LAKE URMIA CRISIS

AND

ROADMAP FOR ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF LAKE URMIA

THREE PAPERS SUBMITTED

BY

Brad Marden

Philip Micklin

Wayne Wurtsbaugh

TO

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

IRANIAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

AND

KALANTARI COMMISSION

INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL WETLANDS ROUND TABLE

TEHRAN, IRAN

MARCH 16-18, 2014

Executive Summary and Biography of Author

Philip Micklin

Biography: Philip Micklin has focused on water management issues in the former USSR since

the late 1960s. He was a geography professor at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo for

30 years before retiring in 1999. He received the University’s highest academic award in 1992,

when named Distinguished Academic Scholar. Professor Micklin is particularly interested in the

human induced desiccation of the Aral Sea and its environmental and human consequences as

well as the related problems of water sharing and water management in and among the new,

independent states of Central Asia. Dr. Micklin has visited and lived in the former USSR and

Central Asia many times over the past 47 years: conducting research, attending conferences

and working for the United Nations and U.S. Government. He has participated in several

expeditions to the Aral Sea. He is chief editor and contributed 8 chapters to a new book on the

Aral Sea published by Springer in January 2014. He just returned from Iran to which he had

been invited to help with developing a rescue program for a large lake that is undergoing

human induced drying.

Summary: The Aral Sea is a terminal Lake lying amidst the vast deserts of Central Asia. Its drainage basin encompasses more than two million km2. At 67,500 km2 in 1960, the Aral Sea was the world's fourth largest inland water body in terms of surface area. The sea supported a major fishery and functioned as a key regional transportation route. The extensive deltas of the Syr and Amu, the seas two influent rivers, sustained a diversity of flora and fauna as well as irrigated agriculture, animal husbandry, hunting and trapping, fishing, and harvesting of reeds.

Since 1960, the Aral has undergone rapid desiccation and salinization, overwhelming the result of unsustainable expansion of irrigation that dried up its two tributary rivers. The desiccation of the Aral Sea has had severe negative impacts. The vibrant commercial fishing industry ended in the early 1980s as the indigenous species that provided the basis for the fishery disappeared from rising salinity. The rich ecosystems of the Amu and Syr rivers have suffered considerable harm. Strong winds blow sand, salt and dust from the dried bottom of the Aral Sea onto surrounding lands causing harm to natural vegetation, crops, people and wild and domestic animals.

However, it is possible to repair some the damage done to this water body. The former northern part of the Aral has been separated from the former southern part of the Sea by a dike and dam. This has led to a rise of the level and lowering of salinity that has allowed native fishes to return to this part of the sea and produced a flourishing fishing industry. The deltas of the two rivers have also received remediation measures to partially preserve their ecological and economic values. It is also possible to implement projects to preserve some parts of the southern (Large) Aral Sea, although these need much further environmental and economic analysis.

What are the general lessons for Lake Urmia revival from the Aral experience?

Be cautious with large-scale interference in the natural environment and try to understand the range and nature of both positive and negative consequences prior to proceeding with projects.

Remediation projects should be staged, adjustable to changing conditions, and incorporate information feedback mechanisms based on careful research and monitoring.

Preserve biological refugia where species can be preserved when natural environments deteriorate (e.g., Aral Sea and Lake Urmia) and which can serve to replenish the biological character of the larger environment when conditions there improve.

Don’t give up on a degraded water body. Nature is resilient and with the proper effort and concern can be at least partially restored.

Executive Summary and Biography of Author

Wayne Wurtsbaugh

Biography: Dr. Wayne Wurtsbaugh is a professor at Utah State University (USA) where he has

taught limnology and water quality for 30 years. He has done aquatic research in Peru, Spain,

Germany, Switzerland, and on two major salt lakes—Mar Chiquita in Argentina and the Great

Salt Lake in Utah.

Summary of Report: The area and volume of Lake Urmia, like all salt lakes, is balanced by the

amount of inflowing water. For hundreds and perhaps thousands of years, the lake was in

balance with its water supply from the watershed, but recent increases in agricultural,

industrial and municipal water withdrawals have disturbed the balance and the lake is drying

up. Consequently, the most urgent need is to restore water to the lake. Other priorities

include: (1) Making a careful bathymetric map so that the area and volume of the lake can be

determined at any lake level. Without this information, managers are only guessing at the lake

size and salinity if a given amount of water is available for its restoration. (2) Limnological

monitoring of physical, chemical and biological parameters needs to be instituted as soon as

possible. Parameters to be measured would include salinity, temperature, ionic composition,

nutrients, phytoplankton biomass, Artemia populations, and several other metrics. This should

be measured at 2-4 week intervals at several stations in the lake. Bird populations should be

monitored twice a year. (3) Describing and prioritizing the organisms that people want to

protect, and determining the lake levels and salinities that will be necessary to maintain them.

With the limited amount of water that will be available, it will not be possible to protect all

species, so careful consideration must be made of which ones are most important. The needs

of the organisms must then be linked to water management. For example, the target elevation

of 1274 m given in the current management plan will not likely provide a low enough salinity

for Artemia, and hence birds like flamingos will not return to the lake. (4) It will be useful to

describe different “beneficial uses” for various parts of the lake. These could include such

things as ‘dust control’, ‘Artemia production’, ‘recreation’, ‘minerals production’. The exact

beneficial uses will need to be determined by the population in the basin and the rest of Iran.

The situation at Lake Urmia is dire and managers can hope for the best (a wet cycle returns),

but they must plan for the worst. This should include planning dust control measures to

minimize health problems in the surrounding cities, and crop damage. Preserving a minimal

amount of biodiversity in the delta wetlands might be accomplished by diking to retain the

freshwater for longer periods. Diked areas for brine shrimp can also be considered, but the

long-term consequences of lake shrinkage and salt movements must be taken into

consideration.

Executive Summary and Biography of Author

Brad Marden

Biography: Brad Marden is Research Coordinator for Great Salt Lake Artemia, Inc., Executive

Manager of Parliament Fisheries Inc. and he is adjunct professor of Health Sciences and teaches

Human Anatomy and Physiology at Weber State University. Brad has done over 200 detailed

ecological studies of the Great Salt Lake over the past 14 years. He has also directed ecological

research projects on salt lakes in Siberia (Altai, Kurgan, Tyumen, and Omsk regions), Kazakhstan

(Pavlodar region and Aral Sea), Uzbekistan (Aral Sea), Turkmenistan (Karabogoz Gol, Caspian

Sea) from 1999 to 2014. Brad served for 11 years on the Great Salt Lake Technical Advisory

Group, Division of Wildlife Resources, Department of Natural Resources, State of Utah. He was

a member of the Scientific Advisory Panel for the Development of a Selenium Standard for the

Open Waters of the Great Salt Lake. He was Principal Research Scientist on NATO Science for

Peace projects in Central Asia/Uzbekistan and Russia 2002-2007. Brad recently visited Iran for a

second time as a participant in the 32nd National, 1st International, Geosciences Congress: Lake

Urmia Rescue and to assist with the rescue program for Lake Urmia.

Summary of Report

The crisis in Lake Urmia is clearly a disaster of hemispheric proportions. It is absolutely

imperative to find solutions quickly and effectively and to proceed down a logical pathway for

the restoration of Lake Urmia. The restoration process should be Iranian designed,

engineered, and implemented. It should emphasize community involvement and widespread

support among the populace. International experts can provide value for the restoration

project and can save time and expense by applying knowledge learned from resource

management experiences and ecological restoration projects in similar biotopes.

The major problem is clearly one of water supply and demand. Initial efforts need to focus on

the watershed and accurate assessments of the water supply, demand, demographics, and

external influences on water availability—such as climate. Lessons learned from watershed

(a.k.a. catchment area) assessment and water resources management experience from the

Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA (GSL) can be translated into the existing water resource plan for the

Lake Urmia catchment area. Water usage in the Lake Urmia catchment area needs a more

rigorous assessment (especially illegal vs legal usages and diversions), and stricter regulations

need to be imposed. Community involvement in water conservation should be emphasized.

Improvement in the return of water to Lake Urmia allows the next sequence of priority projects

be implemented. Embayments should be used to maximize the efficient use of returned water

and can be used to return the many beneficial uses formerly performed by a much larger Lake

Urmia. Experiences in the creation and management of embayments in the GSL basin can be

used to more expeditiously restore the many desirable functions of Lake Urmia. USA scientists

and resource managers are willing to devote time, energy, technology and expertise toward the

extremely important project of Saving Lake Urmia.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LAKE URMIA, WEST AZERBAIJAN, IRAN AND GREAT

SALT LAKE, UTAH, USA, WITH EMPHASIS ON PRIORITY ISSUES AND PRIORITY

ACTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE RESTORATION OF LAKE URMIA

DRAFT VERSION

Brad Marden Parliament Fisheries, Inc.

Ogden, Utah, USA mardenb@attglobal.net

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT This paper explores the similarities, and dissimilarities, between the Great Salt Lake (GSL), Utah, USA and Lake Urmia, West Azerbaijan, Iran. The purpose of comparing the two lakes and their management is to identify areas of expertise, experience (successes as well as failures and mistakes), technology, strategic approaches, and outcomes that can be shared between experts, scientists and resource managers from Iran and the USA. The central premise is that some of the experiences and methods used to manage the GSL, its ecosystem, and watershed may be of immediate help for the restoration of Lake Urmia. Also, there are experts and a wealth of experience from Iran that can also be shared with their USA counterparts and in so doing promote the correct management of both Lake Urmia and the GSL. The primary goal is to quickly and efficiently assist with the implementation of the Roadmap for Ecological Restoration of Lake Urmia. The condition of Lake Urmia at present is an indisputable crisis: the lake is in an absolutely dire condition and will become a tragedy and a disaster on a monumental scale if effective restoration measures are not enacted promptly and correctly. The urgency and hemispheric importance of implementing corrective measures to restore the ecological, limnological, recreational, aesthetic, and climatic features of Lake Urmia cannot be overstated—there is an immediate and pressing need to move forward quickly and effectively with restoration of Lake Urmia. In this report the Management Objectives defined in the Integrated Management Plan (2010) for Lake Urmia are used as a framework to examine information pertaining to the Great Salt Lake and its potential value for defining and implementing a Roadmap for Ecological Restoration of Lake Urmia (The “Roadmap”). The priority issues for Lake Urmia are examined with respect to the GSL. Each priority issue is listed and within the context of the particular issue relevant information on the GSL and its watershed are evaluated. Information, experiences, expertise, technology, and lessons learned from the GSL are then defined in terms of priority actions for Lake Urmia. Additionally, proposals, presentations and discussion topics given at the 32nd National and the 1st International Geosciences Congress/Urmia Lake Rescue held in Tehran, and at Urmia University, Urmia, Iran during February 2014, were used to identify experiences and expertise related to the Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA that could be of help for the “Roadmap”. In terms of the comments provided below about Lake Urmia it is necessary to state outright that the information provided does not in any way intend to imply that a thorough scholarly investigation of Lake Urmia has been completed for this paper. Most of the information stated is extracted from a small collection of resources, namely: A Concise Baseline Report--Lake Uromiyeh (sic), compiled and written by Ahmad Lotfi, edited by Dr. M. Moser and printed in November 2012, or from the Integrated

Management Plan for Lake Urmia Basin, prepared in cooperation with governmental organizations, NGOs and local communities of Lake Urmia Basin, 2010, and from the Drought Risk Management Plan for Lake Urmia Basin, Summary Report, prepared by the Working Group on Sustainable Management of Water Resources and Agriculture, Regional Council of Lake Urmia Basin Management, December 2012. Due to the limited scope of English translations of research on Lake Urmia this report is handicapped in terms of access to the full range of excellent studies available on Lake Urmia. Apologies are given in advance for any omissions or oversights with respect to the vast body of scientific information on Lake Urmia. An additional caveat needs to be expressed in terms of this paper: this document is not intended for circulation or reprinting beyond the participants in the UNDP-DOE Round Table meeting in Tehran, Iran, March 16-18, 2014. Due to time constraints and the exigency of getting this paper to the Round Table meeting, this is a draft version only and not a final version. A final version with appropriate permissions for all content included therein will be completed before publication and general circulation.

CONTENTS

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ROADMAP TO ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF LAKE URMIA VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS FOR LAKE URMIA AND GREAT SALT LAKE COMPARATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF LAKE URMIA AND GREAT SALT LAKE OVERVIEW OF GREAT SALT LAKE AND LAKE URMIA INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LAKE URMIA. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE NUMBER ONE: To raise awareness of the values of the Lake and satellite wetlands and to enhance public participation in their management.

LAKE URMIA PRIORITY ISSUE: Awareness of high level policy makers and decision makers. o GSL EXPERIENCE: management tools, stakeholder involvement, management plans and

implementation.

LAKE URMIA PRIORITY ISSUE: Public awareness about the values and threats of the Lake. o GSL EXPERIENCE: Great Salt Lake state parks, hunting reserves, waterfowl management

areas, wetland preserves, FOGSL Issues Forum, community outreach, community involvement, education.

