Hearings to examine restoration efforts in the Great Lakes Region.

Good morning everybody. It's nice to be here. It's a busy day on Capitol Hill. So we'll have members coming in and out. And so thank you all for being here. Very much appreciate it. We're going to discuss a priority of Senator Husted's who should be here in a few minutes. The value of federal efforts to restore the Great Lakes. And I mentioned I don't have the Great Lakes in my state, but we have a lot of great lakes. The health of the Great Lakes is important to achieving our nation's environmental public health and economic goals. Together the five lakes make up the largest system of freshwater in the world and are critical habitat for countless species. They also provide clean drinking water to millions of people in the United States and in Canada. The region and the country's economy significantly benefit from the use of the Great Lakes to transport goods, the reliable supply of water for industrial and agricultural purposes, and opportunities for tourism and recreational activities. These broad benefits are directly enhanced from efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes. Great Lakes restoration efforts have been underway for decades. And President Bush first established the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force by executive order in 2004. Restoration efforts are implemented through various federal, state, local, and private organizations as well as through cooperative efforts with Canada. One of those key programs is the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative or GLRI. Congress created the GLRI in 2015 as a non-regulatory program to carry out restoration projects that may include ecosystem and habitat restoration, water quality improvement, education and research, and local capacity building. The GLRI seeks to achieve these outcomes by minimizing and mitigating toxic substances, invasive species, and non-point source pollution as well as improving habitat and species management and laying the foundation for future restoration efforts. The Environmental Protection Agency leads the implementation administration of the GLRI program and chairs the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, which is made up of 16 different federal agencies. Importantly, the 16 federal GLRI agencies work closely with the eight Great Lakes states, 35 Great Lakes tribes, local governments, universities, and private partners to work on to advance long-term restoration goals. The current authorization for the GLRI is set to expire at the end of September. Senator Husted and Senator Peters introduced S. 528, the GLRI Act of 2025 to reauthorize this program. As the EPW Committee considers this legislation, this hearing is an opportunity to hear from stakeholders about what's been working well, how the initiative has protected the environment, natural resources, and public health as well as enabled economic development in the region. Today's witnesses can provide insights on opportunities to improve the initiative to ensure that federal resources are utilized for the most meaningful purposes. I look forward to learning about how the federal government partners with state and local governments who best understand how to prioritize and address the needs in their own backyards. So with that, I will now recognize Senator Whitehouse for his opening statement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your convening today's hearing on Great Lakes coastal restoration. I am sympathetic to Senator Husted's desire for funding to protect Great Lakes coastal ecosystems. All our coastal areas, some fresh, some salty, are in dire need of added resources and protection. I highlight this issue time and again when agencies come before us. The U.S. Army Corps, Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, and others. Every coastal member of the Senate knows all too well that the federal government severely underfunds our coasts. Coastal counties contribute so much to our economy, $10 trillion in goods and services annually, and have 40 percent of the U.S. population. Coasts face worsening challenges from storms, sea level rise, excess heat, and acidification. Yet, we underinvest in coastal resources. Upland and inland ecosystems get far more attention and money. For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which I call the inland and upland conservation fund, receives $900 million annually, much funded, ironically, by offshore energy leases. When the Great American Outdoors Act was passed making the $900 million mandatory, I was promised that coastal funding would get its day. That day never comes. The Land and Water Conservation Fund does great work, including in my home state of Rhode Island, but it shortchanges oceans and coasts. Instead of trying to get coasts a larger slice of the Land and Water Conservation Fund pie, taking it from inland and upland work, I've tried to make the whole conservation pie bigger. I created the National Coastal Resilience Fund as a little sibling to the Land and Water Conservation Fund specifically to focus on coasts. The fund invests in coastal marshes, wetlands, dunes, and beach systems, oyster and coral reefs, coastal forests, rivers, and floodplains, and barrier islands. Resources that protect property, infrastructure, and fisheries from storms, sea level rise, and other dangers. Several of its grants have gone to the Great Lakes region. Dr. Holly Bamford of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which administers that fund, can tell us more, including how many projects they have to turn away because it's so underfunded. One smart solution would be to fund the oceans fund, the coastal fund, through offshore wind leases, just like how the Land and Water Conservation Fund is funded with offshore drilling leases. And I would gladly welcome members to join me in that bipartisan effort. I'll also flag the bipartisan Oceans Caucus, which Senator Murkowski and I founded in 2011 to draw attention to our coastal resources, economies, and the jobs they support. It includes the Great Lakes, with Wisconsin Senator Baldwin serving as my Democratic co-chair. Back in the day, even Jim Inhofe from very non-coastal Oklahoma helped on our coastal work. The GLRI is a fine program, but in improving our coastal performance, we should take inspiration from an old adage and lift all boats. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And I will now turn it over to Senator Husted, who's joined us, for his opening remarks and to introduce our first two witnesses. Senator Husted, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chairman Capito. It's great to be here with several Ohioans today. And I appreciate you holding the hearing on the Great Lakes. It means a lot to the residents of the Great Lakes states and certainly to Ohio and to me personally. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I look forward to the discussion about how Congress can continue to protect the Great Lakes and talk about how a successful public partnership with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative can be undertaken. As the member of the Great Lakes Task Force as well as the only member of this committee that represents a Great Lakes state, I take representing the region very seriously and promoting good policy and programs are important part of that. When I was Lieutenant Governor of the state of Ohio, I worked with then with our Governor, Governor DeWine, and Director Mary Mertz, who's here today to protect Lake Erie. We even participated in the Fish Ohio Day together, which I think I won a couple of years. Just saying. And I want to thank Director Mertz for being here and for her leadership at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Director Mertz previously chaired the Great Lakes Commission, a binational body that coordinated restoration policy, making her an expert on the Great Lakes and what restoration implementation actually means. I also want would like to thank Dr. Winslow for testifying today. Dr. Winslow directs the Ohio Sea Grant and Stone Laboratory at the Ohio State University, which has been studying the lake for over 150 years. I also know that the rocky areas around it are a good place to go smallmouth bass fishing. So those are those are some personal reflections. His research and his research on Lake Erie and Aquatic Research Network, LEARN, has a direct connection to GLRI and I know Dr. Winslow will be able to speak about what's the success what's successful and effective about the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the work that we can continue to do to improve the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are an environmental and economic asset for the United States and Canada. The lakes fuel a $6 trillion regional economy and hold 90 percent of the U.S. supply of surface freshwater and provide drinking water to more than 40 million people. More than 1.5 million U.S. jobs are directly connected to the Great Lakes and those jobs generate $62 billion in wages annually. I've said this before, it's no secret that Lake Erie is one of my favorite places to fish and spend time in Ohio has some of the best walleye fishing in the world. I think we call ourselves the walleye capital of the world there in Port Clinton. And I also led I also led the Great Lakes Fishery Reauthorization Act, which was signed into law by President Trump in December of last year. Thank you, Chairman, and all the members for supporting that. Healthy fisheries mean healthy ecosystems and healthy ecosystems mean healthy economies. I firmly believe that. The Great Lakes fishing industry supports tens of thousands of jobs and contributes billions of dollars to our regional economy. We must stay vigilant against invasive species. I'll reiterate that, we must stay vigilant against invasive species, which pose a constant and serious threat to Great Lakes ecosystem. We've had those threats before, we've effectively responded to it, but we must remain ever vigilant. Harmful algae blooms are also a threat to drinking water and tourism and the local economies that rely on a healthy Great Lakes. So many communities depend on it. And I mentioned the invasive species threat and the drinking water threat, two things that we collectively can do something about. It's why the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is important and it's why it should be I will continue to fight for its reauthorization and it remains an important federal commitment to the Great Lakes, the water, the communities, the states, and our quality of life. So thank you very much for being here today. And I want to introduce two witnesses, if I could. First of all, Mary Mertz, Director of the Department of Natural Resources in the state of Ohio, ODNR. Mary is Mary was the first Assistant Attorney General under Attorney General Mike DeWine where she oversaw both the legal and administrative operations of the office. She has extensive legal experience in both private and public sectors. Prior to her appointment at the Attorney General's office, Director Mertz practiced law at a large multinational law firm. Director Mertz also served as a chief of staff to Mike DeWine when he was Lieutenant Governor and as a legislative director for Congressman Bob McEwen in the Office of Legislative Affairs in the White House as well and worked with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources while working under then-Governor George Voinovich. Director Mertz is an avid sailor, an outdoors person, and has great knowledge of the topic that we are here to discuss today. Thank you, Director Mertz. And I will also, while I have a moment, I'll introduce Christopher Winslow, PhD, Director of the Ohio Sea Grant Program, Ohio State University, and he coordinates the Ohio Sea Grant Great Lakes research initiatives with agencies and universities as well as assists in research curriculum development and student recruitment at the Ohio State University Stone Laboratory. He earned his doctorate at Bowling Green State University with research focusing on interaction between native smallmouth bass and invasive round goby, both of which one I enjoy catching, the other I enjoy getting rid of when they take my bait when they shouldn't do that. So one's invasive, one's a trophy, right? So thank you for both being here today.

