Content uploaded by Philip Micklin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Philip Micklin on Nov 03, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 15
Efforts to Revive the Aral Sea
Philip Micklin
Abstract The Aral Sea between 1960 and 2012 lost 85 % of its area and 92 % of its
volume, while separating into four residual lakes. The Large Aral on the south
endured a level drop of 25 m and rise of salinity from 10 g/l to well over 100 g/l.
Over this period, the sea suffered immense ecological and economic damage
including the destruction of its valuable fishery and degradation of the deltas of
its two influent rivers. Nevertheless, in spite of this calamity, and contrary to reports
that the sea is a lost cause (popular reports that the sea will “disappear” are simply
false), hope has remained that the sea and its deltas could be partially rehabilitated.
Various restoration scenarios are discussed. Full revitalization of the sea in the
foreseeable future is extremely improbable, but cannot be ruled out for distant
times. The project implemented in the first decade of the present century to partially
restore the Small (northern) Aral Sea so far has been eminently successful. Partial
restoration of the Large (southern) Aral is more problematic as it would be more
costly and complicated than the north Aral project. Nevertheless, it is certainly
worthy of further investigation. Projects to improve the deltas of the Amu Darya
and Syr Darya are also underway. The interested reader should also see Chap. 14
which analyses the potential for biological rehabilitation of the Aral and Chap. 16
focusing on the grandiose Siberian water transfer schemes developed during the
Soviet era to radically improve the water balance of the Aral Sea Basin.
Keywords Small Aral • Large Aral • Amu Darya Delta • Syr Darya Delta • Western
Basin • Eastern Basin • Siberian diversion • Tshche-bas • Saryshaganak
P. Micklin (*)
Department of Geography, Western Michigan University, 1903 W Michigan Ave., Kalamazoo,
MI 49008-5433, USA
e-mail: Micklin@wmich.edu
P. Micklin et al. (eds.), The Aral Sea, Springer Earth System Sciences,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-02356-9_15, ©Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
361
15.1 Introduction
By September 2011, the Aral Sea had shrunk to a small remnant of what it was in
1960 (Table 15.1 above; Fig. 15.1 below). The lake had separated into four parts: the
Small Aral Sea on the north, the Eastern Basin of the Large Aral Sea on the East, the
Table 15.1 Hydrological and salinity characteristics of the Aral Sea, 1960–2011
Year and
portion of sea
Level
(meters
asl)
Area
(km
2
)
%
1960
area
Volume
(km
3
)
%
1960
volume
Average
depth
(meters)
Avg.
salinity
(g/l)
% 1960
salinity
1960
(Whole)
53.4 67,499 100 1,089 100 16.1 10 100
Large 53.4 61,381 100 1,007 100 16.4 10 100
Small 53.4 6,118 100 82 100 13.4 10 100
1971
(Whole)
51.1 60,200 89 925 85 15.4 12 120
1976
(Whole)
48.3 55,700 83 763 70 13.7 14 140
1989
(Whole)
39,734 59 364 33 9.2
Large 39.1 36,930 60 341 34 9.2 30 300
Small 40.2 2,804 46 23 28 8.2 30 300
Sept. 2009
(Whole)
8,522 12.6 83 7.7 9.7
W. Basin
Large
26.5 3,702 8 56 5.7 15.1 >100 >1,000
E. Basin
Large
26.5 857 0.64 0.7 150–200 1,500–2,000
Tshche-bas
Gulf
28 363 0.51 1.4 >100? >1,000
Small 42 3,600 59 27 33 7.5 10–14 100–140
Sept. 2011
(Whole)
10,317 15.3 84 7.7 8.1
W. Basin
Large
27.8 3,938 10.9 53 5.6 13.5 >100
a
>1,000
E. Basin
Large
27.6 2,268 3.0 1.3 >50?
Tshche-bas
Gulf
28.5 511 0.72 1.4 84
a
840
Small 42 3,600 59 27 33 7.5 8
a
0.8
Sources: (1) Data for 1960–2009 with some corrections from Micklin, Philip (2010), “The past,
present, and future Aral Sea,” Lakes &Reservoirs: Research and Management, 15, Table 1, p. 195.
(2) Data for 2011 from Report: monitoring of the Amudarya river delta and the exposed bed of the
Aral Sea within the framework of the CAWA Project – Dynamics of surface water and groundwa-
ter changes in the Amudarya river delta and the exposed bed of the Aral Sea June 2009 –
September 2011, Tables 3 and 4 (Available at website Cawaterinfo http://www.cawater-info.net/
aral/data/pdf/amudelta_monitoring_sept11_en.pdf)
a
Salinity measurements taken with a YSI-85 electronic meter and an optical refractometer during
an expedition to the Aral Sea from 28 August to 15 September 2011
362 P. Micklin
Western Basin of the Large Aral Sea on the west, and Tshche-bas Bay between the
Small Aral on the north and the two remnants of the Large Aral on the south. A long,
narrow channel, much like a slow moving river, connects the Eastern and Western
basins of the Large Aral. Wind direction and speed, the relative levels of the two
basins, and salinity-driven water density, determine the direction of flow in the
channel: sometimes east to west and other times west to east. The aggregate area
and volume of the Aral compared with 1960 had shrunk by 85 % and 92 %
respectively.
The level of the Small (northern) Aral has been stabilized by a dike and dam
finished in August 2005 at 42 m above sea level. (However, one should note that the
measurement is made above the gage located at Kronstadt on the Gulf of Finland,
which averages about 20 cm higher than ocean level). The Small Aral at 42 m is
11.4 m below its 1960s level. Owing to thisproject, its salinity decreased substantially
reaching an average of about 8 g/l by September 2011, leading to greatly improved
ecological conditions and a revitalized fishery (see Chap. 13).
Fig. 15.1 MODIS image of
Aral Sea September 22, 2009
(Natural color, 250 m
resolution, Terra satellite)
(Source: MODIS rapid
response (Near real time
images) lance.nasa.gov/
imagery/rapid-response)
15 Efforts to Revive the Aral Sea 363
The Large Sea on the south has not been so fortunate. The deeper (average depth
13.5 m) Western Basin at 27.8 m asl had fallen 25.6 m since 1960 and had salinities
in excess of 100 g/l, creating conditions where no fishes could survive. The Eastern
Basin had nearly dried up by September 2009 with salinities in the shallow pond
(average depth 0.7 m) that was left probably exceeding 200 g/l (Fig. 15.1). The
author (incorrectly) forecast the basin to completely dry during the summer of 2010
(Micklin 2010).
But 2010 turned out to be the highest flow year on the Amu Darya (measured at
the Takhiatash Dam and representing water delivery to the Amu delta and the Aral
Sea) since 1998, and the third largest since 1992 ending a 4-year cycle of low flows.