LAKE URMIA PRIORITY ISSUE: Participatory wetlands management and restoration projects with strong engagement of local communities.

o GSL EXPERIENCE: GSL waterbird surveys, Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve, Great Salt Lake Shorelands Preserve

LAKE URMIA PRIORITY ISSUE: Ecotourism. o GSL EXPERIENCE: Davis County Events, State Parks, salt flats, harbors, sailing events,

GSL Festival, boat tours, sporting events, buffalo roundup, and hunting. INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LAKE URMIA. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE NUMBER TWO: Sustainable management of water resources and land use.

LAKE URMIA PRIORITY ISSUE: Water supply to the Lake and satellite wetlands. o GSL EXPERIENCE: Water resources monitoring, management, regulations, and

enforcement. o GSL EXPERIENCE: Website development for natural resources within the GSL

watershed. o GSL EXPERIENCE: Climate, drought, and water resources modeling and predictions.

LAKE URMIA PRIORITY ISSUE: Water quality. o GSL EXPERIENCE: Federal USEPA, Clean Water Act, Utah Department of Natural

Resources, Division of Water Quality and GSL water quality and pollution studies. INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LAKE URMIA. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE NUMBER THREE: Conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of the wetland resource.

LAKE URMIA PRIORITY ISSUE: Important satellite wetlands.

o GSL EXPERIENCE: Natural and man-made wetlands. Decades of detailed research and experience with wetlands.

o GSL EXPERIENCE: GSL is part of the Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network, has been designated as a Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve, conducted the largest long-term waterbird survey in USA history, is home to millions of waterbirds, shorebirds, songbirds, and raptors.

LAKE URMIA PRIORITY ISSUE: Breeding population of White Pelicans and Flamingoes. o GSL EXPERIENCE: Decades of research and experience managing lake resources for

breeding and migratory bird populations. o GSL EXPERIENCE: GSL has large white pelican breeding colony. o GSL EXPERIENCE: GSL had one know pink flamingo present from 1987 to 2005. His

name was “Pink Floyd”.

URMIA PRIORITY ISSUE: Population of Yellow Deer and Armenian Sheep on the islands of the Lake.

o GSL EXPERIENCE: Management of deer, sheep, and buffalo on Antelope Island. Hunting licenses generate >$300,000 USD per year.

URMIA PRIORITY ISSUE: Population of Artemia in Lake Urmia. o GSL EXPERIENCE: 40+ years managing successful brine shrimp (Artemia) industry. Brine

shrimp royalty act. ADDITIONAL PROPOSALS SUBMITTED DURING THE 32ND NATIONAL, AND 1ST INTERNATIONAL, GEOSCIENCES CONGRESS: URMIA LAKE RESCUE.

Topic: Emergency phase-to-phase restoration of Lake Urmia Ecosystem: A Practical Low Cost Plan (diking of sections of Lake Urmia to restore beneficial uses of the lake such as Artemia production, recreation, wetlands, and other functions).

o GSL EXPERIENCE: The GSL is essentially a series of altered landscapes or embayments. Research from each of the bays provides insight into ways in which proposed embayments on Lake Urmia could be managed for optimal production of desired outcomes.

Topic: Flooding of exposed lakebed and updated morphological/bathymetric Study of Lake Urmia.

o GSL EXPERIENCE: USGS Bathymetric study.

Topic: Monitoring changes in the lake water levels using Landsat satellite imagery and Evaluation of Spatio-Temporal Variations in Urmia Lake Using Remote Sensing and GIS.

o GSL EXPERIENCE: Chlorophyll, temperature, wetland, water quality studies using satellite data.

PROPOSED SCIENTIFIC EXCHANGE WORKS HOP IN UTAH FOR IRANIAN SCIENTISTS AND RESOURCE MANAGERS

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A. GSL AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS, MANAGEMENT PLANS, REGULATORY ENTITIES,

ADVISORY GROUPS, LEASING PLANS, AND COUNCILS

APPENDIX B. GREAT SALT LAKE COMPREHENSIVE MANGAGEMENT PLAN (2012) LIST OF RECENTLY COMPLETED AND ONGOING ECOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH APPENDIX C. PERSONAL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWING THE GEOSCIENCES

CONGRESS IN TEHRAN AND URMIA, IRAN (FEBRUARY 16-20, 2014).

SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE “ROADMAP TO ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF LAKE URMIA”

Recommendations and Suggestions for the “Roadmap for Ecological Recovery of Lake Urmia”: 1. All large-scale projects need to be step-wise, adaptable, and scale appropriate. Avoid the pitfalls of

devoting a disproportionate amount of time and resources to single massive solutions. 2. Emphasize the promotion of local support and community involvement—strive to get the vast

proportion of the population in favor of the idea to Save Lake Urmia. Conduct an effective campaign of awareness and appreciation for Lake Urmia. Keep the press involved.

3. Target youth groups for public participation and support for saving Lake Urmia. Get schools involved.

4. Although the causeway and dams have altered the natural environment, they are not the primary targets for improving conditions on Lake Urmia. The best option is to use them to manage water resources most effectively.

5. Recommendations for the long-range (i.e., trans-basin) import of water will likely cause many unforeseen consequences, will be enormously expensive, and is not a good solution. It should be viewed as a “last resort” solution and not a primary one.

6. Embayments and ponds should be formed in the Lake Urmia lakebed. Even though they are not the “natural lake” they will provide a more efficient use of limited water resources. It will be necessary to overcome logistical and legal hurdles due to National Park Status and to proceed with construction of the embayments.

7. The history of management of the GSL, and its associated wetlands, has clearly shown that embayments and linked pond systems can be very effective at returning ecological functions, recreation opportunities, aesthetic values, economic opportunities, resource production, better local climatic conditions, reduction in dust and health impacts, and improved livelihood for local communities. The GSL is, by objective assessment, a series of highly managed embayments. The future of Lake Urmia could be quite similar to the GSL.

8. Create embayments for different purposes: wetlands, viewshed, Artemia and other zooplankton, halophilic bacteria, micro and macro-algae, recreation, and for dust control. Use research from other regions of the world, like the GSL, to engineer and manage this network of embayments in an optimal manner for the desired beneficial uses.

9. Ensure that the Save Lake Urmia project is locally designed and implemented but supported by a broad base of national and international experts.

10. Create a central database website for ALL Lake Urmia Recovery and Restoration projects, watershed and water resources information. Access to reliable data from reputable research programs can facilitate good decision making steps and can reduce lost time and costly errors.

11. Expand the scope of research projects to include more emphasis on Limnology, Wetlands and Ecology of the Lake Urmia Basin.

12. Impose much stricter regulations on water usage within the Lake Urmia basin. But simultaneously strive to get local community based support for water conservation measures.

13. Keep in mind that if high quality habitat is created then nature will respond in a positive and productive manner—nature is surprisingly resilient. Habitat is the key.

14. Biodiversity is a worthwhile goal for restoration of Lake Urmia, but also pay close attention to keystone species. Management for keystone species can have broader success than management for biodiversity.

15. Increase testing of contaminants in water, biota, and airborne particulates. 16. Ensure that local Iranian approaches are prioritized for the project, but still work with international

experts and extract valuable information and technology from such interactions. 17. Promote the exchange of ideas, technology, and methods.

18. Avoid time-consuming errors by analyzing successful projects in other countries before implementation of Urmia proposals and projects.

19. Recognize that there is genuine interest and concern by the international community to help in the recovery of Lake Urmia.

20. International cooperative efforts for such a laudable and important project as saving Lake Urmia promotes positive relations and good-will between countries and cultures.

VISION STATEMENTS AND LONG-TERM GOALS FOR LAKE URMIA AND GREAT SALT LAKE LAKE URMIA

25 YEAR VISION “Lake Urmia will have adequate water to sustain an attractive landscape and rich biodiversity where people and local communities can make wise use of its resources, and will enhance cooperation between the involved provincial organizations” GOAL “To establish an ecosystem based management for the lake and its satellite wetlands within the context of sustainable development with effective involvement of all stakeholders including local communities.” (Integrated Management Plan, 2010)

http://www.geocreationism.com/images/lake_van_and_lake_urmia_chelys.jpg

GREAT SALT LAKE

VISION STATEMENT GSL is a unique and complex ecosystem of regional and hemispherical importance. Sustainable use of GSL’s natural resources will ensure that the ecological health (e.g., water quality, shoreline condition, salinity, aquatic organisms, wildlife, wetlands), scenic attributes, extractive industries (e.g., minerals, brine shrimp, microorganisms), and recreation opportunities (e.g., bird watching, hunting, sailing) will be maintained into the future. Forestry, Fire, and State Lands (FFSL) will coordinate, as necessary, to ensure that the management of these resources is based on a holistic view of the lake-wide ecosystem—including the use of adaptive management, as necessary—to ensure long-term sustainability. Responsible stewardship of GSL’s resources will provide lasting benefit to the Public Trust. (DNR/FFSL, 2012)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/22/article-2177202-1429E76B000005DC-456_970x524.jpg

COMPARATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF LAKE URMIA AND GREAT SALT LAKE

ATTRIBUTES LAKE URMIA DESCRIPTION (Integrated Management Plan, 2010)

GSL DESCRIPTION (Multiple Sources)

Name and Alternatives Lake Urmia, Urmia Lake, Chichest Great Salt Lake, GSL

Location North: 36˚.45ʹ to 38˚.20ʹ East: 44˚.50ʹ to 46˚.10ʹ

North: 40˚.40ʹ to 41˚.30ʹ West: 112˚.00ʹ and 112˚.49ʹ

Area of the Lake 5,000 km2 2,720 km

2

Area of the Catchment (Watershed) 51,876 km2 89,000 km

2

Elevation 1,276 m amsl 1,280 m amsl

Administration Status (Including Watershed)

West Azerbaijan Provincial Environmental Conservation Office (WAECO). Satellite wetlands in East Azerbaijan: EAECO

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Air Force.

Conservation Status National Park (1957) State Park, Wildlife Refuge, Waterfowl Management Area, Wetlands Preserve, Bird Sanctuary, Shorebird Reserve, Upland Game Reserve, National Historic Site, Protected Nesting Sites, Private Duck Clubs

International Designations Ramsar Site, UNESCO Biosphere Reserve

Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve (1991). GSL is not a Ramsar site

Land Tenure State Owned Utah State, Federal and Private Lands

Land Use Water body, wetland, pasturelands, cultivated lands, transportation

Water body, wetland, grazing, urban development, cultivated land, transportation

Main Sources of Water Runoff from the catchment area, ground water, precipitation

Runoff from watershed, ground water, precipitation

Ramsar Wetland Type (Urmia) or Wetland Category (GSL)

Lake: Lacustrine, Wetlands: Palustrine

Controlled and Uncontrolled (natural wetland)

Main Ecological Values Hypersaline lake and associated biota including: microbes, algae, zooplankton, vertebrates (especially unique avifauna and endangered species).

Hypersaline lake and associated biota including: microbes, algae, zooplankton, vertebrates (especially unique avifauna and endangered species).

Wetland Products Salt harvest, grazing, Artemia harvest, fishery, controlling saline underground waters, waterbird habitat, reeds, fodder, medicinal herbs

Forage for grazing

Wetland Functions Biodiversity support, landscape, climatic moderation, pollution and sediment retention, ground water recharge.

Habitat for biota, especially birds, pollution, sediment retention, support of biodiversity, nutrient cycling

Wetland Services Tourism/eco-tourism, recreation, education, training, research, therapeutic muds, cultural heritage

Birding, recreation, hunting, research, education, wastewater discharge

Main Ecological Changes Declining volume/elevation, exposed lakebed, increased salinity, Artemia and dependent avifauna declines, wetland loss or eutrophication.

General trend of declining volume, though not definitive trend, exposed lakebed, increasing salinity (Gilbert Bay)

OVERVIEW OF GREAT SALT LAKE AND LAKE URMIA The Great Salt Lake in Utah, USA and Lake Urmia located in West Azerbaijan, Iran have many similarities and also differences. Climate related drought, population pressure, agricultural water diversions, legal and illegal water wells and pumping, and industrial usage have exerted an extreme burden on water supplies in the Lake Urmia catchment basin. The results have been a dramatic decline in the level of Lake Urmia and vast ecological impacts and consequences. The GSL has also encountered wide fluctuations in volume and area. There have been many ecological impacts on the GSL and mitigation measures or remedies to restore former conditions or beneficial uses. In the following information the natural settings of the GSL and Lake Urmia are compared. Experiences in resource management of the GSL are examined and evaluated in terms of their applicability or usefulness for the Roadmap to Ecological Recovery for Lake Urmia. The goal of which is to provide a succinct summary of the potentially useful information, expertise and technology that can be obtained in Utah and provided in a useful manner to resource managers, experts and scientists in Iran.

