Vista_Clearing_Plan.pdf

CONTENTS

I. Introduction Purpose Background Conditions and Treatments Record of Treatment Document Format Document Preparation

II. The Plan Maps 1 – 38 with Detail Sheets

III. Appendix HAER Documentation

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE

The Going-to-the-Sun Road is without a doubt one of Glacier’s premier attractions. Many visitor trips are to a specific park destination beyond the road, however, for the majority of park visitors, the road itself is a destination and experience due to the viewing opportunity it provides.

The 2003 Going-to-the-Sun Road Rehabilitation Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (2003 Rehabilitation Plan) states that 97% of the park’s visitors experience the park through sightseeing. The same report identifies 89% of park visitors participating in park photography. Obviously, vista management can play an important role in providing for these experiences.

Vistas and vista management have played an important role in landscape design and construction throughout the history of the national park system. In Building the National Parks, by Linda Flint McClelland (The John Hopkins University Press, 1998) the historic role of vistas and related design is discussed:

Ever present were the general problems of opening vistas; clearing fallen timber and brush from roadsides and scenic areas; and locating roads, trails, bridges, and other structures. As new roads and trails were funded, the landscape engineer helped locate them in relation to scenic views and natural features… Vistas dominated the landscape architect’s concern for scenery preservation, and capturing scenic vistas was one of the primary forces that drove that landscape engineer’s recommendations for locating roads and trails. This concern was secondary only to making sure that popular vistas remained unimpaired and free from intrustion. (McClelland 142)

Regarding Stephen T. Mather, landscape engineers, and thinning:

In 1919, Mather reported excellent results from the thinning of trees to reveal vistas in certain parks… In 1922 Mather praised the landscape engineers’ accomplishments as being “of the highest order and of inestimable value.”

The most important problems in his opinion were locating and harmonizing the design of buildings and villages in relationship to the surrounding natural environment. Vista thinning, locating trails and roads, screening objectionable views, placing utility lines underground, and improving the public campgrounds were other important tasks carried out by the landscape engineers.

(McClelland 142, 162)

Going-to-the-Sun Road.

In Glacier National Park, the need for providing scenic viewing opportunities along the historic road has been well documented beginning with the early planning during the road’s initial construction effort. Vistas were a key component of the original design intention for the road and were discussed at length by Frank Kittredge, the road’s principal designer; Ernest Davidson, Park Landscape Architect; Thomas Vint, Landscape Engineer; and Stephen Mather, National Park Service Director. Excerpts from historic files clearly show the importance placed on the provision of scenic opportunities in the design, construction and maintenance of the road.

Thomas Vint, in commenting on Kittredge’s 1924 survey, stated that the purpose of the road was “primarily for the use of tourists and is a means to display to them the park scenery” and that the alignment “should include both a practical means of making this grandeur accessible and the dramatic values in displaying it.” In a 1928 report, Ernest Davidson, in speaking about the upper reaches of the road stated, “The securing of good views and vista openings from the road was of very minor importance in this section compared to the lower sections, because the line is so open that spectacular views are constantly unfolding before the traveler’s eyes.”

The 1997 National Historic Landmark Nomination states, “…construction inevitably cleared brush and trees through the corridor along the road. This clearing of the corridor from 30 to 60 feet, depending on conditions, opened up views in many areas that would not have been available otherwise. In some cases, such as pull outs and other identified scenic views, subsequent management of vegetation kept vistas open.” A more factual statement would be that vista opportunities have been only intermittently maintained with many currently overgrown. None the less, there can be no question views played an important role in the original planning and design, as well as the original conception of the road.

The 2002 Going-to-the-Sun Road Cultural Landscape Report states that the preservation of vistas is an integral part of the Sun Road’s historic character and recommends a plan be developed and implemented as an ongoing process in the rehabilitation of the road. This is echoed in the 2003 Rehabilitation Plan, along with a stated need to manage vegetation where it encroaches the road, creating a safety hazard by obscuring signs and sight distance around curves and intersections.

Lastly, a May 6, 2003 letter to the Montana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) reiterates in an agreement that vegetation management will be an “integral part” of current and future GTSR projects. The SHPO agreement also covers the management of vegetation that might potentially damage structures as well as disrupt views and vistas.

