The Northeast-Midwest Institute held a briefing on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative on Thursday, May 22nd. The briefing was the first in NEMWI’s Great Lakes Primer and Orientation Program, which serves to provide an introduction to Great Lakes policy issues for congressional staff. The Program is made possible with the generous support of the Erb Family Foundation. The next session will be on PFAS, tomorrow, Wednesday, May 28th, from 11 am to noon. Find more information and register below or here.
Todd Nettesheim, Deputy Director of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Great Lakes National Program Office, gave an overview of the GLRI, which has invested over $4 billion into over 8,000 projects over its lifetime. “The GLRI has been a catalyst for economic activity as well,” he said, citing a 2018 University of Michigan study that found a return of $3.35 in additional economic activity for every $1 in federal dollars spent on the GLRI. This investment also generates higher property values and recreational benefits. In its 15 years, the GLRI has also removed 120 beneficial use impairments and delisted six areas of concern, compared to just 10 and one, respectively, in the 22 years between when BUIs and AOCs were first identified and 2010, when the GLRI began. Nettesheim gave an example of that work at the Cuyahoga Gorge Dam, where work will soon begin to address contaminated sediment. “Once our remediation project is complete over the next few years, state and local partners will be working to remove that dam to restore the entire Cuyahoga River to make it a free-flowing river for the first time in over 100 years.” Nettesheim concluded by recognizing EPA’s partners in the GLRI, including other federal agencies and, “all eight Great Lakes states, all the Indian and tribal nations across the Great Lakes as well, in partnership with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to accomplish this work, not to mention all the local, community, academic, industrial, and nongovernmental organizations.”
“The Great Lakes hold 20% of the world’s freshwater supply, and with over 4,500 miles of United States coastline, restoring and protecting the Great Lakes makes sense from both an environmental and an economic perspective,” Carl Platz, Great Lakes Program Manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said. The Corps in engaged with all five GLRI focus areas. “From FY10 to FY24, the Corps has received just over $600 million of GLRI funding to accomplish numerous projects. Per our authorities, we’ve also leveraged a significant amount of non-federal funds to supplement these dollars, and in many instances, we’ve leveraged our base energy and water funding to stretch these funds even further,” Platz said, highlighting how GLRI spending is magnified and has an impact far beyond the initial investment. The Corps has removed 3.4 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment, created and restored over 2.3 million cubic yards of dredged material placement capacity, and restored, protected, enhanced, or controlled over 6,300 acres of habitat. One example of how USACE’s work helps remove BUIs from AOCs is in the St. Louis River AOC, where the beneficial use of remediated sediment allowed the restoration of habitat in Wisconsin Point for piping plover.
Mike Shriberg is the Associate Director for the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research. CIGLR works closely with NOAA on GLRI projects. “About 7% of GLRI funding goes to NOAA,” Shriberg noted, “and there have been 608 NOAA GLRI projects worth $383 million across all five focus areas.” One example of NOAA and CIGLR’s work under the GLRI is in addressing harmful algal blooms. “Funded by GLRI and by NOAA, CIGLR works to develop and support the operational water quality products,” which includes the Lake Erie HAB Forecast and the Lake Erie Hypoxia forecast as well as real-time toxin measurement and bloom monitoring, and communicating to stakeholders and the public alike, Shriberg said. GLRI-funded research at CIGLR also predicts ice cover, and coordinates with the U.S. Coast Guard, the shipping industry, and other stakeholders to improve public safety, navigation, and public recreation. Finally, Shriberg mentioned the Great Lakes Aquatic Non-Indigenous Species Information System (GLANSIS), which provides critical information about Great Lakes invasive species for management and other purposes, all in one place.
Jen Vanator, Policy Analyst and Great Lakes Program Coordinator for the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), gave insight into tribal activity under the GLRI. GLIFWC represents 11 Ojibwe member tribes in the Great Lakes region, and assists tribes in the implementation of their hunting, fishing, and gathering rights in the Ceded Territories. This includes the conservation of fish and wildlife and habitat protection. “We do find the stewardship of ecosystems to be a very important part of upholding those treaty rights,” she said. “A variety of healthy ecosystems must be available to supply all the potential resources that a tribal member might need.”
GLRI funding has helped tribes build the capacity to engage with governance. “The Great Lakes region has a really long history of interagency and interjurisdictional cooperation, and tribes have been, in theory, welcomed in these collaborative efforts for a long time,” she added. “But prior to the GLRI, a vast majority of tribes lacked the capacity to be able to consistently or meaningfully be involved in interjurisdictional meetings or to regularly attend conversations regarding Great Lakes issues.” Now, however, funding from the GLRI has allowed tribes to hire the necessary staff and be in the rooms where decisions are made, ensuring representation and enriching conversations around Great Lakes issues for the entire region. Vanator also mentioned the Distinct Tribal Program, a pool of GLRI funding for tribes within the BIA. The DTP allows tribes to submit projects more well-suited to their needs than other federal RFPs. One project the GLIFWC undertakes is producing fish consumption advisory maps for mercury and PFAS, which intake data from across the basin to advise tribal members on who should eat which fish from which areas.
Finally, Eric Brown, Senior Advisor for External Relations at the Great Lakes Commission, gave a state-level perspective. While there are many overlapping jurisdictions in the Great Lakes region, federal, tribal, and state governments, as well as non-governmental organizations, work together incredibly efficiently, relationships that are reinforced by the structure of the GLRI. “This region generally finds a level of cohesion that we don’t find elsewhere in North America,” Brown observed. GLC work under the GLRI includes habitat restoration, invasive species prevention, and nutrient pollution monitoring and response. The Commission leads the Invasive Mussel Collaborative and the Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative to prevent and manage these invasive species.
Brown also highlighted the actions Congress can take to support the GLRI. The program needs to be reauthorized this year. Bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate to do so, at an authorized level of $500 million per year. Brown also urged Congress to fund the GLRI at the current authorized level of $475 million for FY26, up from the $368 million the program received in FY25. “We know that there is more work to do than there are resources to do it, so every dollar does help,” he said.
Watch a recording of the briefing here, and access NEMWI’s library of briefings here.