Thank you, Senator Husted, and thank you for your passion on the Great Lakes. So we'll start with Director Mertz. Thank you and welcome.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and Senator Husted. I'm really pleased to join you today. So I serve currently as Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and as a commissioner of and head of the Ohio delegation to the Great Lakes Commission, where I served as chairman from 2023 to 2025. And I really appreciate the opportunity to be here and talk about the Great Lakes. So the Great Lakes are one of America's greatest strategic assets. The lakes hold 20 percent of the Earth's surface freshwater. I mean, that is an incredible asset, and I'll repeat some of the statistics that Senator Husted just offered because they're worth repeating. Drinking water to 40 million people, a $6 trillion regional economy. And in Ohio, Lake Erie is one of our most valuable natural resources. Tourism, recreation, shipping contribute tens of billions of dollars in economic value for our state. And so we truly believe it is vital that we take care of Lake Erie and the rest of the Great Lakes so that generations beyond our own can continue to benefit as we have. And we are extraordinarily grateful that Congress created the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to protect this really important resource. The program's a powerful tool to combat the threats that are laid out in law. To fight toxic substances that foul the waters, invasive species that threaten our fisheries, nonpoint source pollution that introduces new pollutants to our waters, and habitat degradation that damages our wildlife populations and recreation. So today, I want to share just three quick examples of how we use federal GLRI dollars in Ohio to address these challenges and how they're actually making a difference on the ground. So first, one of the biggest challenges facing Lake Erie are harmful algal blooms, which are fed by phosphorus. So this algae doesn't just make ugly green water, it's toxic and harmful to humans, and Lake Erie is especially vulnerable to harmful algal blooms. The problem's so important to us in Ohio that we're investing significant state dollars through our H2Ohio program, which was created by then-Lieutenant Governor Husted and Governor DeWine. And we don't just expect the federal government to solve our problems. So using both federal GLRI dollars and state H2Ohio dollars, we worked with the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority to essentially rebuild two islands in the Maumee River, one of the greatest contributors of phosphorus, just miles from the shores of Lake Erie. So I think there's a picture to show of the Clark and Delaware Horseshoe Islands. So we took these islands, the two small islands there, that's a before picture, invested $13 million, $5.5 million of GLRI, over $8 million of state dollars. And we can go on to the after picture. So why did we do this? This is an effort to reduce the flow of phosphorus into Lake Erie. These islands were rebuilt with diversion mechanisms and wetlands that will filter the phosphorus. It's a unique design to slow down the water. They're also designed to prevent further erosion along the riverbanks, another source of phosphorus. And as a side benefit, offers incredible wildlife habitat. So this has been a win-win all the way around, state-federal partnership working together to solve problems, invest money in something that's working. A second example involves keeping invasive carp out of the Great Lakes. We know these carp threaten to decimate the abundant fisheries in Lake Erie. So together with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, we identified waterway connections in Ohio where we thought carp could possibly overflow the shores and advance to Lake Erie. So we identified four of these connection points, two were of medium risk, and we used GLRI dollars to sever those potential connections. We would build up berms with dirt and sheet pile and rock-filled cages and install screens, all in an effort to keep the dangerous carp out of Lake Erie and protect our fisheries. For the grass carp that are already in the Great Lakes, which are also damaging, we've implemented targeted fish removals using a combination of electrofishing, gill nets, and these efforts so far have protected our valuable fisheries. So we see this investment making a difference. My third and final example involves the use of GLRI funds to help the next generation care about, frankly, fall in love with our Great Lakes and our precious water resources. We have a program called Student Take Action. We focus on middle and high school kids. We try to get them on the water, teach them why it's important, what they can do to protect it. 14,000 students have been involved in these events, paddling events, demonstrations, hands-on activity, and we want them to care as well. I see my red light is on, so in conclusion, again, thank you. I hope that the Senate will reauthorize the program. We see its value every single day, and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you Director Mertz. And now we will I'm asked Dr. Winslow for his opening statement. You are recognized.