To that end, the purpose of this plan is to provide a means and guidance in managing vegetation along the corridor with a viewer’s perspective in mind, in order to reintroduce the historic purpose and experience in its historic and contemporary setting. This document also provides documentation of the contemporary state of vegetation at these locations along the road.

BACKGROUND

The construction of the road permanently altered roadside conditions, modifying vegetation growth habits. Because of the changed environmental conditions along the road prism and the emergence of dense roadside growth due to changed light and moisture, a visual barrier often grows between the edge of the road and the desired view beyond. In response to this, and a desire to reestablish viewing opportunities, a contract was awarded in the early 1950s to clear selected vistas along the approximate 8.5 mile Lake McDonald segment of the road. The work was performed under the direction of the Park Landscape Architect. According to the Vista Clearing Design Guidelines for Glacier National Park, vista management for the Lake McDonald segment of the road again occurred in the mid- 1960s, 1985, and early 1990s. Most recently, crews removed overgrown vegetation on this segment during the seasons of 2002 and 2003. This lake section has historically been the focus of vista management, due in part to the proximity and visual quality of the lake, as well as being the only portion of the road for which specific vista management plan drawings survive. Since the early 1990s, the plans prepared by landscape architect Jot Carpenter, (Lake McDonald Clearing Plan NPS drawing # 117/60400) have provided some direction in vegetation management along the lake. Beyond the Lake McDonald segment, there has been only sporadic vista management and no documented plan to provide overall direction for the provision of vistas into the future. This plan has been developed to address the entire road.

From a historic perspective, little or no documentation survives directly pointing to where specific vistas were planned other than generally written narratives about the purpose of the road and importance of views.

It is clear that many of the original parking areas and turnouts constructed were done so to provide viewing opportunities. Roughly eighty years later, for the most part, this is still the case, at least in the higher elevations of the road where parking was defined by stone masonry walls and rock cuts carved out of the side of the mountain. In the lower elevations, parking areas have been removed and others added over time.

In 1999, environmental compliance was completed for roadside vegetation management pertaining to Glacier’s park roads. Compliance referenced AEF # 1430-96-022 and Programmatic Agreement, Part I-F specifically, maintenance of grounds, including grounds in historic districts. This includes maintaining vegetation to a historic landscape “appearance.” The “screening” form also identified other approved park documents including the Roadside Maintenance Guidelines, Vista Clearing Design Guidelines and Carpenter’s Lake McDonald Clearing Plans. All of the proposed view management locations are within the “visitor service zone” management wilderness buffer as identified in the park’s 1999 General Management Plan. This zone is delineated 200 ft. from the centerline of any paved road. Furthermore, overall compliance was covered in the 2003 Rehabilitation Plan.

Typical thinning.

Typical opening or vista cut retaining smaller slope cover.

Typical limbing, or “French cut”.

CONDITIONS and TREATMENTS:

Views can be categorized as either static or dynamic depending on the viewer’s position and relationship to the view. Views are most likely static from a turnout or parking area and are dynamic when seen from a moving vehicle. Each requires a different treatment. For the most part, openings for a still position can usually be “smaller” and perhaps “framed”, whereas views and vistas from a traveling vehicle need to be “wider” due to the duration (time) of viewing. These views can also be more filtered due to the speed at which they are viewed.

Potential views along the road primarily include foreground, middleground and background or distant vistas and panoramas. For the most part, the views are middle to distant scenic vistas of surrounding mountains, distant waterfalls, glacial valleys, avalanche chutes and other geologic and glacial features. Middleground views might include shorelines, structures and views into the surrounding forest. The vast majority of the proposed work can be conducted within the original road prism extending from the top of cut to just beyond the toe of fill.

In characteristically describing the Going-to-the-Sun Road, the 2002 Cultural Landscape Report identified seven “linear” segments contributing to the road’s experiential entirety.

Not surprisingly, it is primarily along the lower sections of the road (“Lake McDonald”, “Mountain Streams and Forests”, “The Staircase” and “Aspen Grasslands”) where trees and larger shrubs tend to obscure views. The mileage associated with these segments contributes to about 34 of the road’s 50 mile length. Much of the upper “Rock Ledge” and “Timberline” segments are fairly open with sparser roadside growth and steeper sideslopes due to topography and masonry walls elevating the road above much of the canopy below.