Considerable water reached the Eastern Basin from the Amu for the first time since
2006 (Cawaterinfo 2012a,b,c; MODIS 2006–2011). Although providing the
primary water supply to the Eastern Basin, this inflow was supplemented by
substantial outflow from the Small Aral via the Kok-Aral Dam that creates a series
of shallow lakes some of which connect to the Eastern Basin of the Large Aral. The
outflow resulted from flow conditions on the Syr Darya in 2010 (fourth largest of
the 20 years from 1992 to 2011), which delivered heavier than normal amounts of
water to the Small Sea (Cawaterinfo 2012d,e). Between November 2009 and
November 2010, the Eastern Basin’s area rose from 857 to 5,211 km
2
and its
volume from 0.64 to 8.4 km
3
(Cawaterinfo 2012a; Table 3 and 4) (Fig. 15.2).
Salinity also dropped dramatically, perhaps, to as low as 20 g/l.
But this major expansion of the Eastern Basin was short-lived as Amu Darya
flow decreased dramatically in 2011, the third lowest flow year for the 20-year
period 1992–2011. Consequently, the area and volume of the Eastern Basin
dropped rapidly reaching, respectively, 2,268 km
2
and 3.0 km
3
by September
2011 (Cawaterinfo 2012a; Table 15.1). Average salinity also rose considerably,
certainly taking that parameter back above 50 g/l. By June 2012, the Eastern Basin
had almost completely dried and was smaller than in September 2009 (MODIS
2012). Its complete desiccation by late summer seemed inevitable. But in late July
Amu water again reached the basin and by mid-August the area of this extremely
shallow water body approximated that of the Western Basin. This sequence of near
(or complete) drying and then refilling, dependent primarily on inflow from the
Amu Darya and secondarily from outflow from the Small Aral, will likely continue
for the foreseeable future absent intervention by humans (see below).
By September 2009, Tshche-bas Bay, now cut-off from the Eastern Aral, had
fallen 25.4 m from its 1960 level (Table 15.1). Its area had dwindled to 363 km
2
, its
volume to one-half cubic kilometer, average depth fell to 1.4 m, and salinity rose to
probably over 100 g/l. However, in 2010, spring/summer outflow from the Small
Aral via the Kok-Aral dam was of such size that a considerable amount of water
reached the Bay, for the first time in several years, substantially increasing its area
and volume (Cawaterinfo 2012a, Table 3). But as on the Amu, flow of the Syr in
2011 markedly dropped and the bay’s area and volume rapidly decreased reaching
511 km
2
and 0.72 km
3
by September 2011.
The key question is what could the future hold for the Aral Sea and its river
deltas? Will the Aral completely disappear? Is it possible to return the sea to its
364 P. Micklin
1960 size and ecological condition? What is feasible regarding preservation and
restoration of the shrunken and degraded deltas of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya?
Below are the author’s best estimates of what the future may hold for the Aral and
the river deltas.
15.2 Complete Drying Versus Full Restoration
First I must dispose of two diametrically opposite scenarios of the future Aral that
are in one case impossible and in the other highly unlikely except, perhaps, in the
distant future. The claim sometimes heard, usually in the popular media, that the
lake will dry up completely in the twenty-first century is simply wrong and
disregards basic physical and hydrologic principles. Even in the highly unlikely
event that inflow from the Amu and Syr rivers were reduced to zero, there would
still be residual input of irrigation drainage water, groundwater, and snow melt and
rain that would probably maintain at least three lakes. Two would be remnants of
the Small Aral Sea: Shevchenko Bay at the western end of this water body, which
had a maximum depth in 2011 of 16 m and a basin just to the east of it with a
maximum depth in 2011 of 18 m (Aral Sea 1981). These would primarily be fed by
Fig. 15.2 MODIS image of
Aral Sea September 16, 2011
(Natural color, 250 m
resolution, Terra satellite)
(Source: MODIS rapid
response (Near real time
images) lance.nasa.gov/
imagery/rapid-response)
15 Efforts to Revive the Aral Sea 365
groundwater draining from surrounding highlands, which create a steep hydraulic
gradient as evidenced by numerous artesian wells found around the western part of
the Small Aral (Expedition 2005,2007,2011).
However, the largest remnant lake would be located in the Western Basin of the
Large Sea in the south. In spite of the huge decline in level since 1960 (Table 15.1),
the maximum depth here in 2011 was still 44 m and sizable parts of the basin had
depths in excess of 15 m (Aral Sea 1981). As with the remnant lakes of the Small
Sea, the lake (or lakes) here would mainly be fed by ground water emanating from
the Ust-Urt Plateau rising to heights of slightly more than 200 hundred meters
immediately to the west of the basin. On the other hand, the Eastern Basin of the
Aral would completely disappear, as nearly happened in 2009. It is possible a small
residual lake would be preserved in Tshche-bas Bay (2011 max depth of 4.5 m)
owing to drainage from surrounding highlands (again evidenced by the presence of
artesian wells). All the remnant lakes of the Aral Sea would be hypersaline and of
little ecological or economic value, except, perhaps for the production of brine
shrimp (Artemia) eggs.
What about bringing the Aral Sea back to its pre-desiccation conditions, character-
istic of the first 60 years of the twentieth century with a level near 53 m, area of the
water surface about 66,100 km
2
, volume around 1,064 km
3
and average salinity from
9.3 to 10.3 g/l (Bortnik and Chistyaevaya 1990, p. 7)? This would be ideal, but is it
realistic? Such rejuvenation would require average annual aggregate inflow from the
Amu+ Syrriversof56km
3
, assuming surface net evaporation of 869 mm (evapora-
tion of 993 mm minus precipitation of124 mm derived from data published in Bortnik
and Chistyayeva 1990, p. 39, Table 4.2) and estimated net groundwater inflow of
2.5 km
3
. According to an Excel based annually iterated fill model devised by the author
that assumes a trapezoidal cross section for the portion of the sea to be restored,
refilling would require about 103 years given its area and volume in September 2011
(Table 15.1)(Micklin2012a). The restoration would follow a logistics curve: rapid at
first as inflow greatly exceeded net evaporation, then slowing and approaching zero as
net evaporation grew and approached total inflow from the rivers Amu Darya and Syr
Darya plus net groundwater influx. However, the sea would reach 50 m (94 % of
stability level) and have an area of 60,000 km
2
(91 % of stability area) and volume over
800 km
3
(75 % of stability volume) in just 43 years.