Well, my red light is on, so in conclusion, again, thank you. I hope that the Senate will reauthorize the program. We see its value every single day, and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Dr. Mertz. And now we will, I've asked Dr. Winslow for his opening statement. You are recognized.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, Senator Husted, and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity for both written and oral testimony. I wear two hats, as was introduced. I'm the Director of the Ohio Sea Grant Program, a NOAA-funded supported program that's based at Ohio State University. I also direct Ohio State University's Stone Laboratory, which falls under the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. In these roles, I spend most of my time at the intersection between applied research, community needs on our coast, and the implementation both of remediation and restoration projects. And I have seen firsthand what this federal program with GLRI does and how it translates into real outcomes. I want to begin my remarks with something we always see in restoration efforts is that you cannot have long-term economic growth in the Great Lakes without a healthy ecosystem. The Great Lakes, as have been mentioned, provide drinking water for millions of individuals. It supports a trillion-dollar economy, but it also sustains industry, communities, and ecosystems that define the Great Lakes region. GLRI is working, and we're seeing it on the ground. It's been touched on, at its core, GLRI focuses on five things: areas of concern, addressing invasive species, tackling nonpoint pollution, also building habitat that supports fish, $5 billion fishing industry in the Great Lakes, and it also monitors the system to track progress and identify future threats. I want to come back to the AOCs, or the areas of concern. This is one of the clear examples of GLRI working on the ground. It's an effort to revitalize 26 of the most degraded locations in the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. Eight are actually delisted now, but there are 16 more to go. Each of these delistings and the management actions being deployed in those that are not delisted represent years and years and years of coordination and collaboration. Federal agencies, state agencies, tribal governments, researchers, communities on the ground. When these AOCs are delisted, there are real outcomes. Waters are now fishable. Shorelines see increased recreation because the beaches are open longer and the waterfronts are accessible. We see increased economic activity. The communities that live along these areas see vibrant growth. We see a reduced cost in doing business. Our water treatment plants now have to do less treatment because the water is cleaner than it was historically. And we see inland communities, communities that aren't on the lake, moving to these areas to use them. These are not symbolic wins. These are places that the people can use again. They are fishable, they are swimmable and drinkable. So GLRI is working, but it's not finished. There is more work to be done. I want to shift to talk about highlighting why GLRI works. GLRI is not just about funding projects. It's about supporting a systems approach. Community members engage in the activities that are going to be deployed. There's collaborative planning and implementation, and there's monitoring to adaptively manage these systems and also identify and evaluate. I see this in Lake Erie, and it's been touched on by Director Mertz, related to harmful algal blooms. Federal agencies, farmers, crop advisors, Sea Grant and Land Grant extension educators are engaged in this systems approach. We now, through GLRI and numerous partners, we're putting agricultural practices on the field that farmers are adopting. They didn't know about these practices, they've been taught how these practices work, and they're also being subsidized to do these because these are expensive practices. Wetlands are being created to stop nutrient runoff, and we're seeing which agricultural practices are the biggest bang for the buck. GLRI supported these efforts and have helped to reduce nutrient loads to Lake Erie by 8 percent. GLRI works because it aligns people, resources, and expertise towards solutions. It is a federal program, but the success is fundamentally local. GLRI is truly a multi-agency coordination. It is not siloed funding. It is intentionally cross-agency, and that is deliberate. I want to talk about GLRI protecting communities. With our harmful algal blooms, we've had drinking water advisories in Toledo, 500,000 people without access to drinking water for 72 hours. Because of GLRI monitoring, forecasting, and coordinating, our resource managers are now able to respond earlier to these threats. This is what success looks like. It's not just restoring ecosystems, but protecting people. As far as looking ahead, we've been incredibly efficient through GLRI to address the challenges of the past. Things like legacy pollution, degraded habitats, and impaired waterways. This work needs to continue. But at the same time, we need to have the opportunity to build on what's working, continue to strengthen coordination, monitoring, and the research so that we can better anticipate and respond to future challenges. We all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In closing, GLRI works because it connects federal funding to local action through strong partnerships and clear outcomes. GLRI demonstrates something very, very important, and it's that environmental sustainability and economic growth are not competing priorities. They are fundamentally connected. This program works, and it's worth continuing. And so I thank you both for your time and all of you for your time, your leadership, and happy to answer questions when appropriate.

