Robert A. Bachman
Robert A. Bachman was appointed Commissioner of the 6th District of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission on April 24, 2007.
Robert Bachman is an avid angler and hunter with over 20 years of professional experience in management of fish and wildlife. Before his retirement in 1999 he served in a number of fish and wildlife positions with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, including Director of Freshwater Fisheries, Director of Fish and Wildlife and Director of Maryland’s Fisheries Service. During his tenure in Maryland he served as President of the Northeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, member of the Executive Committee of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Commissioner on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Dr. Bachman is a an active member of numerous conservation organizations including the Cocalico Sportsmen’s Club, Donegal Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Northern Lancaster County Game and Fish Protective Association, Susquehanna Smallmouth Bass Alliance, Coastal Conservation Association, the Maryland Saltwater Sportsman Association, the Pennsylvania Flyfishing Museum Association, the ehigh Coldwater Fishery Alliance, and founding member of the Cocalico Creek Watershed Association.
A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, with 20 years service in the US Navy, Commissioner Bachman earned a BS in Oceanography from the University of Washington, and his PhD in Behavioral Ecology from the Pennsylvania State University in 1982. He has published numerous professional papers and popular articles on fisheries management and fish behavior.
He resides in Lancaster County with his wife, Gail and their Labrador retriever, Tater. Their son, Allen, is also an avid angler and lives with his wife, Aprille in Washington, D.C.
The opinions expressed by Robert Bachman in this blog are strictly those of the author and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.
SUBJECT: Stop destructive engineered stream “restorations”
Hi,
Will your organization sign-on to the letter below asking state legislators to stop engineered stream “restorations” from getting MS4 permit, TMDL, or mitigation crediting? (Note – this would not prevent other infrastructure and property protection projects, e.g., exposed sewer lines and backyard erosion, which can be done via spot repairs.)
Engineered stream “restorations” are civil engineering projects that destroy natural areas, converting streams into engineered stormwater conveyances using heavy equipment to clearcut forests, dig artificial channel shapes, and dump fill material into streams
If you have not seen an engineered stream “restoration,” watch a few short videos to see how they destroy natural areas, converting streams into engineered stormwater conveyances using heavy equipment to clearcut forests, dig artificial channel shapes, and dump fill material into streams. Please read a one page fact sheet.
This “ask” is not for an outright ban, but if regulatory credits are no longer received the number of destructive engineered stream “restorations” will surely decrease. This would demonstrate that these projects are primarily done to meet regulatory requirements, not environmental concerns. The regulatory requirements could still be met by dozens of other non-destructive, out-of-stream stormwater control practices. For example, see Maryland Department of the Environment’s approved list, Tables 1 and 2.
Published papers analyzed over 700 engineered “restorations” to show that water quality and ecological function are not improved, are sometimes worse, and less than half stopped stream erosion.
Rather than wasting tax dollars on engineered stream “restorations” and repairing failed ones that will simply get washed out again by storms, this money should be spent on out-of-stream stormwater control projects such as permeable pavement, road-side bioswales, and rain gardens that prevent stream erosion in the first place.
If you agree to sign-on, please provide a name and title along with the name of your organization.
Please forward to other organizations.
I look forward to hearing from you and would be happy to discuss.
Ken Bawer
Coalition to Stop Stream Destruction
———SIGN-ON LETTER BELOW—————–
Subject: Stop destructive engineered stream “restorations”
To: State Legislators in VA, WV, MD, DC, DE, PA, NY,
Dear XXX:
The undersigned XXX organizations urge you to introduce legislation to stop engineered stream “restorations” from getting MS4 permit, TMDL, or mitigation crediting for the following reasons.
1. Engineered stream “restorations” are civil engineering projects that destroy natural areas, converting streams into engineered stormwater conveyances using heavy equipment to clearcut forests, dig artificial channel shapes, and dump fill material into streams. Use this link to see videos of some projects. Please read a page fact sheet.
2. These projects are often in public land like parks that do not require public approval and are hidden from street view.