Quite often it is branches and leaves that obscure views and not necessarily the supporting trunks. Deciduous trees, older cedar, some pines and hemlock are most amenable to limbing. The term used to limb branches at a variable height is “French cut” according to the 2000 addendum to the Going-to-the-Sun Road, Historic American Engineering Report, (HAER) “Vista Design” sheet. To avoid an uncharacteristic “lollypop” appearance, attention should be paid to tree species and the spacing between trees.

Both the HAER documentation and Carpenter’s plan refer to four primary treatment scenarios including “French cut”, “filtered”, “canopy cut” and “interior” or “brush and limb”.

For the most part, recent efforts have focused on selectively removing smaller trees and limbing along with brush/shrub removal. “Canopy cuts”, where the majority of larger trees are removed with low cover remaining, has been a minimally exercised treatment except where past canopy cuts have been maintained. This has been a specific treatment used on the Lake McDonald segment of the road. Due to a need to provide shade and cover to diminish weed proliferation, low shrubs and trees are retained below the upper canopy cover necessitating future treatment as these trees gain stature.

There are a series of conditions and situations where vegetation should be left intact and encouraged. Many of these include areas where there is a potential for conflicts between adjacent uses and travel routes including campgrounds, picnic areas and informal gathering places such as lakeside beach sites. Here, vegetation helps screen the noise, lights, and visibility of automobiles and separates conflicting activities. Vegetation can also discourage social trails, erosion, weed proliferation and reduce impacts to wildlife.

The following general guidelines apply to the actual field work:

•Safety provisions should be followed including appropriate traffic control by certified staff.

•View openings, intended to be seen while driving, should be of sufficient length to allow viewing without causing the driver to dramatically slow.

•At the prescribed sites, emphasis should be on removing vegetation attributed to the presence of the road in a natural landscape. For the most part, the focus will be to thin or remove the dense “unnatural” visual barrier that is usually relatively narrow in width and immediately adjacent to the road.

•Deep-rooted cover should be maintained for ground stability and also to minimize weed proliferation.

•Adequate material needs to be retained in order to provide regeneration.

•Stumps of deciduous plants should be treated with an herbicide such as glyphosate by trained staff meeting application requirements for safety and successful eradication. This will reduce maintenance efforts and costs in the future.

•Selective removal and use of the “French cut” concept should be emphasized in order to minimize the removal of larger diameter vegetation. This type of clearing includes the removal of selected trees and shrubs and the trimming of lower branches. Visually, this works best with birch, cottonwood, larger cedar, hemlock and to some degree pine.

•Efforts should be made to retain variable age classes and species reflecting vegetative context.

•In order to minimize an unnatural “haircut” appearance, maintain a variable edge along the slope and height of canopy.

•Maintain some canopy cover where young cedar are retained, in order to minimize sun exposure and mortality.

•Where chips are broadcast, avoid depths in excess of 2 inches.

•White pine should be removed from the site and not chipped.

•Retain non-hazardous snags for wildlife purposes including perches.

•In areas where social trails are present, attention should be paid to pedestrian movements in the manipulation of vegetation. The provision of access needs to be considered along with minimizing site impacts. Braided trails should be blocked by the placement of cut material and encouragement of vegetation.

•Exposed butt cuts of fallen trunks should be avoided.

•The removal of all material is often unnecessary. Often trunks can remain if branches are removed.

•If possible, work should occur at dry periods where slipping and erosion is less likely, especially in steep terrain.

•Avoid unnatural appearing “picket fence” (equal trunk spacing) and “lollypop” (generally limbing conifers too high at similar heights).

•Coordinate with Facility Management Division if salvage material of large diameter is anticipated.

•Coordinate with local tribes regarding interest in cedar branches.

•Maintain screening / shading of sensitive habitats such as wetlands and wildlife travel paths.

RECORD of TREATMENT The final plan, merging the Lake McDonald Plan into the current proposal for the remaining road corridor will be incorporated into the Cultural Landscape Report as a treatment appendix to the documentation. This will provide a record of the continued evolution of the National Historic Landmark property.