Thank you, Dr. Winslow. And finally, we will hear from Dr. Holly Bamford, Chief Conservation Officer for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Dr. Bamford has been with her organization for the last decade and has prior experience working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency that is a part of the regional working group that coordinates GLRI restoration activities. Welcome, Dr. Bamford. Thank you for coming, and we look forward to your testimony.

Good morning and thank you. Chair Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and Senator Husted, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify here today on behalf of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Since our establishment by Congress in 1984, NFWF has generated a total conservation impact of more than $12 billion, reconnecting thousands of miles of streams and restoring millions of acres of habitat. NFWF is proud to be a key implementing partner for three of EPA's geographic programs: the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and Long Island Sound. These partnerships turn federal conservation objectives into tangible outcomes by combining federal funds with state, philanthropic, and private sector resources to enhance their effectiveness. Complementing our work under EPA's Chesapeake Bay geographic program is the Chesapeake WILD program NFWF implements in partnership with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Chairman Capito, I want to thank you for your steadfast support of that program. It benefits hunters, anglers, and communities throughout the watershed, so thank you. Across all three geographic programs, NFWF administers a competitive process that is outcome-driven, leverages public investments with non-federal funding, and directs resources to partners and projects best positioned to deliver durable results. In the Great Lakes region, NFWF has put this model to work, delivering cost-effective voluntary conservation at a regional scale. NFWF has been a core GLRI implementing partner since the initiative's inception. Over the past 20 years, NFWF has awarded $140 million across 530 projects to national organizations like Trout Unlimited and to local champions like the Black Swamp Conservancy in Ohio. The results are significant. More than 2,600 miles of streams have been reconnected for fish passage. That is longer than the Mississippi River. And nearly 60,000 acres of wetlands and upland habitat has been restored for fish and wildlife. So I want to just highlight two examples that I think demonstrates the effectiveness of this program. First, in Mentor, Ohio, NFWF awarded four grants over a decade to restore Mentor Marsh on the shores of Lake Erie. The marsh was polluted by salt mines back in the 1960s, turning a vibrant ecosystem into a wall of invasive weeds. But NFWF helped bring the marsh back from the brink. Now migratory birds flock there by the thousands, frogs are singing, otters are swimming, and the marsh has become a hotspot for birders. Second, NFWF awarded $300,000 to Ducks Unlimited to restore an 825 acres of coastal wetland in Michigan's St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area. The project increased the population of waterfowl and marsh-nesting birds, which have supported hunting opportunities and benefit the local outdoor economy. These projects are really great examples of how a model such as GLRI can generate real-time conservation wins while also providing long-term funding to keep the momentum going when it counts. Funding stability through GLRI allows partners to plan restoration efforts, coordinate across jurisdictions, tackle conservation challenges at the watershed scale. It is one of the nation's strongest examples of how sustained federal leadership can deliver measurable results at a regional scale. While progress is clear, the need remains urgent in the Great Lakes, but nationwide as well. For example, the National Coastal Resilience Fund created in 2018 had received more than 3.8 billion, that's $3.8 billion in funding requests from coastal communities across the country. We fund less than 20 percent of that demand due to funding availability. The gap between what communities need and what is available is substantial and growing, and it reflects a national demand for exactly the kind of nature-based solutions that programs like GLRI and the National Coastal Resilience Fund make possible. NFWF works closely with partners like NOAA and other federal agencies to administer the National Coastal Resilience Fund by providing funding for nature-based infrastructure to reduce flooding and protect communities. Senator Whitehouse, I want to thank you for creating the program and entrusting NFWF with its administration. Restoration is fundamental for conserving freshwater, providing habitat for fish and wildlife, and protecting communities. Through GLRI and the National Coastal Resilience Fund, NFWF's partnership with EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA, we have a proven model. Invest in natural systems at work, leverage federal dollars for greater impact, and hold ourselves accountable for measurable results. The need is urgent, and the community that depends on the Great Lakes cannot afford this commitment to weaken. We urge this committee to sustain and strengthen the GLRI. Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, thank you for your leadership in the programs and the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you all, great, and I will kick us off for questions with a question for Director Mertz. So all three of you have talked about the coordinating and collaborative efforts here. This is not just a federal effort, it coordinates with local, state, and then you all mentioned nonprofits too. So I appreciate that. So based on your role as at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, how has partnering with these various federal agencies that are a part of the GLRI Interagency Task Force contributed to tangible restoration? I guess my question is more how have are there competing interests within that or does the state take the lead and the federal comes in as the funder but also an overseer? And Dr. Bamford mentioned a myriad of federal agencies that obviously weigh in here. How do you see that?

So mostly a really great...

We need your mic. Can't be shy around here.

Sorry. I would say foundationally it's a great relationship. We have a lot of trust in our federal partners and we bring them ideas and they work with us on how to fund them. You know, we especially work well, there's a very talented leader at Region 5 of US EPA which oversees the Great Lakes and has the Great Lakes National Program Office, and she is very attuned to what is happening in the region and does a fantastic job of working with all of us as best she can. But there are a lot of federal agencies involved. I mean, that's the truth. You know, sometimes we think it would be helpful to have more transparency in how the funds are allocated amongst the federal agencies and to understand their planning processes because we want to be complementary. I mean, I highlighted for you a project where the federal money and the state money came together and that's how they should all work. And so, but there are a lot of federal agencies involved and anytime you have, you know, more than a dozen people, you're going to have a lot of communication, you know, priorities.

