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 km 2 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
[email protected]
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
o



GSL EXPERIENCE: Natural and man-made wetlands. Decades of detailed research and
experience with wetlands.
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.
19.
20.
Avoid time-consuming errors by analyzing successful projects in other countries before
implementation of Urmia proposals and projects.
Recognize that there is genuine interest and concern by the international community to help in the
recovery of Lake Urmia.
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-2177202-1429E76B000005DC456_970x524.jpg
ATTRIBUTES
COMPARATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF LAKE URMIA AND GREAT SALT LAKE
LAKE URMIA DESCRIPTION
GSL DESCRIPTION
Name and Alternatives
Location
Area of the Lake
Area of the Catchment (Watershed)
Elevation
Administration Status (Including
Watershed)
(Integrated Management Plan, 2010)
(Multiple Sources)
Lake Urmia, Urmia Lake, Chichest
North: 36˚.45ʹ to 38˚.20ʹ
East: 44˚.50ʹ to 46˚.10ʹ
2
5,000 km
2
51,876 km
1,276 m amsl
West Azerbaijan Provincial
Environmental Conservation Office
(WAECO). Satellite wetlands in East
Azerbaijan: EAECO
Great Salt Lake, GSL
North: 40˚.40ʹ to 41˚.30ʹ
West: 112˚.00ʹ and 112˚.49ʹ
2
2,720 km
2
89,000 km
1,280 m amsl
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.
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
Western Hemispheric Shorebird
Reserve (1991). GSL is not a Ramsar
site
Utah State, Federal and Private
Lands
Water body, wetland, grazing, urban
development, cultivated land,
transportation
Runoff from watershed, ground
water, precipitation
Controlled and Uncontrolled
(natural wetland)
Hypersaline lake and associated
biota including: microbes, algae,
zooplankton, vertebrates (especially
unique avifauna and endangered
species).
Forage for grazing
Conservation Status
National Park (1957)
International Designations
Ramsar Site, UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve
Land Tenure
State Owned
Land Use
Water body, wetland, pasturelands,
cultivated lands, transportation
Main Sources of Water
Runoff from the catchment area,
ground water, precipitation
Lake: Lacustrine, Wetlands:
Palustrine
Hypersaline lake and associated
biota including: microbes, algae,
zooplankton, vertebrates (especially
unique avifauna and endangered
species).
Salt harvest, grazing, Artemia
harvest, fishery, controlling saline
underground waters, waterbird
habitat, reeds, fodder, medicinal
herbs
Biodiversity support, landscape,
climatic moderation, pollution and
sediment retention, ground water
recharge.
Tourism/eco-tourism, recreation,
education, training, research,
therapeutic muds, cultural heritage
Ramsar Wetland Type (Urmia) or
Wetland Category (GSL)
Main Ecological Values
Wetland Products
Wetland Functions
Wetland Services
Habitat for biota, especially birds,
pollution, sediment retention,
support of biodiversity, nutrient
cycling
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 LakeJordan 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 longterm 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 twentyfive 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 longterm 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Air Quality
Algal communities
Artemia Resource
Avifauna
Climate Analysis
Contaminant Issues
Education Outreach
Economic Considerations
Water Control Engineering: Dikes, Dams and Causeways
Saline Lake Ecology and Food Webs
Hydrodynamic Modeling
Landscape Restoration
Limnology
Saline Lake Resource Management
Microbial Communities
Morphology and Bathymetry
Nutrient Inputs, Balance and Cycling
Railroad Causeway Issue
Resource Database Development
Salt Balance/Modeling
Wastewater Management and Discharges
Water Balance/Modeling
Water Management and Allocation
Watershed
Wetlands
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-itillegal-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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Great Salt Lake Authority (1963)
Reestablishment of the Authority (1967)
Department of Natural Resources (1967)
Division of the Great Salt Lake (1975)
Comprehensive Management Plan (1976)
Great Salt Lake Environs Report (1976)
Division of State Lands and Forestry (1979)
Great Salt Lake Contingency Plan (1983)
Great Salt Lake Advisory Council (1988 and 2010)
Great Salt Lake Technical Team (1988
General Management Plan, Great Salt Lake (1988)
Division of Sovereign Lands and Forestry (1994)
Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan (1995
Mineral Leasing Plan (1996 and 2012)
Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan (2000)
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).