![](https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/sites/default/files/styles/panopoly_image_original/public/article-teaser-images/katm-gotcha_rlatson_700.jpg?itok=aJVIFh4B)
National Park Service officials have issued a $5.34 million contract for a new vehicle and pedestrian bridge to cross the Brooks River in Katmai National Park/Rebecca Latson
A plan to spend more than $5 million on a bridge and boardwalk across the Brooks River in Katmai National Park and Preserve in Alaska that drew criticism will move forward, as the National Park Service has issued a contract to an Anchorage construction company to build the structure.
The project has been condemned by Ray Bane, a former Katmai superintendent, and Dr. Barrie Gilbert, a noted ecologist who has spent decades studying the park's bears and said the bridge was part of an effort by the Park Service to transform the park into a "destination theme park."
On Monday, the Park Service announced that STG Inc. had received the $5.34 million bridge contract and was expected to start work next August, with the project finished in time for the start of the 2018 tourism season.
According to a Park Service release, "the project includes construction of a permanent bridge to replace an aging, seasonal floating bridge over the Brooks River. A boardwalk will link the bridge to high ground adjacent to Brooks Lodge and neighboring facilities at the Brooks Camp visitor area. Brooks Camp is the most-visited area within the 4-million-acre national park, and known worldwide for its bear-viewing opportunities. The new bridge will provide safer visitor and employee access from the lodge and campground on the north side of the river to the south. The southern side of the bridge and boardwalk will end near an existing bear viewing platform, trails to additional bear viewing platforms and the road to the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes."
![](https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/sites/default/files/styles/panopoly_image_original/public/media/katm-artists_rendering_of_bridge_nps_700_jpeg.jpg?itok=b2IwLvUo)
This is an artist's rendering of how the bridge will appear/NPS
The permanent bridge will replace a floating bridge that is installed every summer and removed every fall. Sometimes during the summer season, the bridge is closed because of brown bears being on or close to the access trail or the bridge itself, according to the Park Service.
According to Dr. Gilbert, the bridge is part of an overall plan to further the human footprint at Brooks River, not minimize human impacts on the bears that pull their protein-rich salmon meals from the river.
After a decade of development planning, EIS (environmental impact studies) and public input, once aimed at major improvements in resource protection, the National Park Service has aborted earlier plans for removal of facilities at Brooks River in Katmai National Park. Protection of a unique population of bears at this premier site is now seriously compromised, going against 50 years of research-based recommendations. A stealth plan to expand development into bear habitat on both sides of Brooks River has quietly been hatched turning prime bear habitat into a sacrifice area. The Service is abandoning the long-planned removal of visitor and park facilities from one side of the river, the heart of essential bear habitat. Only moneyed interests will be happy. -- Dr. Gilbert, in an op-ed that ran on the Traveler in December 2015.
Mr. Bane, who managed the park in the late 1980s, has said the project reflects the Park Service's focus on tourism, not wildlife protection and preservation. When he was superintendent at Katmai, Mr. Bane oversaw completion of a Brooks River Area Development Concept Plan (DCP) that called "for the complete relocation of all developments from the north side of Brooks River to a location atop a low plateau south of the river. This is in keeping with findings and recommendations of research carried out by wildlife biologists, of the Katmai General Management Plan, and fundamental resource management standards of the NPS."
However, he added, political opposition to that plan prevented it from receiving the funds needed for implementation.
On Tuesday, the former Katmai superintendent continued to express remorse for the direction the Park Service was taking in the park.
"This project is not based on sound scientific research or sincere concern for the welfare of affected natural and cultural resources. It is political, and it is in contradiction to the principles and standards set forth in the NPS Organic Act and the Redwood Act," Mr. Bane said in an email. "Under the guise of an 'amendment,' it bypassed an appropriate and more demanding public review. It effectively guts the original Brooks River DCP that called for the removal of infrastructure from the north side of Brooks River and relocation of facilities to a less impactful site atop a bluff south of the river. The original DCP was not ideal, but it was infinitely better than what replaced it. The substitute is another capitulation to special political and commercial interests.
Supporting the project was the National Parks Conservation Association.
“This is a common-sense effort by the Park Service to continue to provide world-class bear-viewing opportunities at Katmai, while protecting important bear habitat," said Alaska Regional Director Jim Adams. "The bridge proposal underwent an extensive public process, which is now being carried out. The bridge will help move visitors out of prime bear habitat in an effort to protect bears, while also maintaining the one of the great experiences in the National Park System.”
Park Service officials in Alaska say the pile driving and other construction work related to the bridge will begin after Brooks Camp is closed in the fall of 2017 and continue through the winter. Construction is scheduled to be completed by June 1, 2018.
STG Incorporated, a subsidiary of the Calista Corporation, has experience in similar remote construction work, having built facilities at the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center at Portage and an elevated boardwalk at Tuntutuliak in Southwest Alaska, the Park Service said in its release.
Comments
Hell, it's not about the wildlife, it's about the people, fer cryin' out loud. Right? I sure hope that elevated bridge can withstand alot of weight, because not only will people be crowding the original viewing platform but they will be lining the elevated bridge cheek by jowl. And with photographers and their tripods and huge lenses, I imagine that the bridge - depending upon how wide it is - will be clogged like an artery with cholesterol.