Great Salt Lake: Physical Setting, Watershed, Water Resources and Limnology. The Great Salt Lake (GSL) is located in a large natural depression in the Great Basin. The current lake occupies a fraction of the former massive Lake Bonneville, which over 16,000 years ago covered an area of more than 32,000 km2 and had a maximum depth of greater than 300 m (CH2M Hill, 2008; Gwynn, 1980) The GSL is located between 40˚.40ʹ and 41˚.30ʹ north and 112˚.00ʹ and 112˚.49ʹ west. The average elevation of the GSL is 1,280 meters and the upper level of its watershed reaches an elevation of 3,500 meters. The GSL had a maximum volume of 37.5 billion cubic meters (BCM) in 1986-1987 and a minimum volume of 10.7 BCM in 1963. The average volume of the GSL is 18.9 BCM and the average area of the GSL is 2,720 km2 (USGS, 2014). The volume of the GSL has fluctuated dramatically over the past 750 years. Historic records suggest that the GSL was completely dry in the year 1275 and that in the 1700’s the GSL overflowed into the west desert (Wagner and Steenburgh, 2010). The GSL has faced serious emergency conditions of high lake levels (1986) that cost the state over 1 billion dollars in impacts and in extreme low lake levels (1963) that caused concern that the GSL may dry completely (USGS, 2007). The GSL has a history of being undervalued, neglected, and used as a dumping site for urban and industrial waste (OnlineUtah, 2014). Historically the allocation of water specifically for the GSL has not been a priority nor has setting aside water to reach the GSL been considered a beneficial use of water from the GSL watershed. The people of Utah have mixed sentiments and concerns for the lake; some highly value the GSL and its many beneficial uses, while, in contrast, a regrettably large proportion of the populace don’t realize the value of the lake or of its climatic, ecological, recreation, resource, or health related benefits. In short, the GSL has been, and continues to be, undervalued by a significant segment of the public. The GSL has been thoroughly modified in shape, volume, and ecological function by anthropogenic influences and engineering projects. The lake has gone from the extreme low in 1963—at which point there was concern that it would dry up completely—to the flood induced high water and maximum lake

elevation from 1983-1987 during which the lake level rose by over 4 meters (Utah Division of Water Resources, 2014; USGS, 2007). Because of concerns about the rising lake level a massive West Desert Pump project was initiated to pump excess water from the GSL into the West Desert. The pump project began in July 1986 and was completed in April 1987—at the time of peak lake elevation, yet just prior to a natural decline in lake elevation. The pumps were fully operational by June 3, 1987. The total cost of the project in the neighborhood of 60 million USD. The pumps were activated in June 1987 and pumped water from the GSL into the west desert until the end of June 1989. Over this time period the pumps discharged 3.367 BCM of water into the desert (about 94% of the average annual inflow of water into the GSL) (Division of Water Resources, 2002). Although the GSL serves many of its historic ecological functions it is a highly managed ecosystem; human activities influence nearly all aspects of the lake’s characteristics, limnology, and ecology. The GSL could be viewed as a series of interconnected embayments each with distinctly different resource attributes, limnological and morphological characteristics. Viewed from this perspective it is a valuable collection of biotopes that have been extensively studied and documented and that could be used to define the attributes of embayments in Lake Urmia that could be constructed and that would meet specific ecological, recreation, and resource functions. The GSL watershed encompasses and area of approximately 89,000 km2. The ratio of watershed area to lake area is: 32.72. The GSL remains the fourth largest saline lake in the world. It includes five bays: Gunnison Bay, Gilbert Bay, Bear River Bay, Ogden Bay and Farmington Bay (Figure 1.0). A brackish/fresh water bay, Willard Bay, was formed by dike construction in the northeast region of the lake. Gunnison Bay is separated from Gilbert Bay by a rock-fill railroad causeway built from 1957-59 and completed at a cost of $53 million USD. The causeway was initially constructed with two culverts and later, in August 1984, a 100 m wide breach at the western terminal end was added to facilitate the flow of water from Gilbert Bay into Gunnison Bay (Utah Geological Society, 2013). The combination of the culverts and the breach allowed bi-directional flow of water between Gilbert Bay and Gunnison Bay. Due to the railroad causeway Gunnison Bay has become the terminal lake (with a salinity exceeding 300 g/L) and Gilbert Bay is a transitional body of water that remains well below Gunnison Bay in salinity with a typical salinity in the range of 100-150 g/L (Belovsky, 2011; Wurtsbaugh, 1992; Gwynn, 1980). Bear River Bay is composed of an array salt evaporation ponds surrounding the Bear River inflow into the GSL. Bear River Bay is a highly modified landscape that has been influenced by engineering projects more so than the rest of the GSL. Figure 1.0. Map of Great Salt Lake with major bays indicated: Gunnison Bay, Gilbert Bay, Bear River Bay, Ogden Bay and Farmington Bay. Gunnison Bay is the de-facto terminal lake as there remains at least one viable outlet for Gilbert Bay into Gunnison Bay (western breach). Figure is from Wurtsbaugh, 2012.

The GSL watershed extends into three neighboring states—Idaho, Wyoming, and to a limited extent Nevada, but is primarily located within the state of Utah. Encompassed in this watershed are four major drainage basins that flow into the GSL. From north to south the major drainages are: 1) Bear River, 2) Ogden River, 3) Weber River, and 4) The Provo River-Utah Lake-Jordan River drainage basin. All of the major drainage basins are from the eastern region of the GSL watershed, while the western watershed is primarily desert and the northern and southern regions are rural, developed urban areas or lower elevation mountains with associated drainage basins such as the Tooele and Rush Valleys. The contribution of inflow from these southern valleys is relatively minor. An average of 3.577 BCM of water enter the GSL each year. The maximum and lowest values of annual inflow into the GSL are 11.224 and 1.356 BCM/year respectively (Utah Division of Water Resources, 2014b). The GSL watershed and its major drainage basins are shown in Figure 2.0. The Bear River is the longest (791 km) and largest tributary (producing about 60% of the inflow) of the GSL and is the longest river in the USA that does not drain into the ocean. Six different hydroelectric dams on the Bear River provide power to the grid in Northern Utah and Idaho. The Bear River also supplies water to an extensive agricultural area of 3,600 km2 and a rangeland of 11,600 km2.

Figure 2.0. Watershed of the Great Salt Lake with boundaries indicated for the four major drainage basins within the watershed. The four major drainage basins are: Bear River, Ogden River, Weber River, and the Provo-Utah Lake-Jordan River system. From: Great Salt Lake Information System. Utah Department of Natural Resources: Forestry, Fire and State Lands. 2010 and Great Salt Lake Basin Interactive Map Viewer: http://maps.usu.edu/GreatSaltLakeMap/

The Weber and Ogden rivers carry snowmelt water down from the upper elevations and pass through sparsely populated regions for most of their length until they emerge from the foothills of the Wasatch Mountains and flow westward across the Wasatch Front through two urbanized counties (Davis and Weber). Figure 3.0 provides a three dimensional impression of the topography of the eastern GSL watershed, and in particular the topographical characteristics of the Weber River drainage. South of these counties, the Provo River-Utah Lake-Jordan River drainage basin, along with other tributaries like the Cottonwood creeks, transports water from the upper mountainous elevations through heavily populated and industrialized Salt Lake and Utah Counties. The Provo River drains into Utah Lake, a shallow freshwater lake, which subsequently drains into the Jordan River (a significant portion of which is a man-made canal) which terminates in the GSL (GSLINFO, 2014). The Jordan River has a rather ignominious history of contamination and poor management. Since the 1970’s-1980’s tighter regulations and a host of engineering and research projects have enhanced the quality of water flowing through the Jordan River. Figure 3.0. Three-dimensional image of the Weber River drainage system and the GSL. The topographic profile is indicative of the eastern watershed mountainous relief and also demarks the heavily populated region between the GSL eastern boundary and the foothills of the Wasatch Mountain Range. From: Great Salt Lake Information System. Utah Department of Natural

Resources: Forestry, Fire and State Lands. 2010

Recognition of the watershed characteristics of the GSL provides a means of comparing it to the watershed, or catchment area, of Lake Urmia. There are many similarities, but also dissimilarities between the two. The challenges that currently confront Lake Urmia in terms of returning water to the lake cannot be remedied by knowledge about the GSL watershed. However, an understanding of the watershed size, features, issues, hydrological characteristics, snowpack, response to climate change, population demographics, and other aspects can be helpful when trying to understand the relationship between these two very important saline lakes and in devising plans for their preservation or restoration. The watershed of the GSL is experiencing a transition from agriculture use to more urban development. Along with this shift in land use is a decrease in demand for water (Wagner and Steenburgh, 2010). In contrast, agricultural land use in the Lake Urmia catchment basin is predominantly agricultural and the demand for agricultural land use appears to be on the incline rather than decline. Great Salt Lake Water Management and its Value for Sustainable Management of Water Resources in the Lake Urmia Basin. The GSL watershed supplies water to around 2.32 million people; this represents about 80% of the Utah 2013 population. Utah had a total population of 2,900,872 people in 2013 and with this population size it has a density of 12.97 people per km2 (US Census Bureau. 2013). Water usage and allocations in Northern Utah, and much of the Western United States for that matter, are thoroughly regulated. All of the water in the GSL watershed is adjudicated—meaning that the usage of the water is controlled by the combination of water rights, property rights, and water usage regulations. The allocation of water through property rights and other existing legal structures results in every cubic meter of water being already under some form of pre-existing claim or right. The regulation of water usage in Northern Utah has been so tightly regulated that until 2009 even rainwater could not be collected (Gittens, 2009). These regulations stipulated that rain falling on a person’s private home did not belong to that individual and therefore the water could not be collected into a cistern or other water storage container. A new law passed in 2011 (HB 7070) resulted in a new law in Utah (Utah Code Annotated §73-3-1.5) that allowed for limited collection of rain water into cisterns. This law allowed only two above ground water cisterns of no more than 400 liters each or one underground cistern of no more than 12,000 liters. Wells cannot be drilled nor can water be pumped without a permit. Water cannot be diverted from streams or rivers without a permit or other form of legal access to the water. The depth, size, and

location of water wells and the volume of water removed from such wells are similarly highly regulated through state and county permit systems. Individuals cannot simply dig or drill a well, even on their own property, without a permit. Because all of the water in the GSL watershed is regulated or allocated any further discussion about water usage does not pertain to new allocations of “unused water” but rather to any modifications in the current system or allotments. Some changes over the past few decades have included the designation of in-stream rights to water. This recognition of the need to return used water to streams and rivers launched a campaign to include in-stream flows as a “beneficial use” of the water resources (Utah Code Ann. § 73-3-3(11)). This designation expanded the definition of beneficial use and helped to ensure that adequate stream flows were present to support fish populations and other biota dependent upon stream flow, public recreation and reasonable preservation or enhancement of the natural stream environment. None of these purposes were previously included in the designation of beneficial uses for water from streams or rivers. In one sense, the in-stream flow right is a protected “nonuse” of the water resource—the lack of a diversion or consumption of water from a stream or river is the protected beneficial use. This is in contrast to other beneficial uses which all included some diversion or consumption of the water from a stream or river (Smith, 1994). Water from the main tributaries for the GSL is dam regulated. The extensive network of dams and their capacities is tightly controlled by a group of water management districts. The managers of the water basins carefully monitor climatic conditions, weather predictions, snowpack, soil moisture, user’s needs, reservoir capacities, and a variety of other factors and then base their regulation of the reservoir volume and release patterns on an effort to achieve optimal usage of water. The reservoirs and their current capacities are accessible through the internet. An example of the type of graphical display of reservoir capacities is shown in Figure 4.0. Figure 4.0. Tea-Cup diagrams of reservoir capacities in the GSL watershed (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/basin/tc_wf.html). Reservoir capacities are reported throughout the year and allow water users and stakeholders to track reservoir volumes and anticipate water discharges.

Stream flow data is also available on the internet for concerned parties. Stream flow data can be accessed through the Great Salt Lake Basin Interact Map Viewer (http://maps.usu.edu/GreatSaltLakeMap/). This map allows the user to select, from a drop-down menu, specific categories of information pertaining to the GSL watershed. For example, stream flow data can be accessed (Figure 5.0). Each stream monitoring station is separately and independently available and can be examined simply by clicking on the location. Figure 5.0. Stream flow measuring stations located throughout the GSL watershed. Stream flow data can be accessed at each site simply by clicking on the site and accessing the available information. Such online data is an essential tool for water managers in the GSL watershed.