MISCELLANEOUS

Two natural events have occurred since the work for this current plan began. One was the opportunities opened through new avalanches, the other due to fire of 2003, especially in the vicinity of the Loop. Reaction to these events are now reflected in the plans. Like with the fires, opportunities now present themselves for interpretation of recent avalanches on both sides of the continental divide.

2004 avalanche activity @ M.P. 18.0

DOCUMENT FORMAT

The Plan consists of Maps and Detail Sheets. Maps consist of vista points, labeled in white, on aerial photographs. Red lines indicate the approximate locations of treatment areas in terms of linear distance. This graphic representation is not necessarily to scale and the distance noted on the Detail Sheets is the most accurate. Blue numbers identify mileposts.

Vistas points titles reference the nearest milepost, measured from the high water mark of the Middle Fork River, at the approximate midpoint of the West Glacier Bridge. Following the milepost number, an “L” indicates that the treatment area is generally to the left of the road (traveling west to east). An “R” indicates that the treatment area is to the right. An “RL” indicates that the treatment area is on both the right and left sides of the road.

Detail Sheets document the vista points in further detail and follow the Maps. On the Detail Sheets, photographs show vista points where treatment has and has not been implemented. In the future, all photographs will show post-treatment conditions.

Photographs are titled at the bottom of the page. A reference such as “View westward,” means that the photograph was taken looking along the road in the direction of West Glacier, not necessarily true west. Likewise, a “View eastward,” suggests that the photograph was taken looking along the road towards St. Mary.

On the Detail Sheets, the Objective – what the vista is to consist of – is described. The Treatment Type suggests how the objective should be reached, or maintained in the future. Also, the Length of the treatment area, whether or not the treatment area is within the Road Prism, and whether or not the treatment has been Implemented is noted.

Special Resources Concerns, noted on the Detail Sheets, regard any unique issues at the vista point. At vistas where Harlequin Ducks are of concern, treatment should only be completed in late summer or fall. At vistas where birch trees are of concern, birch trees should not be removed unless dead or diseased birch trees are nearby.

DOCUMENT PREPARATION

A variety of programs were used for the preparation of this document. Mapping was completed using ArcGIS with layers showing the mile markers, pullouts, and centerline of the roadway. Map labels were added in Microsoft PowerPoint.

Panoramic photographs for the Detail Sheets were stitched together using Adobe Photoshop. All other layout work for the document was completed using Microsoft PowerPoint. Therefore, the majority of edits needed for future documentation can be completed using PowerPoint alone.

Photography, digital work, and editing was completed by Treff Alexander, Glacier National Park, Landscape Architect Technician 2005-2006; Denver Service Center, Landscape Architect 2006-present. Jack Gordon, Glacier National Park, Landscape Architect, was project manager. Pat Thomas, Landscape Architect, assisted as a consultant while working on the Flathead National Forest. Richard Menicke and Jessica Driscoll provided assistance with GIS software. Joyce Lapp, Glacier National Park, Horticulturalist, assisted with a science-based perspective regarding invasive species primarily. Mary Riddle, Glacier National Park, Environmental Protection Specialist, reviewed the draft version of this document. The draft version of this document was also reviewed by Resource Management staff at Glacier National Park.

THE PLAN

MAP L1MAP 1

2.7 L

2.7 – 2.9 L

3.0 L

3.1 – 3.3 L

Objective: views of lake and Howe Ridge in background.

Treatment type: partially open.

Length: 300’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

2.7 L

1. View eastward (2009).

1.

Objective: views of lake and Howe Ridge.

Length: 2300’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

2.7 – 2.9 L1. View eastward (2009).

2. View from across road (2009).

2.

Objective: views of lake and mountains.

Length: 300’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

3.0 L1. View eastward (2009).

2. View eastward (2009).

3. View eastward (2009).

1.

3.

Treatment type: partially open before and after turnout; thin at turnout.

Length: 2000’ Road prism: in/out/both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

3.1 – 3.3 L1. View from across the road (2009).

2. View of turnout, eastward (2009).

3. View eastward (2009).

3.2.

MAP L2MAP 2

3.3 – 3.4 L

3.5 – 3.6 L

3.7 – 4.0 L

Objective: filtered views of lake and mountains.

Treatment type: thin/limb.

