Pond Boss Forums POND CONSTRUCTION Creating habitat New bass pond. Flooded timber a bad idea?

We have the start of a 2 acre bass and BG pond in the works and we left some timber around the two draws that will feed the pond. The area is maybe 150' by 40' and will mostly be underwater at full pool level. I was planning to cut down the trees at or below pool level in the area within the two draws (each about 3-5' deep now) to provide some habitat for the pond. The area between the two draws is likely to be about a foot deep when flooded, so I was contemplating removing these small trees and cedars. What are the best recommendations on letting this all just flood, rot and decay into the pond? Bad idea?

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showgallery&Number=280572&#Post280572

In other areas we have some ledges and channels 3-5' deep in 4-8 feet of water for structure and I'm planning to add a few 6'x2' concrete culverts and a few 4'x4' culverts. Then some standing cedar trees in 4 groupings of 3-5 trees. Thoughts?

I don't see why leaving the existing current smaller brush in place wouldn't be ideal. Stumps and rootballs will generally hold up a long time and be great habitat.
Another thought I had is the direction the draw faces. Might also want to create another group of deadfalls/brush on another bank, giving fish some variety of wind and sun exposure. Sounds like your well on your way to a sweet set-up!

Thanks Peepaw. What about letting the trees on land between the draws simply rot and fall into the pond, rather than cutting them down or removing them now?

Take a look at the structure archive for ideas. I would leave some in places you will want to fish.

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92463#Post92463

Don't use fresh cut oaks for structure; at least any medium or large amount. The tanins leach out for quite awhile and make it unusable, actually poisonous. Been there and done that.

Such underwater trees are nightmare for fishermen.

Not sure of your soils there but we have to lime heavily when trees are left in place to combat the leaching of tannic acids. My advice leave only a few in key locations.

Greg and Dave,

Can you elaborate on the leaching of tanic acids and its ill effects on water quality? Have you found red cedars do be a problem tree? What varieties of trees create the most issues?

Steve, when I built my pond, about 1 to 1.5 acres, a lot of oaks were cleared. I burnt most of them but had a bunch pushed down into the bowl as structure. It rained about a week later and the water turned black from the tanins. The water was about 4 ft deep but only in the bowl. I tried stocking some fish and they all died. Next I got some crawdads and they all left the pond immediately. I did a jar test with some pool chemicals and it cleared. So, I got enough chlorine to kill and settle everything in an Olympic sized pool. The water color lightened a little bit but the BG and GSF that I put in a minnow bucket still died. So, I got 3 or 4 times as much chlorine and added it. Fish still died. So, I started pumping with a 2 inch pump. I threw a ring in the pump after about 2 weeks of pumping. However, by that time I only had about a foot of water left and I let the Texas summer take care of that.
According to what Lusk told me, that doesn't happen with all soil types. The best way to determine is to cut a green piece of wood and toss it into a container or bucket of some kind. Watch the results for a couple of weeks. However, no matter what the test says, I'll never trust freshly cut trees again.

Dave, very interesting. I have added oaks, pecan and red cedars to several east and north east texas lakes without issue. Perhaps it is the fact that it is normally only a couple of trailer loads to lakes 10 to 20 acres. The volume of water disapates the acid in this scenerio.

However, this leads me to another question. When building a new lake is there a rule of thumb on how much timber to leave? If so, is it best to create habitat highways with the parts cut down or burn most of it. In other words, how do you how how much is too much in terms of brush piles? My guess would be to leave 10 to 15% of the lake with habitat. Creating highways, humps, points, islands ect... with the brush piles. While 10% to 15% does not sound like a lot, but it is huge. Any thoughts from anyone?

I think you're on the right track. Not only is it the amount of cover, but how it's placed and utilized by the fish. IIRC, Bob said 10%-20% for a fising BOW of the surface area in cover.

You're right, it's a lot more cover than people realize.

salex like you I have used a lot of oak , hickory , pines and other trees without any problem at all. A little lime will offset the acids.

I think the best idea is to sit down with the pond/lake in mind with the goals and design the structure to match. Best to do before the lake is built wrt bottom configuration (ditches , humps , islands, ledges etc). Then add the trees . pvc , rocks , pallets , cribs etc , to complete the plan. A lot of that is in the structure archive along with a narrative on structure for fishing (what , where and why).

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92463#Post92463

I like Erics ideas. When a pond/lake is built it should have fish highways with the aforementioned configurations and strategically placed structure that complements the natural bottom.

If it's already built you can map areas where you want to direct fish. If it's a bowl then you can identify areas to add structure that is anything but random.

Fluffy stuff like trees or brush piles in shallow water is obvious for small fish and forage to hang out. However, a brush pile 10 or so feet from that area will generally hold predators as a staging area before moving up to feed.

Steve, I expect you are right regarding the size of the size of the impoundment not being a factor. What I don't know and have wondered about is whether fish will avoid a place where the tanins are leaching their poison.

Dave,

I thought I got up early. What are you doing up and anwering and asking pond boss questions at 4:45 AM?!

Along the line of your question; I have had some people tell me that certain types of trees will not attract fish for many months. I'm sure the tanic acid. But, I'm not sure if I beleive that. I'm not sure what to beleive? Maybe my most confusing post ever.

Since USAF basic training in 1964 I've been an early riser. On my first morning the DI tossed a metal trash can down between the bunks and started yelling. I remember wondering just who that guy thought he was. I found out a lot about him pretty quickly. I've never broken the early riser habit and seem to do OK on 5 or so hours of sleep.

I have found that cedars attract and hold small fish right away.

I continue to wonder if there are big differences in the strength of the tannins from certain species of oaks and even from different locations (dry arid TX vs. wet moist MS). I know that Dave's experiences and mine are different but I bet both are correct.

Getting back on the forum---this is the first post in a while—and not up to speed
This is not really a suggestion but just something to think about, If the trees are going to die anyway get rid of them and raise that area above the water line make it a peninsula. Just a thought.

Dead tree from raised water level



Peninsula suggested by Mike



With grass over old trees

Hey that looks familiar Eric. Steve just saw this thread again. We try to limit the trees somewhat but use as you mention to our advantage when possible. The tannins are nasty no doubt total black water very acid and it lowers oxygen to lethal limits. Many times it takes a couple of months before we can stock fish BUT we can. It is lethal only for a short period. However if trees are flooded lime is suggested at higher rate than normal. As far as adding you would have to add a bunch to directly harm the fish and agree some will not hold fish for ahwhile due to this.