Having been there a couple of times, I think this is exactly the right thing to do for the bears, the salmon, AND the people. The new bridge will keep people away from the bears much better because it is high above the river and considerably longer than the old bank-to-bank bridge. This prevents having to close the bridge while the bears are nearby, both so as not to disturb the bears and to not risk harm to the people-- win-win. Right now the existing viewing platforms keep people away from the bears and vice versa, and neither seem to mind in the least. Addition of this bridge as another isn't going to matter much. The one real benefit, in my opinion, will be restoring the natural migration of the salmon. With the old bridge, when the sun was shining, salmon would refuse to swim upstream because of the shadow cast by the low bridge. This meant the bears weren't getting fed unless they came down to Brooks camp and caught them before they got to the bridge-- more difficult and again, more people contact. Not sure it is worth $5 million, but it is certainly a good idea, for nature and people too.
This bridge was originally promoted as a means to help facilitate the move of Brooks Lodge and visitor facilities away from prime bear viewing habitat near the mouth of Brooks River. That was a main goal of the 1996 Brooks River Development Concept Plan (even though the 1996 plan rejected an option with a permanent, elevated bridge). However, the park has abandoned the notion of moving the lodge, even if they haven't admitted it publicly. Katmailand, the concessioner that used to run Brooks Lodge, steadfastly refused to support relocation of the lodge and the NPS didn't (and still doesn't) have the political capital to challenge that position. Even though the concession was sold to the Bristol Bay Native Corporation last year, I'm not sure there will be any effort to remove many facilities from the mouth of the river besides a few substandard park houses.
The bridge will have benefits. It will improve traffic flow and reduce bear-caused delays at the river, but it will do almost nothing to reduce bear-human conflicts around Brooks Lodge or even in the mouth of the river. The topography at Brooks Lodge and the current flow of the river funnels bears into the lodge area. The photo at this link, https://flic.kr/p/CosEdG, shows the maze of bear trails near Brooks Lodge. In the photo some of the trails, especially the ones that spread radially from the cabins toward the river, are traversed by anglers just as much as bears. However, the honeycombed pattern of trails through the grass are all bear trails. It illustrates why the lodge area is such a focal point for bear-human conflict.
It is not uncommon for bears to walk within feet of the lodge and guest cabins. Despite the bridge, conflict between people and bears will occur indefinitely at the lodge and in the mouth of the river, since access to the river mouth is currently unrestricted. One additional and significant, long term issue associated with Brooks Camp is that the lodge is built directly on top of very sensitive archeological resources, including graves. The 1996 DCP also recommended facilities be removed to protect those resources as well. The only facilities that Katmai National Park has committed to moving from the mouth of Brooks River is some NPS housing (which isn't even located in the most conflict prone location).
I realize that many people are very attached to the current lodge location. It's a great location and the lodge has been there for decades, but the bridge will only exacerbate resource issues (wildlife and archeological). Since the lodge is not moving, this bridge is now mostly a very expensive bridge of convenience; one that does not substantially reduce bear-human conflict or increase protection for archeological resources. I'm disappointed that the NPS chose to continue will this project without taking additional measures to mitigate the high number of resource impacts at Brooks River.
Mike Fitz's comment is an excellent overview of the Brooks River/Brooks Camp issue. The original Development Concept Plan calls for the removal of visitor and administrative facilities from the north side of Brooks River to be relocated to a site on a nearby bluff. It's purpose was to provide a refuge zone for bears largely where they would be minimally disturbed by visitors. Visitors would still have use of viewing platforms and elevated walkways along the south side of the river where they would be able to view bears. It was a win-win for both bears and visitors. The so-called amendmended DCP was rationalized as necessary to carry out the relocation of Brooks Camp. When I saw the price tag for the bridge and the archetecual design it was obvious that it was being falsely justified. Dr. Barrie Gilbert and others concerned with the proper care of Brooks River concurred. We called upon the NPS to carry out a full-public review Environmental Impact Statement as appropriate for a major change to an existing DCP. Our request was refused.
The importance of Brooks River transcends Katmai National Park. It is perhaps the most iconic wildlife viewing site found within any U.S. national park. As such its care sets a standard for both the National Park System and the National Park Service. Our parks likely face some challlenging times ahead. Whether appreciated or not, the agency needs the active oversight of citizens who will insist that the precious resources under their authority be afforded dedicated care so that future generations will have the opportunity to see and be inspired by natural nature.
This saddens me. Please leave Katmai as it is intended to be. It will be more like an amusement park as stated in the article.. The bears are the most important part of the park in my eyes and this will impact them in a negative way. IMO...
It seems apparent to me that those with the "power" to approve this did NOT make the bears, wildlife, and grounds, their number one priority! It has always been my understanding that our, not yours, but our National parks were intended to preserve and protect nature and it's gifts of wildlife and all they encompass, obviously, that was NOT the priority in this case. I am more than saddened by your choice.
is the new bridge handicap accessible?