Length: 2500’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

3.3 – 3.4 L

1. View through trees (2009).

Objective: filtered views of lake and open views of mountains.

Treatment type: thin/limb at turnout and partially open further eastward.

Length: 950’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

3.5 – 3.6 L1. View eastward (2009).

2. View eastward at turnout (2009).

3. View eastward beyond turnout (2009).

Length: 3900’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

3.7 – 4.0 L1. View across lake (2009).

2. View across lake (2009).

3. View across lake (2009).

4. View across lake (2009).

1. 3.2.

4.

MAP L3MAP 3

4.1 – 4.2 L

4.3 L

4.5 L

4.8 L

Treatment type: thin/limb at turnout; partially open further eastward.

Length: 1600’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

4.1 – 4.2 L1. View of turnout and eastward (2009).

2. View from further eastward, from across road (2009).

3. View eastward (2009).

1.

Objective: Views of lake and mountains.

Length: 300’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

4.3 L

1. View eastward.

Objective: filtered view of lake and mountains.

Length: 1000’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

4.5 L

1. View through trees (2009).

Length: 1000’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

4.8 L1. View eastward (2009).

2. View through trees (2009).

1. 2.

MAP 4

5.2 L

Objective: views of lake and mountains (including Stanton, Vaught, and Heaven’s Peak in the background).

Length: 1300’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

5.2 L

1. View eastward (2009).

MAP 5

5.5 L

(5.9 – 6.6 L)

Treatment type: thin/limb at turnout; partially open further eastward.

Length: 1200’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

5.5 L1. View from across the road (2009).

2. View westward (2009).

3. View eastward (2009).

MAP L5MAP 6

5.9 – 6.6 L

6.7 – 6.8 L

Treatment type: thin/limb; partially open near MP 6.6.

Length: 9100’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: good example of “french cut”.

5.9 – 6.6 L

1. View from across the road, at turnout (2009).

2. View through trees (2009).

3. View through trees (2009).

4. View eastward @ MP 6.6 (2009).

3.2. 4.

Treatment type: thin/limb at turnout ; partially open further eastward.

Length: 1000’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

6.7 – 6.8 L1. View eastward from turnout (2009).

2. View eastward from further up road (2009).

MAP L6MAP 7

6.9 L

7.0 L

7.4 L

Length: 1300’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

6.9 L1. View across lake (2009).

2. View through trees (2009).

Length: 950’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

7.0 L1. View through trees (2009).

2. View through trees (2009).

3. View across lake (2009).

1.

Length: 1700’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

7.4 L1. View through trees (2009).

2. View through trees (2009).

3. View through trees (2009).

1.

MAP 8

9.9 – 10.2 L

Objective: views of lake and Howe Ridge.

Treatment type: thin/limb; partially open at turnouts.

Length: 3900’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

9.9 – 10.2 L1. View from across the road of lower turnout (2009).

2. View from across the road of upper turnout (2009).

MAP 1MAP 9

12.4 L

12.5 – 12.6 R

12.6 – 12.8 L

12.8 L

Objective: view along masonry wall of McDonald Falls and Upper McDonald Creek and mountains.

Length: 525’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: 12.4 L

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. From the lower platform (2006).

3. From the upper platform (2006).

4. From the upper platform (2006).

1.

3.

12.5 - 12.6 R

Existing condition: thinned.

Objective: views of mature growth forest.

Treatment type: thin/limb.

Length: 550’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Eastward (2006).

3. Westward (2006).

12.6 – 12.8 L

Objective: filtered view of McDonald Creek. View and wall integrity.

Treatment type: thin/limb trees for length of wall.

Length: 1050’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks Note: begins at start of rock wall.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. View from across the road, further up road (2006).

3. Above horse underpass (2006).

1.

12.8 L

Objective: filtered view of Sacred Dancing Cascade.

Treatment type: thin/limb.

Length: 120’ (starting at trailhead) Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: turnout.

1. View to McDonald Creek (2006).

2. View to McDonald Creek (2006).

MAP 2MAP 10

13.1 – 13.2 L

13.5 L

13.1 – 13.2 L

Objective: filtered view of McDonald Creek on curve.

Treatment type: thin/limb until end of curve.

Length: .1 mile Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note:

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Eastward (2006).