3. Engineered stream “restorations” try but fail to stop stream erosion** or improve water quality or stream ecology. Their unattainable goal to recreate “natural” or “historical” pre-colonial conditions is impossible given today’s land use & climate. Governments hide the real drivers of “restorations” – not environmental concern, but Bay pollution regulations (MS4 permit and TMDL goals) and construction “mitigation” laws . Despite industry & government disinformation , stream “restorations” are not required by law – there are better alternative project types such as roadside bioretentions, rain gardens, permeable pavement, etc. in already disturbed, developed areas. Use of “restorations” with no scientific merit to satisfy regulatory requirements is arbitrary and capricious.
** ROOT CAUSE OF STREAM EROSION? Upland (out-of-stream) stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces like roads, parking lots, etc. and agricultural areas that firehoses into steams. The scam is that “restorations” do not address this root cause of stream erosion.
4. Engineered stream “restorations” are usually initiated by state or local governments for pollution laws (MS4 permits or TMDL goals) and private companies for federally required construction “mitigation.”
5. Greenwashing & disinformation to the public and elected officials are used to claim stream “restorations” are both necessary and desirable.
a. Local, state, and federal governments and the $25B industry ignore the science and Chesapeake Bay Program Report that stream “restorations” do not stop erosion. Published papers analyzed over 700 “restorations” to show that water quality and ecological function are not improved (even though “…biological benefit is an assumed condition for the permitting and crediting of stream restoration projects.” ), are sometimes worse, and less than half stopped stream erosion – less than a coin toss. A few claims of “successful” projects (if they even exist) are outliers.
b. They use false claims that 1) studies prove upland projects cannot stop stream erosion – in fact, these studies only show that too few properly sized projects were built, and 2) there are not enough upland areas for stormwater control, even when not evaluated.
c. Governments ignore or trivialize adverse consequences by hiding tree numbers to be cut, claiming that wildlife habitat loss by forest clearcutting is temporary – quickly mitigated by planting saplings , that invasives will be removed and then successfully controlled, concealing that small animals will be crushed or buried alive, and hiding the loss of property values due to viewshed destruction, increased traffic noise, and decreased shade, privacy, and nature-based recreation.
d. They hide negative consequences from floodplain reconnection “restorations” such as more flooding due to runoff from more frequently saturated floodplains and loss of evapotranspiration from cut trees, death of trees due to water-logged soil, more mosquitoes, and deposition into floodplains of toxins in stormwater that are hazardous to animals and children.
e. Governments falsely claim that photos of washed-out engineered “restorations” that failed to stabilize streams and that require costly taxpayer-funded repairs , are cherry-picked, yet they provide no scientific evidence to the contrary.
f. To justify “restorations,” they use bogus theoretical irreproducible erosion rates that won’t withstand legal scrutiny.
g. To promote “restorations,” governments falsely conflate the need for infrastructure and property protection (e.g., exposed sewer lines and backyard erosion), which can be done via spot repairs, with the need for stream “restorations.”
h. Governments and the Chesapeake Bay Program use false data and baseless claims that engineered stream “restorations” are cheaper than 20 less expensive out-of-stream stormwater control practices per MD Department of the Environment.
The solution is to control stormwater outside of streams with non-destructive, upland practices such as bioretentions, rain gardens, permeable pavement, etc. in already disturbed, developed areas. Some are cheaper than “restorations” and provide co-benefits like reducing urban flooding and heat islands, providing green spaces, increasing property values, and protecting streams & floodplains from toxins in stormwater.
Even if some upland stormwater controls are more expensive, our natural areas must be protected. There is evidence that streams will self-heal and research suggests that streambanks self-stabilize once upland runoff is controlled.
For the above reasons, we ask that you introduce legislation to stop engineered stream “restorations” from getting MS4 permit, TMDL, or mitigation crediting.
Sincerely
Kenneth Bawer
Founder
Coalition to Stop Stream Destruction
Name: ___________________
Title: ____________________
Organization: ____________________