Other information available through the Great Salt Lake Basin Interactive map includes: monitoring sites, transportation, hydrography, watersheds, administrative, hydrology, ecology, land use, and terrain. The Great Salt Lake Basin Interactive map is one among many different means through which current data can be accessed by resource managers and interested stake holders. For example, the Bear River tributary is the most important contributor of inflow to the GSL. Information can be immediately accessed to view the current reservoir volumes contained by dams along the Bear River. Such information is shown along with the previous year value, average value, and total reservoir capacity (Figure 6.0). Figure 6.0. Current reservoir storage volumes along the Bear River in Northern Utah. The Bear River is one of the most important sources of water for the GSL, so information on reservoir volumes is highly beneficial for resource mangers. Information is accessed through: http://www.water.utah.gov/WaterConditions/ReservoirStorage/default.asp

Such access to data facilitates good decision-making by providing verifiable information and eliminating speculative estimates of water availability. Watershed data, including soil moisture, snowpack, stream flow, reservoir capacities, and climatic data are used to assess the current condition and to estimate the future status of the watershed. This information is typically employed to develop reliable indices of watershed condition to evaluate the GSL watershed. Among the most commonly used indices are the Palmer Z index (PZI), Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index (PHDI) and the Palmer Drought Index (PDI) (NOAA, 2014). The PZI provides information on how monthly moisture conditions depart from normal (short-term drought), the PDI (also known as the Palmer Drought Severity Index) maps long-term (cumulative) drought or wet meteorological conditions, whereas the PHDI shows hydrological (long-term and cumulative) conditions. Therefore the PHDI is an examination of soil moisture plus reservoir capacities, while the PDI is a more precise assessment of meteorological conditions that have caused the current conditions. All of these indices are useful for assessing current conditions and for making predictions about future status of the GSL watershed and its influence on lake elevation, volume, and salinity. Drought indices provided on a regional or statewide basis are also helpful in assessing current and past conditions. Figure 7.0 shows the most current reporting for the State of Utah. Figure 7.0. Drought conditions for the entire State of Utah. Results are derived from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and provide a drought index on a statewide basis. Greater detail on a weekly basis is also available through the website. Conditions in Utah in 2014 are similar to those experienced in 2013: moderate drought to abnormally dry conditions persist. Key regions of the GSL watershed are either abnormally dry or in moderate drought conditions. This information is available through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?UT

The drought indices (PDI, PHDI, PZI) discussed above can be contrasted with the detailed work conducted by the Working Group on Sustainable Management of Water Resources and Agriculture, Regional Council of Lake Urmia Basin Management (2012). In their report drought assessment, drought monitoring, and drought mitigation measures were analytically examined and many strong

recommendations were made. Experts involved in this process could benefit by interacting with their counterparts in the USA to examine the most appropriate and effective short-term and long-term means of assessing and monitoring drought status. These groups could furthermore collaboratively examine historic and proposed remedies for severe drought conditions and analyze optimal approaches for the Lake Urmia Basin. All models could be refined and improved to provide greater detail on the precise causes (e.g., climatic or anthropogenic—overdrafting of water resources) and consequences of drought conditions. Such research can be coupled with long-term climatic data and trends to make predictions. Recent concern about the future of the GSL has resulted in a variety of proposals to ensure that beneficial uses of the GSL are maintained. Dr. Robert Jellison (2010) suggested that if the lake level of the GSL continues to decline, then diking to reduce surface area and to increase the volume to surface area ratio may become necessary. Currently 70%-80% of water diversions from the GSL watershed are agricultural. There is a trend of converting agricultural land into urban usage; a process that actually reduces the demand on water and returns more secondary water to the GSL. Between 2000 and 2050 this process is estimated to return an additional 308 million cubic meters (MCM) of water to the GSL. This anticipated shift from agriculture land to urban usage is calculated to offset the increased demand on water usage from an expanding population, which is assumed to increase in the GSL watershed to 4.8 million people in 2050, with a concomitant increase of public and industrial usage of 455 MCM of water (Klotz and Miller, 2010). Figure 8.0. The Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index for Utah from 1970 to 2013 is shown. This index plots cumulative long-term hydrological conditions taking into account soil moisture and water storage content. The pattern corresponds to lake level fluctuations though the data are for the entirety of the State of Utah and not just the GSL watershed (NOAA, 2014). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

Water conservation is a priority issue in the State of Utah. Detailed water conservation plans are continually being redefined, revised and presented to the public. An array of public education programs teaching people to conserve water have been devised and promoted over the past decades (Division of Water Resources, 2008). Implementation has been gradual, but there is evidence of a collective awareness of the need for water conservation among the populace. Notwithstanding this optimistic outlook for diminished per capita consumption of water among users along the Wasatch Front, there is projected to be a net increase in water demand as population growth outpaces improvements in water usage efficiency and a decline in per capita consumption (Division of Water Resources, 2013). Water needs will continue to be a top priority issue well into the foreseeable future. Water issues in Northern Utah and Lake Urmia have the same central theme: increasing demand coupled with diminished supply. Innovative techniques to manage water more efficiently are helpful to all water resource managers programs that foster the exchange of such expertise and technology should be promoted. Climatic Influences on Water Resources in the Great Salt Lake Watershed—Comparison to Climatic Factors, Drought Conditions, and Water Resources in the Lake Urmia Basin. Northern Utah has a temperate climate with four distinct seasons. Northern Utah is a semi-arid region with an average annual precipitation of 558.3 mm. The climate is strongly influenced by topographic relief and jet stream positional dynamics and to a lesser extent by El Nino and La Nina ocean temperature anomalies. Winters bring consistent snow to the higher elevations (i.e., > 2,500 m amsl) and have minimum low temperatures of -24˚C to -27˚C. January is the month with the greatest snowfall (19.8 cm). Summers are hot and dry with record high temperatures from 37˚C-41˚C. August is considered the “monsoon season” and is the month with the most dramatic thunderstorms and rainfall, yet May boasts the highest average precipitation (65.5 mm of rainfall). Figure 8.0 details conditions in Ogden, Utah from 1981 to 2010 for comparison to Lake Urmia statistics (NOAA, 2014). Figure 8.0. Climate data for Northern Utah (Ogden, Utah) from 1981-2010. Results can be compared to the Lake Urmia basin. The basin wide average annual precipitation of Northern Utah is 186 mm of rainfall greater than the Lake Urmia basin.

The Lake Urmia basin demonstrates average annual precipitation between 203 and 688 mm. The long-term trend in the Lake Urmia basin is one of a downward pattern from 1970 to 2010 showing a

reduction of 50mm to 90 mm of precipitation depending upon locality (Working Group, 2012). The pattern of precipitation over the same time period in Northern Utah shows a declining trend of 7 mm/decade (28 mm/40 years—to compare with Lake Urmia records). There is an upward trend in the annual temperature for this same region of Utah with a decadal increase of 0.33 degrees Celsius. Climatic related impacts on the GSL watershed have not been as severe as those observed for Lake Urmia and the population pressure on water consumption is substantially less than in the Lake Urmia Basin. Figure 9.0. Annual precipitation and temperature data for Utah. Precipitation and temperature data are shown over the time period 1970 to 2013. This time period is shown as it is the same time period evaluated in the Concise Baseline Report for Lake Urmia (Lotfi, 2012). There is a declining trend in annual precipitation and an increasing trend in annual temperature. This temperature increase is even more pronounced when only summer time (June-July-August) temperature is evaluated—the decadal increase is 0.39 degrees Celsius. Graphs are available from: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

Increased population growth along the Wasatch Front, with its increased demand for water, and the resulting decrease in water inflow to the GSL, could be exacerbated by reductions in the snowpack resulting from increased annual average temperatures. An increase in the average annual temperature of 2 C may result in a decrease of 4-12% of water in the GSL watershed and a 25% reduction in snowfall (Steenburgh, 2010). Such increases in annual temperature as have been reported certainly can have negative consequences for the snowpack in the Lake Urmia catchment basin. Comparative estimates and long-range models developed by US and Iranian experts could be compared and enhanced through cooperative exchanges. Declining GSL volume and surface area exposes lakebed sediments and their subsequent suspension into the air as fine particulate matter results in high altitude deposition of particulate matter and results in a change in the albedo of the snowpack. Changes in albedo—light reflection coefficient-- exerts a strong influence on the light, heat and energy absorbance characteristics of the snowpack. A shift toward greater absorbance (i.e., lowered albedo) of the snowpack increases the rate of melting and loss of the snowpack (Steenburgh, 2010). This process can establish a positive feedback loop in which the diminished lake elevation and volume, creates more exposed lakebed sediments, which in turn are aerosolized and transported as fine particulate matter that is transported to higher elevations and deposited on the surface of the snowpack rendering the snowpack lower in albedo, thereby facilitating accelerated loss of the snowpack and a reduction in runoff during the spring to replenish the GSL. When such a positive feedback loop forms it can have dramatic consequences for the watershed of the GSL and for the volume of the GSL. This same potential could be a concern for Lake Urmia and is another

reason that inundation of exposed lakebed sediments with at least a thin lens of water would help to mitigate against air transport of fine particulate matter. LIMNOLOGY Great Salt Lake The GSL is functionally divided into five bays: Gunnison, Gilbert, Farmington, Ogden, and Bear River Bays. Of these Ogden and Gilbert Bays have no barrier or obstruction to flow of water between them—their distinction is primarily a topographic and geographical designation and less of a hydrologically isolated difference. All of the other bays are separated by manmade barriers. Gilbert Bay is the primary area of biological activity and the main body of the GSL. It is isolated from Gunnison Bay to the north by the railroad causeway and from Farmington Bay to the east by Antelope Island and the Antelope Island automobile causeway. The railroad causeway extending from Promontory Point to the eastern shoreline forms a barrier between Bear River Bay and Ogden Bay. Communication of water through the causeways is via a system of culverts, bridges, or breaches. Gilbert Bay receives water from rainfall, surface runoff, and tributary inflow. Gilbert Bay is effectively a meromictic lake and has a salinity in the range of 90 g/L to 150 g/L. Gilbert Bay is sometimes referred to as the South Arm of the GSL , while Gunnison Bay is often referred to as the North Arm. The water column of Gunnison Bay is vertically stratified and there is a monimolimnion (a.k.a. deep brine layer--DBL) occupying the bottom one meter of the lake below the 1,271.5 m elevation contour. The DBL forms a dense layer of approximately one meter in depth that does not turnover as in the case of holomictic lakes. The DBL is an anoxic, reducing environment occupied by halophilic bacteria that produce hydrogen sulfide gas (Naftz et.al., 2008) The upper mixolimnion, or epilimnion, behaves like a holomictic lake with mixing of the layers and mechanical and temperature driven vertical exchange of nutrients and particulate components. In between these layers is a chemocline—across which dramatic changes in physical characteristics, such as salinity, dissolved oxygen and temperature, are observed. The volume of Gilbert Bay is approximately 60% of the total lake volume. Gilbert Bay has a minimum winter temperature of -2C and a maximum summer temperature of 31C. Extensive regions of ice may form on the surface of Gilbert Bay during December, January and February. Gilbert Bay is the section of the GSL is the main location of Artemia production and foraging for the pelagic waterbirds and therefore the primary region of the GSL for the commercial harvesting of brine shrimp. Gunnison Bay is located in the northwest region of the GSL. With the exception of remarkably wet years, Gunnison Bay maintains salinity near the saturation point for sodium chloride (approximately 359g/L at 25C). Its saturated brines are used extensively by mineral extraction industries for evaporative processes yielding valuable salts and minerals. Gunnison Bay has been occasionally used by the brine shrimp industry to harvest brine shrimp cysts, but only during years of increased lake elevation and therefore of a reduction of the salinity in Gilbert Bay (e.g., 1982-1988 and 1999-2000 harvest seasons). Farmington Bay is a shallow eastern basin of the GSL bordered on the west by Antelope Island, to the north by the automobile causeway, to the east by the shoreline of the GSL and to the south by wetlands and occasional connectivity to Gilbert Bay (when the GSL elevation is above 1,280 m). The salinity of Farmington Bay approaches fresh water in the southern reaches of the bay and increases steadily along a north-south transect with the northern most areas approaching 30 to 60 g/L in salinity. Farmington Bay has a maximum depth of about 2 meters in the northwest area and tapers to a shallow film of water with a depth of only 10-30 cm in the southern portion. Significant surface areas of former lakebed sediments are exposed during years of drought and when the GSL elevation declines below 1,278 m.

WETLANDS

The GSL has 145,687 hectares of wetlands below the “meander line” of the GSL shoreline, plus 221,241 hectares of open water, and 1,433 hectares of “upland wetlands” in its wetlands inventory. This area of wetlands surrounding the GSL represents 75% of the total wetland area for the entire State of Utah. The GSL supports two Federal Wildlife Management areas: Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge and the Wetland Reserve Program easement in Box Elder County. There are 10 Wildlife management areas/wetlands above the meander line and another 11 below. These wetlands support millions of birds, a diverse variety of vertebrate and invertebrate species. In just the Bear River refuge alone, an area of 26,102 hectares, there are over 200 species of birds, 60 species breed in the refuge, and 500,000 or more ducks use the refuge in the fall during migratory season. These wetlands are literally filled with birds during migratory and breeding seasons (Gwynn, 2002). There are many issues related to wetlands that have been addressed over the years within the GSL ecosystem. Some of these key issues are: wetlands structure and habitat quality, water movement through the wetlands, water budgets for the wetlands, groundwater withdrawal effects on wetlands, disease outbreak, alien species introductions, water quality in the wetlands, and usage priorities. The wetlands have undergone damage from flooding and from desiccation. Recovery projects have been done on many of the wetlands and could serve as an example for Lake Urmia wetlands managers. As one example, the restoration of the Bear River Refuge restored 18,358 hectares of wetlands at an estimated total cost of $10,134,000 USD (Gwynn, 2002). There are similar stories of wetlands formation and restoration along the GSL boundaries. Recent research on wetlands management conducted in the major GSL wetlands investigated the relationship between anthropogenic activities, wetland structure, nutrient input and cycling, water management and desired ecological functions of the wetlands (i.e., trophic state and overall health of the wetlands). These investigators found that in “healthy” wetlands 95% of the bird nests produced offspring. They also observed upwards of 100,000 shorebirds using the wetlands. One of the negative threats to the quality of the wetlands is the invasion of non-native Phragmites australis into the wetland systems. This species displaces native species and has a much higher evapotranspiration rate—resulting in diminished quality of habitat and water loss. One of the key outcomes of the research, and that has bearing on wetlands restoration around Lake Urmia, is the important relationship of surface water flow, sediment and water column nutrient concentrations and other “important sediment constituents” (Miller et.al., 2012). The importance of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) for supporting keystone species of invertebrates. Some of the most fundamental metrics needed for wetland ecological integrity are: SAV density, drupelet production, macroinvertebrate population size and diversity, and tuber density. These authors produced a comprehensive list of the key metrics that need to be evaluated for the sensitivity of wetlands to disturbances—in short they produced a key-based system for identifying and quantifying the vulnerability of wetlands to perturbation. Partnerships with commercial entities have been successful at developing and protecting wetlands around the GSL. One very good example is the partnership between the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources and Rio Tinto (mining company). Rio Tinto created a “biodiversity offset” by creating wetland habitat along the southern margin of the GSL. They purchased 1,011 hectares of land and created the Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve (ISSR)(Rio Tinto, 2014). The ISSR successfully realized increases in bird population increases of 20 to 40 times previous numbers in the same area. They now have 150+ species of birds in the ISSR. The ISSR now has an estimated 120,000 shorebirds using the reserve. This project has the honorable distinction of being one of the “largest and most successful

