WELLS — The Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve is under threat. The reserve, like the 28 other national reserves that receive federal funding, could potentially lose that money if a budget proposed by President Donald Trump’s administration goes forward as is.
According to a March 3 Washington Post article — the publication received a memo about the budget proposal — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration could lose 17 percent of its funding. The reserve system falls under NOAA and according to the budget memo, funding for the reserve system is slated to be eliminated altogether.
Loss of federal funds would have a devastating effect on the Wells Reserve as that money makes up 70 percent of the organization’s $1.1 million budget. Additional funds come from private donations, grants and foundations, so raising more money would be difficult.
“It really was disturbing news,” said Paul Dest, Wells Reserve director, when he learned of the potential loss of federal funds. “This really did hit me hard.” He said staff members at the reserve are also concerned.
Dest said he hopes that federal funding will be retained. He noted that as it is very early in the budget cycle and a lot could change before anything passes Congress.
If funding is eliminated for the reserve, which conducts research, and provides education and stewardship, it would have a “significant impact,” said Dest. “We would not be in a good place,” he said.
The Wells Reserve was designated by NOAA in 1984 and “was fully operational in 1986,” said Dest. It consists of numerous renovated farm buildings, many of which are on the National Register of Historic Places, 2,200 acres, 7 miles of trails and one of the last wild beaches in southern Maine.
The reserve is interwoven with the Laudholm Trust, incorporated in 1982, which focuses on fundraising and community building, according to the reserve’s website.
The reserve conducts five to 10 research projects a year, said Dest, on subjects such as fisheries, salt marshes, the effects of climate on plants and life, and more. It also monitors sea level rise, water quality and erosion; and provides training to municipalities, state and federal agencie,s and developers, among others, regarding areas such as clean water, maintaing healthy ecosystems and balancing conservation and development. Management activities include controlling invasive plants, surveying wildlife populations and restoring salt marsh habitats.
The reserve’s parent agency, climate science organization NOAA, forecasts extreme weather like hurricanes, provides information on tides and water quality and a variety of other information vital to the nation. Many are unaware of the important data the agency provides, but the reserves are more accessible to the general public.
“The reserve is where the boots hit the ground at NOAA, said Laudholm Trust President Nik Charov, noting that 30,000 visitors each year visit the state’s only reserve.
The Wells reserve is where people can go to learn about science and the coast, Dest said. “We want people to appreciate the coast.” We want “to get people excited about the natural world.”
Last year, he said, 8,000 people, from youngsters to seniors, took education classes there; and 1,100 people, from elected officials to policy makers, took science-based training programs. There were also 4,000 volunteers.
The loss of federal funding would extensively curtail the work the reserve could conduct, which would be a loss not only to visitors but also to coastal science and communities that use information the reserve produces.
Charov said he hopes Congress will make changes to the proposed budget that retains the majority of the reserve’s funding. He notes that the reserve has “great relations” and is a “trusted local partner” with Maine’s Congressional delegation.
“We value this local partnership with NOAA. We’re inseparable,” said Dest. “It’s difficult to contemplate the Wells Reserve” without NOAA funding.
— Associate Editor Dina Mendros can be reached at 282-1535, ext. 324, or [email protected].
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less