[1] Located in a relatively unpopulated area, the Glacier View reservoir would have flooded lower Camas Creek and would have raised the level of Logging Lake by 50 feet (15 m), inundating much of the winter range for the park's white-tailed deer, elk, mule deer and moose.

[4] The dam was supported by Montana Representative Mike Mansfield and Flathead Valley interests but was opposed by former Senator Burton K. Wheeler, local ranchers, the National Park Service, the Glacier Park Hotel Company, the Sierra Club, Society of American Foresters and the Audubon Society.

[1] The project was terminated by a joint memorandum between the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army on April 11, 1949, but Mansfield introduced an unsuccessful bill later in the year directing the Corps of Engineers to proceed with the dam,[7] stating that the dam "would not affect the beauty of the park in any way but would make it more beautiful by creating a large lake over ground that ... has no scenic attraction.

This area does not lie within the rugged, glacier-covered portion of the park for which it is noted, but rather is on the western boundary line, in a little-used valley.

In order to prevent extensive starvation, it would be necessary for the Park Service to undertake the slaughter of most of these animals ... We cannot afford, except for the most compelling reasons — which we are convinced do not exist in this case — to permit this impairment of one of the finest properties of the American people.

[2]Drury went on to state that 19,460 acres (7,880 ha) of land would be flooded, including virgin Ponderosa pine.

[8] Paradise Dam is described by the Corps of Engineers as preferable from the point of view of the overall plan, standing on both the Clark Fork River and the Flathead, but the flooding of towns and productive agricultural lands stirred intense local opposition.

[11] The 1950 Corps of Engineers report that detailed the Glacier View project also mentioned the potential of the Middle Fork Flathead River for development, and projected a dam at Belton, with a 1,190,000-acre-foot (1.47 km3) reservoir behind a dam developing 330 feet (100 m) of hydraulic head, for a potential generating capacity of 152 MW.

A powerplant at the toe of the dam was planned to house three 70 MW generating units,[9] fed by an intake tower and equipped with a surge tank.