Let's go through, let's go through what those federal agencies could be. Okay, so I'm going to start: Corps of Engineers, EPA, Fish and Wildlife...

USDA, several different divisions in USDA.

NOAA, you mentioned NOAA.

I'm trying to think, that might cover it, but some different divisions within the Department of Interior. And so, you know, there's originally, you know, the basket of money and it's distributed to federal agencies and half of that money is spent by the federal agencies. Right? So and it's always interesting to us how they are choosing to do that additive spending. But I mean, we are confident they spend it in the region. They show lots of good results. But sometimes knowing more about it might help our planning.

Yeah, I mean, I think what you're saying is if you're spreading it across different federal agencies, are you diffusing the effectiveness and are they coordinating? I know that they are, yeah, they're doing good work, but if one's working here and one's working there, would your most effective be to work here together to be a to make a bigger impact? So I think that's a good suggestion. Dr. Winslow, obviously you have a role at The Ohio State, I guess is what I'm supposed to call it. And I think the role that universities and research institutions play all across the board, but certainly in this case, are extremely important. So what other things could you tell me about unique roles that a university or research do? Does The Ohio State invest in or become a partner in some of the restoration efforts or serve as a technical advisors or, you know, do you have students that are doing internships and cooperative arrangements? How does that work with the coordinated fashion?

Absolutely. Thank you for the question, Chair Capito. All of the above. But what I will stress is that the work that happens in the Great Lakes with Absolutely, thank you for the question, Chair Capito. All of the above. But what I will stress is that the work that happens in the Great Lakes with the help of GLRI is very much applied research. I'm an academic, so I do like science for science's sake, but the work that we're doing at these agencies allow us to do research that informs action on the ground, boots on the ground. Also to come back to the students. You don't have projects that are funded through GLRI and matched by state and other sources that don't have undergrads involved, that don't have masters and PhD students doing the work. That is professional development because those ecosystems will need to be managed into the future, and also those are not the only ecosystems that need to be restored. And so those students, those individuals walking through the process are learning from lessons in the previous section. I will say the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and things like HABs that have occurred in the Great Lakes, it is actually created a synergy and a relationship between agencies and academics that's never happened before. We are in a new space where those two individuals or groups of individuals are working more collaboratively now than ever before.

Good. Last question very quick to Dr. Mertz. There's eight states and Canada that are involved here with all of the Great Lakes. I guess this is kind of a obnoxious question for somebody who represents one of those states, but do you ever is there ever a uncomfortable competition between states or are you able to overcome that? Because obviously some states border some lakes, some don't. Is that ever an issue?

Not really. I mean, because we get it. It's the same water everywhere and what happens what happens there is going to affect us. I mean, we joke sometimes about, you know, is it a Canadian fish or is it an Ohio fish? Well, you know, it's the same fish, they're just swimming around in the same lake. And so I think it's far more collaborative than it's ever competitive.

Thanks very much. Thanks to the witnesses for being here. There's been some discussion about the algal blooms in Lake Erie. I went to Ohio in the wake of the 2014 algal bloom that shut down the water system for Toledo for several days. And it was clearly caused or provoked by climate change conditions. In fact, it was even called, I think, a bacterial bloom. Algal was kind of a nicer way of saying what was going on in the waters. And I remember going out on the lake with a fishing captain, a guy who hired himself out to take people fishing on Lake Erie. And I'll never forget the conversation we had. He was kind of a grizzled old guy. He clearly loved and knew the lake. And he said, when I take people out now, I feel like I'm cheating them because all the knowledge that I have gleaned in years of fishing on this lake is lost because of what climate change is doing to the lake, the warming and the changing of where fish go. I basically just take people out for a boat ride now. I used to be able to put them on fish and feel that I was an expert in where fish could be found in different places at different times of year, and that's all just been scrambled. So I just as we're talking about Lake Erie, I just wanted to call attention to those climate-driven difficulties that the lake has faced. Ohio State has quite a good climate change curriculum that teaches climate change across multiple disciplines, that has a specific aquatic ecology lab that focuses on Lake Erie's fisheries and what climate change is doing to disrupt them. Obviously, fisheries don't do well in the middle of an algal or bacterial bloom, and when they die in it, they then rot and they contribute to the anoxic and challenging atmosphere. And I'll mention one other thing. When I went to visit Lake Erie then, I also stopped by Ohio State, the Ohio State, and the Byrd Research Laboratory, B-Y-R-D, named after the polar explorer. And there's a couple there, Lonnie and Ellen Thompson, who have for decades been traveling the world and drilling core samples out of glaciers. And you can go into their enormous freezer and see these enormous tubes of glacial ice that they have saved. And I remember Lonnie pulled one out and he showed me a kind of a dark line in the middle of it, and he could correlate that to a dust storm that was recorded in biblical times. You could find the description of the dust storm in the Bible, and here is the dust from that dust storm now captured in that long column of ice. And because of what climate change is doing, many of those glaciers have disappeared. And so much of the ice that is stored at the Byrd Research Center at the Ohio State is actually the leftover. You can't find that anymore. If you go back to those same glaciers in South America, in Europe, wherever, it's gone. So what Ohio State has preserved in those core samples is really, really important. And of course, Professor Thompson, I guess they're both Professors Thompson, were pretty remarkable people to talk to. So thinking about Ohio makes me think about all of that. Ms. Bamford, on the Coastal Resilience Fund, how's the interest been? How have applications been compared to the resources you have to give out?

