tion, shorebird and wateffowl feeding, juvenile fish rearing, 

 and muskrat habitat (Figure 16b). The gradual slope of these 

 areas should allow a natural transition of vegetative com- 

 munities and provide exposed mud flats or the potential 

 for future marsh habitat development. 



• The remaining shoreline should be more steeply sloped to 

 provide habitat more beneficial to other groups such as 

 diving ducks, geese, swans, beaver, and adult fish 



• As mentioned above, a mean depth of 2.5 m or greater of 

 combined littoral and deep areas should be provided if there 

 is an outlet channel or if a non-connected pit is to be 

 managed for fish. For example, 25 percent littoral area 

 averaging 0.5 m and 75 percent deep area averaging 3.2 m 

 yields an overall mean depth of 2.5 m. Refer to the Pit 

 Design Appendix D. 



• In a pit not connected to the active channel, and not to be 

 managed for fish, a similar shape and depth configuration is 

 appropriate, but a mean depth of 2.5 m is not required. These 

 pits should be protected with an adequate buffer from flood- 

 ing so that fish entrapment is minimized. In this case, the 

 main purpose is the creation of shorebird and waterfowl 



hab i t at . 



• If there is a choice between mining to a shallow depth over 

 a broad surface area or deep over a restricted surface area, 

 the choice should be to increase depth before increasing 

 area. This minimizes terrestrial disturbance and reduces the 

 probability of fish winter mortality. 



73 



VI . SITE OPERATION 