mitigation projects in the U.S.A.” This project is a good example of the manner in which proper habitat construction and management will bring in the birds—once the habitat is present, birds and other biota will come. One aspect of the management of wetlands along the GSL is funding the projects. In addition to State or Federal dollars for wetlands projects, royalty fees have been used to fund wetland conservation. These fees are imposed on leases, bio-prospecting and other activities. Most other funding for the maintenance of the wetlands and wildlife reserves is from Federal or State funds or from private entities such as the many hunting clubs using the wetlands. An example of strong engagement of local communities in wetlands was the GSL Waterbird Survey. This survey employed hundreds of volunteers over a 5 year period (1997-2001) and ended up being the largest and most comprehensive waterbird survey in U.S.A. history (Paul and Manning, 2002). The survey volunteers counted 86,752,258 bird use days (one bird on the lake on a given day is a “bird use day”) allowed ornithologists and population biologists to track the pattern of usage of the shoreline and open water of the GSL by waterbirds. The many volunteers who participated in the project and the valuable outcome demonstrated the power of volunteerism and community support for the GSL ecosystem. These experiences and their positive or negative outcomes are of great value for Lake Urmia wetlands experts and managers as they plan restoration projects of the various wetlands and they endeavor to encourage engagement of local communities.

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LAKE URMIA MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE NUMBER ONE:

To raise awareness of the values of the Lake and satellite wetlands and to enhance public participation in their management. Lake Urmia Priority Issue

Awareness of high level policy makers and decision makers. Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions

The GSL has been highly managed for nearly a century. In this process a systematic approach for identifying stakeholders, gathering information, setting priorities, communicating with resource managers and high level policy makers has developed. The evolution of this process has had its share of errors and inadequacies. Implementation and follow through have often been the “Achilles Heel” of the undertakings and plans. Yet, over time the process has shown a demonstrable level of achievement. More recently state regulators have joined with stakeholders and special interest groups to define a comprehensive management plan for the GSL. Although this has happened multiple times over the past few decades, producing large documents of information and intent, but often with incomplete execution of the plans, more recent efforts to develop a comprehensive management plan have been more successful (DWR, 2012). The current Comprehensive Management Plan for the GSL is a thoroughly researched publication covering topics such as management structure, regulations, legal framework, ecological conditions, water, wetlands, air quality, climate, biology, minerals and hydrocarbons, land use, recreation, paleontology, and economics. The document also includes critical details of a coordination framework. The essence of the coordination framework is a GSL Technical Team combined with a Lake Level Strategy for management. The Technical Team mission is to “provide guidance and recommendations in the monitoring management and research efforts of the Great Salt Lake ecosystem and to provide a forum for the interchange of information on ideas, projects, and programs that affect the activities and natural systems of the Great Salt Lake”. The guidance is passed along to key governmental decision makers and then on to high level policy makers. This process has an established track record of success and it is of value to resource managers for Lake Urmia to examine this process and its potential applicability for the participatory strategic structure already established for the management planning for Lake Urmia. The lake level strategy for managing the GSL has been an effective approach to include all stakeholders and their priorities. It has allowed stakeholders to provide their opinion of optimal lake level for their interest and of critical levels, above or below the optimal, that impose severe risks to stakeholders interests. This approach could be used to refine the objectives of the return flow Lake Urmia in which specific lake levels are evaluated in terms of stakeholder interest and beneficial uses desired from the restoration of the lake. This elevation strategy and the ability to get stakeholders involved in a more quantitative and less subjective manner has been a useful approach for enhancing the awareness and responses of high level decision and policy makers (DNR, 2012).

Lake Urmia Priority Issue

Public awareness about the values and threats of the Lake.

Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions

Public awareness is always a key issue when confronting natural resource management, preservation, conservation, and improvement. There are a variety of private interest groups, NGOs, governmental organizations, universities, colleges, city and county affiliates, news organizations and others that have done an excellent job of promoting the GSL. Notable among these are the Weber and Davis County tourist bureau, the Utah State Park system—and in particular Antelope Island State Park, Friends of Great Salt Lake (FOGSL), hunting clubs, bird watching enthusiasts, Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Department of Water Quality, Department of Environmental Quality, Great Salt Lake Institute at Westminster College, United States Geological Society Water Resources program, Wildlife Refuge system, Weber County schools, Davis County schools, Box Elder County schools, among many others. The main point is that there have been many projects undertaken to encourage public awareness of the GSL and to promote conservation through awareness programs. As one example, the FOGSL Issues Forum held each year is a multi-day event hosting salt lake and natural resource experts that present a wide range of topics on the Great Salt Lake and its management to the public (FOGSL, 2014). This forum has grown substantially every year and has reputation for quality and content. Outreach programs to school children have accomplished a great deal by getting young people interested in the lake. Antelope Island State Park is flooded with activity during the warmer months of the year and it hosts an excellent interpretive center for the public that could be a model for a similar facility for Lake Urmia. Lake Urmia resource managers in charge of public awareness may extract some valuable recommendations from these groups in terms of particular programs that were, or were not, successful in generating public awareness and concern for the GSL.

Lake Urmia Priority Issue

Participatory wetlands management and restoration projects with strong engagement of local communities

Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions

The GSL Waterbird Survey involved hundreds of volunteers and over a five year period documented 86,752,258 bird use days. It was the largest multi-year waterbird survey in the USA and was an excellent example of the value of including local communities and interested individuals in a very influential conservation study of biota in the GSL ecosystem. The results from that study have enhanced the leverage of conservation advocates for the preservation and enhancement of the GSL and its related wetlands. Such a thorough study carries great political influence and value.

The ISSR wetland is an example of a very successful wetland restoration project involving the community, industry and resource managers.

Hunting and gun clubs around the GSL have been positive partners in managing and restoring wetlands for ducks and game birds. Wetlands have been greatly improved through such local community involvement.

The Great Salt Lake Shorelands Preserve is a cooperative project by the Nature Conservancy and the communities in Davis County. This nature preserve is linked with an educational program called Wings & Water that brings school and youth groups to the GSL . This is one, among a variety of examples, of education programs that encourage wetlands conservation, restoration and preservation (Great Salt Lake Shorelands Preserve, 2014)

Lake Urmia Priority Issue

Ecotourism Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions

There are many events and opportunities on the GSL for ecotourism. Some examples are:

Antelope Island: hunting, boating, hiking, bird watching, swimming, biking, running, hiking, museum and interpretive center, historic sites, buffalo herd.

Stansbury Island: hiking and biking.

Great Salt Lake marinas: sailing, kayaking, yachting.

Great Salt Lake Bird Festival: Annual festival celebrating the lake and its environs.

Wildlife management areas: bird watching, hiking, boating.

Willard Bay: water sports, boating.

Promontory Point: Golden Spike museum.

Sporting Events: Antelope Island ultra marathon, bike races, and moonlight rides.

Landscape artworks: Spiral Jetty by Robert Smithson.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spiral-jetty-from-rozel-point.png

The economic value of ecotourism is substantial. For example, in 2006 over $800,000,000 USD was spent on wildlife viewing and hunting in Utah. In 2010 Antelope Island had 280,000 visitors. Industry output for the tourism sector in the 5 counties surrounding the GSL was $1.56 Billion USD. Bird watching in Utah, most of which takes place in the GSL ecosystem, was valued between $99,684,000 to $189,463,500 USD per year. Duck club members and hunters contributed another 61.8 million USD in revenue (DNR, 2012). These ecotourism revenues are a positive example of the potential value of restoring Lake Urmia and its associated wetlands. If successful, international ecotourism could be strongly promoted. Examples from the GSL and its surroundings provides an indication of the potential gains from the recovery of Lake Urmia.

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LAKE URMIA MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE NUMBER TWO: Sustainable management of water resources and land use.

Lake Urmia Priority Issue.

Water supply to the Lake and satellite wetlands. Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions

A narrative of the watershed and water management issues has already been provided in the overview of GSL. Relevant aspects of GSL watershed and water resources management for Lake Urmia include:

Watershed management success, or failures, in Utah can be of value to decision-makers in the catchment basin of Lake Urmia.

Watershed models currently developed for Urmia can be compared and contrasted with GSL watershed and climate models and improved through the exchange of information with modeling experts.

Website development and maintenance for watershed information can be used to assist the development of more effective and contemporary websites for Lake Urmia catchment basin information.

Decision-making processes used by water managers in the GSL watershed to adjust the water reserves and volumes of water released from reservoirs.

Process of prioritization of water usage within the watershed.

Laws and enforcement methods used in the GSL watershed to prevent illegal conversion of land uses or natural resources.

Real-time stream flow and water quality data collection (via stream gauges) and uploading to website.

Reservoir capacities current and projected and up to date reporting of the information.

Soil moisture measurements and integration into watershed model.

The highly regulated system of water allocation and the ability to monitor and enforce water regulations may be of value for water usage managers in the Lake Urmia watershed. Unregulated digging of wells or pumping of water results in substantial loss to the ground water supplies and contributes to the inefficient usage and allocation of water. In some regions of the LU basin further development of groundwater resources is either completely banned or highly restricted. An examination of the laws and enforcement procedures in place in the watershed of the GSL could be of value for new laws and water access regulations in the Lake Urmia basin.

Success and failures of community outreach programs that encourage conservation of water can be evaluated.

Drought modeling indices such as the PZI, PHDI, and PDI can be scrutinized and evaluated in great detail by Urmia Basin and GSL basin modeling experts to assess the merits of each method of evaluating drought conditions.

Legal and regulatory framework regarding water usage and enforcement issues pertaining to water usage.

Lake Urmia Priority Issue. Land Use

Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions.

Land use in the greater GSL watershed basin is a patchwork of private, federal and state lands. The complex history and allocation of those lands is far beyond the scope of this paper, even though there may be valuable lessons or management strategies that have been used to allocate and manage those lands. One of the trends that influences the GSL is the reduction in agricultural land and the transition to urban development. The specific conversion from agricultural land to urban uses reduces the demand for water—agriculture is generally more heavily dependent on water per hectare than urban development. One of the unique aspects of land use and responsibility pertaining to the GSL is designation of Sovereign Lands. Land below the historic “meander line” –the upper limit of the water level and shoreline—has been designated as Sovereign Lands. These Sovereign Lands are owned and regulated by the State of Utah (Department of Natural Resources, Forestry, Fire and Sovereign Lands) and not by the federal government (DNR, 2012). However one of the challenges to managing Sovereign Lands is that biota don’t recognize such boundaries and populations of desirable biota are found across multiple boundaries of responsibility and ownership. Therefore the FFSL and other resource management entities have had to develop effective ways to cooperate and to work together for beneficial outcome of the GSL ecosystem and of the biota found therein. This cooperative structure for managing transboundary populations of desirable biota and ecological functions is of value for the management of other saline lake systems such as Lake Urmia.

Lake Urmia Priority Issue.

Water Quality Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions.