Complicating the situation, however, is the likely increase of surface evaporation
from the Aral caused by global warming induced rising temperatures in its basin
(Cretaux et al. 2009). Thus, it might take substantially more than an average inflow of
56 km
3
to raise and stabilize the sea near 53 m. For example, if surface evaporation
for a future Aral rose to 1,100 mm/year or by 11 %, likely a conservative assumption,
with other water balance parameters remaining the same, it would take 63 km
3
/year
and 97 years to refill the sea its pre-1960s conditions. The level of 50 m, area of
60,000 km
2
and volume of 800 km
3
would be reached in 40 years. But the recent
flows to the Aral have been far below 56 km
3
, let alone 62–63 km
3
. The author
estimates the average annual inflow to the sea from 2000 through 2011 at 8.8 km
3
(6.6 km
3
from the Syr and 2.2 km
3
from the Amu, including direct irrigation
366 P. Micklin
drainage channel inflow to the sea from the latter). This is only 16 % of what would
be needed to refill the sea under the first scenario above.
The only realistic approach to substantially increasing inflow to the Aral is
reducing the consumptive use of water (that portion of withdrawals not directly
returned to river flow) for irrigation in the sea’s drainage basin, by far the main
contributor to decreased inflow. The irrigated area in the Aral Sea Basin by 2010
had reached 8.2 million ha for which 92 km
3
were withdrawn, accounting for 84 %
of all water withdrawals in the basin during that year. (See Chap. 8for a detailed
discussion and analysis of irrigation in the Aral Sea Basin.)
Without question irrigation in the Aral Sea Basin is highly inefficient. Substantial
improvements to it, technical, economic, and institutional, could save considerable
water. Attempts are underway to implement improvement measures, but the compre-
hensive program needed would be extremely costly. According to estimates by water
management experts in 1996, complete renovation of antiquated irrigation and
drainage systems on 5.4 million ha could cost 16–22 billion USD (see Chap. 8).
Certainly the cost today would be substantially more. The resulting net water savings
based on 1995 withdrawals of 12,594 m
3
/ha are estimated at 9.2 km
3
/year. To reach
substantially larger savings, let us say 20 km
3
, which would require economically and
institutionally reforming irrigation and implementing an array of modern technical
improvements on the entire irrigated area to lower average withdrawals for irrigation
from an estimated 11,258 m
3
/hain2010to8,000m
3
/ha, would cost far more. It is
likely today’s cost to realize water savings of 9.2 km
3
and certainly 20 km
3
is beyond
the willingness, and perhaps ability, of the basin states to pay, even with major aid
from international donors. Indeed, the technical condition of irrigation systems in the
basin, far from improving, is steadily deteriorating owing to inadequate funding for,
and lack of management responsibility over, operation and maintenance activities.
Converting more of the irrigated area to less water intensive crops (e.g.,
substituting grains, soybeans, fruits, and vegetables for cotton and rice) and reduction
of the irrigated area are other means of significantly reducing water usage in irrigation
(see Chap. 8) The two largest cotton-growing nations in the Aral Sea Basin
(Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) have reduced their cotton hectarage. Between 1990
and 2011 the former decreased the planted area by 27 % and the latter by 8 % (see
Chap. 8). However, further reductions in the area devoted to cotton in the two
countries are unlikely as both are intent on keeping cotton as a major crop since it
is the key foreign currency earner. The irrigated area in the Aral Sea Basin has
remained essentially the same since 1995, increasing from 8.07 to 8.20 million
ha. Future reductions are considered unlikely as all of the former Soviet Republics,
except Kazakhstan, consider it necessary to raise more irrigated food crops to meet
the needs of a growing population.
It is doubtful the Aral could be restored to its former grandeur in the foreseeable
future. The amount of water that would need to be saved is far above even the most
optimistic and costly scenario of water use efficiency improvements. For example,
assuming net water savings in irrigation of 20 km
3
/year could be reached, there still
would be a deficit of 27 km
3
, assuming average future inflow of 8.8 km
3
that was
experienced from 2000 through 2011. Taking the 8,000 m
3
/ha withdrawal estimate
15 Efforts to Revive the Aral Sea 367
and reducing it by return flows to rivers that would be lost by taking land out of
irrigation (estimated at 1,280 m
3
/ha) gives net savings of 6,270 m
3
/ha. Thus, to
cover the deficit, would require reducing the 2010 irrigated area of 8.2 million ha by
about 3.42 million ha or 42 %. Such a reduction would wreak economic and social
havoc on the countries of the basin. It is more likely much larger reductions would
be needed because it is doubtful the major irrigating nations of the basin could in the
near or even medium term future meet the 8,000 m
3
/ha efficiency goal.
Nevertheless, we should not give up hope for a completely restored Aral. As
discussed in Chaps. 2and 4, the Aral in the past has several times come back from
very severe desiccations. Perhaps in the more distant future, when the economy of the
Aral Sea Basin countries has become far less dependent on irrigated agriculture and
great improvements have been made in irrigation efficiency, this could again happen.
15.3 The Siberian Water Transfer Project
Of course it is engineeringly feasible to bring water to the Aral Sea from outside
Central Asia. Proposals for large-scale water transfers from Siberian rivers date to
late nineteenth century Tsarist times. But serious interest in such projects only began
during the Soviet period in the late 1940s after World War II. (See Chap. 16 for a
detailed treatment of the Siberian river diversion question.) Beginning in the late
1960s, detailed plans started to be developed by the water management hierarchy in
Moscow and in Central Asia to send massive quantities of water, up to 60 km
3
, from
the Siberian rivers Irtysh and Ob to the Aral Sea Basin as a panacea for perceived
water shortage problems. The initial stage of this project would have taken 27 km
3
from the Irtysh-Ob river confluence on the Western Siberian Plain of Russia. It was
on the verge of implementation when stopped by the Gorbachev regime in 1986.
Although real and serious potential ecological threats (of regional, not global
magnitude as claimed by some opponents) were cited as the chief reason for
canceling the project, its enormous cost appears to have been the primary motivation
behind this decision.
This grandiose scheme continues to be discussed and promoted in Central Asian
water management and governmental circles and in the new millennium has, again,
found a sympathetic ear among some water management professionals and
bureaucrats in Russia. However, implementation of this project in any but the far
term, if ever, seems a pipe dream. Costs today would likely run 50–60 billion USD,
and even if Russia were willing to help finance the project, it is doubtful sufficient
funds could be accumulated for construction from other sources. International
donors, such as the World Bank, given their newfound sensitivity to environmental
concerns, have stated opposition to such a project. Finally, there is tremendous
opposition among Russians to sending water from their precious Siberian rivers to
Central Asia where, in their view, it would be wasted. Even if implemented, much
less than the 27 km
3
diverted, probably less than 15, would reach the Aral owing to
substantial evaporation and filtration losses in the transfer system, withdrawals along
368 P. Micklin
the route for irrigation and other purposes, and usage in Central Asia for irrigation.