13.5 L

Objective: views of McDonald Creek and Stanton and Vaught in the background.

Treatment type: thin/limb.

Length: 250’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: turnout. Old “Moose Country”. Allow some re-growth.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Eastward (2006).

MAP 11

14.0 L

14.2 L

14.0 L

Objective: filtered views of mountains and waterfalls; corridor views.

Treatment type: thin/limb and partially open.

Length: 150’.

Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note:

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Eastward; view of falls (2006).

14.2 L

Objective: view of falls.

Treatment type: partially open.

Length: 200’ (down from 14.3 and along stone wall).

Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: ensure bank stabilization on side of road. Allow some re-growth.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Eastward; view of falls (2006).

14.65 R

14.6 L

14.3 L

14.3 – 14.4 L

14.4 L

MAP 12

14.3 L

Objective: views of falls and gorge while keeping McDonald Creek overlook structure shaded.

Treatment type: thin/limb for length of turnout.

Length: 1000’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: turnout at falls overlook.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. View of falls (2006).

3. View of falls (2006).

14.3 – 14.4 L

Objective: view of gorge.

Treatment type: thin/limb.

Length: 350’ (turnout to turnout) Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

1. View eastward; gorge (2006).

2. Westward (2006).

3. Eastward (2006).

1.

Objective: filtered views of falls and gorge; wall integrity.

Treatment type: thin/limb along wall.

Length: 185’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Birch trees.

Note: turnout.

14.4 L

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Eastward; view of creek (2006).

3. Westward (2006).

4. View of falls (2006).

3.2. 4.

14.6 L

Objective: filtered view of creek.

Treatment type: thin, brush, and remove volunteer growth.

Length: 380’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: location of historic wall.1. View from across the road, eastward (2006).

14.65 R

Objective: view of mature growth forest.

Treatment type: thin/limb; especially foreground and understory.

Length: 700’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Eastward (2006).

15.6 – 15.9 RL

MAP 13

15.6 – 15.9 RL

Objective: view of mature growth forest on both sides of road.

Treatment type: thin/limb small vegetation on sides of road.

Length: 1500’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: partially.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: on curve. Only treat shrubs and low growth.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. View from across the road (2006).

16.9 L

MAP 14

16.9 L

Objective: filtered views of creek.

Treatment type: thin/limb along turnout.

Length: 150’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: turnout. Allow some re-growth.

1. View downstream (2006).

2. Upstream (2006).

3. From across the road (2006).

17.1 L

MAP 15

17.4 L

17.1 L

Objective: filtered views of creek around Redrocks.

Treatment type: thin/limb along turnout.

Length: 330’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: turnout. Allow some re-growth.

1. View upstream (2006).

2. From across the road (2006).

3. Downstream (2006).

1.

17.4 L

Objective: filtered views of rapids and pools.

Treatment type: thin/limb and partially open.

Length: 400’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: turnout at Red Rock Point. Defer until Phase VII visitor use improvements.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. View of creek, downstream (2006).

3. View of creek, upstream (2006).

1.

17.7 L

MAP 16

17.7 – 17.9 L

17.9 L

17.9 – 18.0 L

17.7 L

Objective: filtered view of creek and mountains, including Heaven’s Peak.

Treatment type: thin/limb conifers and cottonwoods.

Length: 220’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: turnout. Allow some regrowth but maintain views.

1. View downstream (2006).

2. Upstream (2006).

3. From across the road (2006).

17.7 – 17.9 L

Treatment type: thin/limb conifers and cottonwoods; brush above turnout.

Length: 1000’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: between turnouts.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. View from across the road (2006).

17.9 L

Objective: views provided by recent avalanche.

Treatment type: brush, limb, and thin trees for length of turnout.

Length: 270’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: turnout with avalanche chute at upper end. Allow some re-growth, yet maintain views of Heaven’s Peak.

1. View downstream (2006).

2. Upstream (2006).

3. From across the road (2006).

17.9 -18.0 L

Treatment type: selectively thin, limb, and brush after turnout.

Length: 530’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: no (partially).

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note:

1. View from across the road, eastward (2006).

2. View from across the road (2006).

18.4 R

MAP 17

18.4 R

Objective: views of avalanche chutes.