Water quality is without a doubt a major issue and area of research focus for tributaries, wetlands, and the open water of the GSL. Extensive research projects have been conducted on water quality for the GSL. Water quality is regulated at the federal (e.g., USEPA, Federal Clean Water Act) and state level (Utah Division of Water Quality). Extensive research has been undertaken on contaminants, nutrient levels, sediment loads, and abiotic factors such as dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and salinity on water entering the GSL and within the GSL. Primary pollutants of interest for the GSL are: mercury, lead, cadmium, selenium, arsenic, and excess nutrient levels. It is beyond the scope of this document to examine the broad range of research projects that have been done on water quality. It is important to recognize the extensive amount of detailed research that has been undertaken on water quality and contaminants in the GSL watershed and in the lake itself that are of use for management of waters in the Lake Urmia basin. Water quality is assessed and enforcement based on water quality standards that are established for specific beneficial uses. The beneficial use classes are:

Class 1: Protected for use as a raw water source for domestic water systems

Class 2: Protected for in-stream and recreational use and aesthetics

Class 3: Protected for in-stream use by aquatic wildlife

Class 4: Protected for agriculture uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering

Class 5: Great Salt Lake

Each of these beneficial uses is further divided into subclasses and then managed according to those finer-detailed beneficial uses (DNR, 2012). There are a few specific examples of water quality research that have been done and that may have particular relevance for Lake Urmia and its tributary sources. The first is the landmark project undertaken to establish water quality criteria for selenium in the GSL (CH2M HILL, 2008). This was a landmark project because of two unique aspects: 1) it was a water quality standard for a saline body of water—previous water quality standards were established for fresh water systems, and 2) the standard was based on preventing adverse wildlife impacts rather than on human health impacts. The targeted endpoint was ensuring that selenium concentrations in the GSL food web did not exceed levels that would cause reproductive harm to birds. A science panel and steering committee were formed and they worked closely with the Utah Division of Water Quality to set the water criterion for selenium. This process of establishing a wildlife based water quality standard was rigorously scientific and allowed for extensive input from stakeholders. Another water quality issue that has relevance for managing the waters of Lake Urmia is the recovery and restoration of the Jordan River in Utah. The Jordan River drains Utah Lake into the GSL. Historically the Jordan River was a highly polluted river that could not sustain aquatic life. In the 1960’s to 1970’s the river was used as waste disposal canal for industries including slaughterhouses, packing plants, mineral reduction mills and laundries, among others. In 1973 the Provo-Jordan River Parkway legislation was passed and the process of restoring the Jordan River into a body of water that could sustain aquatic life began. From the late 1970’s to the present time the water quality of the Jordan River has greatly improved as have the aesthetic, recreational, and riparian habitat (OnlineUtah.com, 2014). The improvement in water quality of the previously highly contaminated and compromised river is a useful and applicable study in stream restoration. Another aspect of water quality assessment in the GLS basin that is of relevance to Lake Urmia is the approach taken to monitor water quality. There are a variety of on-going projects that continually monitor and report water quality in the GSL and its tributaries. Key state and federal agencies are primarily responsible for these continual studies. Additionally, industries (such as the brine shrimp industry, mining, and mineral extraction industries) conduct their own on-going water quality programs (DNR, 2012).

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LAKE URMIA MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE NUMBER THREE: Lake Urmia Priority Issue

Important satellite wetlands.

Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions

There are over 340,000 hectares of wetlands surround the GSL.

Wetlands in the GSL ecosystem comprise more than three-quarters of all wetlands in the State of Utah.

There wetlands surrounding the GSL are organized and managed according to the following classification system: Emergent, High Fringe, Low Fringe, Playa, Riverine.

GSL research on wetlands has identified key structural and component features such as SAV, water management and budgets, and nutrient levels that promote macroinvertebrate population growth and therefore populations of dependent avifauna.

Researchers have developed a SAV habitat metric for macroinvertebrate population promotion that is useful for wetland managers.

Well managed wetlands in the GSL area have 95% hatching success for bird nests (percentage of nests that successfully produce offspring).

The ISSR wetland is one of the most successful examples of a restored wetland in the USA and an example of the benefits of a cooperative relationship between resource managers and industry.

Wetlands surrounding the GSL are managed well when there is good communication and coordination among all agencies involved. These experiences can be used to illustrate coordination strategies among government, private, special interest groups, and other stakeholders for the mutual benefit of wetland conservation and promotion.

The GSL wetlands are some of the most important wetlands in North America for migratory shorebirds.

Water rights specifically for wetlands have been acquired for the GSL wetlands.

Research on wetlands in the GSL ecosystem have identified bioenergetic carrying capacities of wetland impounds and recommendations to enhance such parameters for improved outcomes of beneficial uses of the wetlands.

Contaminant studies in the GSL wetlands have allowed greater understanding of the complex trophic transfer and uptake of contaminants in wetland systems.

The GSL wetlands are part of the Western hemispheric shorebird reserve. The GSL wetlands support 1.4 million shorebirds annually. There have been single day counts of Wilson’s Phalaropes exceeding 500,000 individuals (33% of the global population), 250,000 American Avocets (56% of the global population), 65,000 Black-necked Stilts (37% of the global population).

The Division of Wildlife Resources has established a Wetland Reference Network that can be used to compare wetland structure and function across a variety of wetland classification types and geographical locations. It would be instructive to examine the Urmia basin wetlands using this Wetland Reference assessment tool.

Lake Urmia Priority Issue

Breeding population of White Pelicans and Flamingoes.

Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions

The open water of the GSL and the associated wetlands and upland areas are carefully managed to protect bird species. Management of avian habitat is one of the main concerns and goals of the GSL resource managers. Projects devoted to nesting habitat, foraging quality and quantity, protective cover, depredation projects, habitat improvement, water quality, and reserve networks have all been the focus of research projects, management, energy, time and finances for decades on the GSL and its environs. Strategic and operational approaches for the management of avian habitat and the outcomes of these efforts can be useful for projects in the Lake Urmia basin to enhance avian population growth and survival, especially for charismatic birds such as white pelicans and flamingoes.

The GSL has had a breeding population of white pelicans for over a century. The breeding grounds for the pelicans are found on the islands within either Gunnison or Gilbert Bay. The white pelican colony has been identified as one of three species of birds included in the Utah Partners in Flight Conservation Strategy. This status confers greater emphasis on managing and protecting the white pelican breeding colony.

The goal of the GSL management of its white pelican colony is to: “Maintain breeding and foraging habitat within the Great Salt Lake ecosystem so as to provide conditions that allow American White Pelican breeding adult populations to occur at the twenty-five year average of 10,120 per annum” (DWR, 2014).

The GSL has had only one known Pink Flamingo: his name was “Pink Floyd” and he was observed foraging along the GSL shoreline and wetlands from 1987 to 2005. Therefore management experience of pink flamingoes among GSL resource managers may not be of much value for the promotion of flamingo population growth in the Lake Urmia basin.

Lake Urmia Priority Issue Population of Yellow Deer and Armenian Sheep on the Islands of the Lake.

Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions

Antelope Island has been used over the past century for grazing domestic livestock and for the

promotion of wild herds of Mule deer, Pronghorn antelope, bison, and California bighorn sheep.

Antelope Island has a managed population of 500-700 bison, 200-250 Mule deer, and about

200-250 Pronghorn antelope.

Funding for management of wildlife herds can be generated through ecotourism, wildlife

viewing, or hunting.

Hunting has been a very effective means of generating revenues for Antelope Island wildlife

management programs. The sale of hunting tags (a tag is a license to hunt a particular animal at

a particular time) reached $380,000 in 2013. This large sum of money came from the sale of just

six bison, two deer, and two bighorn sheep tags!

The deer and bighorn sheep were of large size and highly sought after by sportsmen.

Lake Urmia Priority Issue Population of Artemia in Lake Urmia

Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions

Gilbert Bay (and occasionally Gunnison Bay) has a robust and thriving Artemia population.

The GSL Artemia demonstrates substantial population growth an resiliency over the salinity range of 90 g/L to 180 g/L.

The GSL Artemia population provides the nutritional basis for millions of shorebirds and waterbirds.

Artemia are certainly a keystone species in the food web of the GSL and are managed intensively to balance conservation with industrial exploitation of the resource.

The management system used for the Artemia population is an excellent example of the positive outcome of a cooperative resource management approach between government and industry. The brine shrimp industry benefits by being allowed to have significant input into the management implementation and the government benefits by having a resource extraction entity that is highly cooperative and shares the same goals as resource managers—the long-term sustainability of the Artemia resource.

Both the industry and government (Division of Wildlife Resources) have rigorous ecological programs that conduct extensive and frequent (bi-weekly) ecological and limnological assessments of the GSL and the Artemia population throughout the year.

The research and management of the Artemia population benefits the broader ecosystem by preventing eutrophication or overgrowth of phytoplankton and by providing food for birds.

A royalty fee is assessed, as well as an annual renewal fee for the license to harvest Artemia cysts. The Royalty fee annual provided an average of $673,622 USD between 2002 and 2010. The renewal fees generate $1,185,000 USD per year for the State. These revenues are used to manage the GSL and its environs and have had demonstrably positive outcome on the GSL ecosystem management.

The annual harvest of brine shrimp cysts and the associated biomass (wet weight) from the GSL is between 1,179 MT to 10,884 MT.

There is a vast amount of excellent information on the abiotic conditions, nutrient levels, salinity, and algal population size and composition required to sustain a robust Artemia population.

There are also extensive studies on the dietary requirements of birds for Artemia. The results of these studies are used to regulate the Artemia industry and to ensure that adequate amount of Artemia remains in the lake for the birds.

This body of information and expertise can be used to assist in the development of Artemia embayments in Lake Urmia.

ADDITIONAL PROPOSALS SUBMITTED DURING THE 32ND NATIONAL, AND 1ST INTERNATIONAL, GEOSCIENCES CONGRESS: URMIA LAKE RESCUE.

Emergency phase-to-phase restoration of Lake Urmia Ecosystem: A Practical Low Cost Plan (diking of sections of Lake Urmia to restore beneficial uses of the lake such as Artemia production, recreation, wetlands, and other functions).

Lake Urmia Priority Issue

Construction of dikes to form embayments.

Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions

As mentioned in other sections of this report, the GSL can be viewed as a series of highly managed embayments or large ponds. The diverse bays and enclosed bodies of water that comprise the GSL system can provide valuable information for the construction and management of enclosed bodies of water—embayments—in Lake Urmia.

Detailed limnological and ecological research on the various GSL bays and wetlands can be used to help resource managers and scientists with optimal construction and management of embayments in the Lake Urmia lakebed and shoreline regions.

Current proposals for phase-to-phase restoration need to carefully detail the desired beneficial uses, and then conduct accurate feasibility studies of the proposed enclosure systems.

Issues that have been encountered and remedied in the GSL system of bays and ponds include: high sediment loads, large annual fluctuations in inflow, nutrient excess or inadequacies, disease outbreak, eutrophication, exotic species intrusions, failed engineering of dikes, pollution and contaminant impacts, and flooding. Lessons learned from these experiences and their solutions can be of great help for Lake Urmia engineers and resource managers.

The designation of beneficial uses and their management is another layer of information and expertise from the GSL that can be of value for Lake Urmia restoration.

Lake Urmia Priority Issue

Flooding of exposed lakebed and updated morphological/bathymetric Study of Lake Urmia Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions

A detailed bathymetric study was conducted by the United States Geological Survey (Baskin, 2005). Although the methods used in this bathymetric study may not be applicable for Lake Urmia there is a clear need for accurate bathymetric and morphological data to be available before flooding of the lakebed or of embayments is initiated.

Bathymetric data coupled with an assessment of the salt quantities is needed to accurately calculate volume to area ratios necessary to achieve optimal levels of salinity for the desired beneficial uses or objectives.

Experience by the USGS on the GSL can be of value for Lake Urmia resource managers. Lake Urmia Priority Issue

Monitoring changes in the lake water levels using Landsat satellite imagery and Evaluation of Spatio-Temporal Variations in Urmia Lake Using Remote Sensing and GIS.

Relevant GSL Experience for Lake Urmia Priority Actions

Remote sensing has been used in the management and research of the GSL for chlorophyll data (and indirectly for phytoplankton growth), water temperature, habitat structure, land use, wetland composition and a variety of other applications.

Depending on the information needed by Lake Urmia managers remote sensing specialists in the USA could be linked with their counterpart in Iran.

PROPOSED WORKSHOP FOR THE EXCHANGE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT APPROACHES AND EXPERIENCES

Proposed Workshop to Exchange Scientific, Management, and Technical Expertise Between Resource Managers and Scientists from Lake Urmia, West Azerbaijan, Iran and Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA. The previous section of this report highlighted the research and experiences pertaining to the GSL and its management that may be of use for resource management directed toward the restoration of Lake Urmia. As a means of more effectively facilitating the exchange of information among experts a workshop in Utah is proposed to brine together Iranian scientists and resource managers with their counterparts in Utah. Having proposed this, it is also important to acknowledge that there have already been many workshops on the Lake Urmia issue and there doesn’t necessarily need to be yet another one. This proposed workshop will only be effective if it is highly targeted toward the right individuals and toward specific goals and objectives. Before such a workshop is conducted the precise goals and expectations of participants needs to be defined. Also, proposing a workshop in the USA for Iranian colleagues will likely function to leave out many excellent scientists and potential participants simply because of the logistical hurdles. This is indeed a regrettable aspect of such a workshop proposal. These caveats notwithstanding, the following topics are proposed. Workshop Categories of Emphasis

1. Air Quality 2. Algal communities 3. Artemia Resource 4. Avifauna 5. Climate Analysis 6. Contaminant Issues 7. Education Outreach 8. Economic Considerations 9. Water Control Engineering: Dikes, Dams and Causeways 10. Saline Lake Ecology and Food Webs 11. Hydrodynamic Modeling 12. Landscape Restoration 13. Limnology 14. Saline Lake Resource Management 15. Microbial Communities 16. Morphology and Bathymetry 17. Nutrient Inputs, Balance and Cycling 18. Railroad Causeway Issue 19. Resource Database Development 20. Salt Balance/Modeling 21. Wastewater Management and Discharges 22. Water Balance/Modeling 23. Water Management and Allocation 24. Watershed 25. Wetlands 26. Wildlife Diseases

REFERENCES

Adler, R. 1999. Toward comprehensive watershed-based restoration and protection for Great Salt Lake. Utah Law Review 99.

Aldrich, T.W., and D.S. Paul. 2002. Avian ecology of Great Salt Lake. In Great Salt Lake: An Overview of Change, edited by J.W. Gwynn, pp. 343–374. Salt Lake City: UDNR.