Thus, while it could certainly help significantly improve the Aral’s water balance, it
alone would not provide sufficient water to bring the sea back to its 1960 level. Even
along with the 20 km
3
that might be saved by complete renovation of irrigation
facilities in the Aral Sea Basin, the total, a maximum of 35 km
3
would still be 21 km
3
short of the amount of water needed to bring the Aral back to its 1960 level.
Certainly, it would be more rational to spend precious capital and effort on improving
regional water management rather than importing water from Siberia.
Recently, two “megaengineeering” proponents have proposed a variant of the
Siberian project, which would take water only from Lake Zaysan in Kazakhstan,
which is the source of the Irtysh, and deliver it into the Syr Darya from where it
would flow into the Small Aral Sea (Badescu and Schuiling 2009; also see Chap. 16
of this book). This would make the political negotiations for implementing the
project much simpler as it would be implemented in only one country. The authors
also see a much lower cost for this project as the route would be considerably
shorter and water would flow gravitationally to the Syr River rather than requiring
huge electrical inputs for pumping over the low topographic divide (127 m)
between Western Siberia and the Aral Sea Basin. But it would require drilling a
100 km tunnel through a mountain range for which the costs are speculative.
Although an interesting concept, it has serious deficiencies beyond the tunnel
issue. The most serious problem is that the idea of taking water from Lake Zaysan to
refill the Aral just won’t work. Even if you were to take the entire available outflow
from the Lake, which is controlled by a dam, it would amount to no more than
18 km
3
/year on an average annual basis. There would also be inevitable losses
along the canal part of the route and in the new Syr Darya Delta to evaporation,
filtration and transpiration from hydrophytes. Farmers along the route would also
surely take some of the additional water for irrigation. Hence, it is questionable that
more than 12 or 13 km
3
would reach the Small Aral, not the 30–40 km
3
claimed by
project proponents.
Furthermore, taking the entire water balance surplus of the Lake would mean no
outflow and hydropower from the Bukhtarma Dam, which is a major power producer.
Also, the bed of the Irtysh would be dry for many kilometers downstream, which
would be very ecologically harmful and cause water supply problems for people,
industry and agriculture along the river as well as losses of power production at other
dams farther down that river. Realistically, it is doubtful the Kazakhstan government
would ever allow diverting more than about 1/2 of the surplus, which would be 9 km
3
.
If this were all that could be sent toward the Aral, the project would just not be worth
the cost.
15 Efforts to Revive the Aral Sea 369
15.4 Other Improvement Scenarios for the Aral Sea
and Its Deltas
Although restoration of the Aral to, or even near, its 1960 level is not realistic in the
foreseeable future, partial rehabilitation of parts of the sea and its river deltas hold
considerable promise and are discussed below.
15.4.1 Partial Restoration of the Small (Northern) Aral Sea
The Aral separated into two water bodies in 1987 – a “Small” Aral Sea in the north
and a “Large” Aral Sea in the south. The Syr Darya flows into the former, and the
Amu Darya into the latter. After separation, a channel formed connecting the two
lakes, with flow from the higher level Small Sea to the lower level Large Sea. This
flow was primarily during the spring/early summer period when discharge from the
Syr Darya to the Small Aral was greatest. Local authorities constructed an earthen
dike in 1992 to block outflow in order to raise the level of the Small Sea, lower
salinity, and improve ecological and fishery conditions (Aladin et al. 2008). This
makeshift construction had only crude means (a culvert) to release water southward
toward the Large Aral. The dike breached and was repaired several times in the
1990s, but did considerably lower salinity and improve biodiversity and the fishery
(primarily of the introduced kambala or Black Sea flounder). On April 20, 1999, the
dike suffered a catastrophic failure after the lake level rose to 43.5 m ASL and
overtopped the structure during a windstorm that drove water against the dike. It
was completely destroyed with the loss of the lives of two workers who were
attempting emergency repairs (Micklin 2010).
The World Bank and the Government of Kazakhstan had been considering
funding construction of a more engineeringly sound facility as part of the Phase
1 Aral Sea Basin Program (ASBP) since the program inception in 1993 (Aral Sea
Program 1994). Detailed Design of the project was completed by the early years of
the new century (Expedition 2005). The main element of the project would be a
13-km low dike (named Kok-Aral for the former Island/peninsula on its western
side) across the former Berg Strait that formerly connected the Small Aral to the
Large Aral. The dike would have a concrete regulating dam with 9 gates to control
outflow from the Small Aral. A new dam was also to be built at Ak-Lak on the lower
Syr to regulate flow and allow the diversion of some water eastward to supplement
the water balance of deltaic lakes. The dam was to be equipped with a fish ladder to
allow access of migratory fish to the Syr Darya upstream of the dam. Improvements
were also to be made to the bed of the Syr Darya down stream of the Chardarya
Dam to enhance water flow to the sea. Cost of the entire project was set at 86 million
USD with the World Bank providing 65 million and the Kazakhstan government
21 million.
Construction work began in 2003 and the dike and dam were completed by
August 2005 (Expedition 2005). Because of heavier than expected winter inflow to
370 P. Micklin
the Small Aral, the level rose much more rapidly than expected and reached the
design mark of 42 m above the Kronstadt sea level gauge on the Baltic Sea by
March 2006, allowing renewed outflow to the Large Aral. For a number of reasons,
the Ak-Lak facility was not completed and put into operation until 2011 (Expedition
2011).
The Small Aral at 42 m asl has an area around 3,600 km
2
, volume of 27 km
3
and
average salinity (as measured in early September 2011) at 8–9 g/l (Expedition
2011). Assuming net evaporation from the water body of 840 mm/year (evaporation
of 960 mm and precipitation of 120 mm taken from Shivareva et al. 1998) and net
average annual groundwater inflow estimated by the author at no less than 0.1 km
3
,
2.3 km
3
is all that is required to maintain stability at the 42 m level.
The author estimates that for the period 1992–2011 Syr inflow was near 6 km
3
(based on adjustments for flow losses downstream of the lowest gauging station of
Ak-Lak), well above what is needed to maintain the 42-m level. Since the completion
of the Kok-Aral dike in 2005, excess water has been released southward creating
large, shallow lakes with very high evaporation losses but that during some years
have reached the Eastern Basin of the Large Aral and Tshche-bas Bay,
supplementing their water balances and even creating flow through the connecting
channel into the Western Basin of the Large Aral. A case may be made that these
releases could be considerably reduced and used for further raising the level of the
Small Aral. The key reason for this belief is that they serve no beneficial purposes to
the south of the dam as it is doubtful that the outflow from the Small Aral is sufficient
to contribute in any meaningful way to restoration to an ecologically productive state
of the Eastern Basin and Tshche-bas Gulf in the foreseeable future. However, at
times some releases may be necessary to adjust salinity in the Small Aral.
