well said Chris.

Do they just go into the transition area of the thermocline, or do they also go below it into the cold, low O2 water, for short periods? Or does anyone really know? Are fish ever caught or fished below the thermocline in farm ponds?

Yes fish will go into the thermocline for short periods. They will use every advantage they can. Keep in mind that O2 requirements vary with species somewhat as do temp requirements.

For example RT have higher O2 requirements than LMB. Cal studies showed that LMB would trap the RT at the O2 depleted thermocline and ambush them from both above and below the thermocline. The RT were at a disadvantage because of the O2 deficit waters.

Obviously fish can't stay in areas where they can get O2 for long periods but they can go in and out to use an advantage.

Kind of like a snorkeler breath holding to dive down and look at something where he cant actually breathe. Just because he can't stay down there, does not mean he can't go down for short periods.

Cool. Thanks.