Arnow, Ted, and Stephens, Doyle, 1990, Hydrologic characteristics of the Great Salt Lake, Utah: 1847–1986: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2332, 32 p. Barras, S.C., and J.A. Kadlec. 2000. Abiotic predictors of avian botulism outbreaks. Utah Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(3):724–729

Belovsky, G.E., D. Stephens, C. Perschon, P. Birdsey, D. Paul, D. Naftz, R. Baskin, C. Larson, C. Mellison, J. Luft, R. Mosley, H. Mahon, J. Van Leeuwen, and D.V. Allen. 2011. The Great Salt Lake ecosystem (Utah, USA): Long term data and a structural equation approach. Ecosphere 2(3).

Bishop, C.E., M. Lowe, J. Wallace, R.L. Emerson, and J.S. Horn. 2009. Wetlands in the Farmington Bay area, Davis and Salt Lake Counties, Utah - An evaluation of threats posed by ground-water development and drought. Report of Investigation 264. Salt Lake City: Utah Geological Survey.

Cavitt, J.F., M. Linford, and N. Wilson. 2010. Selenium concentration in shorebird eggs at Great Salt Lake, Utah. Avian Ecology Laboratory. Available at: http://www.deq.utah.gov/Issues/GSL_WQSC/eggmonitoring.htm. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006. Facts about cyanobacteria & cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hab/cyanobacteria/pdfs/facts.pdf. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2008. Facts about cyanobacteria and cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms. Available at: www.cdc.gov/hab/cyanobacteria/facts.htm. CH2M Hill. 2008. Development of a Selenium Standard for the Open Waters of Great Salt Lake. Final Report for Selenium Program to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) and Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). Conover, M.R., and J.L. Vest. 2009. Selenium and mercury concentrations in California gulls breeding in the Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 28(2):324–329. Conover, M.R., and J.N. Caudell. 2009. Energy budgets for eared grebes on the Great Salt Lake and implications for harvest of brine shrimp. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7):1134–1139. Conover, M.R., J. Luft, and C. Perschon. 2009. Concentrations of selenium in eared grebes from Great Salt Lake, Utah. Final Report to the Great Salt Lake Water Quality Steering Committee, Utah Division of Water Quality, Salt Lake City, Utah.

DWR. 2008. http://www.conservewater.utah.gov/Final71403AACC.pdf

DWR. 2002. West Desert Pumping Project. http://www.water.utah.gov/construction/gsl/index.htm. DWR. 2005. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy. 281 p. Available at: http://wildlife.utah.gov/cwcs/. Accessed April 12, 2010. DWR. 2009. Colonial Waterbird Survey Plan. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/ species/birds/western_colonial/Scope-of-Work-GSL-utah.pdf. Accessed October 22, 2010. DWR. 2010a. Utah Sensitive Species list. Salt Lake City: UDNR, DWR. DWR. 2010b. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Summaries of key habitats. Available at: http://wildlife.utah.gov/cwcs/. DWR. 2014a. Brine Shrimp Harvest Data. Available at: http://wildlife.utah.gov/gsl/harvest/historic_harvest_data.php. DWR. 2014b. American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos). http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/AWPE.pdf DWR. 2011b. Utah Conservation Data Center: Vertebrate animal species descriptions and distributions. Available at: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/. Accessed March 22, 2011. DWR. 2010. Jordan River Basin Planning for the Future. June 2010. Available at: http://www.water.utah.gov.

Felix, E.A., and S.R. Rushforth. 1979. The Algal Flora of the Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA. In Nova Hedwigia 1979. pp. 163–195.

FFSL. 2012. Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan Resource Document. Prepared by the Great Salt Lake Planning Team in conjunction with SWCA Environmental Consultants, UDNR. March 2012. FFSL. 2010. Great Salt Lake Information System. Available at: http://www.greatsaltlakeinfo.org.

Great Salt Lake Shorelands Preserve. 2014. http://www.visitdavisareautah.com/attractions/gslshorelands.htm. Gittens, J. 2009Utah Water Law and Water Rights. http://utahwaterrights.blogspot.com/2009/05/is-it-illegal-to-harvest-rainwater-in.html GSLINFO. 2014. http://www.greatsaltlakeinfo.org Gwynn, J.W., ed., 1980, Great Salt Lake, A scientific, historical, and economic overview: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 116, 400 p. Gwynn, J.W. 1998. Great Salt Lake, Utah: Chemical and physical variations of the brine and effects of the SPRR causeway, 1966-1996. Utah Geological Association Guidebook 26:71–90.

Gwynn, J.W.. 2000. The Waters Surrounding Antelope Island, Great Salt Lake, Utah. Publication 001-1. UDNR, UGS. Gwynn, J.W.. 2002. Great Salt Lake, Utah: chemical and physical variations of the brine and effects of the SPRR causeway, 1966-1996. In Great Salt Lake: An Overview of Change, edited by J.W. Gwynn, pp. 87–106. Gliwicz, Z.W., W.A. Wurtsbaugh, and A. Ward. 1995. Brine Shrimp Ecology in the Great Salt Lake, Utah. Report to DWR Ecological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 116, 400 p.

Johnson, W.P., D.L. Naftz, X. Diaza, K. Beisnera, W. Olivera, and C. Fuller. 2008. Estimation of selenium removal fluxes from the south arm of the Great Salt Lake, Utah. Final Report 04-07-08. Available at: http://www.deq.utah.gov/Issues/GSL_WQSC/docs/appendix/051408_Appendix_H.pdf.

Jellison, R. 2010. Conservation and Management of the World’s Increasingly Threatened Salt Lakes.

FOGSL Issues Forum. Salt Lake City,Utah, USA.

Klotz, E. and C. Miller, 2010. Predicted Population Growth and Demands of Water Resources and How Might Great Salt Lake React to Future Demands on Water Resources? FOGSL Issues Forum, SLC, Utah, USA. Madison, R.J. 1970. Effects of Causeway on the Chemistry of the Brine in Great Salt Lake, Utah. Water Resources Bulletin 14. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Miller, T.G, Richards, D., H.M. Hoven, W.P. Johnson, M. Hogset, and G.T. Carling. 2010. Macroinvertebrate communities in Great Salt Lake impounded wetlands, their relationship to water and sediment chemistry and to plant communities and proposed modifications to the MMI. Report to Jordan River/Farmington Bay Water Quality Council. pp. 1-120. Miller, T.G. and H.M. Hoven. 2007. Ecological and Beneficial Use Assessment of Farmington Bay Wetlands:Assessment and Site Specific Nutrient Criteria Methods Development Phase 1. Progress Report to EPA, Region VIII. Naftz, D., C. Angeroth, T. Kenney, B. Waddell, N. Darnall, S. Silva, C. Perschon, and J. Whitehead. 2008a. Anthropogenic influences on the input and biogeochemical cycling of nutrients and mercury in Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA. Applied Geochemistry 23(6):1731–1744. OnlineUtah.com. 2014. History of the Jordan River in Utah. http://www.onlineutah.com/jordan_river.shtml NOAA. 2014. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/prelim/drought/palmer.html) Paul, D.S., and A.E. Manning. 2002. Great Salt Lake Waterbird Survey Five-Year Report (1997–2001). Publication Number 08-38. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City.

Rio Tinto, 2014. Protecting Biodiversity at Great Salt Lake. On the ground at Kennecott Utah Copper. http://www.riotinto.com/documents/ReportsPublications/Great_Salt_Lake_Partnership.pdf Smith, J.C., 1994Water and the Law. The continuing Evolution of Water Law. Utah Water News. 1994, http://www.smithhartvigsen.com/news/archive/evolution.htm). Stephens, D.W., 1998, Salinity-induced changes in the aquatic ecosystem of Great Salt Lake, Utah: 1–7, in J. Pitman and A. Carroll, eds., Modern and Ancient Lake Systems, Utah Geological Survey Guidebook 26. Steenburgh, J.W., S.F. Halvorson and D.J. Onton. 2000. Climatology of Lake-Effect Snowstorms of the Great Salt Lake. Monthly Weather Review. Mar, Vol. 128 Issue 3, p709. 19p U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49000.html.

USGS. 2014. website http://ut.water.usgs.gov/greatsaltlake/elevations/). Utah Division of Water Resources. 2014a. http://www.water.utah.gov/ Utah Division of Water Resources. 2014b. http://water.utah.gov/construction/gsl/lake%20page.htm) Utah Geological Society. 2013. A Lake Divided—A History of the Southern Pacific Railroad Causeway and its Effect on Great Salt Lake, Utah. http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/gsl/lakedivided.htm Vest, J.L., M.R. Conover, C. Perchon, J. Luft, and J.O. Hall. 2009. Trace element concentrations in wintering waterfowl from the Great Salt Lake, Utah. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 56(2):302–316. Vorhies, C.T. 1917. Notes on the Fauna of the Great Salt Lake. American Naturalist 51:494–499. Wagner, F. and J. Steenburgh. 2010. Whither the GSL in a Warming Climate and Dirty Little Secrets of the Greatest Snow on Earth and the Future of the GSL. Presentation given at Friends of Great Salt Lake Issues Forum. April 28-30, 2010. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Wang, S.-Y., R.R. Gillies, J. Jin, L.E. Hipps. 2010. Coherence between the Great Salt Lake level and the Pacific quasi-decadal oscillation. Journal of Climate 23:2161–2177. Whelan, J.A. 1973. Great Salt Lake, Utah: Chemical and Physical Variations of Brine, 1966-1972. Water Resources Bulletin 17. Wold, S.R., B.E. Thomas, and K.M. Waddell. 1996. Water and Salt Balance of Great Salt Lake, Utah and Simulation of Water and Salt Movement through the Causeway. Morid, S. 2012. Working Group on Sustainable Management of Water Resources and Agriculture, Regional Council of Lake Urmia Basin Management. December 2012. Drought Risk Management Plan for Lake Urmia Basin: Summary Report. P. 29.

Wurtsbaugh, W.A. (ed.). 2009. Saline Lakes Around the World: Unique Systems with Unique Values. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, volume XV. S.J. and Jessie E. Wurtsbaugh, W.A. 1992. Food-web Modification by an Invertebrate Predator in the Great Salt Lake (USA). Oecologia 89:168–175. Wurtsbaugh, W.A., J. Gardberg and C. Izdepski. 2011. Biostrome communities and mercury and selenium bioaccumulation in the Great Salt Lake (Utah, USA). Science of the Total Environment 409: 4425–4434. Wurtsbaugh, W.A. 2009. Biostromes, Brine Flies, Birds and the Bioaccumulation of Selenium in Great Salt Lake,Utah. In Saline Lakes Around the World: Unique Systems with Unique Values. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, volume XV, edited by A. Oren, D. Naftz, P. Palacios and W.A. Wurtsbaugh, pp. 1-15. Natural Resources Research Library: Logan, Utah. Available at http://www.cnr.usu.edu/quinney/files/uploads/NREI2009online.pdf. Wurtsbaugh, W.A. 2006. Eutrophication in Farmington Bay, Great Salt Lake, Utah: 2005 Annual Report. Wurtsbaugh, W.A., and T.S. Berry. 1990. Cascading effects of decreased salinity on the plankton, chemistry and physics of the Great Salt Lake (Utah). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:100–109. Wurtsbaugh, W., D. Nafts, and S. Bradt. 2006. Spatial Analyses of Trophic Linkages between Basins in the Great Salt Lake. FFSL. USGS 2011. Great Salt Lake – Lake Elevations and Elevation Changes. Available at: http://ut.water.usgs.gov/greatsaltlake/elevations/ Yidana, S.M., M. Lowe, and R.L. Emerson. 2010. Wetlands in northern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah - An evaluation of threats posed by ground-water development and drought. Report of Investigation 268. Utah Geological Survey: Salt Lake City.

APPENDIX A. GSL AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS, MANAGEMENT PLANS, REGULATORY ENTITIES, ADVISORY GROUPS, LEASING PLANS, AND COUNCILS.