The Kazakhstan Government is planning a second phase to the Small Aral
restoration project. Two alternatives have been under consideration. One is to
raise the level of water only in the Gulf of Saryshaganak, which extends northeast
off the eastern part of the Small Sea, to 50 m from its current level of 42 m. This
would be accomplished by placing a new dike and dam at the Gulf’s mouth where it
is connected to the main part of the Small Sea and diverting part of the flow of the
Syr Darya northward via a canal into Saryshaganak to maintain its level. The
project would bring the gulf back to the town of Aralsk the former main port and
transshipment point at the northern end of the Aral Sea, but the canal dug earlier to
connect the port to the receding sea would need to be restored to maintain adequate
depths for vessels to reach Aralsk.
The reservoir created would have near fresh water salinities of 2–3 g/l. Locks
would be installed at the dam allowing passage of fishing and cargo boats from the
main part of the Small Aral to the gulf and vice versa. This would allow fishing
vessels direct access to unload their catch at the newly rebuilt and quite modern fish
processing plant in Aralsk. Currently fish are hauled some distance to the plant via
refrigerated truck (Expedition 2011). Cost of this project is estimated at 200 million
USD. In September 2011, the word was that President Nazerbayev of Kazakhstan
had selected the Saryshaganak variant (Expedition 2011). The World Bank is
15 Efforts to Revive the Aral Sea 371
supportive of the project and the Kazakhstan Government has requested a loan to
cover part of the cost from that organization.
The other project would rebuild the Kok-Aral dike and dam, raising the level of
the entire lake to 48 m and increasing its area and volume to 4,830 km
2
and
53.5 km
3
respectively. The second project would likely provide more economic
and ecological benefits than the Saryshaganak Reservoir plan, including more
improvements to the fishery, better sea-borne transport prospects, and more
ecologically suitable salinity conditions that are closer to what prevailed prior to
the modern desiccation. The main objection to this plan is concern over insufficient
water available from the Syr Darya on an annual average basis to maintain this
level. However, calculations by the author suggest there may be sufficient inflow
from the Syr Darya.
The estimated average annual inflow to the Small Aral from the Syr Darya for
1992 through 2011 is 5.98 km
3
. Assuming the same average annual water balance
parameters as used earlier for the Small Aral (E ¼960 mm, P ¼120 mm and net
groundwater inflow ¼0.1 km
3
), the 48-m level could be maintained with an
average annual discharge from the Syr of 4.55 km
3
. But you would also need an
outflow from the sea sufficient to maintain a reasonably stable salinity, which
means in the simplest terms removing with the outflow the amount of salt brought
in by the river (the salt contribution of net groundwater inflow is excluded from the
calculation as groundwater is likely so small compared to river input).
Using values measured during our groups September 2011 expedition (Expedition
2011; see also Chap. 13) of salinity (1 g/l) for inflow from the Syr Darya and outflow
salinity of 6 g/l at the Kok-Aral Dam, this could be realized with a discharge of
1.14 km
3
on an average annual basis (calculated using an iterative approximation
process that takes account of the additional salt added by the increased inflow).
Therefore, the average minimum annual inflow would need to be 5.69 km
3
,which
based on estimated inflows for the period 1992–2011 is obtainable. Average annual
outflow from the Kok-Aral Dam would be 1.43 km
3
(5.98 5.69 + 1.14) based on
the estimated Syr Darya flows to the Small Aral from 1992 through 2011.
If the outflow point were shifted to the very western end of the Small Aral where
the salinity is higher, the salinity balance could be maintained with less discharge.
For example using the same salinity of 1 g/l for Syr Darya inflow and what the
author measured at several points around the western end of the water body (8 g/l),
only 0.76 km
3
would be required, lowering the necessary inflow from the Syr Darya
to 5.31 km
3
. Moving the outflow location would also improve the water circulation
in the Small Sea. Obviously, average annual outflow from the discharge works at
the western end of the Small Aral would be the same as for the other variant
1.43 km
3
(5.98 5.31 + 0.76) based on the Syr Darya flows to the Small Aral from
1992 through 2011, but this variant is better adapted to lower inflow conditions.
What this design for the second phase of the Small Aral restoration project
would look like is shown on Fig. 15.3. The cost of facilities to raise the level of the
entire Small Aral from 42 to 48 m is unknown. It would require a much more
massive Kok-Aral dike and completely replacing the concrete regulating dam. If
the discharge point were moved to the western end of the sea, only a higher dike
372 P. Micklin
Fig. 15.3 Optimistic scenario of the future Aral Sea (after 2030) (Legend. SmallAralSea:level ¼48 m,
surface area ¼4,830 km
2
, volume 53.5 km
3
, avg. annual river inflow ¼5.31 km
3
, avg. annual
outflow ¼1.43 km
3
, avg. annual salinity ¼8g/l.Western Basin of Large Aral sea:level ¼33 m, surface
area ¼6,200 km
2
, volume ¼85 km
3
, average annual river inflow ¼6.6 km
3
, avg. annual outflow to
Eastern Basin ¼2.09 km3. Salinity steadily decreasing reaching 42 g/l by 2055 and 15 g/l by 2110.
Eastern Basin of Large Aral Sea: level ~ 28 m, surface area ~ 2,378 km
2
, volume ~ 3.0 km
3
, avg. annual
salinity >200 g/l. Adzhibay Gulf Reservoir: level ¼53 m, surface area ¼1,147 km
2
, volume ¼6.43 km
3
,
inflow ¼8km
3
,outflowtoWesternBasinofAralSea ¼6.6 km
3
, avg. annual salinity ¼2g/l)
15 Efforts to Revive the Aral Sea 373
would be necessary to replace the present Kok-Aral facility. But a second dike and
flow regulating structure would need to be built at the new discharge point. Also a
ship access canal would be needed to the former port of Aralsk.
15.4.2 Restoration Prospects for the Large (Southern)
Aral Sea
The future for the Large (southern) Sea is more uncertain. The Eastern Basin nearly
disappeared in 2009. Owing to a heavy flow year in 2010, substantial flow reached
it from the Amu Darya (and lesser amounts via outflow from the Small Aral Sea)
and it was rejuvenated as a large, but very shallow lake (Table 15.1). Owing to
another low flow year on the Amu in 2011, little or no water reached the Eastern
Basin and it shrank rapidly. Assuming no human intervention, this pattern of
shrinking (and perhaps even disappearing) during low flow cycles on the Amu
Darya alternating with partial refilling during higher flow years will likely go on for
the foreseeable future.
The Western Basin’s fate in the absence of human intervention depends largely on
net groundwater inflow, as it does not receive any direct flow from the Amu Darya.