Sure. So thank you for that question. It's been significant. The National Coastal Resilience Fund is one of our most overprescribed programs we have at the foundation, and we have over 40 programs. We have...

And it provides funding not just to saltwater coastal projects, but also freshwater ones.

Yep. Exactly.

So people who have a freshwater coast have an interest in trying to make sure that the Coastal Resilience Fund has adequate funds.

Correct. It actually augments a lot of the GLRI work that we do there to protect those coastal communities and the economy itself.

The... And just because I can't help myself and I say this like all the time, if you look at the Army Corps of Engineers, it has a massive bias for upland and inland freshwater projects. What it does in coastal and saltwater is negligible compared to its main work. In my snarkier moments, I refer to it as the bureaucratic tributary of the Mississippi River. You look at the Land and Water Conservation Fund, almost everything goes to upland and inland projects. It has essentially, it probably averages near zero the extent of the funding that goes to saltwater coastal ecosystems. And if you look at the Department of Interior, well, they're true to their name. And so there remains this enormous gap between what inland and upland resources get by way of resources and attention and what coastal resources get. And so as a coastal state, as the ocean state, I'm just going to continue to be a bore on that subject until we get some better results from those agencies in terms of equivalency. Thank you, Chairman. You've heard that before, I know.

No, that's good. Senator Husted, I'm going to turn the clock off here since this is your area and your bills and let you go ahead and do your questioning.

Great. Thank you, Chairman Capito. So it is when you think about the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and all of the efforts that have been undertaken over the years with invasive species, with water quality, with the fishery, with habitat. I mean, the... It's been a... You alluded to it, but the migration of migratory birds and the number of wetlands and all of the things that have also come as a result of this is really rather astonishing. But for me, having been born in 1967, I think if you're an Ohioan, you think of the burning river when we had the river caught on fire in Cleveland. And that was probably the low point of, or the wake-up call, as we might also call it, of recognizing that we had really messed up as a society and we needed to fix it as it related to our Great Lakes, our environment, and so forth. And the progress that has been made since, because I know we can get down about problems that we have, but we can also understand that we have the capacity to fix these things because we've done it in many ways. And so I want to give you a little bit of opportunity here. I'm going to ask each of you to just talk about the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the partnerships that you've had, the progress that you've seen, and the hope of what you see for the future. So Director Mertz, let me just talk... Let me just give you the opportunity to talk about successes, where the money's been applied, where the collaboration's been applied, what has been achieved, and what you would hope to achieve going forward.

Thank you, Senator Husted. That's a great question because we have so many victories to celebrate up on Lake Erie. You know, wildlife alone, we have seen the comeback of the bald eagle in amazing numbers. And you know, we feel like we're at a place where we have achieved success in Ohio with nearly 1,000 nesting pair, and much of that is along Lake Erie. We have seen the comeback of the trumpeter swan. We have seen the comeback of so many waterfowl species. And that is what we've seen, and we're in a good place, and we're taking care of it. There are a number of other birds of concern that we... But what we see is intentional focus on these areas can achieve success. And that gives me hope for the future, right? You know if you focus on it, if you put your money, your time, and your science there, you're going to see success. And we have this whole list of successes on the return of wildlife and very important species to us. So those are great success stories that we're very proud of, and we need to see more of that. The return of a lot of the waterfowl is because of the attention we've paid to wetlands, which has both a water quality benefit and the wildlife benefit.

Can I interrupt you for just a second? So let's talk about wetlands. Because with the H2Ohio program, we invested in the wetlands for the purpose of absorbing phosphorus and other nutrients that contributed to the algae blooms. How many acres of wetlands have been created in coordination with all of this?

Sure. So through the H2Ohio program, we have created, restored, or significantly enhanced over 20,000 acres of wetlands.

And do we know how much phosphorus that absorbs?

So just in the Maumee, we believe it is somewhere in the 60,000 pounds per year. And the beauty of a wetland is that's not a fee that you have to pay every year for it to be successful. You make the investment, and that phosphorus reduction will continue for a long time. And so I think that wetland investment for water quality purposes, but then the collateral wildlife and recreation benefits are priceless. And we know we're making progress. We know we are reducing phosphorus because I have my friend Dr. Winslow here to keep me honest. So he leads a consortium of experts in water quality and higher education around the state, and they come in and they evaluate almost everything I do. And that's okay, because if I discover we have constructed something in a way that's not getting the benefits that we expect, his folks and all these other universities working together and incredible experts in the area, I mean, talk about applied science, they'll come in and say, well, you did this, but you know, our modeling showed you should have reduced phosphorus by this, but you've only got this. Okay, so let's talk about what to do. You know, but what we're seeing in that dissolved reactive phosphorus is, you know, we wish we were seeing this. We're not. We're seeing this. And that's a step in the right direction. So what we have is the science and the data to show that this investment in natural infrastructure, plus the other things we're doing in Ohio, working with farmers...

On precision agriculture practices that both save them money and reduce the phosphorus runoff.

Exactly. And GLRI assists Ohio's Department of Agriculture as well. So they also receive grants in the nonpoint source pollution category to do that work. So GLRI is supporting what the Department of Agriculture is doing in this area in some cases. They support what ODNR does in some cases, and they support the research to show it's working. And on the subject of applied research, you know, it goes beyond them just evaluating everything we do. It's a relationship where I might call Dr. Winslow and say, well, I saw you did this, this, and this, but explain to me, Chris, how does that help me change our behavior? Or this is exactly what I need to know to change our... And we have these conversations all the time because I'm a believer in the applied part of the research. There's reasons for all kinds of research, but it is a very close relationship.

