CONCORD, N.H. – Rising sea levels. Offshore wind. The future of the fishing industry. Toxic chemicals in the water. These are some of the pressing issues that the New Hampshire Sea Grant helps communities address.
But director Erik Chapman is concerned that proposed federal funding cuts could jeopardize some of the programs on which local communities have come to depend.
Sea Grant was created by Congress in 1966, and there are 34 programs around the country. Together, they currently receive $90 million in federal funding. President Biden’s proposed budget would slash that by $22 million, to $68 million.
Advertisement
It’s not the first time the Sea Grant program has been targeted for cuts: Former president Donald Trump tried to eliminate the program in 2017.
Chapman said New Hampshire Sea Grant receives around $1.5 million in federal funding, plus a 50 percent match from the state through the University of New Hampshire, which hosts the organization. But losing nearly a quarter of their federal funding threatens their programs. We asked him about Sea Grant and what’s at stake. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Q. What kind of work does the Sea Grant do?
A. Coastal resilience is a significant part of our portfolio. We also work on sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, including working with the oyster-growing community to address some of their needs.
We also work on healthy coastal ecosystems. The topic receiving a lot of attention is PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] and pollution. We’ve been working with Paula Mouser [a UNH researcher and professor], who is working with waste-water treatment facilities around Great Bay to help them understand toxin levels.
She’s helping waste-water treatment facilities learn about how much PFAS are entering the water, how the composition has changed, and what gets reintroduced to the ecosystem. That’s led to additional efforts to support mitigation of PFAS in waste-water treatment facilities. That research has been central in arming municipalities with information, and so now waste-water treatment facilities are starting to purchase and install PFAS removal systems.
Advertisement
Q. What impact would the cuts have?
A. If we’re faced with cuts, we have to say, do we cut this project on PFAS working with waste-water treatment facilities in the Great Bay area, or do we pull back our engagement in offshore wind? Those are difficult decisions that we would 100 percent have to face.
Q. Offshore wind has been a big topic in the region, and one that’s created tensions particularly with the fishing industry. Tell me about your work in that area.
A. I mean, it’s a minefield. We’re not an advocacy organization, so we don’t have a dog in this fight. We’re there to help provide science-based information. One thing that we immediately understood about the situation is there’s a need to build literacy on the topic. We worked with New Hampshire Public Television to develop programming that we’re hoping to run at the end of the summer, covering topics like why do this in the Gulf of Maine, how will this mitigate climate change, what technology is involved, what are the perspectives of current fishermen.
Q. What have you been hearing from fishermen on the issue?
A. We have a long history of working with commercial and recreational fishermen. The fishing industry from the beginning has been very skeptical and concerned about what was being planned in the Gulf of Maine. I don’t know a fisherman who doesn’t know climate change is a problem. The folks that I know and have talked to, they see it happening. They were just seeing it happen beneath their boats, interacting with the ecosystem. They’re on board with, “We need to do something and we’re concerned.”
Advertisement
They questioned if offshore wind is what we need to do. They’re concerned about its impact on the ecosystem and concerned about losing access. Most people are in the final days of their fishing because they’re quite old. They’re concerned about fishing in the future. They just believe it’s an important livelihood and would like to see it continue.
We worked closely with fishermen in the United Kingdom who have gone through all of this [with offshore wind development] in the past, and organized conversations. Their advice to fishermen in New Hampshire was “You’re probably not best served to put your heels in the sand and fight it. It’s going to happen, so engage.”
I’m proud of our fishermen. They showed up to meetings. We helped connect them to state folks, and their input about where to locate offshore wind was accepted.
Q. The Seacoast is receiving $20 million to restore damage from severe storms. What about other money coming to the region to address damage?
A. Coastal resilience is an area where the need is not getting smaller. Restoring and rebuilding is just part of the picture. It’s not preparing for the future. That’s the kind of thing our organization has been involved with. If we just keep rebuilding what gets damaged, we’re not going to win the battle.
Advertisement
Q. When would these cuts take effect?
A. The budget would go into effect in February 2025. The president’s budget proposal is sort of a political document that informs what’s going to happen on the Hill with what the Senate and the House will do. We’re hopeful that the funding will be restored ultimately in the budget. It’s going to be a continuing saga, particularly in a presidential election year.
This article was updated to include more information about the Sea Grant’s funding, which it receives through its host, the University of New Hampshire.
Amanda Gokee can be reached at amanda.gokee@globe.com. Follow her @amanda_gokee.