1. Great Salt Lake Authority (1963) 2. Reestablishment of the Authority (1967) 3. Department of Natural Resources (1967) 4. Division of the Great Salt Lake (1975) 5. Comprehensive Management Plan (1976) 6. Great Salt Lake Environs Report (1976) 7. Division of State Lands and Forestry (1979) 8. Great Salt Lake Contingency Plan (1983) 9. Great Salt Lake Advisory Council (1988 and 2010) 10. Great Salt Lake Technical Team (1988 11. General Management Plan, Great Salt Lake (1988) 12. Division of Sovereign Lands and Forestry (1994) 13. Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan (1995 14. Mineral Leasing Plan (1996 and 2012) 15. Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan (2000) 16. Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan Revisions (2012)

APPENDIX B. Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan (2010) list of Recently Completed and Ongoing Ecological And Biological Research

Avian botulism in marshes (Wildlife Society)

Avian Ecology Laboratory (Weber State)

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge bird abundance surveys (USFWS)

Bioenergetics of the eared grebe (DWR, USU)

Biology and management of eared grebes (USU)

Brine shrimp ecology of GSL beaches (DWR)

Brine shrimp population and harvest census (DWR)

Brine shrimp population dynamics (USU)

Brine shrimp populations and lake limnology (DWR and USGS)

Canada Goose Banding (DWR)

Concentration and effect of selenium in California gulls (GSLEP)

Continuing analysis of phytoplankton nutrient limitation in Farmington Bay and GSL (Central

Davis County Sewer Improvement District, Utah)

Dynamics of mercury in eared grebes (USGS, DWQ)

Ecology of stromatolitic structures in GSL, Utah

Evaluation of trace elements in invertebrates in GSL (USFWS)

Food abundance and energetic carrying capacity for wintering waterfowl (USU)

Food Chain Ecology on GSL (USU)

GSL Botulism Study (USU)

Interactive pathways in wetland ecosystems (USU)

Intermountain West Coordinated Shorebird Monitoring (USFWS/Intermountain West Joint

Venture)

Limnological control of brine shrimp population dynamics and cyst production in GSL, Utah

Mechanisms for coexistence of two swan species at varying spatial scales (USU)

Metal concentration in waterfowl, shorebirds and waterbirds (USU, Weber State)

Mid-winter eagle count

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2011/2012 Revision (USFWS)

Pacific Flyway duck banding (DWR)

Pacific Flyway Shorebird Project (Point Reyes Bird Observatory)

Population status of the eared grebe (DWR)

Preliminary analyses of selenium bioaccumulation in benthic food webs in GSL, Utah (DWQ)

Regional wildlife assessment (UDOT)

Restoring breeding bird population to Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (USU)

Salinity model/patterns in GSL (USGS, UDNR, Tooele County)

Selenium concentration in duck club wetlands (University of Utah)

Shorebird population status and trends (Intermountain West Joint Venture)

Snowy plover surveys (Weber State)

Spatial analyses of trophic linkages between basins in GSL (FFSL)

Spatial/temporal avian census of GSL (DWR and cooperators)

Study of the Phytoplankton Floras of GSL (UDEQ)

Water quality and contaminant research (USFWS and FFSL)

Waterbird surveys (DWRe)

Wetland function assessment for beneficial related to wildlife (DWQ, EPA)

Wetland habitat assessment (Ducks Unlimited)

APPENDIX C.

The following material was written as a personal summary and series of recommendations following

the Geosciences Congress in Tehran and Urmia, Iran (February 16-20, 2014).

SAVING LAKE URMIA

SUMMARY THOUGHTS ABOUT THE CONFERENCE INCLUDING IDENTIFIED DATA GAPS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

BRAD MARDEN

February 21, 2014

ISTANBUL, SULTANAMET

PHILOSOPHICAL COMMENTS

Saving Lake Urmia is indeed an urgent necessity of the highest order; the current condition of Urmia is a

crisis on a massive scale and it is on the verge of becoming an ecological tragedy of enormous

proportions. Notwithstanding the urgency of the need to find solutions, nor of the magnitude of the

problem, there may be an alternative perspective through which to view the crisis: it could be viewed as

an opportunity for all people to come together and solve the crisis, and in the process everyone involved

will be elevated in terms of their physical, emotional, economic and spiritual status. By joining together

to solve this huge crisis all people involved, whether they are local farmers, engineers, hydrologists,

toxicologists, biologists, geologists, politicians, limnologists, social workers, health care professionals,

professors, students, construction workers, laborers, secretaries, drivers, or simply local people who

care, all of them can contribute in a significant manner and in the process extract great meaning and

value out of their efforts and their lives. I therefore firmly believe that the Lake Urmia crisis can be

viewed as an opportunity for people to join together and to do something of true greatness and lasting

significance with their lives.

My comments below are based on two central premises: 1) that access to reliable research data and

information leads to good decisions, and 2) that the more people that are “on board” with the concept

of saving Lake Urmia, the more likely it will be that it is successful. If enough people become involved, it

will be very hard for politicians to deny support for the initiatives to save Lake Urmia. Based on these

two fundamental premises I make the following comments.

The comments are based on a long-term process of saving Lake Urmia. Clearly immediate things need

to be done to return more water to the lake. The following recommendations are based on a long-term

commitment to the restoration. I hope that some of these ideas can be of use and incorporated into the

Roadmap to Success for Saving Lake Urmia.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO TOPIC

1) RESEARCH STATUS

There exists a laudable patchwork of excellent information about Lake Urmia. There have been studies

done on the hydrology, geology, biology, watershed features, dams, river flows, and desiccation

characteristics. There have been some studies on improvements in the management of the water

supply and a variety of other studies. Whereas these are all good and valuable studies and research

developments, I feel there are many data and research gaps that need to be filled and, most

importantly, that there needs to be a unified means of linking all of the research projects together. In

other words, there must be a central data processing and access point for research projects and data for

Lake Urmia. Therefore I make the following recommendations with regard to research on Lake Urmia.

2) CENTRAL DATA CENTER for LAKE URMIA (CDCLU)

There should be a single central website where all research findings and raw data can be accessed (I

believe this was suggested previously by others but it apparently was not implemented). I suggest

designating a team of software engineers, statisticians, and computer data base experts to set up a

website that allows users to access, but NOT change, data and information contained therein. As an

example the Great Salt Lake Information System (http://www.greatsaltlakeinfo.org/Library/) is a good

beginning approach. Also there is an excellent website where information on the Great Lakes can be

accessed. I further suggest that some members of the database team continuously evaluate the broad

scope of the data and identify data gaps. Based on these gaps in the data further research priorities

could be established. I also suggest that consideration is given to developing a Lake Urmia Crisis APP for

smart phones that could be downloaded onto smart phones and would allow access to current

developments and research results from Lake Urmia.

TOP TIER CATEGORIES (i.e., ESSENTIAL DATA) FOR THE CDCLU

The essential categories for the CDCLU would include, but would not be limited to the following:

Watershed: hydrology, stream flows, dam capacities and current level (stream gauges and

reservoir levels detection systems need to be installed and the data uploaded to a stream flow

website).

Limnology: current water level, volume, temperature, salinity, pH, water chemistry, dissolved

oxygen, contamination.

Ground water: level, total volume, geographical area, contamination, regulations, conservation

measures.

Political Developments: Report important decisions, meetings, regulations, proposals, and the

like.

Economics: Provide economic analysis of resources, health related issues, engineering projects,

extractive industries, recreation and tourism income, and other economic factors.

Engineering Projects: define proposed, on-going, historic, and current projects. Get public

feedback and clearly show the value of such projects.

SECOND TIER CATEGORIES FOR THE CDCLU

Playa: size, composition of salts, dust reports (dust storms, composition of dust, impact on

agricultural areas, etc.), mitigating measures to lower particulate suspension into atmosphere,

detailed particulate/flow dynamics research.

Wetlands and Shoreline: Provide information on shoreline wetlands areas, habitat structure,

biodiversity, management, and restoration.

Weather: Current conditions, predictions, models, short-term and long-term trends.

Contaminant Issues: Report contaminant issues pertaining to the Lake Urmia Watershed.

Air Quality: Install air quality monitors around Lake Urmia basin and provide links to the data.

Agricultural production: Show production trends and condition in the region. Provide

cost/benefit analysis of crops and their water consumption requirements.

Ecology: Plants, birds, mammals, amphibians, zooplankton, algae, microbes.

3) STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS

Water usage: implement methods to enhance efficient use of water. Do thorough assessment of wells

and their water usage. Apply economic incentives to improve efficiency through compliance—for

example impose fines on wasteful or excessive usage. Impose regulations on well construction and

usage.

Create partnerships: Create partnerships with industry, the public, youth groups, and between

Provincial areas. As an example the Great Salt Lake brine shrimp industry pays a fee each year for the

Artemia resource. The money from these resource fees are used for ecological studies and projects to

improve ecological condition of the Great Salt Lake as well as other streams, rivers, lakes, in the Great

Salt Lake watershed. It is a true positive outcome: commercial exploitation money is used to improve

the resource. Also, the brine shrimp industry conducts its own ecological research and shares the

outcome with the government resource managers. On Lake Urmia you could require industry that

exploits the resource to contribute to the saving of the lake—they could use some of their resource

revenue income to sponsor conservation projects or improvements in habitat.

Empower people on a local level: Get people involved in conserving water at all levels. Organize local

groups to monitor and improve efficiency of well usage and water use in general. Make people proud of

their great ability to conserve water. Give people ownership of the restoration process and its

success—this is a far better way to get compliance and cooperation than through penalties. Make sure

that there are programs that reward peoples and for their involvement in saving the lake, rather than

punishing them in order to save Lake Urmia.

Management units on Lake Urmia: Create management sub-units of Lake Urmia with economic

incentives provided for managers of the management sub-units. Authorities of these management units

would receive government financial rewards or income through development projects that bring in

commercial partners or tourism. Have each management unit define it beneficial use objectives and

accomplishments in restoring these beneficial uses.

Education: Create programs to educate people about Lake Urmia issues and empower them to get

involved. Do this through the school system and through community programs. The more people that

are involved and care, the more likely it is that you will be successful. Teach people the value of

conserving water at ALL levels—from the length of their shower to the extensive use for agriculture.

Teach people to water crops in the night or early morning and never during the heat of the day.

Public Involvement: Create “Adopt a Stream” program that can be implemented to give people a bond

and a purpose for the streams or rivers. People could adopt a river and have programs to visit their river

and to ensure it is clean, to improve habitat structure, and to monitor efficient use. These types of

programs have been used very effectively in the USA to improve streams, riparian habitat and

cleanliness of the rivers and streams. Once the level of Urmia begins to be re-established create “Adopt

a Shoreline” program where people adopt a section of shoreline and they improve the structure and

composition thereby recreating habitat for wildlife and also for recreation. Give awards to the most

successful group that improved their section of shoreline.

Youth Programs: Make saving Lake Urmia the fun and exciting thing to do for children of all ages.

Create youth programs with fun excursions to Urmia and its tributaries. Give awards and scholarships

for the best student projects designed to Save Lake Urmia. Make sure youth groups that come up with

good ideas are in the press and on TV. Make it fun and exciting for the youth to be involved. Actually

make it so popular that every child will want to be involved.

Celebrity Involvement: If there are very popular singers or other celebrities that have broad appeal in

Iran, then get them involved. Promote concerts or other entertainments that bring people together to

solve the crisis in Lake Urmia. Make it known that great people of high distinction are involved in saving

Lake Urmia.

International Partnerships: Create international partnerships with experts and programs from abroad.

Bring in experts on successful projects that can be implemented to help Lake Urmia. Send Iranian

experts to other countries for exchange of ideas and training. One example might be the embayment

projects in Great Salt Lake where man-made structures were constructed and successfully created

habitat structure and restored ecological functions. Expertise exists on the biological and water

chemistry conditions that need to be developed in order to optimize water quality for biological

diversity or biological specificity.

Health and Microbiology: Analyze dust storms and report accurately health impacts from the dust.

Conduct microbiological assessments of the dust to determine if any harmful pathogens exist in the dust

(e.g., the Valley Fever dust related impacts in the San Joaquin Valley in California, USA).

Media Support: Make sure the media is behind the project to save Lake Urmia. Use television and the

press to promote the idea (I know this is already taking place-I saw the reporting on Iranian television.)

Stakeholders and Beneficial Uses: Emphasize involvement of identified stakeholders and get input from

them on the beneficial uses of the lake that they desire. Beneficial uses can be: recreation, aesthetics,

hunting, fishing, weather, air quality, commercially available resources, relaxation, ecological functions,

etc. Analyze projects in terms of the beneficial uses and functions of the lake that are restored. Use the

restoration of beneficial uses to prioritize projects and spending.

Engineering projects: These should be done in a step-wise, systematic, and scale-appropriate manner.

Also make the engineering projects adaptable—meaning they can be modified in the event that

circumstances change and their initial application and use is no longer needed.

Embayments and Ponds: Create three categories of embayments or ponds: 1) Near shore/Wetlands

embayments; 2) Habitat Enhancement embayments or ponds; and “Thin Film” embayments. Each

would have different functions and conditions. Make the Near shore/Wetland embayments designed to

promote the development of wetlands for biota and the shoreline for recreation, aesthetics and

relaxation. Construct Habitat Enhancement embayments and ponds for the purpose of growing

microalgae, plants, zooplankton (especially Artemia), or vertebrate species. Create “thin film”

embayments to reduce particle aerosolization. Make the combination of these structures designed to

restore most of the ecological, aesthetic, and climatic functions of the former Lake Urmia.

Economic Tools: Use economic incentives to promote the restoration projects. Also use economic

incentives to encourage conservation and to penalize wasteful uses of water.

Positive Feedback Loops: Work with society, agricultural sector and industry to design positive

feedback loop processes. Create linkages between industry and the lake restoration that produces

positive feedback loops meaning that commercial exploitation of restored resources should lead to the

improvement of the lake and therefore more resources to be exploited (e.g., revenues from Artemia

ponds can be used to create more Artemia ponds thereby enhancing the restoration of the lake’s

biological functions yet at the same time producing more Artemia for commercial exploitation).

“Viewshed” Concept: Adopt the “viewshed” concept from restoration projects in other countries. The

idea is that when the entire natural system cannot be restored a functional “viewshed” is restored. This

is usually in reference to human/nature interactions and essentially it is the idea that the user can have

the same positive experience in nature within a limited range of the former boundaries of the natural

setting. So money is saved by restoring a “viewshed” rather than the entire region (this is done in cases

where it is simply cost prohibitive to restore the entire system).