To inform your acts, to inform your investments, to inform how you're going to do...

I have to have that ROI, you know. I've got to prove it to our state legislature, need to prove it to you all that we have that ROI on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

And so as you look forward, this is what you've been able to accomplish, what we've witnessed the progress. If we can continue to support the program, what do you see as next? What are the benefits to people, the environment, and so forth?

Right. So I think we will continue our... You know, with invasive species, I think there is some sense that we have appropriate management of the problem. And so we just need to continue to monitor and stay on top of it and not let something bad happen that we didn't expect. I foresee progress on the harmful algal bloom piece. I think continuing research, continuing technology, continuing investment, and that's where I said the state had to step up too. We can't sit back and say, oh, you know, federal government come solve our problem. We need both working together. I think we will see more progress there. I think, you know, the threats to the Great Lakes evolve some, right? Some things that were have been put away, but you know, our new understanding of what microplastics might mean, you know, and other other emerging toxics that might enter the water. So I think GLRI will continue to play a role as we continue to successfully manage this lake system.

Yeah, well, I know we've that you have the responsibility largely of working with Canada on Lake Erie, that's an Ohio responsibility, but invasive species have been huge threats to other Great Lakes, the lamprey in and and then the, you know, the combination between the alewife and the salmon and all like we've literally over time had to introduce new species because invasive species have decimated other species. It's a constant learning process.

It it it is it is continual, but you know, you mentioned the sea lamprey. I I think most of the scientists in the field would say we have it managed now. We it's not great, it's not gone, it's not eradicated, but we have it managed and and that's what we're going to have to do with these invasive species going forward. Figure out how to manage them appropriately so we can still enjoy the Great Lakes.

Yeah, and let me give Dr. Winslow a chance now to to talk about successes that you've seen and then as evidence that this works and then what do you aspire to see going forward? What do you think is next?

Thank you, Senator Husted. So for me, one of the biggest successes here is again that systems approach under GLRI. So we're not just having agencies go let's build this here. We're engaging the communities first. We're trying to find out what their needs are. We need that local voice. We've also through GLRI and the partnerships shown that what you see in the lake didn't start in the lake. It manifested from things that are going in the watershed. And so for the GLRI and the other agencies, federal and state, knowing that these wetlands and these solutions for Lake Erie happen up in the watershed. But that engagement with the community using Sea Grant and Land Grant extension educators and actually trained academics. Our academics are learning how to talk to their end users. They're not using their acronyms that they used to use, they're talking about their science at a level that people can understand. So one of the successes as as Director Mertz has highlighted, you see it on the ground, but you see a different connection between the people and that resource. People that live on the land see the importance of that of that lake. The other thing we're seeing and I mentioned it in my earlier remarks, I have never seen a collaboration that we see now between state and federal agencies and our academics. I do not run a proposal for research projects unless it's driven by what the agency wants. And so those proposals, what they've resulted in is relationships between our universities and land users and relationships between our universities and the agencies. It's an amazing collaborative process. And that's what I love about GLRI. We can talk about new birds and we can talk about walleye populations and things like that. But we now have a system to deploy projects that work. I always say that they target the biggest threats, GLRI does. It's not just is this project eligible for funding, we're not funding good projects. We're strategically targeting things. And then we're also at a space because of applied research and relationships with other agency is where actually monitoring and tracking progress. So Director Mertz, applaud her efforts in H2Ohio to deploy these wetlands, but then to monitor them. To know that this wetland only reduced phosphorus by this amount, but if we would have added this plant and changed the direction and flow of water through the wetlands, we could have increased that number. So every wetland we build in the future will be better. Every nature-based shoreline we do in the future will be better. And so that's what I'm excited about is GLRI with continued funding can continue to make progress, but we are getting bigger bang for our buck now than we have at the start of this process.

And let me just, you know, when we have conversations like this we think about things in isolation of okay this is the lake and this is what happens in the lake. But you're right, all the tributaries contribute to this. Agri the interaction with agriculture, particularly in the Great Lakes Basin is huge, huge issue because it's because look, we we want we want food, we want the agri we want the ag industry, we want affordable food. We can't in the name of protecting the environment drive up the cost of doing this so high that we can't that you put an industry out of business and you drive up the cost of food. It's got a it's figuring out how it all works together and it and it seemingly is not perfect, always can get better, but it it seems to be working and that's why that agency coordination between agriculture and and you know, in Ohio it'd be the Department of Agriculture, the Department of of Natural Resources, but it's also at the federal level as well.

That's one of those big wins, right? We know that it's GLRI money goes through US EPA and then trickles down to these, but you need USDA to get that fund because they have the relationships with the farmers. And so you need multiple agencies, both state and federal, because you can't just go there and do work if you don't have a relationship with the folks in that watershed. I get to give talks to people that live on the lake and tell them the struggles that ag is going through. I'm connecting a water-based community with an ag community. We're also seeing that farmers want to do different things on their landscape to slow nutrient runoff. The problem is these things we're giving them, the research we're providing is not easy to deploy. It's hard to understand, it's hard to do it right, and it's also expensive. Many of these farmers that aren't causing runoff by malicious intent, it is it is the the end result of doing ag on the landscape. They want to be there for solutions, but some of those solutions cost them money without increasing revenue. And so that's why things like GLRI and the money that goes through USDA is critical.

Well, also in this committee's jurisdiction, you know, we we haven't even mentioned the fact that you have municipal wastewater and stormwater issues that that also contribute to water quality issues and nutrient contribution to the watershed. Do you want to want to remark on on that?