This input is not known with any degree of accuracy, but may be substantial owing to
the hydraulic gradient from the Ust-Urt plateau, which it abuts on the west (Micklin
and Aladin 2008; Expedition 2011). Nevertheless, if present trends continue, the
level and area of the Western Basin will decrease considerably from the 2011 figures
(Table 15.1), perhaps stabilizing around 21 m above the Kronstadt gauge at
2,100 km
2
. It would continue on the path of hypersalinization, steadily moving
toward conditions characteristic of the Great Salt Lake in the United States and the
Dead Sea in the Middle East (200–300 g/l). Only brine shrimp (Artemia) and some
bacteria could survive such harsh conditions.
On the other hand, there are more optimistic scenarios for the Western Basin of
the Large Aral. Figure 15.3 shows a concept developed by the author (Micklin 2010).
It is adapted and updated to take account of current conditions from designs first put
forward in 1978 by two Soviet water management experts (Lvovich and Tsigelnaya
1978). It would require an average annual inflow in the lowest reaches of the Amu
Darya of around 8 km
3
. However, adding this to the water needed to support deltaic
lakes (4.35 km
3
) the total inflow needed would be near 12.5 km
3
. The author
estimates average annual flow here for 1990–2011 at about 5.4 km
3
, so it would
require more than doubling this. Although substantial this could be accomplished
with reasonably obtainable improvements in irrigation efficiency in the basin of the
Amu River where withdrawals in 2010 were 58.6 km
3
(Cawaterinfo 2012f). So for
example, assuming present overall irrigation system efficiency at 65 % (ratio of
water withdrawn to that used productively), raising it to 75 % (a 20 % improvement)
would reduce withdrawals by 7.8 km
3
.
All of the residual flow of the Amu (after meeting needs of deltaic lakes and
wetlands, described below) would need to be directed northwestward into the
374 P. Micklin
former Adzhibay Gulf refilling it to 53 m with an area of 1,147 km
2
, volume of
6.43 km
3
average depth of 5.6 m, and salinity around 2 g/l. This would mean no
water would be allowed to flow to the Eastern Basin, except possibly in very heavy
flow years on the Amu Darya. The existing channel (Glavnoye myaso) that cur-
rently takes a portion of river water to maintain a wetland/lake (Muynak Bay) on
part of the dried gulf could probably be deepened and widened to accomplish this.
A restored Adzhibay Gulf would improve the local climate, be of great ecological
value to migratory and non migratory birds and aquatic mammals, and could
become a major fishery.
Adzhibay Gulf reservoir, on average, is estimated to have evaporation of
1,400 mm/year, precipitation on its surface of 105 mm/year and groundwater inflow
of 0.1 km
3
/year (evaporation data from Gorelkin and Nikitin 1985,Fig.8,p.22;
precipitation data from Bortnik and Chistyaeva 1990, Fig. 2.2, p. 20, and groundwater
estimate by Micklin). Thus to maintain it would require 1.4 km
3
of water. The
remainder, averaging 6.6 km
3
/year, would be released via control gates to a channel
connected to the Western Basin of the Large Aral Sea. The channel would need to be
lined with concrete or clay to reduce filtration losses. Assuming water balance
parameters for the Western Basin of E ¼1,000 mm, P (on the sea surface) ¼111 mm
(E and P values taken from Bortnik and Chistyaeva 1990, Fig. 2.5, p. 20 Table 4.1,
p. 36) and using an estimated net groundwater inflow of 1 km
3
(which may be on the
low side), a level of 33 m, area of 6,200 km
2
, and volume of 85 km
3
could be
maintained with an average annual inflow of 4.51 km
3
.
The excess inflow (2.09 km
3
) would be discharged to the Eastern Basin via a
regulating structure (dike and dam) at the northern end of the Western Basin where
the connecting channel now joins the East and West basins of the Large Aral. The
Western Basin would freshen as more salt is carried out than is brought in. At first
this process would go rapidly with inflowing river water at 2 g/l and groundwater
(also assumed at 2 g/l) while outflow would be at more than 100 g/l, but slow as the
average salinity of the Western Basin decreased. Assuming project construction
starting in early 2015 and finishing in early 2018, when filling would commence,
the design level of 33 m, based on the spreadsheet fill model mentioned earlier,
would require another 10 years and be completed by early 2028, when water
releases to the Eastern Aral would begin (Micklin 2012a). At this time owing to
the inflow of lower salinity (2 g/l) water from the Adzhibay Reservoir and ground-
water, average salinity would be around 79 g/l compared to 110 g/l before filling
started.
Employing an Excel based salt balance model indicates that by 2058, the
average salinity would drop to less than 42 g/l allowing the introduction of kambala
(Black Sea flounder) and possibly other salt tolerant fishes (Micklin 2012b). When
salinities fell below 15 g/l, stocking with indigenous Aral Sea species such as sazan
(a type of carp) and sudak (pike-perch) would be possible. However, this could take
until 2119. But it is possible that density stratification would create a layer of saline
water on the bottom and less saline on top that would accelerate the freshening
process (Kostianov et al. 2004). Of course if inflow from Adzhibay Gulf could be
increased the process could go more rapidly. For example, if this were 10 instead of
15 Efforts to Revive the Aral Sea 375
6.6 km
3
, increasing outflow to 5.49 km
3
, less than 42 g/l would be reached by 2039
and salinity would fall below 15 g/l by 2057. This would require raising the average
annual delivery of water to the lower Amu Darya Delta to 15.9 km
3
, about three
times what the average was for 1990–2011.
The saline lake formed on the former Eastern Aral Basin would have a level near
28 m, surface area of 2,378 km
2
, assuming precipitation on its surface of 111 mm/
year, evaporation from the surface of 1,200 mm/year (evaporation would be higher
than from the Western Basin owing to higher water temperatures in this very
shallow water body) and estimated net groundwater inflow of 0.5 km
3
. Its volume
would be about 3 km
3
. It would be beneficial in its own right by reducing the area of
barren, salt-covered desert that contributes so heavily to dust/salt storms. Also, it
might be used for harvesting of brine shrimp eggs, as with salinities over 200 g/l the
water body would provide ideal habitat for brine shrimp.
This concept has so far been little studied as to its engineering feasibility,
ecological consequences, and economic benefits and costs. Without doubt it
would require more funding than the 85 million USD spent to implement the first
stage restoration project for the Small Aral. This project would also eliminate the
possibility of commercially harvesting brine shrimp eggs in the Western Basin, as
salinity would be far too low for this species’ survival. Implementation would
require agreement, funding and cooperation from both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan,
as about 30 % of the Western Basin is within the former country and the remaining
70 % in the latter. Kazakhstan where the outflow structure would be build might not
have that much interest in the project as restoration of the Small Sea is far more
important to that nation’s government. Even more critical, the expanding search for
gas and oil being pursued by a consortium of Chinese, Uzbekistan, Russian,
Malaysian, and Korean companies and extraction of these fossil fuel resources on
the bottom of the former Adzhibay Gulf and southern Aral Sea would be made
considerably more difficult (CNPC 2012). If major deposits are found, as is
expected, this in itself may doom the restoration plan to never going beyond the
drawing board, as Uzbekistan would have little interest in it (CNPC 2012).