Treatment type: selectively thin, limb, and brush along turnout.

Length: 270’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: turnout. Relocate exhibit.

1. View of avalanche chute (2006).

2. View from across the road (2006).

18.7 L

MAP 18

18.7 – 18.9 L

18.9 L

18.7 L

Objective: view of Garden Wall and creek upstream. Filtered view of creek. Site distance.

Treatment type: thin/limb, especially at upper end of turnout.

Length: 260’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: turnout.

1. View of Garden Wall; upstream (2006).

2. From across the road (2006).

18.7 – 18.9 L

Objective: view of Garden Wall and creek upstream. Maintain screening along creek. Site distance.

Treatment type: brush cottonwoods and selectively remove conifers for length of turnout.

Length: 530’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: first view of Garden Wall.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Westward (2006).

18.9 L

Objective: corridor views of creek, Garden Wall, and waterfall to the south.

Treatment type: brush cottonwoods and selectively remove conifers for length of turnout.

Length: 180’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: turnout.

1. View from across the road (to the right) (2006).

2. Westward (2006).

3. Eastward (2006).

4. From across the road (to the left) (2006).

2. 3.

MAP 19

19.3 L

19.3 L

Objective: filtered stream and open mountain driving views.

Treatment type: thin/limb for length of turnout.

Length: 290’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: turnout.

1. View westward; downstream (2006).

2. Eastward; upstream (2006).

3. View from across the road (2006).

2.

20.3 L

MAP 20

20.3 L

Objective: view upstream.

Treatment type: partially open.

Length: 300’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: Logan Creek Comfort Station

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Eastward (2006).

20.5 – 20.6 L

MAP 21

20.7 L

20.5 – 20.6 L

Objective: views of Garden Wall and upper McDonald Creek.

Treatment type: partially open.

Length: 800’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

1. Eastward (2006).

2. Eastward (2006).

3. Eastward (2006).

2.1.

20.7 L

Objective: filtered views of creek after bridge.

Treatment type: thin/limb conifers, leaving islands of deciduous and coniferous trees.

Length: 200’.

Road prism: in.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note:1. View from across the road (2006).

20.8 – 21.0 L

MAP 22

20.8 – 21.0 L

Objective: filtered views.

Treatment type: thin/limb conifers.

Length: 600’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: no (partially).

Special Resource Concerns: Harlequin Ducks.

Note: allow some re-growth.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. View from across the road (2006).

3. Westward (2006).

4. Eastward (2006).

2.

4.3.

21.8 L

MAP 23

21.8 L

Objective: views of valley, Birdwoman Falls, and peaks.

Treatment type: partially open along turnout.

Length: 200’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: no (partially).

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: turnout.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Towards Bird Woman Falls (2006).

3. Eastward, from the pullout (2006).

2. 3.

22.4 L

MAP 24

22.4 L

Objective: views caused by avalanche and views of Trapper Creek fire.

Treatment type: remove downed and dead vegetation from the road prism; thin/limb at upper parking.

Length: 370’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Birch trees.

Note: two turnouts.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Westward (2006).

22.8 L

MAP 25

22.8 L

Objective: views caused by avalanche.

Treatment type: remove downed and dead vegetation from road prism.

Length: 150’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: avalanche chute.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Across McDonald Creek Valley (2006).

3. Eastward (2006).

4. McDonald Creek Valley (2006).

2.

3.

MAP 18

23.2 – 23.4 L

MAP 26

23.2 – 23.4 L

Objective: views of Heavens Peak and fire area and views caused by avalanche.

Treatment type: thin/limb birch and cottonwood.

Length: 1500’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns: Birch trees.

Note:

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. View from across the road, further up the road (2006).

23.7 – 23.9 L

MAP 27

23.9 – 24.1 LR

23.7 – 23.9 L

Objective: views of McDonald Creek Valley and background peaks.

Treatment type: thin/limb dead material and retain surviving cottonwoods.

Length: 1050’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: beginning of burn area.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Westward (2006).

23.9 – 24.1 LR

Objective: integrity of stone masonry and views of Heaven’s Peak. Preserve upper terrace views.

Treatment type: thin/limb; partially open.

Length: 1050’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: no (partially).

Special Resource Concerns: do not remove vegetation on steep slopes.