Yeah, and I can so I'm using it through the lens of harmful algal blooms and nutrient loss, but most of that's coming from agricultural landscape. Again not through malicious intent, again it's the it's the artifact of doing business. So most of those investments for HABs and nonpoint goes to ag. But we do know that in the Maumee River 8 to 9 percent of the phosphorus comes from wastewater treatment plants. And so how do we work with that constituency and that group to help them better treat the water before it leaves. And so there are ways that we work with municipalities. The drinking water treatment facilities, we have done research that helps them remove toxins from the water if they're drawing it in from a lake that has harmful algal blooms. So we are working with those municipalities. We used most of our examples in the ag space, but this this helps out departments of health, helps out EPA, helps out municipalities. We now can tell private beaches how to test their water for the presence of toxins. We have databases and websites that show which beaches have toxins now and which ones are safe for recreation. So we're in all aspects of this in the ag space and the municipality space.

And looking ahead, looking forward, what what recommendations do you have for us on how we can continue to improve?

I would say stay the course. I think the way the investments have gone into the five focus areas has been great. I would just say to continue increasing, you know, transparency across the agencies so projects aren't duplicative and keep leaning on the relationships that exist with the landowners through your Sea Grant and Land Grant extension and academics are starting to understand the importance of applied research, not just science for science sake. And so tap into that resource of applied research at your academic institutions.

Well, and as I often say, problem identification's easy, solution identification is so much more difficult. That's why the applied research aspect of this is so important because you tell me there's a problem, that's great, but what's a viable what's a viable applicable solution to it? And I think I've seen that from my own firsthand witness of of how the program works. So Dr. Bamford, you you've listened to the conversation, want to give you a chance to to weigh in on successes and recommendations and what you're looking forward to.

Great. Thank you. I think we heard such great things from Chris and Mary. I mean, just to add to that and I think you said it, the ecosystem is extremely dynamic, right? So we're managing invasives, we're doing really good right now, but things are always changing. And even you said, we're learning, we're always learning and we have to apply that learning because there's going to be challenges that we don't even know exist that are going to be we're going to be facing. And so I think GLRI provides the resources to tackle those issues, look forward, look towards new technology, but also provide the resources to the different buckets, both the federal, the state, and nonprofits. I think the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, we're excited about continuing to implement this place-based funding because we want to focus on the working lands, right? As you said, this is in an area, this is a landscape of working lands. We have to work with the community. We have to do voluntary conservation to implement the right technical assistance to provide the resources for those farmers to be able to implement those and to sustain it while still being able to pencil out in the black. I think that's extremely, extremely important to make sure that the working lands continue to work, but they understand how to implement those conservation practices.

Well, thank you. I I do I do want to say that, you know, as I look forward, the threat that I that I am concerned about is the, you know, the Asian carp, the bighead carp, silver carp, whatever we're calling it these days, the the the threat that that poses to the to the entire Great Lakes system because it you know, I think the question was do you earlier do you all get, you know, do all the Great Lakes systems get along? Yeah, because we're all connected. The the water that comes out of Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Huron flows down through Lake Erie to Ontario and it we're all connected. And if and if we don't manage it correctly, it's a threat to everyone. And so any if any of comment on looking ahead with that threat and in what what should be done.

Specifically on the carp carp issue?

Yeah.

So I think from the state's side, it's something we focus on very much at the Great Lakes Commission. On the state's side, there's very little dispute amongst the states on on where that is headed. Of course there's the, you know, very significant high-profile connection, you know, at Brandon Road. And we all hope that gets that moves forward and is successful, right? We've all waited a long, long time for that. And so I think states are hopeful that will happen. I will say I think in the carp invasive species area is one where at the at the technical level, there's probably the most the most coordination than on any other project. So Senator, you'll appreciate we have a lot of fish guys. And what they'll tell me is, hey, we've been meeting with all the fish people in all the states, we got our plan, we got our plan, don't let anybody mess with it because we all agreed, we looked at all the connections we're worried about, we, the states, put them in priority order and we're hitting them off just like this and we're all agreed. You know, like in this case, hey, we here in Ohio, we agree this thing in Minnesota needs to happen first or this thing in Ohio needs to happen first. And they have sort of this huge group of technical people and they agree on how to split up the money each year. So so that is one where I see the states are all in agreement because it gets in one lake it's in all, right?

Great. Thank you. Any anything that any of you want to add that you didn't get a chance to?

Just on the invasive species, we have academics along with these teams that are sampling. We are now knowing where the eggs might go, where the adults are going. And so that's research studying fish behavior that can inform, you know, trapping and removal of these species these invasive species. So but Director Mertz hit the nail on the head. We're all in lockstep in the invasive species space.

Great.

And I just want to say thank you so much for this hearing and this opportunity to testify. This is an extremely important issue, conservation and the Great Lakes affect all of us. So thank you.

Yep. Chairman Capito, thank you for holding the hearing today. Very important issue for all of the Great Lakes states and as you know, I'm the only member of the committee that represents a Great Lakes state, so it's very important. So thank you for indulging us.

Yeah, thank you for your leadership and I want to thank everybody for being here. The rest I I explained earlier, there's a lot going on in terms of committee hearings. And so I wouldn't take this as a lack of interest in the issue, I think it's more a prioritization of where they and maybe that's why you're the only one that's here because you're the only Great Lakes. But anyway, with no further questions, I'd like to thank you all very much, the witnesses and all of my colleagues for participation in today's hearing. Senators who wish to submit questions, written questions for the record have until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 29th to do so and then I would ask the witness responses to those questions would be due back no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May the 13th and we will be and they will be submitted for the record. So with that, this hearing is adjourned and thank you very much.