15.4.3 Restoration of the Lakes and Wetlands of the
Deltas of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya
The Soviet government initiated rehabilitation of the lakes and wetlands of the lower
Amu Darya Delta in the late 1980s. After independence at the end of 1991, the new
states of Central Asia in collaboration with international donors continued this work.
The prime objective of the largest effort (the Aral Sea Wetland Restoration Project or
ASWRP), which was implemented by the International Fund for the Aral Sea (IFAS)
and funded by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), has been rehabilitation of
former lakes and wetlands (of greatest importance Sudochye) and the creation of
several artificial lakes and wetlands in the lower delta (Mezhdurechensk and
376 P. Micklin
Dumalak) and on the dry bed of the Aral Sea (Muynak, Rybachye, Dzhiltyrbas)
(Micklin 2007; Scheme 2002; GTZ and ICWC 2007, pp. 136–137). The objective
was to restore the biological diversity and productivity of these water bodies that
have not only great ecological importance (for migratory birds, fishes, and aquatic
mammals) but considerable economic value as well as sources of edible fish, for
trapping fur bearing mammals, and as places where reeds can be harvested for
domestic animal feed and for construction purposes.
The rehabilitation plan cost six million USD. Experts have estimated that
4.35 km
3
of water (3.1 of relatively clean river flow supplemented by 1.25 of
irrigation drainage) are needed to support minimally acceptable “hydro-ecological
conditions” in the lower delta of the Amu Darya, including 1,800 km
2
of natural and
artificially created lakes and wetlands there (MKVK 2002, p. 39, 2010, p. 75). Water
requirements would specifically depend on the flow year on the Amu: 8 km
3
in a high
flow year, 4.6 in an average flow year, and a minimum of 3.1 in a low flow year. As
mentioned earlier, remaining flow could be used to support the rehabilitation project
for the Large Aral Sea described above.For the plan to work successfully salinity of
the river flow needs to be maintained between 0.8 and 1.2 g/l and even in low-flow
years, priority water bodies must receive adequate inflow.
A problem for the restoration program has been that in low flow cycles on the
Amu Darya, the lakes and wetlands dry and shrink with severe adverse effects on
the habitat for migratory birds and on fisheries (Micklin 2010, pp. 74–78). For
example in the 2000-mid 2002 drought and low-flow period, the lake/wetland area
suffered a severe decline, with the aggregate area falling from 1,276 in April 2000
to 796 km
2
by August 2002 (GTZ and ICWC 2007, pp. 136–137). The area of Lake
Sudochye, the largest and most important water body, shrank from 419 to only
65 km
2
. Normal and above normal flows returned in ensuing years, and by June
2005, the aggregate area had grown to 3,293 km
2
and the area of Lake Sudochye to
621 km
2
.
Drought and low-flow conditions recurred in the 2007–2009 period with the
aggregate area falling from 2,674 in the former year to 1,049 km
2
by November of
the latter (Cawaterinfo 2012a, Table 5, 5a). Figures for Lake Sudochye for the same
time period were 534 and 314 km
2
. As noted earlier, 2010 was a heavy flow year
and much water reached the lakes and wetlands of the lower Amu Delta with the
aggregate area growing to 3,561 and Sudochye to 597 km
2
.by October. Dry
conditions returned in 2011 and very little water reached the lower delta. As a
result, aggregate area shrank to 2,928 and Lake Sudochye to 389 km
2
by September
2011. Complaints have been made that even in average flow years, deliveries of
water to the lower delta are only half of what they should be (MKVK 2010,
pp. 74–78). In early 2011, 21 new gages were installed at key locations in the
lower delta to provide more accurate measurements of water levels and discharges
in canals, collector drains, and lakes in the Amu Darya Delta (Cawaterinfo 2012f).
V. Dukhovnyy head of the Scientific Information Center (SIC) of the Interstate
Coordinating Water Management Commission (ICWC) has promoted a more ambi-
tious version of the restoration plan for the Amu Darya Delta. In addition to the lakes
and wetlands of the delta, it would create so-called large, shallow “anti-polder”
15 Efforts to Revive the Aral Sea 377
reservoirs on the dried bottom of the southern Aral Sea to stop sand dune encroach-
ment on the delta and reduce the wind transport of sand and dust here. These have
been controversial for a number of reasons, including fears of excessive evaporation
from them and insufficient water availability to sustain them. So far none have been
constructed.
A related effort has been the development of a technology and its implementa-
tion for afforestation of parts of the dried bottom of the southern portion of the Aral
Sea. Known as “Stabilization of the desiccated Aral Sea bottom in Central Asia,”
this program has been funded and conducted by the German government foreign aid
agency GTZ in cooperation with the Forestry Research Institute of Uzbekistan
(GTZ and ICWC 2007, pp. 10, 123–127). Its purpose is to plant drought resistant
trees and shrubs (mainly saksaul- Haloxylon aphyllum) on the dry bottom to help
stabilize the soils and lower their deflation potential. Reportedly by 2010 this
program had led to self-sustaining forests growing on 2,000 km
2
of the dried bottom
(MKVK 2010, pp. 74–78)
Less ambitious, but still significant’ efforts are underway to improve wetlands
and lakes (mainly Kamyshlybas, Karashalan, and Tushchibas) in the lower Syr
Darya Delta by providing them with more water from the Syr (as noted earlier this
is one of the purposes of the Ak-Lak hydrocomplex) and undertaking other
measures to enhance their ecological condition and improve their fishery potential
(Expedition 2011;MKVK2010, pp. 74–78). For the Syr Darya Delta preservation
of the lakes and wetlands of six lake systems encompassing an area of 1,520 km
2
requires an ensured water delivery of 1.78 km
3
, including 0.133 km
3
of collector-
drainage water. After reconstruction of the lake systems, this could be reduced to
1.4 km
3
. In recent years a fish hatchery and nursery has been built on the shore of
Kamyshlybas, the largest of the lakes, which has by far the most important fishery
(Expedition 2011; also see Chap. 13. The fish as they grow larger are progressively
raised in a series of ponds and then released into the lake fishery. The hatchery is
jointly funded by Israel and the United States.