Note: the Loop. Only work at structure completed.

Post-fire cottonwood growth will need to be addressed.

1. View from upper terrace (2006).

2. From lower terrace (2006).

3. Cottonwood growth on bank (2006).

2.

25.5 R

MAP 28

25.5 R

Objective: views of Birdwoman Falls, McDonald Creek Valley, and mountain panorama.

Treatment type: thin/limb cottonwoods for length of turnout.

Length: 100’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: turnout.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Toward Lake McDonald (2006).

3. McDonald Creek (2006).

2. 3.

26.9 R

MAP 29

26.9 R

Objective: views of Logan Pass, Birdwoman Falls, and McDonald Creek Valley from scenic overlook.

Treatment type: partially open.

Length: 150’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: Road Camp. Turnout improvements 2009.

1. View from overlook (2009).

2. From overlook (2009).

3. From overlook (2009).

2.

36.4 R

MAP 30

36.4 R

Objective: corridor views of Jackson Glacier and mountains to the east.

Treatment type: partially open.

Length: 350’ (upper turnout), 200’ (lower turnout) Road prism: out.

Implemented: no (partially).

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: turnouts (2) at Jackson Glacier wayside exhibit.

Future treatment dependent on results of insect damage (2009 field review: Gordon, Lapp, Alexander).

1. View from across the road (to the right) (2006).

2. Outward slope vegetation (2006).

3. Jackson Glacier (2006).

2.

MAP 31

37.2 R

36.9 R

36.9 R

Objective: views caused by avalanche.

Treatment type: remove avalanche debris and leaning trees from road prism.

Length: 500’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: gravel turnout. Consider formalizing.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Outward from gravel turnout (2006).

37.2 R

Objective: views of peaks: Citadel, Dustystar, Little Chief.

Treatment type: brush adjacent to exhibit, 100’ west of comfort station, and in front of exhibit.

Length: 100’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: Grizzly Point. Comfort station and avalanche interpretive site.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. At exhibit (2006).

MAP 32

37.5 RL

37.5 RL

Objective: mountain views caused by avalanche: Citadel, Dustystar, Little Chief.

Treatment type: remove avalanche debris and leaning trees from road prism on both sides of the road.

Length: 244’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note:

1. View up the avalanche chute (2006).

2. View down the avalanche chute (2006).

MAP 33

39.9

39.9

Objective: reintroduce historically present views of St. Mary Lake and peaks from the picnic area.

Treatment type: thin/limb.

Length:

Road prism: in.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: Sun Point. Other than picnic area. Should reflect visitor use improvements.

1. View from central retaining wall (2006).

2. Towards former chalet site (2006).

3. From lower picnic area (2006).

2.

MAP 34

41.8 R

41.8 R

Objective: view of St. Mary Lake.

Treatment type: thin/limb.

Length: 180’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: turnout and avalanche chute.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. Towards St. Mary Lake (2006).

MAP 35

44.3 R

44.3 R

Objective: views of lake screened by cottonwoods.

Treatment type: thin cottonwoods and aspen by no more than 50% along length of turnout.

Length: 250’ Road prism: in.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: turnout.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. St. Mary Lake from the turnout (2006).

MAP 36

45.4 R

45.4 R

Objective: views of lake and peaks.

Treatment type: thin/limb.

Length: 330’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: yes.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: Triple Divide Peak wayside exhibit.

1. View from across the road (2006).

2. St. Mary Lake from exhibit (2006).

MAP 37

47.2 R

47.2 R

Objective: views of St. Mary Lake and burn effects in background.

Treatment type: thin/limb along turnout.

Length: 100’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns:

Note: Two Dog Flats exhibit. Turnout on left.

1. View towards St. Mary Lake from turnout (2006).

2. Towards St. Mary Lake from turnout (2006).

MAP 38

49.0 R

49.0 R

Objective: views of St. Mary River and Bridge and mountains in background.

Treatment type: thin/limb.

Length: 600’ Road prism: both.

Implemented: no.

Special Resource Concerns: winter eagle feeding area.

Note: turnout.

1. View eastward from turnout (2009).

2. Towards St. Mary Lake (2009).

3. Turnout (2009).

2.1.

APPENDIX