References
Aladin NV, Micklin P, Plotnikov I (2008) Biodiversity of the Aral Sea and its importance to the
possible ways of rehabilitating and conserving its Remnant water bodies. In: Qi J, Evered K
(eds) Environmental problems of Central Asia and their economic, security and social impacts,
NATO science for peace and securities series C: environmental security. Springer, Dordrecht,
pp 73–98
Aral Sea Program (1994) Phase 1 aide memoire, World Bank Preparation Mission, March 1994.
Europe and Central Asia Region, Country Department 3, Country Operations Division I,
Washington, DC, pp 43–45
Badescu V, Schuiling R (2009) Aral sea; irretrievable loss or Irtysh imports? Water Resour Manag
724 24(3):597–616. http://www.springerlink.com/content/0920-4741/?k¼Badescu
Bortnik VN, Chistyaevaya SP (eds) (1990) Hydrometeorology and hydrochemistry of the Seas of
the USSR, vol VII, Aral Sea. Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad (in Russian)
378 P. Micklin
Cawaterinfo (2012a) Report: monitoring of the Amudarya river delta and the exposed bed of the Aral
Sea within the framework of the CAWA project – dynamics of surface water and groundwater
changes in the Amudarya river delta and the exposed bed of the Aral Sea June 2009 – September
2011. http://www.cawater-info.net/aral/data/pdf/amudelta_monitoring_sept11_en.pdf. Accessed
24 Feb 2012
Cawaterinfo(2012b) Water deliveryto the Aral Sea and the Amudaryariver delta for growing season.
http://www.cawater-info.net/analysis/water/amu_water_delivery_aral_veg_e.htm. Accessed 28
Feb 2012
Cawaterinfo (2012c) Water delivery to the Aral Sea and the Amudarya river delta for non-growing
season. http://www.cawater-info.net/analysis/water/amu_water_delivery_aral_nonveg_e.htm.
Accessed 28 Feb 2012
Cawaterinfo (2012d) Water delivery to the Aral Sea and the Syrdarya river delta for growing season.
http://www.cawater-info.net/analysis/water/syr_water_delivery_aral_veg_e.htm. Accessed 1
Mar 2012
Cawaterinfo (2012e) Water delivery to the Aral Sea and the Syrdarya river delta for non-growing season.
http://www.cawater-info.net/analysis/water/syr_water_delivery_aral_nonveg_e.htm. Accessed 1
Mar 2012
Cawaterinfo(2012f) Amudarya River basin, water demands. http://www.cawater-info.net/amudarya/
demand_e.htm. Accessed 8 Mar 2012
CNPC (2012) CNPC (Chinese National Petroleum Company) in Ubekistan. http://www.cnpc.com.
cn/en/cnpcworldwide/uzbekistan/. Accessed on 12 Mar 2012
Cretaux JF, Letolle R, Calmant S (2009) Investigations on Aral Sea regressions from Mirabilite
deposits and remote sensing. Aqua Geochem 15:277–291
Expedition (2005) Unpublished observations, information, and data gathered during an expedition
to the Aral Sea led by Philip Micklin and Nikolay Aladin, Aug 22–Sept 23. Funded by the
Committee on Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society, Grant 7825–05
Expedition (2007) Unpublished observations, information and data gathered during an expedition
to the Small Aral Sea and northern part of the Large Aral Sea in Kazakhstan led by Nikolay
Aladin and Philip Micklin (Sept 15–29)
Expedition (2011) Unpublished observations, information and data gathered during an expedition
to the Small Aral Sea and northern part of the Large Aral Sea in Kazakhstan led by Nikolay
Aladin and Philip Micklin (Aug 28–Sept 15)
Gorelkin NYe, Nikitin AM (1985) Evaporation from the water bodies of Central Asia. In: Ivanov
YuP, Nikitin AM (eds) Hydrometeorology of lakes and reservoirs, In proceedings of SAANII,
102 (183), pp 3–24. Gidrometeoizdat, Moscow (in Russian)
GTZ and ICWC (2007) Comprehensive remote and ground studies of the dried Aral sea bed. SIC
ICWC, Tashkent
Kostianov AG, Zavialov PO, Lebedev SA (2004) What do we know about dead, dying and
endangered seas. In: Nihoul CJ, Zavialov P, Micklin P (eds) Dying and dead seas: climatic
vs. anthropic cause, vol 36, NATO science series IV: earth and environmental sciences.
Kluwer, Boston, pp 1–49
L’vovich MI, Tsigel’naya ID (1978) Managing the water balance of the Aral Sea. Izvestiya
Akademii Nauk SSSR, seriya geograficheskaya 1:42–58 (in Russian)
Micklin P (2007) The Aral sea disaster. In: Jeanloz R et al (eds) Annual review of Earth and
planetary sciences, 35. Palo Alto, Annual Reviews, pp 47–72. http://arjournals.annualreviews.
org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140120
Micklin P (2010) The past, present, and future Aral Sea. Lakes Reserv Res Manag 15:193–213
Micklin P (2012a) Annualized excel spreadsheet fill model with input parameters of initial sea
volume (km
3
), area (km
2
) and initial and final level (meters), average river inflow (km
3
),
average groundwater inflow (km
3
), average net evaporation (E-P) in millimeters and a measure
of the increase in area for each meter rise of the sea in (km
2
/m) derived from the slope of the
sides of the trapezoid
15 Efforts to Revive the Aral Sea 379
Micklin P (2012b) Excel spreadsheet annualized salt balance model based on input and output of
salt from the water body in question
Micklin P, Aladin NV (2008) Reclaiming the Aral Sea. Sci Am 298:64–71
MKVK (2002) Intergovernmental coordinating water management commission (ICWC). Bulletin
1(53) (in Russian)
MKVK (2010) Intergovernmental coordinating water management commission (ICWC). Bulletin
3(31) (in Russian)
MODIS (2006–2011) Visual examination of MODIS 250 meter natural color (bands 1-4-3) and
500 meter false color (bands 7-2-1) satellite imagery for the period 2006 through 2011.
Available at Rapid Response System website http://lance.nasa.gov/imagery/rapid-response/
MODIS (2012) Visual examination of MODIS 250 meter natural color (bands 1-4-3) and
500 meter false color (bands 7-2-1) satellite imagery for June to mid-Aug 2012. Available at
Rapid Response System website http://lance.nasa.gov/imagery/rapid-response/
Scheme (2002) Scheme for the creation of a protective water belt in the southern part of the near
Aral region. Map accompanying Melioratsiya i vodnoye khozyaystvo,no1
Sea A (1981) Bathymetric map at scale of 1:500,000. Water Problems Institute, Moscow
(in Russian)
Shivareva S, Ponenkova Y, Smerdov B (1998) Modeling the level of the Aral Sea. In Problems of
the Aral Sea Basin, research, projects, proposals. Chinor ENK, Tashkent, pp 5–10 (in Russian)
380 P. Micklin
